May 12, 2016

G.D.R... Thank you!!!


Today's message is a simple one; thank you!!! Thank you for reading my thoughts each day, for caring enough to comment when you can, and for your friendship.

May God bless you!!!

Philippians, Chapter 1 (WEB)
 3 I thank my God whenever I remember you,  4 always in every request of mine on behalf of you all making my requests with joy,  5 for your partnership in furtherance of the Good News from the first day until now;  6 being confident of this very thing, that he who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.

And God will continue to work in your life to bless it!!! He has never let up on me- not for a single minute!!!!!

ps. The jpeg is nice too!!!

G.D.R.... Bible Reading May 12


Bible Reading 
May 12
The World English Bible

May 12
Joshua 5, 6

Jos 5:1 It happened, when all the kings of the Amorites, who were beyond the Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, who were by the sea, heard how that Yahweh had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we had passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more, because of the children of Israel.
Jos 5:2 At that time, Yahweh said to Joshua, "Make flint knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time."
Jos 5:3 Joshua made himself flint knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.
Jos 5:4 This is the reason Joshua circumcised: all the people who came out of Egypt, who were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt.
Jos 5:5 For all the people who came out were circumcised; but all the people who were born in the wilderness by the way as they came out of Egypt had not been circumcised.
Jos 5:6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, even the men of war who came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they didn't listen to the voice of Yahweh. Yahweh swore to them that he wouldn't let them see the land which Yahweh swore to their fathers that he would give us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
Jos 5:7 Their children, whom he raised up in their place, were circumcised by Joshua; for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them on the way.
Jos 5:8 It happened, when they were done circumcising all the nation, that they stayed in their places in the camp until they were healed.
Jos 5:9 Yahweh said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you." Therefore the name of that place was called Gilgal, to this day.
Jos 5:10 The children of Israel encamped in Gilgal. They kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening in the plains of Jericho.
Jos 5:11 They ate unleavened cakes and parched grain of the produce of the land on the next day after the Passover, in the same day.
Jos 5:12 The manna ceased on the next day, after they had eaten of the produce of the land. The children of Israel didn't have manna any more; but they ate of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.
Jos 5:13 It happened, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood in front of him with his sword drawn in his hand. Joshua went to him, and said to him, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?"
Jos 5:14 He said, "No; but I have come now as commander of Yahweh's army." Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and worshipped, and said to him, "What does my lord say to his servant?"
Jos 5:15 The prince of Yahweh's army said to Joshua, "Take your shoes off of your feet; for the place on which you stand is holy." Joshua did so.

