From Gary... Bible Reading March 1

Bible Reading 

March 1

The World English Bible

Mar.1

Exodus 11

Exo 11:1 Yahweh said to Moses, "Yet one plague more will I bring on Pharaoh, and on Egypt; afterwards he will let you go. When he lets you go, he will surely thrust you out altogether.

Exo 11:2 Speak now in the ears of the people, and let them ask every man of his neighbor, and every woman of her neighbor, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold."

Exo 11:3 Yahweh gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people.

Exo 11:4 Moses said, "This is what Yahweh says: 'About midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt,

Exo 11:5 and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the female servant who is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of livestock.

Exo 11:6 There shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there has not been, nor shall be any more.

Exo 11:7 But against any of the children of Israel a dog won't even bark or move its tongue, against man or animal; that you may know that Yahweh makes a distinction between the Egyptians and Israel.

Exo 11:8 All these your servants shall come down to me, and bow down themselves to me, saying, "Get out, with all the people who follow you;" and after that I will go out.' " He went out from Pharaoh in hot anger.

Exo 11:9 Yahweh said to Moses, "Pharaoh won't listen to you, that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt."

Exo 11:10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh, and Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he didn't let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Mar.1, 2

Mark 3

Mar 3:1 He entered again into the synagogue, and there was a man there who had his hand withered.

Mar 3:2 They watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day, that they might accuse him.

Mar 3:3 He said to the man who had his hand withered, "Stand up."

Mar 3:4 He said to them, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? To save a life, or to kill?" But they were silent.

Mar 3:5 When he had looked around at them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their hearts, he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored as healthy as the other.

Mar 3:6 The Pharisees went out, and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

Mar 3:7 Jesus withdrew to the sea with his disciples, and a great multitude followed him from Galilee, from Judea,

Mar 3:8 from Jerusalem, from Idumaea, beyond the Jordan, and those from around Tyre and Sidon. A great multitude, hearing what great things he did, came to him.

Mar 3:9 He spoke to his disciples that a little boat should stay near him because of the crowd, so that they wouldn't press on him.

Mar 3:10 For he had healed many, so that as many as had diseases pressed on him that they might touch him.

Mar 3:11 The unclean spirits, whenever they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, "You are the Son of God!"

Mar 3:12 He sternly warned them that they should not make him known.

Mar 3:13 He went up into the mountain, and called to himself those whom he wanted, and they went to him.

Mar 3:14 He appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them out to preach,

Mar 3:15 and to have authority to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons:

Mar 3:16 Simon, to whom he gave the name Peter;

Mar 3:17 James the son of Zebedee; John, the brother of James, and he surnamed them Boanerges, which means, Sons of Thunder;

Mar 3:18 Andrew; Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of Alphaeus; Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot;

Mar 3:19 and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. He came into a house.

Mar 3:20 The multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.

Mar 3:21 When his friends heard it, they went out to seize him: for they said, "He is insane."

Mar 3:22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, "He has Beelzebul," and, "By the prince of the demons he casts out the demons."

Mar 3:23 He summoned them, and said to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?

Mar 3:24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

Mar 3:25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Mar 3:26 If Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he can't stand, but has an end.

Mar 3:27 But no one can enter into the house of the strong man to plunder, unless he first binds the strong man; and then he will plunder his house.

Mar 3:28 Most certainly I tell you, all sins of the descendants of man will be forgiven, including their blasphemies with which they may blaspheme;

Mar 3:29 but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"

Mar 3:30 -because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."

Mar 3:31 His mother and his brothers came, and standing outside, they sent to him, calling him.

Mar 3:32 A multitude was sitting around him, and they told him, "Behold, your mother, your brothers, and your sisters are outside looking for you."

Mar 3:33 He answered them, "Who are my mother and my brothers?"

Mar 3:34 Looking around at those who sat around him, he said, "Behold, my mother and my brothers!

Mar 3:35 For whoever does the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother."

From Jim McGuiggan.. Should we or should we not?

Should we or should we not?

Where lies the cure for our sinning? Should we be looking for a cure?

“We should be pursuing holiness!”

Indeed we should; but should the pursuit of holiness be a self-conscious pursuit? I want to be better? God forgive me, if I’m not endlessly grinding my teeth over my sins I’m ceaselessly examining myself for signs of growth in holiness or coming up with schemes that "without a doubt" will enrich my spiritual llife. In either case I continue to put myself at the centre of the universe!

