From Gary... That third side

Recently, I found my DVD collection of the "Waltons". Both Linda and I have enjoyed watching it from the beginning and have often commented how the world has changed since World War II.  I wonder: what really caused the change?  Humm, this picture says it all (even though it is a bit hard to read)There are two sides to every story. As far as it goes, this statement iscorrect.

People will do, what people will do- because they think that they are right. But what if EVERYONE IS RIGHT? Answer- then there is no right!!!

I wonder, can one person be more right than another? The Bible says...

Proverbs, Chapter 18 (WEB)

 17 He who pleads his cause first seems right;

until another comes and questions him.

Matthew, Chapter 5 (WEB)

 21  “You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones, ‘You shall not murder;’ and ‘Whoever shall murder shall be in danger of the judgment.’   22  But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca! ’ shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.

27  “You have heard that it was said,  ‘You shall not commit adultery;’  28  but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.   29  If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.   30  If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.

 31  “It was also said, ‘Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce,’  32  but I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery. 

  33  “Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time, ‘You shall not make false vows, but shall perform to the Lord your vows,’   34  but I tell you, don’t swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God;   35  nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.   36  Neither shall you swear by your head, for you can’t make one hair white or black.   37  But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’ be ‘No.’ Whatever is more than these is of the evil one. 

  38  “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’  39  But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.   40  If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.   41  Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.   42  Give to him who asks you, and don’t turn away him who desires to borrow from you. 

  43  “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.’  44  But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,   45  that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.   46  For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?   47  If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?   48  Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. 

Matthew, Chapter 17 (WEB)

  1 After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves.  2 He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light.  3 Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him. 

  4  Peter answered, and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you want, let’s make three tents here: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 

  5  While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them. Behold, a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him.” 

Matthew, Chapter 28 (WEB)

 16  But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had sent them.  17 When they saw him, they bowed down to him, but some doubted.  18 Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. 

Ecclesiastes, Chapter 12 (WEB)

 13  This is the end of the matter. All has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.  14 For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil. 

Human reasoning can become a twisted maze of "logic" than can mean anything. And even the best human argument can be destroyed (Prov. 18 above) A lawyer friend of mine proved this to me by taking a concept and arguing first the "pro" and then the "con" view- and each time proving logically that each side was correct!!! 

So, who is right? The person with the best analytical skills? I think NOT!  

Proverbs, Chapter 16 (WEB)

  25 There is a way which seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death.

If you really want to know right from wrong, correct from incorrect, consult your Maker, and learn from the word of God. But, be prepared; truth may not always be what you have been led to believe.

In the verses from Matthew 5, Jesus confronts man's truth, with God's truth and some hated Jesus enough to crucify him. Others (even his own apostles) wouldn't listen or believe (Matt.17 and 28).

Consider, there is a third side to truth (my side, your side and GOD'S SIDE). Embrace God's side, follow Jesus and live. I especially like how Solomon put it...

Ecclesiastes, Chapter 12 (WEB)

 13  This is the end of the matter. All has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.  14 For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it is good, or whether it is evil. 

The only thing that remains is the question: Will I listen, or not?

From Gary... Bible Reading March 28

Bible Reading  

March 28

The World English Bible

Mar. 28

Leviticus 11, 12

Lev 11:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them,

Lev 11:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'These are the living things which you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth.

Lev 11:3 Whatever parts the hoof, and is cloven-footed, and chews the cud among the animals, that you may eat.

Lev 11:4 " 'Nevertheless these you shall not eat of those that chew the cud, or of those who part the hoof: the camel, because he chews the cud but doesn't have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you.

Lev 11:5 The coney, because he chews the cud but doesn't have a parted hoof, he is unclean to you.

Lev 11:6 The hare, because she chews the cud but doesn't part the hoof, she is unclean to you.

Lev 11:7 The pig, because he has a split hoof, and is cloven-footed, but doesn't chew the cud, he is unclean to you.

Lev 11:8 Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch; they are unclean to you.

Lev 11:9 " 'These you may eat of all that are in the waters: whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, that you may eat.

Lev 11:10 All that don't have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination to you,

Lev 11:11 and you detest them. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall detest their carcasses.

Lev 11:12 Whatever has no fins nor scales in the waters, that is an abomination to you.

Lev 11:13 " 'These you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the vulture, and the black vulture,

Lev 11:14 and the red kite, any kind of black kite,

Lev 11:15 any kind of raven,

Lev 11:16 the horned owl, the screech owl, and the gull, any kind of hawk,

Lev 11:17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl,

Lev 11:18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,

Lev 11:19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat.