Jos 6:1 Now Jericho was tightly shut up because of the children of Israel. No one went out, and no one came in.
Jos 6:2 Yahweh said to Joshua, "Behold, I have given Jericho into your hand, with its king and the mighty men of valor.
Jos 6:3 All your men of war shall march around the city, going around the city once. You shall do this six days.
Jos 6:4 Seven priests shall bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark. On the seventh day, you shall march around the city seven times, and the priests shall blow the trumpets.
Jos 6:5 It shall be that when they make a long blast with the ram's horn, and when you hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall go up every man straight before him."
Jos 6:6 Joshua the son of Nun called the priests, and said to them, "Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of Yahweh."
Jos 6:7 They said to the people, "Advance! March around the city, and let the armed men pass on before Yahweh's ark."
Jos 6:8 It was so, that when Joshua had spoken to the people, the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams' horns before Yahweh advanced, and blew the trumpets; and the ark of the covenant of Yahweh followed them.
Jos 6:9 The armed men went before the priests who blew the trumpets, and the ark went after them. The trumpets sounded as they went.
Jos 6:10 Joshua commanded the people, saying, "You shall not shout, nor let your voice be heard, neither shall any word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I tell you to shout. Then you shall shout."
Jos 6:11 So he caused the ark of Yahweh to go around the city, going about it once. Then they came into the camp, and lodged in the camp.
Jos 6:12 Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of Yahweh.
Jos 6:13 The seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of Yahweh went on continually, and blew the trumpets: and the armed men went before them. The rear guard came after the ark of Yahweh. The trumpets sounded as they went.
Jos 6:14 The second day they marched around the city once, and returned into the camp. They did this six days.
Jos 6:15 It happened on the seventh day, that they rose early at the dawning of the day, and marched around the city in the same way seven times. Only on this day they marched around the city seven times.
Jos 6:16 It happened at the seventh time, when the priests blew the trumpets, Joshua said to the people, "Shout, for Yahweh has given you the city!
Jos 6:17 The city shall be devoted, even it and all that is in it, to Yahweh. Only Rahab the prostitute shall live, she and all who are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.
Jos 6:18 But as for you, only keep yourselves from the devoted thing, lest when you have devoted it, you take of the devoted thing; so would you make the camp of Israel accursed, and trouble it.
Jos 6:19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are holy to Yahweh. They shall come into Yahweh's treasury."
Jos 6:20 So the people shouted, and the priests blew the trumpets. It happened, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, that the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
Jos 6:21 They utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
Jos 6:22 Joshua said to the two men who had spied out the land, "Go into the prostitute's house, and bring out from there the woman and all that she has, as you swore to her."
Jos 6:23 The young men who were spies went in, and brought out Rahab with her father, her mother, her brothers, and all that she had. They also brought out all her relatives, and they set them outside of the camp of Israel.
Jos 6:24 They burnt the city with fire, and all that was in it. Only they put the silver, the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron into the treasury of Yahweh's house.
Jos 6:25 But Rahab the prostitute, her father's household, and all that she had, Joshua saved alive. She lived in the midst of Israel to this day, because she hid the messengers, whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
Jos 6:26 Joshua commanded them with an oath at that time, saying, "Cursed be the man before Yahweh, who rises up and builds this city Jericho. With the loss of his firstborn shall he lay its foundation, and with the loss of his youngest son shall he set up its gates."
Jos 6:27 So Yahweh was with Joshua; and his fame was in all the land.