There's something I can't quite get a handle on but I think it’s the direction we should be going. My suspicion is that Jesus was the most unselfconscious person that ever lived. I think his eyes were so focussed on his Father and the Father's purpose for the world that he lost sight of himself altogether.

And when he did speak or think of himself it was as if he were thinking of someone else ("The Son of Man must…" this or that); as if he were thinking of someone he knew who had a destiny and a mission. I suspect that he didn't spend time thinking, "I must become holier!" My guess is that he became obsessed with his Father's heart and purpose toward a sinning and suffering humanity that he forgot to pursue holiness because he didn't need to consciously pursue holiness (as though it were a major project orthe major project).

In admiring his Father, in admiring his purposes he grew more and more like him (didn’t I read somewhere that he "grew in wisdom and in...favour with God and men"?) The call to holiness in Hebrews 12:14 is one we dare not ignore or minimise and yet at the same time it is a concession to our sinfulness. He wouldn't have to say such a thing to Jesus!

Since we can't match him in such a dimension—what is there for us? I can't say with any certainty; but maybe if by the Spirit we can take our eyes off ourselves and become astonished at God and his Son we'd see a change. We can do that by a more sustained, focussed and hungry reflection on them in the Word--who knows, something wondrous might happen. Maybe it'd be better to do that than to be forever looking in a mirror at our own image.[Balance this where you must.]

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

Jesse's Missing Son by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=799&b=1%20Samuel

Jesse's Missing Son

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Some time ago, I received a letter from a woman who was seeking an answer to a question that an unbeliever had presented to her. The question that gave her so much trouble, and that seemed to plant a seed of doubt in her mind about the inerrancy of Scripture, was this: “Did Jesse (the father of David) have seven sons or eight?” This question arises from a comparison of the information about Jesse’s family in 1 Samuel 16-17 with the genealogy given in 1 Chronicles chapter two.

First Samuel 16 states that Jesse made seven sons pass before the prophet Samuel, in hopes that God would anoint one of them as the next king of Israel (16:10). Samuel then informed Jesse that God had not chosen any of these seven sons that passed before him, but was looking for another. Of course, that other son was David, “the youngest” (16:11) of Jesse’s “eight sons” (17:12). The “problem” with this information is that the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 specifically states that David was “the seventh” son of Jesse. How is it that David could be both the seventh son and eighth son of Jesse? Some are eager to call this a legitimate Bible contradiction. Even many Bible students (like the one who wrote me about this question) read these statements for the first time and wonder if this is an “inconsistency in the Word.” What is the answer? How many sons did Jesse have? And was David Jesse’s eighth son or seventh?

The answer is really quite simple. It seems that one of Jesse’s sons shown to Samuel at Bethlehem must have died while young and without posterity. Thus, at one time David was the youngest of eight sons, and at another time he was the youngest of sevensons. We must keep in mind that Hebrew genealogies often included only the names of those who have some significance for future generations (Richards, 1993, p. 106; Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986). It makes sense that if one of David’s brothers died before marrying and begetting children (or before doing something extraordinary), he would not have been mentioned.

Lest you think this situation sounds too bizarre, consider the following. Fifty years ago, whenever my father engaged in a discussion about his family, he would tell people that he had five brothers and two sisters. Today, when he converses with others about his family he often speaks of his four brothers and two sisters. Is he being dishonest when he does so? No. Sadly, when my dad was 19 years old, one of his younger brothers died in a tragic accident. Although this brother was loved deeply and is missed greatly, usually when my father is asked about his siblings he simply says: “I have four brothers and two sisters.” If he has time or feels there is a need, he then will mention his other brother who died at a very young age. The point is, whether my dad tells someone that he is the oldest of eight children or the oldest of seven children, he is telling the truth.

Admittedly, the Bible does not say specifically that one of David’s brothers died at a young age. But, it most likely is implying such a thing when one less son is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15. [And considering David’s three oldest brothers were warriors in Saul’s army (1 Samuel 17:13ff), one certainly would not be surprised if one of David’s other brothers also became a soldier and died in battle.]

