From Gary... Examples can be good things...

Commitment, that little word with a great meaning. I learned it early, because I married young. A wife, bills, kids, pets, responsibilities- all reinforce one's commitment to living a certain way. Then, I saw this jpeg and realized that my commitment is nothing when compared to Jesus. Its that "over my dead body" statement that just got to me today.

Now, I know that Jesus probably never said anything like this, but it did remind me of what he did say...

John, Chapter 15 (WEB)

12  “This is my commandment, that you love one another, even as I have loved you.   13  Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.   14  You are my friends, if you do whatever I command you.   15  No longer do I call you servants, for the servant doesn’t know what his lord does. But I have called you friends, for everything that I heard from my Father, I have made known to you.   16  You didn’t choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain; that whatever you will ask of the Father in my name, he may give it to you. 

Being a Christian is not about rules and regulations, its about pleasing God because you love him. I know, I know- its easy to say and hard to do. That's where the love part comes in- Remember this, Gary

From Gary... Bible Reading October 22

Bible Reading   

October 22

The World English Bible

Oct. 22

Ecclesiastes 8-10

Ecc 8:1 Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? A man's wisdom makes his face shine, and the hardness of his face is changed.

Ecc 8:2 I say, "Keep the king's command!" because of the oath to God.

Ecc 8:3 Don't be hasty to go out of his presence. Don't persist in an evil thing, for he does whatever pleases him,

Ecc 8:4 for the king's word is supreme. Who can say to him, "What are you doing?"

Ecc 8:5 Whoever keeps the commandment shall not come to harm, and his wise heart will know the time and procedure.

Ecc 8:6 For there is a time and procedure for every purpose, although the misery of man is heavy on him.

Ecc 8:7 For he doesn't know that which will be; for who can tell him how it will be?

Ecc 8:8 There is no man who has power over the spirit to contain the spirit; neither does he have power over the day of death. There is no discharge in war; neither shall wickedness deliver those who practice it.

Ecc 8:9 All this have I seen, and applied my mind to every work that is done under the sun. There is a time in which one man has power over another to his hurt.

Ecc 8:10 So I saw the wicked buried. Indeed they came also from holiness. They went and were forgotten in the city where they did this. This also is vanity.

Ecc 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

Ecc 8:12 Though a sinner commits crimes a hundred times, and lives long, yet surely I know that it will be better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him.

Ecc 8:13 But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he lengthen days like a shadow; because he doesn't fear God.

Ecc 8:14 There is a vanity which is done on the earth, that there are righteous men to whom it happens according to the work of the wicked. Again, there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the work of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity.

Ecc 8:15 Then I commended mirth, because a man has no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be joyful: for that will accompany him in his labor all the days of his life which God has given him under the sun.

Ecc 8:16 When I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done on the earth (for also there is that neither day nor night sees sleep with his eyes),

Ecc 8:17 then I saw all the work of God, that man can't find out the work that is done under the sun, because however much a man labors to seek it out, yet he won't find it. Yes even though a wise man thinks he can comprehend it, he won't be able to find it.

Ecc 9:1 For all this I laid to my heart, even to explore all this: that the righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God; whether it is love or hatred, man doesn't know it; all is before them.

Ecc 9:2 All things come alike to all. There is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good, to the clean, to the unclean, to him who sacrifices, and to him who doesn't sacrifice. As is the good, so is the sinner; he who takes an oath, as he who fears an oath.

Ecc 9:3 This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one event to all: yes also, the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.

Ecc 9:4 For to him who is joined with all the living there is hope; for a living dog is better than a dead lion.

Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything, neither do they have any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Ecc 9:6 Also their love, their hatred, and their envy has perished long ago; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun.

Ecc 9:7 Go your way--eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already accepted your works.

Ecc 9:8 Let your garments be always white, and don't let your head lack oil.

Ecc 9:9 Live joyfully with the wife whom you love all the days of your life of vanity, which he has given you under the sun, all your days of vanity: for that is 

Oct. 22

Colossians 3

Col 3:1 If then you were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God.

Col 3:2 Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth.

Col 3:3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

Col 3:4 When Christ, our life, is revealed, then you will also be revealed with him in glory.

Col 3:5 Put to death therefore your members which are on the earth: sexual immorality, uncleanness, depraved passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry;

Col 3:6 for which things' sake the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience.

