April 28, 2016

From Gary... Be remembered for goodness (and humor???)


Do not have a funeral like this! You will be remembered, but not in a good way. Paul wrote the following to the Ephesians...

Ephesians, Chapter 5 (WEB)
  1 Be therefore imitators of God, as beloved children.  2 Walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling fragrance.  3 But sexual immorality, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be mentioned among you, as becomes saints;  4 nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not appropriate; but rather giving of thanks. 

Follow the example of Tabitha (Dorcas)...

Acts, Chapter 9 (WEB)
  36  Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which when translated, means Dorcas. This woman was full of good works and acts of mercy which she did.  37 In those days, she fell sick, and died. When they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room.  38 As Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him, imploring him not to delay in coming to them.  39 Peter got up and went with them. When he had come, they brought him into the upper room. All the widows stood by him weeping, and showing the coats and garments which Dorcas had made while she was with them.  40 Peter sent them all out, and knelt down and prayed. Turning to the body, he said, “Tabitha, get up!” She opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter, she sat up.  41 He gave her his hand, and raised her up. Calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive. 

And then there is Anthony Newley...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkzMjXwDFHg
No comments:

From Gary... Bible Reading April 28


Bible Reading  

April 28

The World English Bible

Apr. 28
Deuteronomy 11, 12

Deu 11:1 Therefore you shall love Yahweh your God, and keep his instructions, and his statutes, and his ordinances, and his commandments, always.
Deu 11:2 Know this day: for I don't speak with your children who have not known, and who have not seen the chastisement of Yahweh your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his outstretched arm,
Deu 11:3 and his signs, and his works, which he did in the midst of Egypt to Pharaoh the king of Egypt, and to all his land;
Deu 11:4 and what he did to the army of Egypt, to their horses, and to their chariots; how he made the water of the Red Sea to overflow them as they pursued after you, and how Yahweh has destroyed them to this day;
Deu 11:5 and what he did to you in the wilderness, until you came to this place;
Deu 11:6 and what he did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben; how the earth opened its mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and every living thing that followed them, in the midst of all Israel:
Deu 11:7 but your eyes have seen all the great work of Yahweh which he did.
Deu 11:8 Therefore you shall keep all the commandment which I command you this day, that you may be strong, and go in and possess the land, where you go over to possess it;
Deu 11:9 and that you may prolong your days in the land, which Yahweh swore to your fathers to give to them and to their seed, a land flowing with milk and honey.
Deu 11:10 For the land, where you go in to possess it, isn't as the land of Egypt, from whence you came out, where you sowed your seed, and watered it with your foot, as a garden of herbs;
Deu 11:11 but the land, where you go over to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinks water of the rain of the sky,
Deu 11:12 a land which Yahweh your God cares for: the eyes of Yahweh your God are always on it, from the beginning of the year even to the end of the year.
Deu 11:13 It shall happen, if you shall listen diligently to my commandments which I command you this day, to love Yahweh your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul,
Deu 11:14 that I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain, that you may gather in your grain, and your new wine, and your oil.
Deu 11:15 I will give grass in your fields for your livestock, and you shall eat and be full.
Deu 11:16 Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;
Deu 11:17 and the anger of Yahweh be kindled against you, and he shut up the sky, so that there shall be no rain, and the land shall not yield its fruit; and you perish quickly from off the good land which Yahweh gives you.
Deu 11:18 Therefore you shall lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul; and you shall bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be for symbols between your eyes.
Deu 11:19 You shall teach them your children, talking of them, when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.
Deu 11:20 You shall write them on the door posts of your house, and on your gates;
Deu 11:21 that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth.
Deu 11:22 For if you shall diligently keep all this commandment which I command you, to do it, to love Yahweh your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave to him;
Deu 11:23 then will Yahweh drive out all these nations from before you, and you shall dispossess nations greater and mightier than yourselves.
Deu 11:24 Every place whereon the sole of your foot shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness, and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even to the hinder sea shall be your border.
Deu 11:25 No man shall be able to stand before you: Yahweh your God shall lay the fear of you and the dread of you on all the land that you shall tread on, as he has spoken to you.
Deu 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse:
Deu 11:27 the blessing, if you shall listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God, which I command you this day;
Deu 11:28 and the curse, if you shall not listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which you have not known.
Deu 11:29 It shall happen, when Yahweh your God shall bring you into the land where you go to possess it, that you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim, and the curse on Mount Ebal.
Deu 11:30 Aren't they beyond the Jordan, behind the way of the going down of the sun, in the land of the Canaanites who dwell in the Arabah, over against Gilgal, beside the oaks of Moreh?
Deu 11:31 For you are to pass over the Jordan to go in to possess the land which Yahweh your God gives you, and you shall possess it, and dwell therein.
Deu 11:32 You shall observe to do all the statutes and the ordinances which I set before you this day.