To say that one of David’s brothers dying at a relatively young age is not an option is to assert that the Bible does not teach by implication. [Yet, as anyone who has studied the Bible knows, it most certainly does teach by implication (cf. Acts 8:35-36).] Furthermore, if people today who have lost children or siblings can speak legitimately about their family number in two different ways, should we not also give Bible writers the same freedom in their recording of historical families?

REFERENCES

“Genealogy,” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Thomas Nelson Publishers).

Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).

Did God Send an Evil Spirit upon Saul? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1278&b=1%20Samuel

Did God Send an Evil Spirit upon Saul?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The nature of God is such that He never would do anything that is out of harmony with His divine essence. Being infinite in all of His attributes (including goodness and compassion), He never would mistreat anyone, manifest partiality or injustice, or do something that may be legitimately indicted as wrong (Genesis 18:25). “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without injustice; righteous and upright is He” (Deuteronomy 32:4). That being the case, how does one explain the following: “But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit from the Lord troubled him” (1 Samuel 16:14); “And it happened on the next day that the distressing spirit from God came upon Saul” (1 Samuel 18:10; cf. 19:9; Judges 9:23)? Did God supernaturally afflict Saul with a demonic spirit that, in turn, overruled Saul’s ability to be responsible for his own actions?

At least three clarifications are worthy of consideration. First, the Bible frequently refers to acts of deserved punishment that God has inflicted upon people throughout history. For example, He brought a global deluge against the Earth’s population (Genesis 6-9) due to rampant human wickedness and depravity (6:5). God did not act inappropriately in doing so, not only because the people deserved nothing less, but also because He repeatedly warned the people of impending disaster, and was longsuffering in giving them ample opportunity to repent (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:9). The Bible provides instance after instance where evil people received their “just desserts.” God is not to be blamed nor deemed unjust for levying deserved punishment for sin, even as honest, impartial judges in America today are not culpable when they mete out just penalties for criminal behavior. Retribution upon flagrant, ongoing, impenitent lawlessness is not only right and appropriate; it is absolutely indispensable and necessary (see Miller, 2002).

In this case, Saul was afflicted with “an evil spirit” as a punishment for his insistent defiance of God’s will. He had committed flagrant violation of God’s commands on two previous occasions (1 Samuel 13:13-14; 15:11,19). His persistence in this lifelongpattern of disobedient behavior certainly deserved direct punitive response from God (e.g., 31:4). As Keil and Delitzsch maintained: “This demon is called ‘an evil spirit (coming) from Jehovah,’ because Jehovah had sent it as a punishment” (1976, 2:170). John W. Haley added: “And he has a punitive purpose in granting this permission. He uses evil to chastise evil” (1977, p. 142). Of course, the reader needs to be aware of the fact that the term for “evil” is a broad term that need not refer to spiritual wickedness. In fact, it often refers to physical harm or painful hardship (e.g., Genesis 19:19; 2 Samuel 17:14).

A second clarification regarding the sending of an evil spirit upon Saul is the question of, in what sense the spirit was “from the Lord.” To be honest and fair, the biblical interpreter must be willing to allow the peculiar linguistic features of ancient languages to be clarified and understood in accordance with the way those languages functioned. Specifically, ancient Hebrew (like most all other languages, then and now) was literally loaded with figurative language—i.e., figures of speech, Semitisms, colloquialisms, and idioms. It frequently was the case that “[a]ctive verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but thepermission of the thing which the agent is said to do” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 823, emp. in orig.; cf. MacKnight, 1954, p. 29). Similarly, the figure of speech known as “metonymy of the subject” occurs “[w]here the action is put for the declaration concerning it: or where what is said to be done is put for what is declared, or permitted, or foretold as to be done: or where an action, said to be done, is put for the giving occasion for such action” (Bullinger, p. 570, italics in orig., emp. added). Hence, when the Bible says that the “distressing spirit” that troubled Saul was “from the Lord,” the writer was using an idiom to indicate that the Lord allowed or permitted the distressing spirit to come upon Saul. George Williams commented: “What God permits He is stated in the Bible to perform” (1960, p. 127).

In this second case, God did not directly send upon Saul an evil spirit; rather He allowed it to happen in view of Saul’s own propensity for stubborn disobedience. Gleason Archer commented on this point: “By these successive acts of rebellion against the will and law of God, King Saul left himself wide open to satanic influence—just as Judas Iscariot did after he had determined to betray the Lord Jesus” (1982, p. 179). One need not necessarily suppose that this demonic influence overwhelmed Saul’s free will. Satan can have power over us only insofar as we encourage or invite him to do so—“for what God fills not, the devil will” (Clarke, n.d., 2:259).