Lev 11:20 " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are an abomination to you.

Lev 11:21 Yet you may eat these: of all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to hop on the earth.

Lev 11:22 Even of these you may eat: any kind of locust, any kind of katydid, any kind of cricket, and any kind of grasshopper.

Lev 11:23 But all winged creeping things which have four feet, are an abomination to you.

Lev 11:24 " 'By these you will become unclean: whoever touches the carcass of them shall be unclean until the evening.

Lev 11:25 Whoever carries any part of their carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening.

Lev 11:26 " 'Every animal which parts the hoof, and is not cloven-footed, nor chews the cud, is unclean to you. Everyone who touches them shall be unclean.

Lev 11:27 Whatever goes on its paws, among all animals that go on all fours, they are unclean to you. Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening.

Lev 11:28 He who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening. They are unclean to you.

Lev 11:29 " 'These are they which are unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard,

Lev 11:30 the gecko, and the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink, and the chameleon.

Lev 11:31 These are they which are unclean to you among all that creep. Whoever touches them when they are dead, shall be unclean until the evening.

Lev 11:32 On whatever any of them falls when they are dead, it shall be unclean; whether it is any vessel of wood, or clothing, or skin, or sack, whatever vessel it is, with which any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the evening; then it will be clean.

Lev 11:33 Every earthen vessel, into which any of them falls, all that is in it shall be unclean, and you shall break it.

Lev 11:34 All food which may be eaten, that on which water comes, shall be unclean; and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall be unclean.

Lev 11:35 Everything whereupon part of their carcass falls shall be unclean; whether oven, or range for pots, it shall be broken in pieces: they are unclean, and shall be unclean to you.

Lev 11:36 Nevertheless a spring or a cistern in which water is a gathered shall be clean: but that which touches their carcass shall be unclean.

Lev 11:37 If part of their carcass falls on any sowing seed which is to be sown, it is clean.

Lev 11:38 But if water is put on the seed, and part of their carcass falls on it, it is unclean to you.

Lev 11:39 " 'If any animal, of which you may eat, dies; he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until the evening.

Lev 11:40 He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the evening.

Lev 11:41 " 'Every creeping thing that creeps on the earth is an abomination. It shall not be eaten.

Lev 11:42 Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, even all creeping things that creep on the earth, them you shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

Lev 11:43 You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps, neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them, that you should be defiled thereby.

Lev 11:44 For I am Yahweh your God. Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am holy: neither shall you defile yourselves with any kind of creeping thing that moves on the earth.

Lev 11:45 For I am Yahweh who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

Lev 11:46 " 'This is the law of the animal, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth,

Lev 11:47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten.' "

Lev 12:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,

Lev 12:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, saying, 'If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her monthly period she shall be unclean.

Lev 12:3 In the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Lev 12:4 She shall continue in the blood of purification thirty-three days. She shall not touch any holy thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed.

Lev 12:5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her period; and she shall continue in the blood of purification sixty-six days.

Lev 12:6 " 'When the days of her purification are completed, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the Tent of Meeting, a year old lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering:

Lev 12:7 and he shall offer it before Yahweh, and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood. " 'This is the law for her who bears, whether a male or a female.

Lev 12:8 If she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves, or two young pigeons; the one for a burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.' "

Mar. 27, 28

Mark 16

Mar 16:1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

Mar 16:2 Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen.

Mar 16:3 They were saying among themselves, "Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?"

Mar 16:4 for it was very big. Looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back.

Mar 16:5 Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were amazed.

Mar 16:6 He said to them, "Don't be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen. He is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him!

Mar 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He goes before you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he said to you.' "

Mar 16:8 They went out, and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had come on them. They said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid.

Mar 16:9 Now when he had risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.

Mar 16:10 She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

Mar 16:11 When they heard that he was alive, and had been seen by her, they disbelieved.

Mar 16:12 After these things he was revealed in another form to two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.

Mar 16:13 They went away and told it to the rest. They didn't believe them, either.

Mar 16:14 Afterward he was revealed to the eleven themselves as they sat at the table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they didn't believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

Mar 16:15 He said to them, "Go into all the world, and preach the Good News to the whole creation.

Mar 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who disbelieves will be condemned.

Mar 16:17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new languages;

Mar 16:18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will in no way hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

Mar 16:19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

Mar 16:20 They went out, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.

