From Gary... Time, purpose and the "dash"

Last week, I decided to change the design of my blog (newbiblereflections.blogspot.com). I added pictures of myself as far back as 1953 and as recent as 2013, just to show everyone how I have changed over the years. I thought doing this would make the blog page more friendly and I hope it succeeded! Frankly, I wish I something like this to use instead of all those separate photos, but what is done is done.

This picture shows most of the man's life. It does not show his infancy or extreme old age, but it is a fair representation, nevertheless. And it makes you think: What did he look like as a newborn and what will he look like in the life after this life?

FACT: everyone is born and everyone dies; this is true...

Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3 (WEB)

 1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven:   2 a time to be born,

and a time to die;...

Next time you attend a funeral, pay close attention to the tombstone- notice the dash between the "born" and "died". What you do between those two dates constitutes your LIFE. Be careful to live a life full of purpose, and do not to waste a moment of what time you are given!  And most important of all- remember to honor God with every single minute!!!

From Gary... Bible Reading February 29

Bible Reading  

February 29

The World English Bible

Feb. 29

Exodus 10

Exo 10:1 Yahweh said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I may show these my signs in the midst of them,

Exo 10:2 and that you may tell in the hearing of your son, and of your son's son, what things I have done to Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that you may know that I am Yahweh."

Exo 10:3 Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh, and said to him, "This is what Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, that they may serve me.

Exo 10:4 Or else, if you refuse to let my people go, behold, tomorrow I will bring locusts into your country,

Exo 10:5 and they shall cover the surface of the earth, so that one won't be able to see the earth. They shall eat the residue of that which has escaped, which remains to you from the hail, and shall eat every tree which grows for you out of the field.

Exo 10:6 Your houses shall be filled, and the houses of all your servants, and the houses of all the Egyptians; as neither your fathers nor your fathers' fathers have seen, since the day that they were on the earth to this day.' " He turned, and went out from Pharaoh.

Exo 10:7 Pharaoh's servants said to him, "How long will this man be a snare to us? Let the men go, that they may serve Yahweh, their God. Don't you yet know that Egypt is destroyed?"

Exo 10:8 Moses and Aaron were brought again to Pharaoh, and he said to them, "Go, serve Yahweh your God; but who are those who will go?"

Exo 10:9 Moses said, "We will go with our young and with our old; with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we must hold a feast to Yahweh."

Exo 10:10 He said to them, "Yahweh be with you if I will let you go with your little ones! See, evil is clearly before your faces.

Exo 10:11 Not so! Go now you who are men, and serve Yahweh; for that is what you desire!" They were driven out from Pharaoh's presence.

Exo 10:12 Yahweh said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they may come up on the land of Egypt, and eat every herb of the land, even all that the hail has left."

Exo 10:13 Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and Yahweh brought an east wind on the land all that day, and all the night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.

Exo 10:14 The locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the borders of Egypt. They were very grievous. Before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such.

Exo 10:15 For they covered the surface of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened, and they ate every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left. There remained nothing green, either tree or herb of the field, through all the land of Egypt.

Exo 10:16 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste, and he said, "I have sinned against Yahweh your God, and against you.

Exo 10:17 Now therefore please forgive my sin again, and pray to Yahweh your God, that he may also take away from me this death."

Exo 10:18 He went out from Pharaoh, and prayed to Yahweh.

Exo 10:19 Yahweh turned an exceeding strong west wind, which took up the locusts, and drove them into the Red Sea. There remained not one locust in all the borders of Egypt.

Exo 10:20 But Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he didn't let the children of Israel go.

Exo 10:21 Yahweh said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand toward the sky, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt."

Exo 10:22 Moses stretched forth his hand toward the sky, and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days.

Exo 10:23 They didn't see one another, neither did anyone rise from his place for three days; but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.

Exo 10:24 Pharaoh called to Moses, and said, "Go, serve Yahweh. Only let your flocks and your herds stay behind. Let your little ones also go with you."

Exo 10:25 Moses said, "You must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice to Yahweh our God.

Exo 10:26 Our livestock also shall go with us. There shall not a hoof be left behind, for of it we must take to serve Yahweh our God; and we don't know with what we must serve Yahweh, until we come there."

Exo 10:27 But Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he wouldn't let them go.