It is particularly interesting to note how the Bible links the frequent attempts at subversion by Satan with the redemptive scheme of God to provide atonement through the Christ. David, an ancestor of Christ, had to face Satan in the form of this “evil spirit” that sought to harm him through Saul, even as Jesus Himself had to face Satan’s attempts to subvert Him (Genesis 3:15; Matthew 4:1-11; cf. Matthew 2:16; Hebrews 2:14; Revelation 12:4). Williams went on to observe: “This explains why so many of those who were the ancestors of Christ were the objects of Satan’s peculiar cunning and hatred” (p. 153).

A third consideration regarding the “evil spirit” that came upon Saul is the fact that the term “spirit” (ruach) has a wide range of meanings: air (i.e., breath or wind); the vital principle of life or animating force; the rational mind where thinking and decision-making occurs; the Holy Spirit of God (Gesenius, 1847, pp. 760-761), and even disposition of mind or attitude (Harris, et al., 1980, 2:836). Likewise, the word translated “evil” (KJV), “distressing” (NKJV), or “injurious” (NIV margin) is a word (ra‘a) that can mean “bad,” “unhappy,” or “sad of heart or mind” (Gesenius, p. 772). It can refer to “a variety of negative attitudes common to wicked people, and be extended to include the consequences of that kind of lifestyle” (Harris, et al., 2:856).

In view of these linguistic data, the “evil spirit” that came upon Saul may well have been his own bad attitude—his ugly disposition of mind—that he manifested over and over again. Here is a persistent problem with which so many people grapple—the need to get their attitude straight regarding God’s will for their lives, and the need to have an unselfish approach to life and the people around them. We can be “our own worst enemy.” Such certainly was the case with Saul—and he bore total responsibility for his own actions. He could not blame God or an external “evil spirit.” Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown summarize this point quite adequately: “His own gloomy reflections—the consciousness that he had not acted up to the character of an Israelitish king—the loss of his throne, and the extinction of his royal house, made him jealous, irritable, vindictive, and subject to fits of morbid melancholy” (n.d., p. 185). Indeed, all people ultimately choose to allow Satan to rule them by their capitulation to their own sinful inclinations, desires, and decisions (cf. Genesis 4:7; Luke 22:3; Acts 5:3).

In view of these considerations, God and the Bible are exonerated from wrongdoing in the matter of Saul being the recipient of an evil spirit. When adequate evidence is gathered, the facts may be understood in such a way that God is shown to be righteous and free from unfair treatment of Saul. Like every other accountable human being who has ever lived, Saul made his own decisions, and reaped the consequences accordingly.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Joshua-Esther (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).

Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).

Haley, John W. (1977 reprint), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (no date), A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

MacKnight, James (1954 reprint), Apostolic Epistles (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Miller, Dave (2002), “Capital Punishment and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974

Williams, George (1960), The Student’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), sixth edition.

A.P. Hits a Nerve by A.P. Staff

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1793

A.P. Hits a Nerve

by	A.P. Staff

If you have kept up with our products in the past, you know that Apologetics Press has courageously tackled morally sensitive issues that merit attention. With our most recently published book, Does God Love Michael’s Two Daddies?, we have struck a major nerve in our society. The book presents the truth that God loves all people, but He demands that those who adopt sinful lifestyles such as homosexuality must repent in order be saved eternally. We sent the book to the American Family Association, who favorably reviewed it in their Journal in September which has a circulation of over 100,000. AFA also included A.P.’s Web address and mentioned that the book could be obtained directly from the Apologetics Press Web site. The review reads:

Kids Book Explains Biblical Perspective on Gay Marriage

Same-sex marriage is controversial among adults in the U.S., but for children—and especially Christian children—the subject is sure to be confusing, too.

A new book from Apologetics Press helps parents address with their children the matter of gay marriage. Does God Love Michael’s Two Daddies? focuses on Seth and Sarah, twins who meet a new friend named Michael on the first day of a new school year. When Michael announces that his two daddies are thinking about getting married, the twins get confused. They ask their parents about it that night at dinner.