May 12, 13
Luke 23

Luk 23:1 The whole company of them rose up and brought him before Pilate.
Luk 23:2 They began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting the nation, forbidding paying taxes to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ, a king."
Luk 23:3 Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" He answered him, "So you say."
Luk 23:4 Pilate said to the chief priests and the multitudes, "I find no basis for a charge against this man."
Luk 23:5 But they insisted, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even to this place."
Luk 23:6 But when Pilate heard Galilee mentioned, he asked if the man was a Galilean.
Luk 23:7 When he found out that he was in Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem during those days.
Luk 23:8 Now when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceedingly glad, for he had wanted to see him for a long time, because he had heard many things about him. He hoped to see some miracle done by him.
Luk 23:9 He questioned him with many words, but he gave no answers.
Luk 23:10 The chief priests and the scribes stood, vehemently accusing him.
Luk 23:11 Herod with his soldiers humiliated him and mocked him. Dressing him in luxurious clothing, they sent him back to Pilate.
Luk 23:12 Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before that they were enemies with each other.
Luk 23:13 Pilate called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people,
Luk 23:14 and said to them, "You brought this man to me as one that perverts the people, and see, I have examined him before you, and found no basis for a charge against this man concerning those things of which you accuse him.
Luk 23:15 Neither has Herod, for I sent you to him, and see, nothing worthy of death has been done by him.
Luk 23:16 I will therefore chastise him and release him."
Luk 23:17 Now he had to release one prisoner to them at the feast.
Luk 23:18 But they all cried out together, saying, "Away with this man! Release to us Barabbas!"-
Luk 23:19 one who was thrown into prison for a certain revolt in the city, and for murder.
Luk 23:20 Then Pilate spoke to them again, wanting to release Jesus,
Luk 23:21 but they shouted, saying, "Crucify! Crucify him!"
Luk 23:22 He said to them the third time, "Why? What evil has this man done? I have found no capital crime in him. I will therefore chastise him and release him."
Luk 23:23 But they were urgent with loud voices, asking that he might be crucified. Their voices and the voices of the chief priests prevailed.
Luk 23:24 Pilate decreed that what they asked for should be done.
Luk 23:25 He released him who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, for whom they asked, but he delivered Jesus up to their will.
Luk 23:26 When they led him away, they grabbed one Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it after Jesus.
Luk 23:27 A great multitude of the people followed him, including women who also mourned and lamented him.
Luk 23:28 But Jesus, turning to them, said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, don't weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children.
Luk 23:29 For behold, the days are coming in which they will say, 'Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.'
Luk 23:30 Then they will begin to tell the mountains, 'Fall on us!' and tell the hills, 'Cover us.'
Luk 23:31 For if they do these things in the green tree, what will be done in the dry?"
Luk 23:32 There were also others, two criminals, led with him to be put to death.
Luk 23:33 When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified him there with the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left.
Luk 23:34 Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing." Dividing his garments among them, they cast lots.
Luk 23:35 The people stood watching. The rulers with them also scoffed at him, saying, "He saved others. Let him save himself, if this is the Christ of God, his chosen one!"
Luk 23:36 The soldiers also mocked him, coming to him and offering him vinegar,
Luk 23:37 and saying, "If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself!"
Luk 23:38 An inscription was also written over him in letters of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew: "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Luk 23:39 One of the criminals who was hanged insulted him, saying, "If you are the Christ, save yourself and us!"
Luk 23:40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Don't you even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation?
Luk 23:41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong."
Luk 23:42 He said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom."
Luk 23:43 Jesus said to him, "Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
Luk 23:44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour.
Luk 23:45 The sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two.
Luk 23:46 Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" Having said this, he breathed his last.
Luk 23:47 When the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, "Certainly this was a righteous man."
Luk 23:48 All the multitudes that came together to see this, when they saw the things that were done, returned home beating their breasts.
Luk 23:49 All his acquaintances, and the women who followed with him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.
Luk 23:50 Behold, a man named Joseph, who was a member of the council, a good and righteous man
Luk 23:51 (he had not consented to their counsel and deed), from Arimathaea, a city of the Jews, who was also waiting for the Kingdom of God:
Luk 23:52 this man went to Pilate, and asked for Jesus' body.
Luk 23:53 He took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb that was cut in stone, where no one had ever been laid.
Luk 23:54 It was the day of the Preparation, and the Sabbath was drawing near.
Luk 23:55 The women, who had come with him out of Galilee, followed after, and saw the tomb, and how his body was laid.
Luk 23:56 They returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

R.M.... Listen to the Silence


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/silence.html

Listen to the Silence

Silence.
In the minds of many, the word conjures up images of loneliness and abandonment. Men fear the drumbeats of silence and will go to great lengths to protect themselves from it. Department stores, doctor's offices and the like pipe in soft music to ensure that their patrons are not awash in silence. Likewise, homes are often so filled with sounds emanating from the radio or the television that the voice of silence cannot be heard.
In this busy world of noise and chaos men have seemingly lost the ability to sit still and be quiet. Men have lost interest in the teeming sounds of the forest and the rustle of tall grass. Have you listened to the wind or the bushes lately? In their feeble voices they speak of God and His wonderful works. In their song is the praise of the Creator (Psalm 19:1).
Christians who wish to find peace in their lives can begin by discovering the power of silence. Thomas Carlyle said, "Speech is great, but silence is greater." For it is in the latter that we find the recipe for reverence.
Psalm 46:10 says, "Be still and know that I am God." Perceptively, Don Henley writes, "We are like sheep without a shepherd and we don't know how to be alone so we wander 'round this desert and end up following the wrong gods home."
Prayer is the foundation for a life of reverence. Bowing our hearts and minds to God is how we can come humbly before His throne (James 4:10). Prayer is the avenue men can use to speak to the Father. But do we ever hear what He has to say? Do we pray and then rush off to other activities? Or, do we follow our "amen" with a period of thoughtful meditation on the word of God? How can we hear the voice of God unless we take the time to listen? His majesty is everywhere, to be seen by those perceptive enough to recognize the evidence of His power.
"Commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still" (Psalm 4:4).