Exo 10:28 Pharaoh said to him, "Get away from me! Be careful to see my face no more; for in the day you see my face you shall die!"

Exo 10:29 Moses said, "You have spoken well. I will see your face again no more."

Feb. 29

Mark 2

Mar 2:1 When he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was heard that he was in the house.

Mar 2:2 Immediately many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even around the door; and he spoke the word to them.

Mar 2:3 Four people came, carrying a paralytic to him.

Mar 2:4 When they could not come near to him for the crowd, they removed the roof where he was. When they had broken it up, they let down the mat that the paralytic was lying on.

Mar 2:5 Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven you."

Mar 2:6 But there were some of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,

Mar 2:7 "Why does this man speak blasphemies like that? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Mar 2:8 Immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you reason these things in your hearts?

Mar 2:9 Which is easier, to tell the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven;' or to say, 'Arise, and take up your bed, and walk?'

Mar 2:10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" -he said to the paralytic-

Mar 2:11 "I tell you, arise, take up your mat, and go to your house."

Mar 2:12 He arose, and immediately took up the mat, and went out in front of them all; so that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"

Mar 2:13 He went out again by the seaside. All the multitude came to him, and he taught them.

Mar 2:14 As he passed by, he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he arose and followed him.

Mar 2:15 It happened, that he was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many, and they followed him.

Mar 2:16 The scribes and the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why is it that he eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?"

Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Mar 2:18 John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and they came and asked him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples don't fast?"

Mar 2:19 Jesus said to them, "Can the groomsmen fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they can't fast.

Mar 2:20 But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then will they fast in that day.

Mar 2:21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, or else the patch shrinks and the new tears away from the old, and a worse hole is made.

Mar 2:22 No one puts new wine into old wineskins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and the wine pours out, and the skins will be destroyed; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins."

Mar 2:23 It happened that he was going on the Sabbath day through the grain fields, and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of grain.

Mar 2:24 The Pharisees said to him, "Behold, why do they do that which is not lawful on the Sabbath day?"

Mar 2:25 He said to them, "Did you never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry-he, and those who were with him?

Mar 2:26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the show bread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and gave also to those who were with him?"

Mar 2:27 He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath." 

From Roy Davison... Is there no hope?

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/022-hope.html

Is there no hope?

Solomon, who was rich, powerful and wise, understood that there is no hope in things of this world: “For we are aliens and pilgrims before You, as were all our fathers; our days on earth are as a shadow, and without hope” (1 Chronicles 19:15).
After experiencing all worldly advantages, he concludes: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 1:2).
There are beautiful aspects of life, but life is so fleeting. As Job says: “My days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle, and are spent without hope” (Job 7:6).
When Job said this, he had lost everything.
Job had been the richest man in the East (Job 1:3). He had more than ten thousand animals: sheep, camels, oxen and donkeys. On one day he lost them all by fire and raiders, and most of his servants were murdered (Job 1:13-17).
What can be more devastating than the loss of a child? That same day, Job’s seven sons and three daughters were killed by a powerful wind that caused the house where they were to collapse (Job 1:19).
Then, after a while, Job’s whole body was covered with painful boils from the soles of his feet to the top of his head (Job 2:7).
The one person who, come what may, should have comforted him, his wife, said to him: “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!” (Job 2:9).
He was visited by three friends who claimed that these calamities were punishment from God because of hidden sin.
What prospects did Job have? Little wonder that he said: “My spirit is broken, my days are extinguished, the grave is ready for me. ... Where then is my hope? As for my hope, who can see it?” (Job 17:1, 15).
What kind of man was Job? Were his so-called friends right when they claimed that he was being punished by God?
No, Job was an upright man. God Himself had testified, “there is none like him on the earth, a blameless man, one who fears God and shuns evil” (Job 1:8). The suffering of Job was not a punishment from God but an attack by Satan.
God allowed Job to be purified by suffering, as silver is purged in the fire (compare with Proverbs 17:3 and Isaiah 48:10).
Desiring to know why God allowed him to suffer, Job felt the need for a mediator: “For He is not a man, as I am, that I may answer Him, and that we should go to court together. Nor is there any mediator between us, who may lay his hand on us both” (Job 9:32, 33).
Even though his situation was hopeless, Job entrusted his soul to God who was his only hope.
The light of revelation breaks through dimly at first in the form of a question, and finally shines forth as a mighty declaration of faith.
First the question: “If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my hard service I will wait, till my change comes. You shall call, and I will answer You; You shall desire the work of Your hands” (Job 14:14, 15).
Then the declaration of faith: “For I know that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth; and after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!” (Job 19:25-27).
Through this ordeal Job gained insight and a better understanding of God: “I know that You can do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.” ... “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You” (Job 42:2, 5).
Right before Job proclaimed his faith in his Redeemer, he said: “Oh, that my words were written! Oh, that they were inscribed in a book! That they were engraved on a rock with an iron pen and lead, forever” (Job 19:23, 24).
They were written, they were inscribed in a book, countless copies have been reproduced by printing presses, and now his words can be read by millions in the whole world via the Internet.
The faith and perseverance of Job have encouraged countless people through the ages.
Job knew that his Redeemer lives. We also know that man’s Redeemer lives because some 2000 years later, and some 2000 years before our time, the Savior and Mediator for whom Job longed, came from the loving Father to give hope to the hopeless.
“For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works” (Titus 4:11-14).
Yes, in Christ there is hope.
“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope. Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (Romans 5:1-5).
Because our Redeemer lives forevermore, we have hope even in suffering. He suffered for us, so we are willing to suffer for Him.
Job was a type of the suffering servant of God, the Christ, of whom we read: “Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered” (Hebrews 5:8).
“For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: "Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth"; who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness -- by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Peter 2:21-24).
Paul wrote: “I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:24-27).
Getting-old does not cause us to lose our hope. “Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day” (2 Corinthians 4:16).
Even death does not extinguish our hope. “But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus” (1 Thessalonians 4:13, 14).

“Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:13). Amen.

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

From Jim McGuiggan... Recognize the Bible's Central Purpose

Recognize the Bible's Central Purpose

To study Shakespeare as a way to learn geography is to waste your time and miss Shakespeare. To approach Poetry as you would Maths is to miss poetry's beauty, point and power. We must recognise the kind of literature we are dealing with and it's equally important to recognise the purpose of that literature. (We don't understand a tool until we know what it is designed to do. The same is true of literature. Until we know both what a writer said and why he said it, we don't understand him!)

The Bible has a central purpose. When asked what the Bible was for, James Packer said: "It was written to make friends!" That's too simple, of course, but it is profoundly true! The Bible is written to lead people into life with God through Jesus Christ. This life involves pardon from sin and devotion to the Saviour! The Bible's central aim is unashamedly religious. It's goal is to produce and sustain faith in God through Jesus Christ so that people might return to and remain with God!

The following verses (from among many) tell us plainly why the word of God is given to Man. Please be sure to read them!

There is 2 Tim 3:15 which tells us the Scriptures make us wise unto salvation. John 20:30-31 says the Book was written that people might have eternal life through trusting in Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 1:23,25 says that the word was preached so people could be 'born again'. Psalm 19:7 says the scriptures revive the soul. Deuteronomy 30:15-16 teaches that God's laws are given that people might have life rather than death, prosperity rather than destruction. 2 Tim 3:16-17 tells us that the scriptures are valuable because they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work!

Now, what has all this to do with the study of Scripture? To ignore the Bible's central purpose is to misunderstand it! We must listen to it as to the voice of God calling us into loving fellowship with him. We are not to read it as mere observers of some ancient drama, we are to recognise our place in the ongoing drama. We are to recognise its history as Man's history, and ours in particular. If we fail (and we could!), to hear the voice of God in the Bible, calling us and challenging us, we have missed the Bible's message and purpose. It is 'bread'to be eaten rather than simply analysed! To be fed on, more than to undergo constant inspection!

And the Bible is not a substitute for God! To confuse a love letter from our husband or wife with our husband or wife is to violate the purpose of the letter. The love letter is not intended to come between the two lovers. Its aim is to bring the two persons closer together. To substitute the letter for the person is a fundamental error. To confuse God's covenantal law or his message of Good News with God himself is to err at the most crucial level. We must study the Scriptures with open hearts, seeking his friendship. It is a tragedy beyond words to search the Scriptures and miss God (see John 5:39-40).