Deu 12:1 These are the statutes and the ordinances which you shall observe to do in the land which Yahweh, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess it, all the days that you live on the earth.
Deu 12:2 You shall surely destroy all the places in which the nations that you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains, and on the hills, and under every green tree:
Deu 12:3 and you shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and burn their Asherim with fire; and you shall cut down the engraved images of their gods; and you shall destroy their name out of that place.
Deu 12:4 You shall not do so to Yahweh your God.
Deu 12:5 But to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose out of all your tribes, to put his name there, even to his habitation you shall seek, and there you shall come;
Deu 12:6 and there you shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and the wave offering of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock:
Deu 12:7 and there you shall eat before Yahweh your God, and you shall rejoice in all that you put your hand to, you and your households, in which Yahweh your God has blessed you.
Deu 12:8 You shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatever is right in his own eyes;
Deu 12:9 for you haven't yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which Yahweh your God gives you.
Deu 12:10 But when you go over the Jordan, and dwell in the land which Yahweh your God causes you to inherit, and he gives you rest from all your enemies around you, so that you dwell in safety;
Deu 12:11 then it shall happen that to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there, there you shall bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the wave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which you vow to Yahweh.
Deu 12:12 You shall rejoice before Yahweh your God, you, and your sons, and your daughters, and your male servants, and your female servants, and the Levite who is within your gates, because he has no portion nor inheritance with you.
Deu 12:13 Take heed to yourself that you don't offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see;
Deu 12:14 but in the place which Yahweh shall choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.
Deu 12:15 Notwithstanding, you may kill and eat flesh within all your gates, after all the desire of your soul, according to the blessing of Yahweh your God which he has given you: the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart.
Deu 12:16 Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it out on the earth as water.
Deu 12:17 You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your new wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you vow, nor your freewill offerings, nor the wave offering of your hand;
Deu 12:18 but you shall eat them before Yahweh your God in the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your male servant, and your female servant, and the Levite who is within your gates: and you shall rejoice before Yahweh your God in all that you put your hand to.
Deu 12:19 Take heed to yourself that you don't forsake the Levite as long as you live in your land.
Deu 12:20 When Yahweh your God shall enlarge your border, as he has promised you, and you shall say, I will eat flesh, because your soul desires to eat flesh; you may eat flesh, after all the desire of your soul.
Deu 12:21 If the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to put his name there, is too far from you, then you shall kill of your herd and of your flock, which Yahweh has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat within your gates, after all the desire of your soul.
Deu 12:22 Even as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten, so you shall eat of it: the unclean and the clean may eat of it alike.
Deu 12:23 Only be sure that you don't eat the blood: for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deu 12:24 You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out on the earth as water.
Deu 12:25 You shall not eat it; that it may go well with you, and with your children after you, when you shall do that which is right in the eyes of Yahweh.
Deu 12:26 Only your holy things which you have, and your vows, you shall take, and go to the place which Yahweh shall choose:
Deu 12:27 and you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, on the altar of Yahweh your God; and the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out on the altar of Yahweh your God; and you shall eat the flesh.
Deu 12:28 Observe and hear all these words which I command you, that it may go well with you, and with your children after you forever, when you do that which is good and right in the eyes of Yahweh your God.
Deu 12:29 When Yahweh your God shall cut off the nations from before you, where you go in to dispossess them, and you dispossess them, and dwell in their land;
Deu 12:30 take heed to yourself that you not be ensnared to follow them, after that they are destroyed from before you; and that you not inquire after their gods, saying, How do these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.
Deu 12:31 You shall not do so to Yahweh your God: for every abomination to Yahweh, which he hates, have they done to their gods; for even their sons and their daughters do they burn in the fire to their gods.

Deu 12:32 Whatever thing I command you, that you shall observe to do: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

 Apr. 28, 29
Luke 16

Luk 16:1 He also said to his disciples, "There was a certain rich man who had a manager. An accusation was made to him that this man was wasting his possessions.
Luk 16:2 He called him, and said to him, 'What is this that I hear about you? Give an accounting of your management, for you can no longer be manager.'
Luk 16:3 "The manager said within himself, 'What will I do, seeing that my lord is taking away the management position from me? I don't have strength to dig. I am ashamed to beg.
Luk 16:4 I know what I will do, so that when I am removed from management, they may receive me into their houses.'
Luk 16:5 Calling each one of his lord's debtors to him, he said to the first, 'How much do you owe to my lord?'
Luk 16:6 He said, 'A hundred batos of oil.' He said to him, 'Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.'
Luk 16:7 Then said he to another, 'How much do you owe?' He said, 'A hundred cors of wheat.' He said to him, 'Take your bill, and write eighty.'
Luk 16:8 "His lord commended the dishonest manager because he had done wisely, for the children of this world are, in their own generation, wiser than the children of the light.
Luk 16:9 I tell you, make for yourselves friends by means of unrighteous mammon, so that when you fail, they may receive you into the eternal tents.
Luk 16:10 He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much. He who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.
Luk 16:11 If therefore you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?
Luk 16:12 If you have not been faithful in that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own?
Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You aren't able to serve God and mammon."
Luk 16:14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they scoffed at him.
Luk 16:15 He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts. For that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Luk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John. From that time the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.
Luk 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tiny stroke of a pen in the law to fall.
Luk 16:18 Everyone who divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery. He who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.
Luk 16:19 "Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day.
Luk 16:20 A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Luk 16:21 and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luk 16:22 It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried.
Luk 16:23 In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom.
Luk 16:24 He cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame.'
Luk 16:25 "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in like manner, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish.
Luk 16:26 Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'
Luk 16:27 "He said, 'I ask you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house;
Luk 16:28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so they won't also come into this place of torment.'
Luk 16:29 "But Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.'
Luk 16:30 "He said, 'No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.'
Luk 16:31 "He said to him, 'If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead.' " 
No comments:

From Roy Davison... What do we need?