Col 3:7 You also once walked in those, when you lived in them;

Col 3:8 but now you also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and shameful speaking out of your mouth.

Col 3:9 Don't lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his doings,

Col 3:10 and have put on the new man, who is being renewed in knowledge after the image of his Creator,

Col 3:11 where there can't be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondservant, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all.

Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, a heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness, humility, and perseverance;

Col 3:13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, if any man has a complaint against any; even as Christ forgave you, so you also do.

Col 3:14 Above all these things, walk in love, which is the bond of perfection.

Col 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful.

Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your heart to the Lord.

Col 3:17 Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father, through him.

Col 3:18 Wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Col 3:19 Husbands, love your wives, and don't be bitter against them.

Col 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this pleases the Lord.

Col 3:21 Fathers, don't provoke your children, so that they won't be discouraged.

Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things those who are your masters according to the flesh, not just when they are looking, as men pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

Col 3:23 And whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord, and not for men,

Col 3:24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ.

Col 3:25 But he who does wrong will receive again for the wrong that he has done, and there is no partiality.

The Land of Nod by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=572

The Land of Nod

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

After Cain killed Abel and was declared a “fugitive and vagabond” by God (Genesis 4:12), the Bible says that he “went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod” (4:16). It was in this land that “Cain knew his wife” (4:17), and it was here that his son, Enoch, was born.

When a person reads about Nod in Genesis 4, he often pictures a land where a large group of people already were dwelling by the time Cain arrived. Because the Bible gives this land a name (“Nod”), many assume it was called such before Cain went there. Furthermore, many believe that it was in this land that Cain found his wife. Based upon these assumptions, some even claim that God must have specially created other humans besides Adam and Eve, otherwise there would not have been a land of Nod, nor would Cain have been able to find a wife there. Are these assumptions and conclusions correct? What can be said about these matters?

It is very likely that when Moses wrote the name “Nod” (Genesis 4:16), he was using a figure of speech called “prolepsis” (the assignment of something, such as an event or name, to a time that precedes it). People often use prolepsis for the sake of convenience, so that the reader or audience can better understand what is being communicated. For example, I might say, “My wife and I dated two years before we got married,” when actually she was not my wife when we were dating, but a very dear friend. We may see a special on television about when President George W. Bush was a boy, but the fact is, George W. Bush was not President of the United States when he was a child. From time to time, even the Bible uses this kind of language. In John 11, the Bible speaks of a woman named Mary who “anointed the Lord with ointment” (11:1-2), yet this anointing actually did not occur for about three months. John merely spoke about it as having already happened because when he wrote his gospel account this event was generally known. Another example of pro­lepsis is found in Genesis 13:3 where we read that Abraham “went on his journey from the South as far as Bethel.” This area actually did not wear the name Bethel until years later when Jacob gave it that name (Genesis 28:19). However, when Moses wrote of this name hundreds of years later, he was free to use it even when writing about a time before the name actually was given.

When Moses used the name Nod in Genesis 4, the reader must understand the land probably was not given that name until sometime after Cain moved there. This is consistent with the meaning of the name Nod (“wandering”), which in all probability was given because God told Cain he was to be a wanderer upon the Earth (Genesis 4:12). Thus, the land of Nod almost certainly was not an area filled with people whom Cain would eventually befriend. It would become that in time; nevertheless, it probably was not such a place upon his arrival.

But, someone might ask, did Cain not find his wife in the land of Nod? Actually, the Bible never tells us that Cain’s wife came from Nod. The text simply says that Cain “dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch” (Genesis 4:16-17).

To conclude that God specially created others besides Adam and Eve because “there was a large group of people living in Nod when Cain arrived” and “from this group Cain got his wife” is faulty reasoning and sheer speculation. Scripture does not teach the above premises, nor does it ever hint that God specially created others than Adam and Eve. In fact, the Bible teaches the very opposite when it explicitly states that Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45) and that Eve would be the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20, emp. added). It seems clear that there could have been no other people on the Earth contemporaneous with them (except, of course, their own children). Even though some allege that God specially created other people in addition to Adam and Eve during the creation week, such cannot be defended logically in light of what Scripture teaches.