From T. Pierce Brown... Grace, Works and Salvation

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Brown/T/Pierce/1923/grace.html

Grace, Works and Salvation

We see an increasing number of brethren who seem to have come to an understanding that we are saved by grace, and not by our good works. This continues to surprise me, for I have been preaching the gospel for more than half a century, and never remember preaching it any other way. Eph.2:8 and Titus 3:5 read just like they did a thousand years ago. However, we have always tried to make clear that the grace offered by our Lord always had to be accepted on the terms by which it was offered, and this is not always made clear by many of the preachers who seem to have only recently discovered this amazing grace, even those who are sound and conservative, as they try to emphasize that glorious truth that salvation is by grace. Note the kind of statements that are sometimes made, although true as far as they go, may leave persons with wrong assumptions.

"I have come to view human works differently in recent times. I had previously thought they were necessary to ensure our salvation. Now I simply see them as a loving appreciative response to what God has already done for us in providing salvation." It is true that all the good works done before we were saved from our past sins could not earn or "secure" our salvation. It is equally true that all the good works one may do after salvation from past sins cannot earn or "ensure" our salvation, as if God's grace had the matter fairly well covered, but in order to "clinch the deal" we had to do a certain amount of good works, the exact amount and kind to be determined by our own private whim. It is possible that some of our preaching has left the impression that God's grace provides most of our salvation, but at least some work of ours, especially baptism, does the little extra job that grace did not do. At least this is what it may sound like when you knock on a door and find a person who has not been to a church service for ten years, but who says, "I belong to the Church of Christ. I've been baptized." Or even when some good brother dies, and at his funeral, you hear, "He was the most faithful Christian. The doors of that church were never opened but that he was there." Whether he ever did anything else for the Lord was not made clear, but he had apparently "worked out his own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12) by being there when the door was open. So the impression was apparently gained in some way that there was some merit in "getting baptized" or "being faithful in attendance" and especially some in "giving back to the Lord a small portion of that which He has given us." One may go fishing all day Sunday, but if he gets back by the building in time to have the Lord's Supper brought out to his car as he is on the way home, he can reverently say, "I communed" and assume that whatever God's grace did not take care of, his obedience did. 

So when a person is emphasizing that all the good works that you could possibly do will not ensure your salvation from past sins, he is doing what needs to be done. When one emphasizes that all the good works that one may do after he becomes a Christian will not ensure his eternal salvation, he is still doing what needs to be done. But if his teaching is so incomplete as to leave out or misrepresent Jesus' teaching in Mt. 25:30-46, or to teach that God's grace saves a person in spite of what he may or may not do, he has taught a false and dangerous doctrine.

Perhaps we should ask these new exegetes to deal in some detailed way with such questions as these:
1. Since doing good works is simply a loving response to what God has already done for us in providing salvation, suppose no one sees any good works such as those mentioned in Mt.25 or other places?
2. Does this mean that you do not have a loving response to God's grace, and that you have therefore not accepted it on the terms by which he offered it?
3. Then since you do not have these good works (a loving response to God's grace) and therefore must not have properly accepted that grace, are you saved by it anyway?
4. If we had to accept God's grace by being baptized for the remission of our sins in a faithful, obedient, loving response to that grace, do we have to continue to accept God's grace by continuing a faithful, obedient, loving response to that grace by obeying such commands as Gal 6:10, "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith?"
5. If we do not try to do that, can we still be saved by grace?
6. If we do that, do we have any right to assume, "I am no longer saved by grace. I am saved because I obeyed the command of the Lord?"
7. Do we not realize that even if we obeyed one or more commands of the Lord perfectly, there are dozens of them that we have failed to obey perfectly and therefore cannot be saved on the basis of our obedience, whether or not it included doing any good works, but on the basis of grace, through faith?

So, we much teach in such a fashion that we let persons know they can "do despite unto the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29). We can "fall from grace" (Gal. 5:4). We can fail to "continue in the grace of God" (Acts 14:23). We must not "continue in sin that grace may abound" (Rom. 6:1). It is possible even to "receive the grace of God in vain" (2 Cor. 6:1). One of the most brilliant men I ever baptized now thinks he has learned so much that he rejects various parts of the Bible, such as Hebrews, James and Jude since they present, in his words, "a grace that can be earned through obedience." 

I am reminded that Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived, acted like one of the most foolish ones. No Bible author presents a grace that has to be earned. They all present a grace that could be accepted or rejected. In every case, unless it continued to be accepted on the terms offered, it was rejected, and it might even happen as Jude says, that one can "turn the grace of God into lasciviousness" (Jude 4-5) by refusing to do the good works of obedience that are the loving response to what God has done for us.