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/needs.html

What do we need?
The basic needs of man are air, water, food, clothing and shelter.
The Scriptures teach that one must provide for himself and for the needs of his family: "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10).
Yet there are always people who are in need because of age, sickness or other circumstances. Believers help each other: "And let our people also learn to maintain good works, to meet urgent needs, that they may not be unfruitful" (Titus 3:14). "Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need" (Ephesians 4:28).
We help each other through love: "Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality" (Romans 12:10-13).
Empty words are not love: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,' but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" (James 2:15,16). "But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?" (1 John 3:17).
The church at Jerusalem set the tone in this: "Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need" (Acts 2:44,45). "Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need" (Acts 4:34,35).
The churches of Achaia glorified God by helping people in other countries: "For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men" (2 Corinthians 9:12,13). Notice that this sharing is described as obeying the gospel.
In all this we can depend on God's help. He knows what we need: "But when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words. Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him" (Matthew 6:7,8).
When we help others, God will also care for us. After Paul had thanked the Philippians for their support, he continued: "And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:19).
Meeting our basic needs ought not to be the highest goal of our lives: "Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you" (Matthew 6:31-33).
Man's spiritual needs are ignored by many, especially if they are well off. To the wealthy, lukewarm church at Laodicea Jesus said: "You say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing' and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked" (Revelation 3:17).
Spiritual needs are more important than physical needs. Martha had to learn this: "Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus' feet and heard His word. But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, 'Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me.' And Jesus answered and said to her, 'Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her'" (Luke 10:38-42).
Members of the body of Christ need each other: "And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'; nor again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you.' No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary" (1 Corinthians 12:21,22).
For edification, Jesus has given shepherds, evangelists and teachers to the church (Ephesians 4:1-18). Especially those who have recently become Christians need much help from others. Those to whom the Hebrew letter was written, had remained spiritually immature. "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food" (Hebrews 5:12).
Above all, we need Jesus, who is the bread of life. "I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world" (John 6:48-51).
We need forgiveness of sins, which is only possible through Christ: "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). We can receive forgiveness if we believe in Jesus, repent and are baptized: "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 2:38).
Many people think they do not need baptism. They are extremely arrogant because both John the Baptist and Jesus Himself thought otherwise. "Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. And John tried to prevent Him, saying, 'I have need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?' But Jesus answered and said to him, 'Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.' Then he allowed Him" (Matthew 3:13- 15).
We arise from baptism to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:3,4). Then we must continue to follow Christ: "For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise" (Hebrews 10:36).
Trusting in God, let us labor to meet our basic needs and to help others. Above all, let us care for our spiritual needs by seeking God's kingdom. Jesus is the only source of spiritual sustenance.
Roy Davison
The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)
No comments:

From Jim McGuiggan... There's no God--so what?


There's no God--so what?