“For the last 15 years, the homosexual community has been publishing children’s books promoting homosexuality, starting with the book Heather Has Two Mommies. Other books such as Daddy’s Roommate and My Two Uncles have followed suit,” the organization says on its Web site (www.apologeticspress.org). “To our knowledge, no comparable children’s book designed to combat the promotion of homosexuality is available on the market—until now.”

Does God Love Michael’s Two Daddies? is beautifully illustrated and well written, and the subject matter is handled sensitively. Moreover, the presentation of the Biblical message is done in a manner that would teach children to have compassion for those in the homosexual lifestyle (“Kids Book Explains...,” 2006).

According to the records we have available, we received more page hits to our site in September than we have ever received in any single month (i.e., 322,000).

But the attention given to this new book has not all been favorable. In fact, those who support the homosexual lifestyle have begun to speak against the book and against Apologetics Press. For instance, one pro-homosexual Web site, titled Good As You discussed Does God Love Michael’s Two Daddies. Needless to say, the site was anything but flattering. Near the end of the discussion, the author sarcastically said: “Be sure to look for future titles from Apologetics Press, including the eagerly anticipated Hey Dad, Is Johnny’s Mom the Alcho-W---e Gonna Burn?, the revelatory But Mom, Why Do You Have Your Own Opinion When The Bible Says You Slould [sic] Be Submissive To Dad? and the feel-good Yo Sis, Isn’t It Great That Our Parents’ Are Holier Than Thou And Have All of the Answers?” (“Kids Read...,” 2006). As can be seen from such statements, God’s truth regarding homosexuality was lost on this sarcastic, irreverent reviewer. Another pro-homosexual site stated: “Good As You has the dirt on what appears to be the religious conservative answer to Heather Has Two Mommies. It’s called (wait for it) Does God Love Michael’s Two Daddies? My guess is that the answer may not be a firm “no” but closer to ‘Kinda. Sorta. But...’” (Terrance DC, 2006). Such criticism from the pro-homosexual community is to be expected when the biblical perspective on gay marriage is defended. In fact, Jesus once said: “Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets” (Luke 6:26).

What a shame that our society is slipping into a quagmire of moral erosion in which children at relatively early ages are forced to deal with such sensitive issues as homosexual marriages. A few short years ago, such issues could have been avoided until later in life. Now they are being pushed on our nation’s youth by school systems, media, and even some governmental institutions. It is imperative that children be taught the “biblical perspective” regarding homosexuality and gay marriage. We, at A.P., are set for the defense of the biblical position concerning homosexuality.

REFERENCES

“Kids Book Explains Biblical Perspective on Gay Marriage” (2006), AFA Journal, September, [On-line],URL: http://www.afajournal.org/2006/september/0906noi.asp#kids.

“Kids Read the D--nation-est Things” (2006), Good As You, [On-line], URL: http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2006/09/kids_read_the_d.html.

Terrance DC (2006), “Queerly Kos,” [On-line], url: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/15/15275/2323.

Abortion & Mental Health by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1724

Abortion & Mental Health

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

As the abortion debate continues to rage in America, the evidence continues to mount—not only that the pre-born infant is human—but that abortion is also harmful to the mother. For example, University of Oslo researchers conducted a study in which they compared the psychological after-effects of miscarriage and abortion (“Abortion ‘Leaves...,’” 2005). While miscarriage was associated with more mental distress in the six months after the loss of a baby, abortion had a much longer lasting negative effect. Anne Nordal Broen, the leader of the team of researchers, said the responses of the women in the miscarriage group were similar to those expected after a traumatic life event. But the abortion group had more complex responses. Anna Pringle, spokesperson for the anti-abortion charity Life, observed: “This confirms years of experience with women who come to us for counseling after abortion. The emotional suffering can be massive” (“Abortion ‘Leaves...’”). Richard Warren, from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, agreed: “It has always been considered, and this study also shows, that the decision to terminate may bring with it long-standing feelings of anxiety and guilt” (“Abortion ‘Leaves...’”).

Additional evidence comes from New Zealand—a country where abortion is legal. Researchers for the Christchurch Health and Development Study conducted a 25-year longitudinal study on the long-term effects of abortion on the mental health of young women ages 15 to 25. Reporting their results in theJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, the scientists found that those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, and drug-use disorders. Their conclusion: “The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems” (Fergusson, et al., 2006, 47[1]:16).