So, if you are raising the question about something being "necessary to ensure your salvation" you may want to ask: Have I now learned the great truth that He is the author of eternal salvation to those who disobey Him? (Cf. Heb. 5:9). For heaven's sake, and we mean that literally, do not teach about the wonderful grace of God in such a fashion as to leave the idea that grace takes care of you regardless of what you do or try to do. It is certainly true that one can think of "good works" as things he may do that obligate God to save him, or he may think of them as things he may do in grateful thanks to God who has saved him. The first attitude is always wrong. The second may be wrong if it leads one to assume that since he was saved without doing "good works" he no longer needs to be concerned about doing "good works."

T. Pierce Brown

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

From Jim McGuiggan... Trust the Holy Spirit

Trust the Holy Spirit

If I were beginning my life with God all over again I'd trust the Holy Spirit to lead me into deeper awareness of God and personal holiness. I know this is all more complex than it sounds but in some respects it really isn't complex at all. Even for wise theologians it's difficult to know, precisely, how to speak about the person of the Holy Spirit but it's clear, especially from the New Testament, that the Spirit is a "person" in his own right and not just a way of saying "God is at work." (He speaks of himself as "I" and "me" in Acts 13:2.) What's not difficult to see is this: the Holy Spirit brings glory both to the Father and the Son and part of the way he does that is to reveal the Father and Son to us and to enable us to enter into holy communion with them.

We may not be able to say a lot about his "person" but we can certainly tell a lot about him by the things he helps us to see, think, speak and do. The Spirit led one great Christian to insist that the only fruit the Spirit produces is the kind that pleases God and reflects his character. See Galatians 5:22-23 on this. In this way, and others, the Spirit makes God accessible to us. He helps us to enter God's presence not like we enter a room but in a spiritual union and relationship. And having brought us into God's house and presence he continues to teach us how to be more and more at home in that house.

Some people so rarely talk about the Holy Spirit that you'd think they can get along without him very well--they can't! Others want to talk about nothing but the Spirit and you might get the impression there was no Father or Son--they shouldn't! (And a lot of the time it isn't the Spirit they're talking about; they're really talking about themselves.) The great news is that our ignorance of the Spirit's "person" or the fact that we either ignore him or thrust him ahead of the Father and Son--the great news is that none of that stops him from working on our behalf. He still glorifies the Father and the Son; he still opens our eyes, deepens our faith and enriches our lives in holiness. The truth is, he doesn't mind not getting "centre stage". Christ sent him as a "strengthener" and counsellor and said, "He will not speak on his own...He will bring glory to me." (John 16:13-14) That's the Holy Spirit for you; sent from the Father and glad to glorify the Father's Son by instructing, transforming and sanctifying humans.

I don't mean to say that the Spirit doesn't mind us sidelining him. He certainly does, because to sideline him is to shut doors and retard growth in intimacy with God! The Spirit is utterly and ceaselessly opposed to the evil within and around us (Galatians 5:17) so there's a ruthlessness about him. This means he's in earnest about bringing God and us together and that in turn means we can trust him to get us there. In fact, the scriptures will say that the presence of the Spirit in the church is the guarantee and down payment of the completed glorification.

(You might find something useful in the little book: "Where the Spirit of the Lord Is")

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

How Much Water Could "the Sea" Hold? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=742&b=1%20Kings

How Much Water Could "the Sea" Hold?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Almost 1,000 years before Jesus set foot on the Earth, the first temple dedicated to Jehovah was built out of Lebanon cedar (the finest there was), costly stones, and pure gold. The Bible indicates that over 183,000 men were involved in the construction of this glorious house of worship during the reign of King Solomon (1 Kings 5:13-16). The vessels that were housed within the temple, and those that remained in the inner court, were equally as elaborate. One of these vessels that stood on the right side of the sanctuary between the altar and the porch of the temple was an immense bronze basin known as “the Sea” (1 Kings 7:23). It was five cubits (7½ feet) high, ten cubits (15 feet) in diameter at the brim, thirty cubits (45 feet) in circumference and rested on 12 bronze oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26, 39; 2 Chronicles 4:2-5,10). Unlike the ten lesser basins that were used to bathe portions of the burnt offerings, the Sea served as a washing pool for the priests (2 Chronicles 4:6). For many years the capacity of the inner court’s large basin known as “the Sea” has been at the center of controversy. The reason: 1 Kings 7:26 indicates that it held 2,000 baths. (A bath was the largest of the liquid measures in Hebrew culture; estimates are that it corresponds to anywhere from 4½-9 U.S. gallons). However, 2 Chronicles 4:5 says that the Sea held 3,000 baths. Thus, critics of the Bible’s inerrancy have charged that a blatant contradiction exists and that such lack of agreement discredits divine authorship.