COME TO TERMS WITH JESUS CHRIST

The central purpose of the Bible is to bring us to life with God and that life is found only in Jesus Christ, Because this is so he is the central character in God's purpose. Therefore, how we stand in relation to Jesus Christ is the issue which must be understood and settled before any other question is given serious consideration.

Our Bible study should begin with the New Testament scriptures. With those which deal most directly with God's liberating work in Jesus Christ and how God wants us to respond to it. We must begin with him and not in the Old Testament. In olden times, says the New Testament (Hebrews 1:1-2), God spoke to the ancients in "fragmentary and varied fashion". In Jesus Christ he has spoken in a final and completed way. God's fullest and clearest revelation has been made in Jesus Christ and that is why he must be the centre and focus of our Bible Study. Read John 14:6, Acts 4:12 and 1 Timothy 2:5 on all this. 

Begin your study, then, in the New Testament. Especially the GOSPELS (the first four books of the New Testament) and ACTS. Don't neglect the NT EPISTLES (letters) for they help us immeasurably to understand the GOSPELS. And don't completely avoid the Old Testament. But, in the beginning, make the GOSPELS and ACTS the centre around which your studies revolve. And do so with a view to finding freedom and life with God in Jesus Christ. This is the grand purpose for Bible study!

RECOGNISE THAT SOME TRUTHS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS

All truths are important but some are more important than others. The Bible itself confirms what commonsense tells us. Here are just a few verses which make this truth clear.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 where Paul said some things were "of first importance".

Matthew 23:23 where Jesus rebuked people for neglecting "the more important matters" of the law.

Matthew 5:19 and 22:38 where Jesus speaks of "the least" and "the greatest" commandments.

1 Samuel 15:22-23 where the prophet insists that the Lord delights more in obedience than in the offering of religious sacrifices.

These scriptures say some things mean more to God than others, some truths are more important than others. If we keep this in mind we will give special attention to the more important matters. We will not spend a great deal of time on little questions when major issues stare us in the face. We won't spend a lot of time on obscure verses when plain words demand a response from us. We will gladly tolerate differences on minor issues but we will stand firmly on foundational truths.

As you gain experience you will be able to distinguish more easily between what matters tremendously and what does not, between what is essential truth and what there can be room for honest differences on.

Does the Bible link the subject with salvation or forgiveness? Does it link the subject to life in Christ? Is the topic related to faithfulness to God and our neighbour? Does it seriously affect the 'truth of the Gospel' or how we view an honourable life before God? If it does, the subject is fundamentally important. Learn well the things that are plainly stated, obey the things that are plainly called for and remain open to receive the rest as you continue to gain more experience. Treat no truth as unimportant but follow the Bible when it teaches that some matters "are more important" than others (Matthew 23:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

Summary:

1) To understand the Bible we must understand its nature and purpose!

2) Its central purpose is to bring us life with God!

3) Christ himself brings us life with God so we must make him the centre of our thoughts!

4) Our study must centre around the GOSPELS and ACTS!

5) Some truths are more important than others!

 ©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

"Contradictions" Regarding the Ark of the Covenant by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=767&b=1%20Samuel

"Contradictions" Regarding the Ark of the Covenant

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

How does the “20 years” reference in 1 Samuel 7:2 harmonize with the fact that the ark was not brought from Kirjath-jearim until 2 Samuel 6:4—more than 40 years later?

Even though God’s Word can be substantially communicated from one language to another, the translation process is sufficiently complex to the extent that many of the subtleties of the parent language are lost in translation. These subtleties rarely, if ever, involve matters that are critical to the central purpose of revelation. However, apparent discrepancies on minor details can surface that require a careful re-examination of the actual linguistic data of the parent language (in this case Hebrew) in order to dissolve the apparent discrepancy.

The individual clauses of 1 Samuel 7:2-3 are linked in Hebrew by “waw consecutives” that bring the statements into close logical and temporal connection. The three verbs of verse two are a continuation of the infinitive, which points to the main sentence being resumed in verse three (“and Samuel spoke”). The gist of these grammatical data is that the writer is informing us that after the ark’s capture, the people endured Philistine oppression for the next twenty years. Though all Israel “lamented after the Lord,” He allowed the Israelites to continue their suffering at the hands of the Philistines for 20 years—at which time Samuel called upon the nation to put away its idols.