These findings are congruent with the Bible’s insistence that abortion, like other sins, is not only spiritually destructive (Miller, 2003), but psychologically and emotionally damaging as well (Proverbs 15:13-15; Isaiah 57:20-21). Those who are acquainted with the God of the Bible and His Word are aware that when His directives are violated, adverse consequences inevitably ensue. Since the Creator has provided His creatures with insight regarding how life is to be lived and how happiness may be achieved, going against His will results, not only in spiritual destruction, but in physical, emotional, and psychological devastation as well. The pagan nations that killed their own children were denounced by God as evil, committing abomination, and engaging in an action that He would never think of commanding them to do (Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35). When Christian ethics are abandoned, the negative ramifications are extensive and far-reaching. Indeed, “[t]he fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10). It is He Who insists that we recognize that “children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3). Conformity to His instructions will result in positive mental health and the peace that “surpasses all understanding” (Philippians 4:7).

REFERENCES

“Abortion ‘Leaves Mental Legacy’” (2005), BBC News, December 12, [On-line], URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4520576.stm.

Fergusson, David M., L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder (2006), “Abortion in Young Women and Subsequent Mental Health,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47[1]:16, January, [On-line], URL: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j. 1469-7610.2005.01538.x?prevSearch=allfield%3A%28abortion%29.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.

“Documented” Transitional Forms? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2437

“Documented” Transitional Forms?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The cover of the March 1-7, 2008 issue of New Scientist pictures an illustrator’s attempt at drawing a half fish, half reptilian creature. Above the illustration is the title: “Amazing Missing Links: Creatures that Reveal the Real Power of Evolution.” Allegedly, evolutionists “have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils” (Prothero, 2008, 197[2645]:35). After his introductory comments, the author, Donald Prothero, listed several alleged transitional fossils, which supposedly “are conclusive proof that evolution has occurred, and is still occurring” (p. 41). Included in this list were a variety of animals—from velvet worms to dinosaurs, and giraffes to manatees. Readers, however, have to go no further than Prothero’s introduction to see the inaccuracy of his assertions.

Prothero introduced his list of transitional forms, that supposedly prove evolution, with two examples that science dealt a crushing blow to long ago. Prothero wrote: “Darwin’s 1859 prediction that transitional forms would be found was quickly confirmed. In 1861 the first specimen of Archaeopteryx—a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds—was discovered, and in the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented” (p. 35, emp. added). Of the alleged “numerous fossils and fossil sequences showing evolutionary change,” Prothero chose to begin his article withArchaeopteryx and the “sequence of horse fossils,” both of which are supposedly “documented” proof of evolution. In truth, Archaeopteryx and the horse family tree do not even come close to confirming evolution.

Regarding horse evolution, the fossil record simply does not bear out what New Scientist writer Prothero claimed. In fact, due to the severe lack of fossil evidence linking the various horse “family members” together, even prominent evolutionists have abandoned the “horse evolution” argument. Prothero claimed that as far back as “the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented” (p. 35). Since that time, however, evolutionists such as Dr. George Gaylord Simpson have admitted, “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature” (Simpson, 1953, p. 125, emp. added). In a 2000 article that appeared in the journal Natural History, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould criticized science textbooks’ use of misinformation surrounding the evolution of horses. He wrote:

Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed...) [2000, 109[2]:45, emp. added].

In light of such statements by renowned evolutionists, one wonders how Prothero can be so confident that the evolution of horses was documented by fossils as far back as the 1870s. Is Prothero’s article just another example of how “misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent” in many evolutionary writings?

And what about Archaeopteryx? Is it a “confirmed” transitional form, as Prothero asserted? Simply because Archaeopteryx has teeth in its beak and claws on its wings, does not prove that it was the transitional form between reptiles and birds. Consider that some modern birds have claws on their wings, and yet no one thinks of them as being missing links. The African bird known as touraco has claws on its wings, as does the hoatzin of South America when it is young. Both of these birds use their fully functional claws to grasp branches and climb trees. If you have ever seen an ostrich close up, you might have noticed that it, too, has claws on each wing and can use them if attacked. Obviously, simply because a bird in the fossil record is discovered with claws on its wings does not mean that it is a transitional fossil.