There are at least three possible solutions to this alleged contradiction. First, the answer could be that a copyist, while attempting to ensure a “carbon copy” of the manuscript from which he was working, made an error. [For a general background on copyists’ errors, please see our foundational essay on that subject.] Keil and Delitzsch, in their commentary on 2 Chronicles, indicated their support of this theory. They tend to believe that the number 3,000 given in 2 Chronicles 4:5 has arisen from the confusion of the letter gimel (Hebrew transliterated letter-number for “3”) with beth (Hebrew transliterated letter- number for “2”). By a comparison of the two Hebrew letters, it easily is seen that their shape is quite similar. Even a tiny smudge from excessive wear on a scroll-column or a slightly damaged manuscript could have resulted in making the gimel look like a beth. With such an adjustment, the statements in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles are harmonized easily. However, it very well may be that this is not a copyist’s error at all.

A second possible explanation to this alleged contradiction revolves around a Hebrew word used in 2 Chronicles 4:5 that does not appear in 1 Kings 7:26. Whereas in 1 Kings it says that the molten Sea “held” (ASV) 2,000 baths, 2 Chronicles says that it “received (Hebrew machaziyq) and held three thousand baths” (ASV, emp. added). The difference in phraseology may indicate that the Sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths, but when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths (Haley, 1951, p. 382). Thus, the chronicler informs the reader that 3,000 baths of water were required to completely fill the Sea, which usually held 2,000 baths (Barnes). Anyone who has ever been around large pools of water (like a swimming pool) knows that the pool actually can hold a few thousand gallons of water more than generally is kept in it. It very well may be that the wording in 2 Chronicles indicates such a difference about the water level in the Sea.

A third possible solution to this “problem passage” is that the “bath” unit mentioned in 1 Kings was larger than the “bath” unit used in 2 Chronicles. Since the latter account was written after the Babylonian exile, it is quite possible that reference is made to the Babylonian bath, which might have been less than the Jewish bath used at the time of Solomon. As Adam Clarke observed: “The cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer than the Babylonian by one palm…. It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity.” In considering a modern-day example, a 20% difference exists between the U.S. gallon and the Imperial gallon, even though the same term is used for both quantities. Thus, this alleged discrepancy may be simply a misunderstanding on the part of 21st-century readers.

The fact of the matter is that critics of the Bible cannot prove that this is a legitimate contradiction. Second Chronicles could represent a copyist’s error. On the other hand, I believe that one of the last two explanations represents a more plausible solution to the problem: either (1) the addition of the Hebrew word machaziyq(“received”) in 2 Chronicles 4:5 means that the Sea could actually hold 3,000 baths (though it normally held 2,000 baths); or (2) the “bath” unit used during the time of Solomon was larger than the one used after the Jews were released from Babylonian captivity. Until one can prove that these three solutions are not possibilities, he should refrain from criticizing the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Haley, John W. (1951 reprint), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

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

America’s “Sudden Catastrophe” by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2796

America’s “Sudden Catastrophe”

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Scanning the social landscape of America, one is struck by a number of cultural factors that characterize the present condition of society. Consider the following four. First, Americans have shifted dramatically away from instruction in the Christian religion and respect for the authority of the Bible. The public school system and the scientific community are thoroughly ensconced in an anti-religion, evolutionist posture. Statistics show that fewer Americans attend church, read their Bibles, or retain commitment to the precepts of Jesus Christ. Even among those who maintain an affiliation with the “formal” aspects of religion, churches have become “seeker sensitive” in their thrust, providing centers of entertainment and strictly positive, “feel good,” anecdotal talks in place of Bible-based, soul-strengthening sermons. Sermons that stir the soul and convict the conscience are decried as “too negative” and “hell-fire and brimstone preaching.” Yes, Americans are rejecting religious instruction and authority.

Second, Americans have distorted the notion of justice. In many ways, the criminal justice system has become a laughing stock, earning the distrust and dismay of large segments of the population. Since the 1960s shift from the rights of the victim to the rights of the criminal, America’s laws and sense of justice have been gradually restructured and redefined. Prisons are full to overflowing, resulting in unjust early release programs. Having committed crimes “deserving of death” (Acts 25:11; Romans 1:32), inmates continue to live on death row for years and years. “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Ecclesiastes 8:11). On one hand, criminals commit multiple heinous crimes, inflicting injury and death on law-abiding citizens, only to be released on technicalities to continue their vile rampage on the security and well-being of the innocent. On the other hand, Christian parents can apply proper discipline to their children and be brought before authorities for child abuse and imprisoned. Yes, Americans are violating the rules of eternal justice.