What a Catastrophe by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=571

What a Catastrophe

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

On September 20, 2005, PBS stations around the country aired a program titled “Mystery of the Megaflood,” in which they explored plausible causes for the geological features found in the region 200 miles east of Seattle known as the scablands. In an informative article about the show, the scablands are described as “a vast region of weird terrain, including gorges hundreds of feet deep, enormous pits, huge boulders scattered as if dropped by giants, undulating hills that look like huge ripples, strange layers of silt and ash, and a ‘waterfall’ five times wider than Niagara—but without any water” (“NOVA: Mystery...,” 2005). The puzzling thing about this area is that there is no river running through it that could have caused these features to have formed over millions of years, nor is there any indication that a glacier moved over the landscape.

In the 1920s, a geologist named J. Harlan Bretz suggested that neither a slow-eroding river nor glacial activity caused the massive geological features. “His fieldwork convinced him that the Scablands were not the result of slow geological weathering but of an enormous catastrophe that had taken place almost overnight when a titanic flood engulfed the region” (“NOVA: Mystery...”). His ideas were largely rejected, because they did not jive with the then-prevailing notion known as uniformitarianism—that the present is the key to the past and geologic features are the result of long periods of uniform transformation. Yet, recent research suggests that Bretz’ catastrophic conclusion fits the facts much more sufficiently.

Modern-day geologist Vic Baker has done extensive work on the scabland project. In an interview withNOVA, Baker states that he believes a huge ice dam that held the waters of Lake Missoula burst and caused a megaflood that devastated the landscape. In fact, Baker says that he believes this type of flood happened several times in this area. When Baker was asked about floods in other areas, he mentioned large areas of flooding in Canada, Asia, the Altai and Sayan Mountains in Siberian Russia, as well as areas in China and Mongolia. He stated that the flooding in these regions was “comparable in magnitude, though perhaps not in volume, to the Missoula floods” (“Fantastic Floods,” 2005).

Looking, then, at the NOVA program, we have evidence that the scablands were formed by massive flooding, not by slow-working uniformitarian processes. We also have evidence that other areas around the world, from the Rocky Mountains to Russia and China, were similarly affected by megaflooding that was “comparable in magnitude.”

Of course, anyone familiar with the biblical account of Noah’s Flood would certainly be led to wonder about the possibility that all these various “floods” might not have been localized, but were due to one worldwide, massive inundation. Is it not interesting that geological features and landscapes that uniformitarian geologists once insisted must be the product of millions of years of tranquil, uniform processes are being reevaluated and assigned catastrophic causes? When statements like Baker’s, about massive flooding around the globe, are coupled with the fact that over 200 legends have surfaced in hundreds of cultures throughout the world that tell of a huge, catastrophic flood (see Lyons and Butt, 2003), the plausibility of a world-wide flood comes sharply into focus.

Near the end of the discussion of the scab­lands, NOVA asked Baker if there were still many unsolved mysteries in the formation of geological landscapes. Baker commented: “Some people think science is the collection of facts and truths and everything about the world. Absolutely not. Science is about raising questions about the things we don’t know and being very sophisticated about pursuing those problems” (“Fantastic Floods”). Unfortunately, one of the most important questions that the geological sciences should raise often is ignored because of its religious implications. Is there geologic evidence of a global flood? In truth, the answer to this question is a resounding “Yes!” The apostle Peter focused on this issue some two thousand years ago when he wrote: “For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (2 Peter 3:5-6, emp. added). With more and more geological evidences piling up pointing to a global flood, it is becoming increasingly obvious that those who refuse to recognize it as a fact are willfully ignoring that evidence.

REFERENCES

“Fantastic Floods” (2005), [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/megaflood/fantastic.html.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2003), “Legends of the Flood,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologetics­press.org/articles/40.

“NOVA: Mystery of the Megaflood” (2005), [On-line], URL: ttp://www.pbs.org/previews/nova_megaflood/.

The Quran in the Courts by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=570

The Quran in the Courts

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

For most of U.S. history, the Bible has been the centerpiece of the American way of life. It literally permeated national life—from its integral role in public school education to its influential place in American jurisprudence. Only within the last fifty years has the Bible’s prominence receded from public life. Still, some visible vestiges remain. For example, while many have abandoned the time-honored practice, some courts still use the Bible in the procedure for swearing in witnesses. However, like many other features of America’s Christian heritage, this practice is also being challenged.