I have a single point to make! I don't wish to argue here that there is a God but I wish to say that anyone with a heart would surely wish there was a God worthy of worship and service; such a God that caring people would be happy to throw in with him "the stubborn ounces of their weight" in a glorious enterprise. 
Robert Wright asked outspoken atheist, Daniel Dennett, if he was an atheist. DD said he didn't particularly care for the term's connotations but, yes, he was an atheist though he didn't make a deal of it, he said. [He has written three books advocating it and is very involved in a movement for atheists "coming out of the closet," so to speak. I would say that's "making a deal out of it" but if Christians and other theists have a right to spread their views why wouldn't atheists?] Wright asked him, "Do you wish you could believe in God?" and Dennett immediately shot back, "No!" He misses nothing, you see, by not believing in God and feels no need of him. It isn't, he said, that he passionately denies there's a God, it's more like, he said, "Of course there's no God, but so what?"
Religious people can be incredibly self-centred and they rightly get a lot of stick for it, but atheists of the Dennett, Weinberg, Dawkins and Harris kind have no eye for others either. I don't know if Bob Geldof is an atheist but I do know that despite his social usefulness he's glad (he said) that death is nothing but an endless sleep. I don't know Dennett but his "so what?" makes it clear he hasn't thought with sufficient compassion about the teeming millions of innocents and defenseless who have gone down under the cruel hordes ancient and modern. I'm more disappointed in Bob Geldof who has seen the agony of the world right up close and has worked hard to do something about it. Having seen the cruelty and abuse that these peoples have been subjected to generation after generation I don't understand how Bob can be pleased with the story that life and all hope for justice and restitution ends at the grave. Nazis rape, rob, torture and butcher you and your end is the grave. The Nazi lives in extravagance and pleasure until old age and goes to a painless sleep.
That—that doesn't set our teeth on edge? Well, there's no God to right all wrongs but "so what?"
If you asked Dennett if he cared about justice for the oppressed nations and classes in human society he might be offended—doesn't everyone? He confessed he had done some things wrong but that he was pretty much a good man (and I don't doubt that) but how can a good man not wish there was someone who would one day bring justice to the forgotten poor of the world? I'm not saying, at this point, that there is such a one but how can we say we do not wish that there was such a one?
How could we not wish that even now the world was a place of righteousness, where nations worked together in the grand enterprise of abolishing disease and want and righting wrongs? Recognizing our limitations and not living in ceaseless anguish about what we cannot do, still we must surely wish that some leader would rise up in the Middle East or in Zimbabwe or in Sudan and other centers of profound abuse and loss—we must wish at times for a leader to rise up and turn the whole damnable stream of abuse around and bring peace and prosperity and dignity to these places.
And if we wish that could be true via human hands for a long time to come how can we say we wouldn't wish it to be true via God on a permanent basis? Is Dennett so set against the idea that God is, that he wouldn't wish for humanity someone to make it up to the plundered poor?
If the Christian faith is true that there is a God who came to us in and as Jesus of Nazareth, revealing what his will would be on earth if we were to do it and calling Christians to keep the truth that Jesus is Lord and is coming to right all wrongs before the hearts and minds of the world, would that not be better than having to admit there is no justice or restitution for teeming millions? If that is true and Christians in their lives are to live out the purpose of God that will be completed when Jesus returns, would we not wish that were true for the crushed billions? I don't say we should pretend we believe it's true; only that if we care for more than our own satisfaction would we not wish there was someone who would make it all right for them?
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
No comments:

What Did Jesus Think About the Messiah Being the Son of David? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2567&b=Psalms


What Did Jesus Think About the Messiah Being the Son of David?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 testify that Jesus was the “Son of David.” In fact, the book of Matthew begins with these words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (1:1, emp. added). The New Testament is also abundantly clear that this Son of David is “the Christ” or “the Messiah.” When the Samaritan woman at the well said to Jesus, “‘I know that Messiah is coming’ (who is called Christ). ‘When He comes, He will tell us all things.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am He’” (John 4:25-26, emp. added). What’s more, just before Jesus’ crucifixion, when the Jewish high priest asked Him directly, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus said, “I am.” (Mark 14:61-62, emp. added). Thus, the New Testament clearly affirms that Jesus was both “Christ” and the “Son of David.” [NOTE: The term “Christ” is transliterated from the Greek term Christos, while “Messiah” is transliterated from the Hebrew/Aramaic term Meshiach. Both have as their meaning, “the anointed One.”]
In the September/October 2008 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hebrew University professor Israel Knohl alleged that Mark 12:35-37 (cf. Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44) “blatantly clashes” with New Testament references of Jesus being “the Son of David” (2008, 34[5]:61). When Jesus asked, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David?” (Mark 12:35), Jesus supposedly “rejects the idea that the Messiah is the son of David” (Knohl, p. 61). Knohl claimed:
To demonstrate that the Messiah is not the son of David, Jesus quotes Psalm 110, attributed in the Hebrew Bible to David himself. As the text of Mark (12:36) recites, David speaks in the psalm: “David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared...” Jesus then recites a passage from the psalm: “The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet.” Jesus then uses this passage to prove his point: “David himself calls him [the Messiah] ‘Lord,’ so how is he his son?” That is, David speaks of the Messiah as “my Lord,” rather than as “my son.”The Messiah therefore cannot be a son of David. Using Psalm 110 as his proof text, Jesus here refutes the scribes’ view that Christ, the Messiah, should be a son or descendant of David (p. 61, emp. added).
Knohl went on to state that Psalm 110 is “historically reliable,” and Mark 12:35-37 “must be authentic.” The implication is that those Bible passages which designate Jesus as the “Son of David” (Matthew 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38) are unreliable.
Knohl is correct that Psalm 110 and Mark 12:35-37 are “historically reliable” and “authentic,” but he has failed miserably in his interpretation of Mark 12:35-37 (and parallel passages in Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44). When Jesus asked the Pharisees “how is He [the Messiah] then his [David’s] Son,” if David calls Him “Lord,” He was neither denying His credentials to be the Messiah nor the fact that the Messiah would be a “Son of David.” On the contrary, Jesus was trying to get His hearers to understand that the Messiah, though David’s Son, is greater than David, for King David called Him “my Lord.” It was self-evident to first-century Jews that the Messiah would be a descendant of David (Psalm 89:3-4; 132:11-12; Isaiah 9:6-7; Matthew 1:1-16; 12:23; 21:9,15; Luke 3:23-38). Jesus was not denying that fact. Rather, He wanted his hearers to reach the same conclusion that Peter previously reached after Jesus asked a similar question: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16:13, NASB). Peter confessed to Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). How could the Messiah be a descendant of David as well as be the One to whom David 1,000 years earliercalled “Lord”? Answer: He was deity Who put on flesh. This is the truth with which Jesus confronted the Pharisees, and “no one was able to answer Him a word” (Matthew 22:46), because
they believed not in the divinity of Christ. They supposed that he would be only a man.... By propounding the question, Jesus gained two important points: he showed that the promised Christ was to be divine, and he showed that his own claim to be the Son of God was in perfect harmony with his claim to be the Christ. If he is the Christ, then he is David’s Lord (McGarvey, 1875, p. 194).
Jesus, the Son of David, is greater than any man who ever lived, including the greatest king Israel had ever known. He was his “Lord.” Jesus is superior. Interestingly, even the writer of Hebrews referred to Psalm 110:1 as he impressed upon his readers Jesus’ superiority over the angelic realm (1:13).
Knohl’s alleged contradiction, between Jesus’ reference to Psalm 110 in the synoptic gospels and the biblical references of the Messiah being the “Son of David,” is easily resolved when the Bible is “rightly divided” (2 Timothy 2:15). Jesus rejected neither His being the “Son of David,” nor “the Messiah.” In truth, He was both.