Third, for over 150 years, Americans shared a common and virtually universal moral framework. As political sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville observed of America in the 1830s: “Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent; the consequence is, as I have before observed, that every principle of the moral world is fixed and determinate” (1835, 1:304-305, emp. added). Since World War II, Americans have steadily relaxed the moral sensibilities that once governed society, providing citizens with certainty and stability in their daily behavioral choices. The rigid parameters that once gave society cohesion, defining what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, have all but evaporated. From abortion and embryonic stem-cell research to same-sex relations, clear cut moral distinctions have become blurred in the minds of many people. Yes, Americans are trifling with the injunctions of morality.

Fourth, liberal politicians and activist judges are running amok throughout the country. Foolish, ungodly decisions have been perpetrated on the public—from the removal of Ten Commandment monuments from public places and the banning of prayers in city council and school board meetings, to the redefinition of marriage and accommodation of easy divorce. Even Supreme Court justices are looking to foreign courts to guide their judicial decisions and thwart the intentions of the Framers. Their reinterpretation of theConstitution that results in the expulsion of God from the public square constitutes an illicit tampering with the foundations of the nation. Yes, Americans are recklessly destroying the political constitution that holds us together.

In view of these most unfortunate circumstances, consider the words from a speech delivered on February 23, 1852 by second generation American, Daniel Webster, who offered the following chilling prophecy:

[I]f we and our posterity reject religious instruction and authority, violate the rules of eternal justice, trifle with the injunctions of morality, and recklessly destroy the political constitution which holds us together, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us that shall bury all our glory in profound obscurity (1903, 13:492-493, emp. added).

This uncanny, prophetic anticipation of America’s current condition is being fulfilled before our very eyes. All that remains to happen is the judgment that is inevitable—since God remains consistent with His actions throughout world history (Genesis 19:13; Psalm 9:17; cf. “calamity” in 2 Chronicles 7:22).

REFERENCES

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1835), Democracy in America (New York, NY: Alfred Knopf, 1994 reprint).

Webster, Daniel (1903), The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company).

A Response to the 21st Century Science Coalition Standards of Science Education by Joe Deweese, Ph.D. Will Brooks, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=346

A Response to the 21^st Century Science Coalition Standards of Science Education

by	Joe Deweese, Ph.D. Will Brooks, Ph.D.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by two A.P. auxiliary staff scientists. Dr. Brooks holds a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. Deweese holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from Vanderbilt University.]

Lines have been drawn and sides have been taken in Texas as scientists and educators battle with one another over whether the weaknesses in evolutionary theory should be taught in the public school system. Since 1998, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) curriculum for the sciences has remained unchanged. Now, 11 years later, revisions and updates are being made regarding many points within this curriculum, including how evolutionary biology should be taught in the public school system. The 1998 TEKS for high school reads:

The student knows the theory of biological evolution. The student is expected to: (A) identify evidence of change in species using fossils, DNA sequences, anatomical similarities, physiological similarities, and embryology; and (B) illustrate the results of natural selection in speciation, diversity, phylogeny, adaptation, behavior, and extinction (“Comparison of Current...,” 2009).

A few points can quickly be drawn from this excerpt. First, the opening sentence states that students are expected to know the theory of evolution. It does not state or even directly imply that evolution is the single true explanation for the origin of life. Second, nowhere in the statement or the remainder of the 1998 TEKS are students indoctrinated with the idea that evolution is scientific law; although, students are still expected to recognize that similarities among different species are evidence of change rather than a common creator. For 11 years, the above standard for biological education has guided middle and high school teachers in their pursuit to educate young minds. But now, evolutionists have made dramatic pushes to change what was once taught as an alleged explanation for life into nothing short of fact.

In support of the proposed changes to TEKS, the 21^st Century Science Coalition has formulated five principles that they believe must be adopted into the Texas science curriculum. The Coalition’s Web site reads: “We will not allow politics and ideology to handicap the future of our children with a 19^th-century education in their 21^st-century classroom” (“Welcome,” 2009). The five principles are:

Scientifically sound curriculum standards must:

1. acknowledge that instruction on evolution is vital to understanding all the biological sciences;
2. make clear that evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt;
3. be based on the latest, peer-reviewed scholarship;
4. encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to ‘strengths and weaknesses,’ which politicians have used to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses; and
5. recognize that all students are best served when matters of faith are left to families and houses of worship (“Scientist Statement,” 2009, emp. added).