Muslims in Guilford County, North Caro­lina have attempted to donate copies of the Quran for courtroom use. However, Chief District Court Judge Joseph Turner says taking an oath on the Quran is not permissible by North Carolina state law, which specifies that witnesses shall place their hands on the “holy scriptures”—an unmistakable historical allusion to the Bible. Judge Turner commented: “We’ve been doing it that way for 200 years. Until the legislature changes that law, I believe I have to do what I’ve been told to do in the statutes” (“Debate Brews...,” 2005). However, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are challenging the Guil­ford County Courts. CAIRspokesman Arsalan Iftikhar insisted: “This was the first time that we had a judge ...going on record and stating unilaterally what is a holy scripture and what is not—what we believe to be a violation of the establishment clause” (“Debate Brews...”).

Indeed! Really! Never mind the fact that the Founders of this nation—the architects of the Constitution,which Mr. Iftikhar so easily invokes, as well as the system of jurisprudence they set in place—indicated clearly their definition of what constitutes “holy scripture.” That definition does not square with the opinions of either CAIR or the ACLU. For example, James McHenry, a signer of the Constitution, stated emphatically: “[T]he Holy Scriptures ...can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions” (as quoted in Steiner, 1921, p. 14, emp. added). Like his contemporaries, McHenry defined “scripture” as the Bible. So did Benjamin Franklin who, at the age of 81, standing before the delegates to the Constitutional Convention on June 28, 1787, asserted: “We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that ‘except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” (as quoted in Madison, 1840, 2:985, emp. added). To what “sacred writings” did Franklin allude? The Quran? Absolutely not! His quotation of Psalm 127:1 and allusion to Babel in Genesis 11 make it undeniably clear that he “unilaterally” meant the Bible. Robert Winthrop, who was Speaker of the House in the 1840s, explained: “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet” (1852, p. 172, emp. added). Though this nation has been in existence for over two centuries, only recently has confusion arisen regarding which book on the planet constitutes the Word of God.

Consider the words of John Adams—signer of the Declaration of Independence, two-time Vice-President under George Washington, and second President of the United States—written in 1756: “Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be” (1854, 2:6-7, emp. added). And in a letter to Thomas Jefferson on Christmas day, 1813, he wrote: “I have examined all [religions]... and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world” (1854, 10:85, emp. added). Patriot Patrick Henry declared: “[The Bible] is a book worth more than all the other booksthat were ever printed” (as quoted in Wirt, 1818, p. 402, emp. added). The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, affirmed in a letter in 1784: “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next” (1980, 2:709, emp. added). Noah Webster noted: “The Bible is the chief moral cause of all that is good and the best corrector of all that is evil in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of man” (1833, p. v, emp. added). U.S. Supreme Court justice Joseph Story, a Father of American Jurisprudence, insisted: “The Bible itself [is] the common inheritance, not merely of Christendom, but of the world” (1854, p. 259, emp. added). What do such statements imply about these Founders’ opinion of the Quran?

Observe further that every President of the United States, beginning with George Washington, has been sworn into office by placing his hand on—not the Quran—but the Bible (see “Joint Congressional...,” 2005 and “Bibles and Scriptures...,” 2005).

So what should be done? Should Muslims be allowed to use the Quran in court? Won’t they be more likely to tell the truth? Perhaps. But here is the bottom line: The fact that this issue has even arisen is evidence of the dilution of America’s Christian heritage, and the infiltration of alien ideologies that are destructive to the American way of life. The Founders believed these non-Christian religions to be bogus and detrimental to the Republic which they established. To permit the use of the Quran in court would be to afford it a measure of credibility, creating the impression that Islam is simply one religion among many that merits acknowledgment, legal and/or societal respect, and equal status with Christianity. The Founders never would have countenanced such a consideration. A“Father of American Jurisprudence,” New York State Supreme Court Chief Justice James Kent, in The People v. Ruggles in 1811, summarized the national attitude toward Islam that existed from the inception of the country:

Nor are we bound, by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those imposters (8 Johns 290, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1854), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.).

“Bibles and Scripture Passages Used by Presidents in Taking the Oath of Office” (2005), Library of Congress: Presidential Inaugurations, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pibible.htrnl.