First Samuel describes the final years of the period of the judges. The reliance upon the ark as a sort of mystical talisman brought swift military tragedy, precipitating yet another period of foreign oppression by Israel’s enemies due to their own apostasy. This period of Philistine preeminence went on for twenty years before the lamentations of God’s people were finally heard. At the end of the twenty years, Samuel called on them to couple their lamentations with genuine penitence (1 Samuel 7:3). When they put away their idolatry (vs. 4), they once again enjoyed the services of the judge (vs. 6), who assisted them in throwing off Philistine oppression by military defeat (vss. 10ff.).

Thus the twenty years refers—not to the total number of years that the ark remained in Kirjath-jearim—but merely to the number of years the ark was in Kirjath-jearim before the Lord chose to hear the people’s lamentations and provide them with intervention through Samuel.

How Could Haman Be a Descendant of King Agag? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=473&b=1%20Samuel

How Could Haman Be a Descendant of King Agag?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The skeptic’s argument goes something like this: (a) According to 1 Samuel 15, Saul (with a little help from Samuel) utterly destroyed all of the Amalekites, including Agag, king of Amalek. (b) Esther 3:1 indicates that Haman (prime minister of the Persian king Ahasuerus) was a descendant of Agag. Thus, (c) First Samuel 15 and Esther 3:1 cannot both be true: either the Amalekites were not completely destroyed, or Haman was not actually a descendant of Agag.

As with so many purported “discrepancies” in Scripture, this allegation assumes more than what can actually be proven. First, simply because Haman is called “the son of Hammedathathe Agagite” approximately 500 years after King Agag of Amalek died (Esther 3:1), does not necessarily mean that Haman was related to that same Agag mentioned in 1 Samuel 15. It is possible that he was, but such ancestry has never been proven. As Keil and Delitzsch observed in their commentary on Esther:

The name Agag is not sufficient for the purpose, as many individuals might at different times have borne the name‘agaag, i.e., the fiery. In 1 Sam 15, too, Agag is not the nomen propr. of the conquered king, but a general nomen dignitatis of the kings of Amalek, as Pharaoh and Abimelech were of the kings of Egypt and Gerar…. We know nothing of Haman and his father beyond what is said in this book, and all attempts to explain the names are uncertain and beside the mark (1996).

Indeed, to assert that Esther 3:1 is referring to the same family that Saul and Samuel killed in 1 Samuel 15 is, simply put, to make an unproven (and unprovable) allegation.

Though it is necessary for the apologist to point out only one unsubstantiated premise in the skeptic’s argument in order for the line of reasoning to be proven invalid, a second problem should also be noted for the record: namely, nothing in 1 Samuel 15 indicates that every single Amalekite on Earth died at that time. In fact, in addition to Saul’s indifference toward God’s command to utterly destroy the Amalekites, verse seven sets parameters on the actual Amalekites whom Saul attacked—those “from  Havilah all the way to Shur.” Could there have been Amalekites who were outside of this region during Saul’s war against Amalek? Could it be that some of the Amalekites actually lived near the edge of the boundary and escaped the fighting just prior to Saul’s attack? Could it be that just one of these Amalekites who survived was the ancestor of Haman? All of these questions may well be truthfully answered in the affirmative. In fact, just 12 chapters later, the inspired writer of 1 Samuel revealed that certain Amalekites were still alive and well, only a few years after King Saul had attacked them (1 Samuel 27:8; 30:1; cf. 1 Chronicles 4:43).  

In short, neither premise in the skeptic’s argument against 1 Samuel 15 and Esther 3:1 is valid. There is no verified contradiction between these texts—only another unproven allegation.

[NOTE: For an answer to the skeptic’s charge that the God of the Bible is evil for instructing the Israelites to kill countless thousands of Canaanites, including the Amalekites, see our article titled “God’s Just Destruction of the Canaanites.”]

REFERENCES

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.

Lyons, Eric (2013), “God’s Just Destruction of the Canaanites,” Reason & Revelation, 33[5]:57-59,http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1121&article=2151.

A.D. and B.C. are no Longer P.C. by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1471

A.D. and B.C. are no Longer P.C.