In 1993, Science News reported that an odd fossil bird had been unearthed in Mongolia. It supposedly is millions of years younger than Archaeopteryx and, interestingly, had teeth in its beak (Monasterky, 1993, 143:245). As with the claws on the wings of Archaeopteryx, evolutionists cannot prove that the presence of teeth make the animal something more than a bird. What’s more, consider that while most reptiles have teeth, turtles do not. And, some fish and amphibians have teeth, while other fish and amphibians have no teeth. How can evolutionists be so sure that Archaeopteryx’s teeth make it a dinosaur-bird link? Such an assertion is based on unprovable assumptions.

Archaeopteryx also had fully formed feathers, just like living birds. Fossils of Archaeopteryx leave no hint of the animal being a half-scaly/half-feathered creature. It was not in some kind of in-between stage. Furthermore, “[e]xperts don’t know what Archaeopteryx’s closest [alleged—EL] dinosaur ancestor looked like—fossils haven’t yet been found” (“Fossil Evidence,” 2007), i.e., evolutionists have been entirely unsuccessful in finding any actual transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.

Finally, what makes the suggestion that Archaeopteryx was the missing link between reptiles and birds even more unbelievable is that “[a]nother bird fossil found in the desert of west Texas in 1983,Protoavis, is dated even earlier, 75 million years before Archaeopteryx” (DeYoung, 2000, p. 37, emp. added). Although some paleontologists have questions about the fossil remains of Protoavis (birds, after all, were not supposed to be around with the “earliest dinosaurs”), Dr. Chatterjee of Texas Tech University “has pointed out, the skull of Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle” (Harrub and Thompson, 2001). In 1991, Sciencemagazine ran a story titled, “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” wherein Alan Anderson wrote: “His [Chaterjee’s—EL] reconstruction also shows a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs” (253:35).

The fact is, the fossil record does not, in any way, demonstrate that dinosaurs evolved into birds or that horses evolved from little dog-like creatures. Ironically, although Prothero, writing for New Scientist, wrote that a “favourite lie” of creationists is ‘there are no transitional fossils’” (2008, 197[2645]:35), evolutionist Mark Ridley wrote an article for the same journal 27 years earlier and confessed that “no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...” (1981, 90:832, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Anderson, Alan (1991), “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” Science, 253:35, July 5.

DeYoung, Don (2000), Dinosaurs and Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

“Fossil Evidence” (2007), NOVA, [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html.

Gould, Stephen Jay (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious),” Natural History, 109[2]:42-50, March.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2001), “Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the ‘Dinosaurs-to-Birds’ Theory [Part 1],” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/473.

Monastersky, Richard (1993), “A Clawed Wonder Unearthed in Mongolia,” Science News, 143:245, April 17.

Prothero, Donald (2008), “What Missing Link?” New Scientist, 197[2645]:35-41, March 1-7.

Ridley, Mark (1981), “Who Doubts Evolution?” New Scientist, June 25, 90:832.

Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

“Emotional Blocks or Plain Bigotry,” or Something Else? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=182

“Emotional Blocks or Plain Bigotry,” or Something Else?

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Allegedly, “it was Darwin, above all others, who first marshaled convincing evidence for biological evolution...” (“Evidence Supporting...” 1999). Creationists insist that their point of view is substantiated by evidence, so it is natural that evolutionists claim to bolster their theory by pointing to evidence. Frequently, evolutionary scientists proclaim to have found original, striking evidence that confirms beyond doubt the factuality of the naturalistic view of origins. One hardly can scan the morning paper or search the Internet without seeing a new piece of “evidence.”

Is such evidence piled so high that creationists have no hope of climbing high enough even to stage an argument? As Trevor Major noted: “Indeed, newspaper stories frequently talk about ‘creationism’ versus ‘evolution’ as if belief in creation were exactly that—an ‘ism’—whereas evolution is an established fact” (2000). Stephen J. Gould put it strongly, if not without contradiction:

“[E]volution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered” (1983, pp. 254-255).

And perhaps Dobzhansky summarized the prevailing view of the scientific community when he wrote: “Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry” (1983, p. 27).

Are creationists so skewed in their perceptions of the data that they are blind to a mountain of undeniable evolutionary evidence, ignoring the proverbial elephant in their own living rooms? Are they just ignoring what the New England Skeptical Society calls “the mountain of evidence for evolution” (see “Intelligent Design”)? Francois Tremblay echoes: “How do [creationists—CC] refute the mountain of evidence for evolution?” (2003). Richard Dawkins affirms: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (1989, p. 7, emp. in orig.). Gould, Dobzhansky, Dawkins, and many others would be troubled by the fact that there are those who, “hampered” by a belief in God, “just don’t get it.”