“Debate Brews Over Use of Koran in Court” (2005), Fox News, August 22, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166307,00.html.

Jay, John (1980), John Jay: The Winning of the Peace. Unpublished Papers 1780-1784, ed. Richard Morris (New York: Harper).

“Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies” (2005), [On-line], URL: http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/chronology/gwashin gtonl789.htm.

Madison, James (1840), The Papers of James Madison, ed. Henry Gilpin (Washington: Langtree and O’Sullivan).

The People v. Ruggles (1811), 8 Johns 290 (Sup. Ct. NY.), N.Y. Lexis 124.

Steiner, Bernard (1921), One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland (Baltimore, MD: Maryland Bible Society).

Story, Joseph (1854), A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Har­per).

Webster, Noah (1833), The Holy Bible...With Amendments of the Language (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

Winthrop, Robert (1852), Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.).

Wirt, William (1818), Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry (Philadelphia, PA: James Webster).

Has Satan Always Existed? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=569

Has Satan Always Existed?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

From a very early age, children learn about the righteousness of God and the wickedness of Satan. We teach children that God is the loving, powerful, and all-knowing Creator and Sustainer of life Who wants them to live right and go to heaven. We also tell them that there is an evil being called Satan who is very influential in the world, and who is doing everything he possibly can to keep them out of heaven. Many Sunday mornings in Bible class, children either sing or study about these two beings. This time of study certainly is worthwhile because children are taught to obey God (John 14:15) and to resist the devil (1 Peter 5:8). In time, however, if young people are not offered additional teaching about the origin of Satan and the eternal nature of God, many inadvertently begin to form a picture in their minds of two opposing “gods” who are at war with each other. Like two heavyweight boxers exchanging punches in the middle of a ring, children begin to think of God and Satan as two equally opposing “forces.”

Although little is suggested in the Bible about Satan’s beginning, we can know that Satan is a created being. Unlike God, the Bible teaches that Satan is not omnipotent (1 John 4:4), omnipresent (cf. Job 1-2; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Luke 4:6; Revelation 20:1-10), or eternal (cf. Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 102:27). Furthermore, in speaking of Jesus, Paul wrote: “For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16, emp. added). The apostle John was inspired to write: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:1-3, emp. added). Who made all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible? Jesus (the Word—John 1:14). Thus, the Bible teaches that Satan is one of God’s created beings. He had a beginning just like you, me, and everything else that exists other than God.

But just because God created Satan, does not mean that He created him as an evil being. Rather, God created him good, and then he chose to become evil. The Bible indicates that Satan was one of the angels who lived in heaven, but he (along with other angels) rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven. The apostle Peter said that “God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment” (2 Peter 2:4). Another inspired writer wrote: “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6). Since the Bible also refers to the devil as “the ruler of demons” (Matthew 12:24), and speaks of “the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41, emp. added), it is very likely that the devil is the leader of a group of rebellious angels that was expelled from heaven to eventually spend eternity in hell.

Thus, unlike the philosophy of dualism (made popular by the Persian—Zoroaster), which teaches that an eternal good being and an eternal evil being exist and oppose one another, the Bible teaches that the Godhead is the only eternal entity. Although Satan is not to be taken lightly, it is a blessing to know that he cannot snatch us from the love of God if we are unwilling to allow him to do so (Romans 8:37-39), nor can he tempt us beyond what we are able to bear (1 Corinthians 10:13). God alone is deity, and He alone deserves our praise and adoration.

Divine Design and the Pine Tree by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=568

Divine Design and the Pine Tree

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The naturalistic explanation given by evolutionists for the existence of the created order cannot meet the dictates of logic that characterize the unencumbered, unprejudiced human mind. The more one investigates the intricacies and complexities of the natural realm, the more self-evident it is that a grand and great Designer is responsible for the existence of the Universe. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming and decisive.

Take, for example, the pine tree. Some 120 species and subspecies of the pine tree exist worldwide (“What Are...?,” n.d.). The Ponderosa pine tree (pinus ponderosa) is one of America’s abundant tree species, covering approximately 27 million acres of land (“Ponderosa Pine,” 1995). A young Ponderosa pine has brownish-black bark that changes to a distinctive orange-brown color as the tree grows older. The bark is segmented into large plate-like structures whose appearance has been likened to a jigsaw puzzle. This unusual design has a purpose. If the tree catches fire, these plates pop off as the bark burns. The tree, in effect, sheds its burning bark! This design, along with the great thickness of the bark, allows the tree to be very resistant to low intensity fires (“Ponderosa Pine,” n.d.). Since design demands a designer, who is responsible for this intricate design?