REFERENCES

Knohl, Israel (2008), “The Messiah: Son of Joseph,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 34[5]:58-62, September/October.
McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).

No comments:

The Calling of the Apostles by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2823&b=Matthew

The Calling of the Apostles

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

Did Matthew, Mark, and Luke all refer to the same calling of Peter, Andrew, James, and John?

A.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus summoning Peter, Andrew, James, and John to leave their fishing nets behind and become fishers of men (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11). However, whereas Matthew and Mark’s accounts of the event are nearly identical, Luke positions the account at a different location in His record and reports several other details that Matthew and Mark exclude.
Matthew and Mark both record the calling  immediately following their accounts of the temptations of Christ and the beginning of His ministry (Matthew 4:1-17; Mark 1:12-15) and before His healing of the demon possessed and the afflicted, including Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 4:23-25; 8:14-15; Mark 1:21-31). Luke positions Jesus’ calling of these two sets of brothers after Jesus’ healing of Peter’s mother-in-law and a demon-possessed man (Luke 4:31-41). Furthermore, Luke includes several details in his record that Matthew and Mark omit: (1) The fishermen had left their boats and were cleaning their nets (Luke 5:2); (2) A multitude surrounded Jesus as He approached the fishermen (5:1); (3) Jesus taught the multitudes from Peter’s boat (5:3); (4) Jesus instructed the fishermen to go to the deep part of the lake (5:4); (5) The fishermen’s catch was great (5:6-7); (6) Peter confessed his sinfulness (5:8); etc.
Just as it is possible that Jesus cleansed the temple twice (see Lyons, 2004), it is very possible that Jesus may have told His disciples twice that they would be fishers of men: the first time recorded by Matthew (4:18-22) and Mark (1:16-20), and then a second time recorded by Luke (5:1-11). Consider also that even prior to Matthew and Mark’s accounts of Jesus calling Peter and Andrew to become fishers of men, these two fishermen had already previously “followed” Jesus (John 1:35-42; seeLyons, 2007).
So what is the answer to the question? Did the synoptic writers all refer to the same calling in these passages? Although I tend to believe that these are two different callings, with Matthew and Mark recording an earlier encounter, and Luke a later one, one simply cannot be certain about the matter. Bible writers often arranged things differently because of their different purposes in writing. What’s more, although Luke includes several more details in his account of the calling, it could be that he, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was merely providing supplemental material. In either case, we can be sure that no discrepancies exist among these accounts—only differences that we would expect to find from inspired, independent writers.

REFERENCES

Lyons, Eric (2004), “Chronology and the Cleansing of the Temple,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/528.
Lyons, Eric (2007), “When Did Jesus Call the First Apostles?” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3344.

No comments:

Ben Carson and Islam by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5231

Ben Carson and Islam

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

"Ben Carson at CPAC 2015" by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Commons-Wikimedia 2015
One of the current presidential candidates, Ben Carson, was recently asked whether he believes Islam is consistent with theU.S. Constitution: “No, I do not. I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation” (Sanders, 2015). As one would expect in the current PC climate of the nation, considerable negative reactions were generated. It seems surreal that so many Americans could be so adamantly ignorant of both history and the teachings of the Quran as they naively defend, support, and even encourage the spread of Islam in America via the construction of mosques and introducing public school students to its tenets.
Yet, the Quran is forthright and unmistakable in its declarations concerning the violent nature of Islam as well as the inferior status of women—two things the left absolutely detest. The reader is urged to secure a reputable English translation of the Quran, and read the verses identified in the following articles on the A.P. Web site:
What’s more, the Founders of the United States of America were very plain about their recognition of the threat that Islam poses to freedom and the principles on which they established the Republic. Please read the following historical documentation:
“Were the Founding Fathers ‘Tolerant’ of Islam? [Part I]”http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4622&topic=33
“Were the Founding Fathers ‘Tolerant’ of Islam? [Part II]”http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1117&article=2138
“The Treaty of Tripoli and America’s Founders”http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4520&topic=44