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Seemingly never satisfied with the successive gains made in their relentless assault on the Christian religion, the social engineers of “political correctness” are even unhappy with our calendar. There appears to be no end to their capricious desire to sanitize our society by expunging every indication of America's Christian heritage. Western civilization's reckoning of time is based on the Gregorian calendar that reflects a Christian worldview by dating the whole of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” (“Before Christ”) refers to the years that preceded the birth of Christ. “A.D.” (Anno Domini—Latin for “year of our Lord”) refers to the years that have transpired since the birth of Christ.

For years, academicians have solved the “problem” by embracing the designations “C.E.” and “B.C.E.,” i.e., “Common Era” and “Before the Common Era.” Of course, such attempts to restructure our values are designed to avoid “offending” or being “insensitive” to those who do not share the Christian worldview. But the efforts are fraught with self-contradiction, and cannot be sustained consistently. While resorting to C.E./B.C.E. may be more palatable to Jews, atheists, agnostics, Hindus, and Buddhists, what will be done to accommodate the 1.2 billion Muslims—who are immigrating to America in increasing numbers? Their calendar reckons time based on the designationA.H. (after the Hegira). Hegira in Arabic means “flight,” and refers to the year (A.D. 622) that Muhammad fled Mecca and went to Medina, marking the beginning of the Islamic era. Muslims will never be fully content with any other means of reckoning time. Pluralism and “political correctness” are self-contradictory.

Many of these ardent zealots insist that they are merely championing the will of the Founding Fathers, who, they maintain, intended to establish a religionless society in which all religions and philosophies receive equal standing and consideration. They insist that the Constitution enjoins “separation of church and state” in which no one religion is given public sanction—certainly not to the exclusion of any other religion. But this claim is complete nonsense and historical bunk. Though these social liberals have been rewriting American history, obliterating public allusions to Christianity, and capitalizing on nationwide ignorance for over 40 years, the truth is still existent for those who wish to examine it.

Were there no Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, or atheists in America at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and launched the great American republic? History shows that there were! While these minority viewpoints were not persecuted, the Framers did not adjust their own belief system to accommodate those who held opposing worldviews. As a matter of fact, they did not advocate pluralism. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (one of two men who share the title the “Father of American Jurisprudence”) declared in his monumental multi-volumeCommentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government (1833, 3:728, emp. added).

Indeed, the Founders were adamant in their insistence that Christianity must remain the foundation of America. For example, after serving two terms as president of the United States, in his farewell address to the nation, George Washington explained:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and moralityare indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle (1796, emp. added).

To what religion did Washington refer? One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll, in a letter to James McHenry on November 4, 1800, expounded further: “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments” (as quoted in Steiner, 1907, p. 475, emp. added). Another Founding Father, Noah Webster, in an October 16, 1829 letter to James Madison, likewise insisted: “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government...and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence” (as quoted in Snyder, 1990, p. 253, emp. added).

The second president of these United States held the same viewpoint. After serving two terms as vice-president alongside President George Washington, on October 11, 1798, John Adams affirmed: “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (1854, 9:229, emp. added).

Observe that these Framers and Founders went on record, stating that should this nation ever abandon the Christian religion and Christian morality, the nation would be subject to inevitable collapse. Their words were prophetic. Calvin Coolidge, the 30^th president of the United States, expressed the sentiments of the Founders when he stated: “The foundation of our society and our government rests so much on the teaching of the Bible that it would be difficult to support these foundations if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country” (“Coolidge-Bible,” 2004, emp. added). As French historian Alexis de Tocqueville observed in his remarks regarding America in the 1830s: “How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?” (1945, p. 307). The moral tie of America has experienced significant erosion over the past 50 years. If Tocqueville, and these American predecessors were correct, America is moving swiftly toward destruction.

So should we abandon B.C. and A.D. in deference to those who reject the Christian worldview? To do so would be to abandon the very foundations of American civilization. It would be to abandon the foundational document of the country—the United States Constitution. How so? Just prior to the listing of the 39 signatories—men who placed their signatures on this paramount document as indication of their approval of its contents—the Constitution's own closing remark reads:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names (“The United States…,” emp. added).

Will the Constitution be censored and altered to incorporate “C.E.”? Will the ACLU and the liberal social engineers attempt to remove this unmistakable allusion to the Framer's Christian orientation as well?