Consider this important principle: If someone labels data, even a large set of data, as “evidence” for his theory, the data may or may not support his theory. The law of rationality dictates that a person draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence (Pugh, 2002, p. 29). However, a person may label anything as evidence, whether or not it supports his theory. Quite simply, a lot of data may not support a particular view simply because a person says it does. More data does not necessarily equal stronger evidence. We must analyze each new piece of data to see how, and whether, it bears on the origins discussion. This is a Scriptural process. “‘Present your case,’ says the Lord, ‘Bring forth your strong reasons, says the King of Jacob’” (Isaiah 41:21). Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to “test all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Jesus rebuked the apostles for initially questioning the evidence for His resurrection (Mark 16:14; cf. Gray, 2005, pp. 216ff.).

Sadly, personal prejudice or wishful thinking might cause one to believe that theory is fact without full knowledge or understanding of the facts. For example, consider the University of California at Berkeley’s “Understanding Evolution” Web site (“Understanding Evolution,” n.d.). In 1956, American geologist Clair Patterson announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. He based his old age for the Earth upon “evidence” from radiometric dating. Since then, it has been shown that radiometric dating systems are unreliable because they are based on groundless assumptions (see Jackson, 2003, pp.13-22; cf. Harrub, 2003). However, the Berkeley site continues to offer radiometric dating as an evidence for an old Earth and naturalism (“Radiometric Dating,” n.d.).

Similar criticism has disproved other alleged evidences for evolution, such as homology, horse evolution, the geologic column, and many others. Living things, such as viruses, may exhibit microevolution but not macroevolution (cf. Harrub, 2001). We could go on. What of that mountain of evidence for evolution? If we may subtract evidence supported by radiometric dating methods from the mountain of evidence, should we remove other portions of the mountain? How much of the mountain would be left if we removed all the pieces that resulted from irrational conclusions?

Bruce Silverthorne observed: “Evidence...makes us honest when we are asked to form and explain premises” (2004, p. 145). Both evolutionists and creationists should be honest when addressing the evidence. The Christian must be careful of “pursuing the inquiry with so fixed a determination that the Bible shall be found true, as to lead him to accept shallow sophisms for sound arguments, and to disregard the force of serious objections” (McGarvey, 1974, p. 3). Unfortunately, many will fail to analyze data, will feel that the “evidence” for evolution is too strong, and therefore will blindly subscribe to evolution. Our plea is that they will pay close attention to what scientists and others offer as evidence supporting their theory.

REFERENCES

“Intelligent Design” (no date), The New England Skeptical Society, [On-line], URL:http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=31.

Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review,” The New York Times, section 7, p. 34. April 9.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1983), “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,”Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy, ed. J. Peter Zetterberg (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx).

Gould, Stephen Jay (1983), Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes (New York: W.W. Norton).

Gray, Phillip A. (2005), Training Manual for Cultural Combat: Apologetics and Preaching for the Postmodern Mind (Altamonte Springs, FL: Advantage).

Harrub, Brad (2001), “Are Viruses Really ‘Evolving’?,” [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1017.

Harrub, Brad (2003), “When Dating Methods Don’t Agree,” [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=703.

Jackson, Wayne (2003), Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth (Stockton, CA: Courier), second edition.

Major, Trevor (2000), “The Intelligent Design Movement [Part I],” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2514.

McGarvey, J.W. (1974), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

“Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution” (1999), A View from the National Academy of Sciences, [On-line], URL: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html.

Pugh, Charles (2002), Things Most Surely Believed (Sugarcreek, OH: Schlabach).

“Radiometric Dating” (no date), University of California at Berkeley[On-line], URL: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_23.

Silverthorne, Bruce K. (2004), The Pest Control Technician’s Guide to Christian Faith (Salt Lake City, UT: Millennial Mind).

Tremblay, Francois (2003), “The Intellectual Poverty of Creationism,” [On-line], URL: http://www.liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/IntellectualPoverty.html.

“Understanding Evolution” (no date), University of California at Berkeley, [On-line], URL: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.