Ponderosa bark Courtesy sxc.hu and Jesse Adams

Another species of pine tree is the Lodgepole Pine (pinus contorta), so named since Native Americans used Lodgepole pine for the “lodge poles” in their tepees. This amazing pine tree grows cones that are slightly smaller than a golf ball, are tan when fresh, but turn gray with age. These serotinous cones remain closed until the heat of a forest fire causes them to open. After the fire, the cones open and reseed the forest. The species thus regenerates itself—even though the forest fire kills the tree itself (“Lodgepole Pine,” n.d.). Since such design demands a designer, who is responsible for this ingenious design?

Yet another species of pine tree is the Whitebark Pine (pinus albicaulis). This tree possesses a symbiotic relationship with a bird species known as the Clark’s Nutcracker. The tree is dependent on this bird for reproduction, while the seed of the tree is a major source of food for the bird. This mutualistic relationship is further seen in the fact that Whitebark pinecones do not open and cast seed when they are ripe. The cones remain closed until the Nutcracker comes along, pries the cone open with its bill, and stores the seed within a pouch beneath its tongue. The bird then caches the seed to be used later as a food supply. Some of these seed caches are forgotten, or are not needed, thus enabling the tree to reproduce (“Whitebark Pine,” n.d.). Such amazing design—with no Mind behind it? Illogical!

Ponderosa pine tree Courtesy bigstockphotos.com and Angela McElroy

The interdependent, interconnected, interpenetrating features of God’s Creation are beyond the capability of man to trace out—let alone to “manage” or “assist.” Neither a pine tree nor a pinecone is sentient. They have no thinking capacity or consciousness. They possess no personhood, soul, or spirit. Pine trees did not get together and discuss the threat of forest fires to their future survival, and then decide to produce pinecones that would remain closed during a fire only to open afterwards. The standard explanations by evolutionists for such wonders of creation are incoherent and nonsensical. Elihu reminded Job: “Behold, God is exalted in His power; Who is a teacher like Him? Who has appointed Him His way, and who has said, ‘You have done wrong’? Remember that you should exalt His work, of which men have sung. All men have seen it; man beholds from afar” (Job 36:22-25—NASB).

Indeed, the realm of nature literally shouts forth the reality of the all-powerful Maker Who alone accounts for the intelligent design of the created order. As the psalmist so eloquently affirmed: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.... There is no speech, nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4). Indeed, “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20). Only a foolish person would conclude there is no God (Psalm 14:1).

REFERENCES

“Lodgepole Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, [On-line], URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/LodgepolePine.shtml.

“Ponderosa Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, [On-line], URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/PonderosaPine.shtml.

“Ponderosa Pine” (1995), Western Wood Products Association, [On-line], URL: http://www.wwpa.org/ppine.htm.

“What Are Pine Trees?” (no date), The Lovett Pinetum Charitable Foundation, [On-line], URL: http://www.lovett-pinetum.org/1whatare.htm.

“Whitebark Pine” (no date), USDA Forest Service, [On-line], URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/resources/trees/WhitebarkPine.shtml.

“Meet Me in Galilee” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=567

“Meet Me in Galilee”

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

One question that skeptics frequently ask regarding various events in the Bible is “Why?” Why did God create the Sun on day four after creating light on day one? Why did God command the Israelites to walk around Jericho one time a day for six days, and seven times on the seventh day before the city was destroyed? Why did Jesus choose Judas as an apostle if He knew that he would betray Him? And so on. Since skeptics are unable to find legitimate internal contradictions about various occurrences in Scripture that seem peculiar to them, they simply ask questions beginning with “Why...?,” in hopes that doubt will take hold of the Bible reader—seeds of doubt that they hope eventually will grow into full-fledged disbelief in the trustworthiness of the Bible.