REFERENCES

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

“Coolidge-Bible” (2004), Minnesota Family Council, [On-line], URL: http://www.mfc.org/contents/transcript.asp?id=996.

Snyder, K. Alan (1990), Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York, NY: University Press of America).

Steiner, Bernard (1907), The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland, OH: Burrows Brothers).

Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, and Company).

de Tocqueville, Alexis (1945 reprint), Democracy in America (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf).

The United States Constitution, [On-line], URL: http://uscode.house.gov/pdf/Organic%20Laws/const.pdf.

Washington, George (1796), “Farewell Address,” [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm.

A.D. on Louisiana Diplomas by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1532

A.D. on Louisiana Diplomas

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Louisiana’s education superintendent has ordered the recall and destruction of 53,000 blank high school diplomas because the date was changed from A.D. (“the year of our Lord”) to C.E. (the nonreligious “common era”). The change had been made by a department committee that acted without the authorization of the Louisiana Education Superintendent. The department committee assumed that eliminating a reference to God was merely an administrative change that did not require authorization. The superintendent is to be congratulated for challenging their assumption.

Should America abandon A.D. and B.C. (“Before Christ”) in deference to those who reject the Christian worldview? To do so would be to abandon the very foundations of American civilization. It would be to abandon the foundational document of the country—the United States Constitution. How so? Just prior to the listing of the 39 signatories—men who placed their signatures on this paramount document as indication of their approval of its contents—the Constitution’s own closing remark reads:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names (“The U.S. Constitution,” emp. added).

If the Louisiana education department committee had been providing students with copies of the federal Constitution, would they have ordered the printer to censor it as well?

REFERENCES

Mobley, Amber (2005), “Diploma Recall Shouldn’t Affect Local Graduations, Officials Say,” The Shreveport Times, May 4, [On-line], URL: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050504/ NEWS01/505040313/1002/NEWS.

The U.S Constitution, [On-line], URL: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html.

“Couldn’t There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science?” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3713

“Couldn’t There Have Been Exceptions to the Laws of Science?”

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Some people have realized the implications of the laws of science concerning the matter of origins. Simply put, the laws of science contradict the evolutionary model (cf. Thompson, 2002;Miller, 2007). So, the question is asked by both sincere and unrelinquishing people, “Could there not have been exceptions at some time in the past to the laws of science?”

The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Termsdefines a scientific law as, “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena” (2003, p. 1182, emp. added). In other words, as long as the scientist takes care to make sure that the law applies to the scenario in question, the law will always hold true. According to its definition, a scientific law has no known exceptions, or else it would not be a law in the first place. A “theory,” on the other hand, is merely an “attempt to explain” phenomena by deduction from other known principles (McGraw-Hill..., p. 2129). A theory may not be true, but a law, by definition, is always true. Since there are no known exceptions to scientific laws, would it not be unscientific for evolutionists to assert, without any scientific evidence, that there have been exceptions to the laws of science in the past?

Consider the Laws of Thermodynamics. A perpetual-motion machine is a device which attempts to violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics (Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 263). Numerous attempts have been made over the years to design such a machine—all to no avail. Such a machine would certainly be worth a large sum of money. However, a prominent Thermodynamics textbook used in mechanical engineering schools says concerning such attempts, “The proposers of perpetual-motion machines generally have innovative minds, but they usually lack formal engineering training” (Cengel and Boles, p. 265). Why would the writers make such a statement? The answer is that the Laws of Thermodynamics, which are taught in-depth in mechanical engineering curriculums, prohibit the design of such a machine. According to the textbook writers, to spend time and energy on such a pursuit categorizes the pursuer as unknowledgeable about such scientific truths. The Laws of Thermodynamics have been substantiated to the point that in 1918 the U.S. Patent Office declared that they would no longer accept patent applications for alleged perpetual-motion machines (Cengel and Boles, p. 265). Concerning patent application rejections, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website says, “a rejection on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion” (2008, emp. added).

As far as science can tell, its laws have never been violated. They are without exception. From a scientific perspective, the evolutionary model falls short of being able to account for the origin of the Universe. Indeed, it contradicts the known laws of science that govern the Universe. The creation model, on the other hand, is in perfect harmony with the laws of science.