As of the writing of this article, over 600 men and women who currently hold faculty positions at Texas colleges and universities have signed a petition in favor of implementing these standards into Texas public school curricula. The signers include faculty members from several universities affiliated in some way with Christianity, including Baylor, Texas Christian, and Abilene Christian, among others. By signing the petition, these men and women are indicating a personal conviction that evolution is essentially scientific law and believe it should be taught as fact to middle and high school students. Further, they intend to remove from the classroom any and all references to the weaknesses of the evolutionary hypothesis. In effect, this petition and its signers are attempting to force onto unsuspecting youths an unproven idea as pure, clear fact.

The principles endorsed by the Coalition manifest several flaws. First, the Coalition claimed that “evolution is vital to understanding all the biological sciences” (“Scientist Statement”). This echoes the modern push for evolutionary thought to permeate all areas of science. By interpreting all things in terms of an evolutionary history, the influence of evolution becomes widespread—particularly in the biological sciences. However, there isnothing about biological science that requires macroevolutionary explanations (see discussion of macroevolution below). In fact, science can be taught without invoking macroevolution—despite what we are bullied into thinking. The biochemical, structural, developmental, and functional similarities between organisms can be explained in terms of a common Designer without the need for common descent. Both authors acknowledge that their own research in biochemistry and molecular biology is conducted without consideration of macroevolution with absolutely no detriment to its quality or its conclusions. So, biology can be understood—even researched—without requiring a context of Darwinian macroevolution. In fact, postulating common design by a Designer is a more effective working model than assuming biological structures are the result of accidental, random processes.

Second, the Coalition wants to “make clear that evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt” (“Scientist Statement”). This is a very misleading statement. By using the common term “evolution,” the authors avoid clearly defining what the “easily observable phenomena” are and claim the evidence is “beyond any reasonable doubt.” (Of course, the implication is that if you doubt it—you obviously are not reasonable). This is a frequent tactic of those who would like us to assume that “all” evolution is the same.

Interestingly, the Coalition did not acknowledge the difference between microevolution(changes at or below species level using existing genetic information) andmacroevolution (large-scale changes requiring new genetic information, taking place over long periods of time) in their statement. Some claim that creationists invented these terms, but they are commonly used in the scientific literature and textbooks (e.g., Erwin, 2000; Starr, 2006). While microevolution is an “easily observable phenomenon” and well documented, macroevolution is not. The term “evolution” is routinely used to refer to the combination of the two processes, and this quickly leads to misunderstanding, because while microevolution is clearly documented, the same cannot be said for macroevolution. It has been assumed by some evolutionists that the mechanisms responsible for microevolution could account for macroevolution given enough time (e.g., Erwin, 2000). However, there is much disagreement on this point. The development of new organisms requires more than changes in existing genetic information—it requires the generation of new information altogether in order to form new organs and body structures. There is no known mechanism for the spontaneous generation of new information. [NOTE: There are mutagenic processes which result in random insertions, deletions, duplications, and rearrangements. But these undirected events are typically deleterious and always insufficient for generating the information needed for macroevolution.] The situation is far more complex than the Coalition’s second statement implies.

Third, there is no argument about whether education should be based on peer-reviewed scholarship. However, there probably would be disagreement over the definition of “scholarship.” The modern “peer-review” process is not without bias. Searches of manuscript databases display a marked bias against questioning Neo-Darwinism. We completely agree that students should be kept current on the latest science, but we must remember that teaching biological science is distinct from teaching about evolution.

Fourth, the Coalition wants to change a statement in the 1998 TEKS standards calling for students in science to “analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information,” to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing” (“Comparison of Current...,” 2009, emp. added). It is argued that language mentioning “strengths and weaknesses” can be used to “introduce supernatural explanations” (“Scientist Statement”). It is interesting that this change is intended to “encourage validcritical thinking and scientific reasoning.” So, are we to assume that valid critical thinking excludes taking account of the strengths and weaknesses of a given theory or hypothesis? In our scientific training as graduate students in the biological sciences, we were routinely encouraged to be skeptical and to question existing ideas and conclusions. This proposed change does not reflect the type of critical thinking we expect of graduate students. Why is the Coalition afraid of leaving theories open to question?

Fifth, the Coalition’s effort to ban all religious ideas from the classroom is actually a veiled attempt to dismiss the possibility of a Creator as a rational explanation of life and to keep students from analyzing the faults of evolutionary theory. Their desire to teach children that life originated via evolution goes beyond science into the realm of subjective beliefs—beliefs that cannot be tested or validated scientifically. We are told, “science must be taught in a science class”—which is precisely what those of us who believe in the Creator do—we teach science in our science classrooms. The fact is that the Universe and even life must have had a Cause and cannot be explained by “natural” means.