REFERENCES

Sanders, Sam (2015), “Ben Carson Wouldn’t Vote For A Muslim President; He’s Not Alone,” NPR, September 21, http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/21/442308328/republican-rhetoric-highlights-americas-negative-relationship-with-muslims.
No comments:

Are Blind Cave Fish a Good Example of Organic Evolution? by Branyon May, Ph.D. Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=166

Are Blind Cave Fish a Good Example of Organic Evolution?

by Branyon May, Ph.D.
Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Q.
Evolutionists often use as a proof of their theory the intriguing case of fish that live in deep-water caves and that have lost their sight permanently, yet still function quite well. Are blind cave fish a good example of organic evolution in action?
A.
Found in the subterranean caverns of the world are rare, unique, and sometimes exotic creatures. Numerous varieties of bats, spiders, insects, and other curious creatures populate these damp, cool environments. Hidden from the Sun, weather, and intrusion of man, these caverns represent a truly intriguing habitat. Another animal also dwells in these cavernous environments—the cave fish. Restricted to the dark confines of the globe, cave fish possess unique qualities that differ from the surface varieties generally seen. The most remarkable distinction between cave fish and their surface counterparts is a loss of visionary processes. There are several other interesting differences, but this particular disparity is the most commonly referenced in support of evolutionary theory. How did this difference come into existence? And why has it continued? These are the underlying questions that need to be answered.
Lamarckianism (as it is known today) was the most prominent theory preceding Darwinian evolution. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck is remembered most notably for his theory of the “inheritance of acquired variations” (Ruse, 1979, p. 8). This theory holds that the acquired physiological traits of the parent are passed down to the offspring. This proposal, however, has been known to be false for more than a century. The classic evolutionary example of this theory is the giraffe. Supposedly, as the scarcity of food increased, the giraffe was forced to extend its neck higher and higher to reach diminishing food sources. Over the ensuing generations, the giraffe subsequently developed a longer neck, due to constant straining and stretching—a ridiculous idea, to be sure.
Yet some in the past attempted to apply this same type of “reasoning” to the cave fish situation in a Lamarckian scenario which suggested that through a natural event (such as a flood or terrain upheaval), a population of creatures, including fish, found itself geographically separated and isolated in a new environment—specifically, a cave. As they continued to live in this cave, the fish physically lost the use of their eyes, perhaps through injury or muscle atrophy. When the fish eventually spawned, the young possessed the same physical defects that the parents had acquired. Although such an explanation made for a good “just-so” story, the Lamarckian theory eventually was rejected by the scientists after Darwin’s day because it did not fit the available facts.
A convenient and rather enlightening illustration to better relate the absurdity (if it is not already apparent) of Lamarck’s theory can be made by comparing your father, your siblings, and you. If, for some unfortunate reason, your father were to lose an appendage (a finger or an arm, for instance), this loss would not be passed along to either your siblings or to you. While the accident would affect your father’s life significantly, it would not have any bearing on the physical appearance of his future offspring. But the question then springs to mind, “Exactly how dochildren obtain their appearances?”
Certainly, children do possess both maternal and paternal characteristics. Why is this the case? Through the study of DNA and its genetic coding, the process of inheritance and expression of traits can be described scientifically. The physical appearance of a child is ultimately the result of his or her genetic makeup, which itself is the product of the combined genes received from the parents. An old saying correctly expresses the matter: “It’s in your genes.” Technically, a gene is defined as a “self-replicating unit of heredity; a portion of DNA (i.e., a sequence of nucleotide units) that encodes a protein” (Schwartz, 1999, p. 406, parenthetical item in orig.). As the definition states, genes are portions of the DNA strand. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) contains the genetic coding that forms a sort of “blueprint” for the design of the organism. On a single strand of DNA, there can be numerous portions (known as genes), each of which assists in the design of the body plan. Gene expression is responsible for the visible attributes of an organism (known as the phenotype), which is the end result of the expression of one’s DNA. Likewise, in cave fish, the resulting blindness among the populations is an effect of genetic mutations, and not a simple transference of an injury or organ loss.
The importance of understanding the role of genetics in this situation is obvious. First, we need to be accurate scientifically. Second, such accuracy lays the groundwork for understanding the true progression that is taking place in this example of cave fish. Any genetic mutation can be classified into one of three groups: good, bad, and neutral. Bad mutations, as the name plainly implies, are detrimental to the affected organism. As long ago as 1950, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel laureate in genetics, observed: “The great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way” (1950, 38:35). Fifty years later, nothing much had changed. The renowned geneticist of Stanford University, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, who is head of the International Human Genome Diversity Project, wrote: “Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect, or a deleterious one” (2000, p. 176, emp. added).
Such harmful mutations affect their host, leading almost exclusively to its demise. For an epigean (surface-dwelling) organism, the loss of sight would be considered a bad mutation. But for a hypogean (underground) organism, this does not present the same problematic scenario. In complete darkness, eyesight is basically a moot point, and at worst would be considered simply a neutral mutation. Neutral mutations, however, are of no use to the evolutionist since they (to use Dr. Cavalli-Sforza’s words) “have no effect.” Occasionally, mutations do occur that are beneficial to survival. But those are rare indeed. Almost thirty-five years ago, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the famous evolutionary geneticist of the Rockefeller University, admitted that favorable mutations amount to less than 1% of all mutations that occur (as quoted in Davidheiser, 1969, p. 209). Once again, not much has changed. The man who is arguably the world’s most eminent evolutionary taxonomist, Ernst Mayr (professor emeritus at Harvard), discussed this very point in his 2001 book, What Evolution Is, when he wrote (with a bit of understatement): “...[T]he occurrence of beneficial mutations is rather rare” (p. 98). Rare indeed!
Furthermore, the point must be stressed that although these mutations may be beneficial to the survival of the organism, they are still defects in the genetic code—a corruption that representsloss of information. Evolution does not require “just” mutations; it requires mutations that produce new information. As Dr. Cavalli-Sforza remarked: “Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of a biological mutation, new information is provided by an error of genetic transmission (i.e., a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child)” [p. 176, emp. added, parenthetical comment in orig.]. In theory, beneficial mutations add “new information.” But in practice that is not the case. As Jonathan Sarfati noted: “If evolution from goo to you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one” (2002, emp. in orig.).