REFERENCES

“706.03(a) Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101[R-5]-700 Examination of Applications” (2008), Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, United States Patent and Trademark Office, [On-line], URL:http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_03_a.htm.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Thompson, Bert (2002), The Scientific Case for Creation (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“Devoid of Any Understanding of Logic” by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=959

“Devoid of Any Understanding of Logic”

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

One can read all kinds of material on the Internet these days. Millions of Web pages flash across computer screens on a daily basis. A fraction of that material centers on the debate between creation and evolution. Both sides marshal their best defenses, and pump out information in support of their particular view. While it is understood that every person who produces material for one particular view is not the “official spokesperson” for that view, it is nonetheless very interesting to see what tactics are being used by certain evolutionists in their attempt to discredit creation.

Consider an article by Frank Zindler, for instance. The article is titled “ ‘Creation Science’ and the Facts of Evolution.” It is a rather dated article, being written back in 1987, but is currently posted on the American Atheists official Web site. From the fact that it is posted on the Web site of such a prominent atheistic organization, one can only conclude that the American Atheists organization concurs with the sentiments found in the article.

The article in question is a caustic attack against creation, as well as any person who adheres to this idea. In his attempt to discredit creation, Zindler informs the reader that he believes that most of those who believe in creation are quite “devoid of any understanding of logic.” When listing one of the reasons why he thinks creation is not a viable idea, he made this statement: “On the other hand, those components of creationism which involve certain types of magical events (e.g., the divine creation of a young universe with all of its components bearing the false imprint of great age) make the claims of creationism untestable—making creationism not a theory at all, because theories must be testable!”

Zindler then proceeded to explain that “the conclusion that evolution has occurred is drawn from two simple observations: Observation 1: Living things come only from living things. Spontaneous generation is not possible when living things are already in existence. Observation 2: Fossil remains show that living things in the remote past were very different from living things today. Therefore:Conclusion: Life has changed through time (evolved).”

Violà! In three simple sentences, Zindler presents his strongest case for evolution. Let’s briefly analyze Zindler’s logic. Remember that he claimed that most creationists were “devoid of any understanding of logic,” and that creationism could not qualify as a theory because, he says, it is untestable and “theories must be testable!”

Using his own criterion (testability) for a theory, apply his thinking to his first observation. He stated that spontaneous generation does not occur “when living things are already in existence.” The implied statement here is that life can spontaneously generate where there is not already life. In fact, he had an explanatory note beside his first observation. He said: “Life cannot originate now for at least two reasons.” The two reasons he listed were the fact that oxygen in the atmosphere would quickly destroy compounds necessary for life, and existing microbes would eat the compounds necessary for life. He went on to conclude, however that “neither of these roadblocks to spontaneous generation existed before life had formed.”

Please remember that his most important criterion for dubbing anything a legitimate theory is testability. Apply that to spontaneous generation. Can we do experiments that would test whether or not spontaneous generation could occur in an environment without oxygen and microbes to destroy the compounds necessary for life? Yes. And every origin of life experiment that has attempted such has failed miserably. Has any scientist anywhere, at any time, under any circumstance, ever been able to perform an experiment that could prove that spontaneous generation can occur? The answer is a resounding, NO! Spontaneous generation has failed in every single circumstance that we humans have ever been able to observe or imagine. In fact, every experiment performed to date has shown that it does not occur. It cannot be proven that our Earth’s atmosphere was at some time in the distant past devoid of oxygen and microbes. [In fact, scientists now have credible evidence that the early Earth’s atmosphere did, in fact, contain oxygen; see Thaxton, et al., 1984).] Furthermore, experiments have been performed that imitate an environment devoid of these “life inhibitors,” and still there has never been a verified case of spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation has been proven false.

If Zindler discredits the idea of creation based partially on his statement that certain components cannot be tested, then what, pray tell, does he do when his strongest case for evolution is based on an idea that has been tested and found to be false? And who is it that seems to be “devoid of any understanding of logic” in this particular discussion? Zindler’s statements not withstanding, creation by the hand of a Supernatural Creator is the only idea that can adequately account for the world around us.

REFERENCES

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen (1984), The Mystery of Life's Origin (New York: Philosophical Library).

Zindler, Frank (1987), “ ‘Creation Science’ and the Facts of Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/creationscience.html.