One question I was asked by a skeptic is why an angel (and later Jesus) informed Mary Magdalene and the other women who came with her to the tomb of Jesus on the day of His resurrection, to tell the disciples to go meet Him in Galilee? If Jesus was going to meet the disciples in Jerusalem that very day anyway, why did He instruct the women saying, “Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me” (28:10)? Allegedly, “If Jesus was going to meet with the disciples at Jerusalem first, then there was no need for Jesus to tell Mary to remind the disciples about the scheduled meeting (cf. Matthew 26:32) in Galilee. Jesus Himself could have informed them about the Galilean meeting when He appeared to them later that evening in Jerusalem.”

Although Christians are not obligated to answer knowledgably every single question beginning with “Why...” (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33), most of the time either the Scriptures or reason reveal(s) logical answers. Such is the case with the question concerning why Jesus commanded Mary Magdalene and the other women to tell the disciples to go meet the Lord in Galilee when the Lord was going to appear to them that evening in Jerusalem anyway.

Before consulting Scripture to answer this question, consider the following illustration. Your boss informs you at your house on a Thursday night that he has scheduled a meeting for you, your ten co-workers, and numerous others the following week beginning on Monday in Atlanta. However, on Friday morning, you awake to hear on the news that your boss was in a terrible accident on his way home from your house the previous night. He was run off of the road by a drunk driver, after which his car rolled down an embankment while he was thrown out of the front windshield. Reports are that he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. On Sunday afternoon, however, your son returns from visiting a friend in the hospital who just had knee surgery. He informs you that, to his surprise, he saw your boss checking out of the hospital—alive! Your son says: “He told me that he would meet you in Atlanta tomorrow.” What would your reaction be? Although your son is a trustworthy teenager, how could your boss really be alive? And even if somehow he was resuscitated from an apparent death, surely he would not be checking out of the hospital already? Surely your son was just mistaken. And surely the meeting is not still going to occur?

If your boss got word about your unbelief in his well-being, do you think it would be appropriate for him either to contact you, or visit you, and show you firsthand that he is well? Of course it would. Even though he indicated to you on Thursday night, and to your son on Sunday, that he would meet you in Atlanta for a business meeting with dozens of others, it still would be appropriate for him to contact you (again) and let them know that the meeting is still on schedule. No one would see his “repetitious” testimony and presence in your home as something superfluous considering the ordeal he had just recently experienced.

If the skeptic can see the rationality of this illustration, one wonders why he cannot see the rationality of Jesus appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem, even after informing Mary Magdalene to remind them to meet Him in Galilee? The disciples had just seen their Lord arrested, tortured, and crucified. They were scared for their own lives. Some of the disciples even “forsook him” during His arrest in the garden (Mark 14:50; cf. 14:27). Peter denied knowing Him three times, just a short while later (Mark 14:66-72). And, on the day of Jesus’ resurrection, John recorded how the disciples (except Thomas) met behind closed doors “for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19). These men obviously were traumatized by all of the events of the past 72 hours. “They mourned and wept” for the loss of their leader (Mark 16:10). They were mentally and emotionally troubled.

Then entered Mary Magdalene and the other women who told the apostles (and those who are gathered together with them) that they had seen Jesus—alive (Luke 24:9-10)! Sadly, the disciples rejected the women’s testimony. Luke recorded: “Their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them” (24:11). The apostles doubted that Jesus was alive (cf. Luke 24:38). Later on that same day, Mark wrote that two other disciples informed them of Jesus’ resurrection, but “they did not believe them either” (16:12-13). In fact, when Jesus appeared to the apostles (except Thomas) on the evening of His resurrection, He said: “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:38-39, emp. added). The apostles later reported Jesus’ appearance to their fellow apostle, Thomas, who had missed the opportunity to see, touch, and eat with Him. Like his fellow apostles, who previously had rejected the eyewitness testimony, Thomas responded, saying, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe” (John 20:25).

Multiply many times the doubts you would have of seeing your employer for a meeting three days after he was ejected through the front windshield of his car and reported on the news to be dead. Only then might you come close to the frazzled mindset of the unbelieving apostles.

Why did Jesus appear to the apostles in Jerusalem before meeting with them (and many others—cf. 1 Corinthians 15:6) a three-days’ journey away in Galilee? Both common sense and the Scriptures indicate that it was due to their unbelief in His resurrection. Jesus wanted to ensure that they believed He had risen!