To further establish the genetic mechanism by which cave fish lose their eyesight, it is interesting to point out that a similar result can be obtained experimentally. Through the manipulation of a group of genes known as the homeobox or Hox cluster, scientists can induce the mutation of ectopic (abnormally positioned) eyes. The eye structures have been found to grow in antenna, leg, and wing tissues. These eyes, like the eye structures of the cave fish, are non-functioning entities. These laboratory-induced structures are practically complete, and are “morphologically normal with normal photoreceptors, lens, cone and pigment cells,” according to Walter Gehring, an evolutionary expert in Hox gene mutations (see Gould, 2002, pp. 1124-1125). Although the physical structures are constructed successfully, the eye fails to possess the necessary neural “wiring” to function properly (Gould, p. 1125). Yet, the mutational precedence for such an occurrence is well documented.
Two scientists, Yoshiyuki Yamamoto and William Jeffery, have been involved in specialized research on the eye formation of the cave fish specimen, Astyanax mexicanus. This particular species of teleost (bony fish) possesses both epigean and hypogean forms that enabled the team to perform experiments on the blind cave fish, using the surface form as the control specimen. Yamamoto and Jeffery have begun to establish some of the steps in the formation of the fish’s eye, from the embryonic stage to the adult stage. “Although adult cave fish lack functional eyes, eye formation is initiated during embryogenesis. The lens vesicle is formed but later degenerates, and the cornea, iris, and other optic tissues are absent or rudimentary” (2000, 289:631). The apoptosis (programmed death) of the lens cells occurs prior to the degeneration of any other tissue. Yamamoto and Jeffery observed:
The optic cup and neural retina are formed in cave fish, but the retinal layers are disorganized, growth is retarded, and photoreceptor cells do not differentiate. The degenerate eye sinks into the orbit and is covered by a flap of skin (289:631).
As a result of their research, these two scientists have concluded that the lens plays a dominant role in the subsequent development of the eye’s entire structure. To prove their hypothesis, a lens from the “eyed” variety was transplanted into the eye of the blind variety. After 8 days “a larger eye was detected on the transplant side,” and after 2 months “a large eye (restored eye) with a distinct pupil was present.... Sections of the restored eye showed an anterior chamber, cornea, iris, and lens” (289:631, parenthetical item in orig.). In the final analysis, Yamamoto and Jeffery concluded: “[T]he results show that the cave fish lens has lost the ability to promote eye development” (289:632). In other words, the data show that the blindness found in cave fish is a product of a genetic mutation affecting the fish’s lens. Peter Mathers, a developmental biologist, summed up the results well when he said: “It’s possible you are looking at a single gene defectthat has caused a drastic developmental change” (as quoted in Pennisi, 2000, 289:523, emp. added).
But that has not kept some evolutionists from claiming that the concept of blind cave fish supports their theory. As one news report stated: “Millions of years ago it had eyes; but now, soon after it starts growing in the egg, the eyes start to degenerate and the fish are born blind” (see “Blind Fish...,” 2000, emp. added). However, nowhere in the scientific experiments is there evidence that lends itself to an ancient timeline of descent. The small genetic changes (microevolution) that can be observed are wrongly assumed to be the foundation from which macroevolution emanates.
First, notice that no new speciation has occurred due to this mutation: the species Astyanax mexicanus can be either the “eyed” form or the “eyeless” form. It is refreshing to note that even biological taxonomy plainly supports the fact that the fish with which we began is still a fish. Neither the genus nor the species has changed between the epigean and hypogean forms. Second, there is the principle of progression versus regression. Here, information is the key. Evolution demands progression, and with it there must accompany an increase of new information.Regression can be described by the loss or corruption of genetic information. Harvard’s Ernst Mayr defined macroevolution as the “evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties, such as new structures” (2001, p. 287). He included in his definition the requirement for the “production of evolutionary novelties, such as new structures.” The question then becomes, “What new structures has the cave fish evolved?” Here is where progression comes to a screeching halt. The cave fish actually falls into the category known as “devolution,” which is a category of regression on a downhill slope, where information is being lost—not gained (Wieland, 2001, p. 47). Organic evolution cannot be sustained using examples of “downhill” change. The basic tenets needed by evolutionists are not met, and thus cave fish cannot be touted as an example of evolutionary hypotheses.
Organisms are affected greatly by the habitats in which they live. Within their specific environments, they perform all the functions of life—feeding, procreating, etc. Thus, environmental changes and fluctuations have the potential to affect every aspect of their lives. Above ground, the sense of sight is a widely used, extremely beneficial trait. Underground, however, sight takes on a completely different role. Whereas above ground the loss of sight very likely would spell doom for most creatures, beneath the earth it is far less detrimental. When viewing the hypogean populations, mutated eyes characterize the vast majority. How can the mutation spread (and spread quickly) if it is completely neutral? In this setting and environment, the loss of sight for the cave fish could be beneficial, presenting itself as a good mutation.
According to Yamamoto and Jeffery, Astyanax has undergone certain changes, “including enhanced lateral line [sense of touch—BM/BT] and gustatory systems [sense of taste—BM/BT]” (289:631). These enhancements are part of a well-documented occurrence known as plasticity. Plasticity refers to the brain’s ability to change. For instance, take the example of the father who lost his limb. Emotionally, this would be an extremely tragic situation that would require some mental adjustment to overcome. Neurologically, there also would be some adjustments that would have to take place. To use a somewhat simplified explanation, the human brain contains “maps” of the body. When something is lost, like a limb or even a digit on the hand, the brain adjusts the neural network and the mental “map” accordingly. For the hand, the adjacent digits’ representative image will expand to include the missing finger. This process works on varying timescales, but nowhere near an evolutionary timescale. According to the textbook, Neurobiology, “these changes take place over varying time scales; in some cases the shifts in representations are slow, developing over weeks, but in other cases they may be surprisingly rapid, beginning within a day or so, or even a few hours” (Shepherd, 1983, p. 290, emp. added). For amputee patients, this is an established fact, and provides an extraordinary example of the amazing adaptive nature (and incredible design!) of the human brain.
This neurological process applies to the cave fish, as evinced by Yamamoto and Jeffery’s aforementioned conclusion regarding enhanced touch and taste. For a fish in complete darkness, the lateral line (which is the sensory network for touch) would be essential, since it would guide the fish through the cavern. The gustatory system (which is primarily responsible for taste) would aid in the location of food. As scientific studies have documented, there are “compensatory improvements of the sense of taste in the blind, cave-dwelling fish” (Boudriot and Reutter, 2001, p. 428). These enhancements, due to a mutation, would confer an advantage for the blind cave fish over the non-mutated variety. However, notice that this is an advantage only to this highly specific environment, and would become of ill effect outside of these parameters.
In conclusion, blind cave fish are just that—blind (by mutation) and isolated to a caveenvironment. As they have been from the beginning, they are still just fish.. Genetic mutations and variations are found throughout nature, occurring in all populations. In many cases, they represent a defect—i.e., the corruption or loss of valuable genetic information that results in a “downhill” change or devolution, which is in direct opposition to the required demands of macroevolution. The incredible design and complexity of life is seen by its ability to survive. Whether changing behavior due to environmental strain, or re-networking a neural interface, life is dynamic, and is filled with remarkable intricacies. One cannot help but wonder: whence came such design?