What effect would these proposed standards have on education? Young minds are very pliable. When scientists holding Ph.D.s in biology claim certain theories as fact, young minds are very likely to believe that those theories are, indeed, fact. And, why shouldn’t they? When the most educated, best-trained men and women speak, many teenagers cannot but listen and assume truth is being conveyed. The problem with making unsubstantiated statements (such as “evolution...has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt”) is that such statements inherently exclude alternate explanations for the origin of life. The Coalition conveniently ignores the fact that hundreds of credentialed scientists are skeptical of evolution. Proponents of evolutionary theory have bullied their explanation for life’s origin into education to the exclusion of all other explanations. They use propaganda techniques to indoctrinate young minds early in order to perpetuate this ill-conceived idea.

Science education has always been a two-faceted approach. On one side, students are taught facts, equations, and principles that research has shown to be true. For example, physics equations regarding force and acceleration (e.g., F=ma), proven biological facts such as that DNA is the genetic material, and universal principles such as that energy can be neither destroyed nor created. The other, equally important aspect of science education is instruction in the scientific method and critical analysis of information. This second facet of education has traditionally been applied in the laboratory, where students conduct experiments and evaluate their results. Both the learning of information and the development of critical thinking skills are fundamental to education at levels of both secondary and higher education. One vital component to the critical evaluation of data is the analysis of both its strengths and weaknesses. If weaknesses in data were ignored, untold numbers of incorrect scientific ideas would have been propagated over the years. The Coalition is in favor of removing discussion of strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary biology from the classroom. This very idea is in stark contrast to the scientific method and the principle of critical evaluation. If this standard is put into effect, it would undermine an educator’s ability to teach these aspects of science to the students. In order to properly train students, they must be allowed to use their minds, to weigh the positive and negative data, to analyze, and to think for themselves.

CONCLUSION

The 21^st Century Science Coalition is not the only voice in this fight. Texans for Better Science Education is offering an alternative to the changes recommended by the Coalition (Texans for Better..., 2009). Furthermore, hundreds of scientists from universities around the world have signed Discovery Institute’s “Dissent from Darwinism” which states, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged” (“A Scientific Dissent...,” 2009). Contrary to the opinion of the Coalition, there are many scientists who recognize the failure of Darwinism to explain the “origin of species” (and the origin of life!).

On March 27, 2009, the Texas State Board of Education approved a final draft of changes to the TEKS, which will be implemented with the 2010-2011 academic year. Who won the battle is still a matter of debate. The new TEKS, which can be accessed through the Texas Education Agency’s Web site, reads:

In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student (“Texas Essential...,” 2009).

Noticeably, the terms “strengths and weaknesses” do not appear in the new curriculum standards. However, the phrase “examining all sides of scientific evidence” was included. It appears that Texas education officials have attempted to keep both sides happy by straddling the fence on this issue. In another excerpt regarding the changes in Earth’s atmosphere, the phrase “that could have occurred” was added to produce the following final statement:

Analyze the changes of Earth’s atmosphere that could have occurredthrough time from the original hydrogen-helium atmosphere, the carbon dioxide-water vapor-methane atmosphere, and the current nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere (“Texas Essential...,” 2009, emp. added).

We may never know the true motivations for these changes—political, scientific, or other—but whatever the reasons, educators are left with this manuscript, the 2009 TEKS, to guide their curricula in the sciences.

REFERENCES

“Comparison of Current 1998 Science TEKS with Proposed 2009 Recommendations to Science TEKS—Grades 9-12” (2009), TEKS, [On-line], URL:http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/science/SciTEKS_9_12_Comparepdf.pdf.

Erwin, Douglas (2000), “Macroevolution is More Than Repeated Rounds of Microevolution,” Evolution and Development, 2[2]:78-84.

“A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” (2009), Discovery Institute, [On-line], URL:http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php.

“Scientist Statement” (2009), The 21^st Century Science Coalition, [On-line], URL:http://www.texasscientists.org/sign.html.

Starr, C. (2006), Basic Concepts in Biology (Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning Publishing), sixth edition.

Texans for Better Science Education (2009), [On-line], URL:http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/.

“Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science Subchapter C. High School” (2009),TEKS, [On-line], URL:http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/science/ch112c_as_approved032709.pdf.

“Welcome” (2009), The 21^st Century Science Coalition, [On-line], URL:http://www.texasscientists.org/index.html.