REFERENCES

“Blind Fish Show Eyes Can Grow Back,” (2000), [On-line], URL: http://www.cnn.com/2000/Nature/07/28/blind.cavefish.reut/.
Boudriot, F. and Klaus Reutter (2001), “Ultrastructure of the Taste Buds in the Blind Cave FishAstyanax jordani (‘Anoptichthys’) and the Sighted River Fish Astyanax mexicanus (Teleostei, Characidae),” Journal of Comparative Neurology, 434:428-444, June 11.
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca (2000), Genes, Peoples, and Languages (New York: North Point Press).
Davidheiser, Bolton (1969), Evolution and Christian Faith (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed).
Gould, Stephen J. (2002), The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Mayr, Ernst (2001), What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books).
Muller, Hermann J. (1950), “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” American Scientist, 38:33-50,126, January.
Pennisi, Elizabeth (2000), “Embryonic Lens Prompts Eye Development,” Science, 289:522-523, July 28.
Ruse, Michael (1979), The Darwinian Revolution (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Sarfati, Jonathan (2002), “15 Ways to Refute Materialistic Bigotry,” [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp.
Schwartz, Jeffrey H. (1999), Sudden Origins (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Shepherd, Gordon M. (1983), Neurobiology (New York: Oxford University Press).
Wieland, Carl (2001), “Blind Fish, Island Immigrants and Hairy Babies,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 23[1]:46-49.
Yamamoto, Yoshiyuki and William R. Jeffery (2000), “Central Role for the Lens in Cave Fish Eye Degeneration,” Science, 289:631-633, July 28.
No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)