Richard Mansel

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

J.M... Intellects, dabblers and chemistry


Intellects, dabblers and chemistry

I wonder how many there are with a degree in Comparative Religions. Hmmm, I'm guessing there must be tens of thousands (Sam Harris is one of them). Now if a person is a wanna-be intellectual I'd have thought the way to go was to get into some branch of Physics or maybe Neuroscience (Sam Harris, tells us he's working on a doctorate in the latter). Being a philosopher or a well-read student of Comparative religions is…well…okay, but to be a cutting-edge scientist, now that takes you up among the (chemical) gods; even the gods have to take you seriously then. I mean they couldn't look at each other any more and say of you that you've done "a bit of dabbling" in this field or that; fields that are "interesting" but don't settle anything much. Somehow, if you're not a "real scientist" your lively writing style or your popularity doesn't get you far—there's a lack of real substance, don't you know. But when you gain a doctorate in a given discipline (as presumably Sam Harris will in Neuroscience) then you can take your place among the gods—new and inexperienced among the senior gods, it's true; still, you will have arrived. Now the other gods will know that you've read a lot of books written by the senior gods in a science field.
Look, whatever we say, it must surely be a bad dose of sour grapes, or something much worse, to look at someone with as many prizes as Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, for example, and not be gob-smacked by his brilliance. Now he may be as thick as a couple of two-by-fours in a host of other areas but only an idiot or a bigot or both would deny he's an intellect of the first order. It's true that in another generation or two (hopefully) some gifted schoolboys and girls will know more about physics and astronomy than Weinberg—that's the nature of the increase of knowledge. Having a head full of the latest truths is no proof that a man or woman is a gifted thinker. [Nobel prize-winner, Francis Watson, insisted that many of his scientific colleagues were stupid! Highly-credentialed scientist Philip Ableson said his colleagues were often bigots. That can help make you stupid.]
Maybe one of these days Sam Harris with his Neuroscience doctorate will be able to tell us if there is and what precisely is the physical basis for the difference between a "genius" and a walking encyclopaedia. If he manages to be able to do that before anyone else he will have secured his place among the gods.
Dabblers only impress the non-specialists! Still, you can't help making a hero out of someone who expresses well your own convictions and feelings (even if you happen to believe that these are nothing but chemical reactions; of course, even the hero worship is chemical reaction). You don't have to be much more than an enthusiastic amateur (like me, for example, in theology) in these days when the internet is awash with information, to create the impression—without even trying—that you know a lot more than you do, or that you're an intellect.
Numerous visits online or many visits to a public library and before you know it some people are saying, "Wow, now that guy/girl is brilliant." Take a little dab of Logical Empiricism here, a few medical facts there, mix in some psychology and social studies jargon, comb history and current affairs for the "facts" that suit the case you want to build, use a few phrases from quantum mechanics or genetics, lambaste the moral stupidity of many of your opponents on issues important to society and mix it all together in a best-seller and people start looking at you in awe. Bless me; you start believing it yourself. Still…still…that kind of non-specialist adulation isn't the same as being a real god; better to get a doctorate in a hard science!
But even when you get to be at the top (and the mass of scientists are simply "good mechanics"—the scientists themselves tell us) and you now "know" beyond dispute that you have the "truth" it appears that you can forget that it's nothing but "chemical reactions". Even Steven Weinberg (a big supporter of modern Zionism) passionately engages in moral discourse so he can get at "the truth" and "honesty". Bless me; you'd think "truth" and "honesty" had some non-mechanical/non chemical nature. Weinberg wants truth and honesty—who cares? That's his chemical reaction not the chemical reaction of those racist thugs at the top of the Nazi tree or their vile minions that tormented and murdered Weinberg's family. Their chemical reactions didn't include giving a damn about Weinberg's chemical feelings, which he somehow converts into some moralstance that people "should" pay attention to.
I don't understand why brilliant atheists can't see that B.F Skinner and E.O Wilson are right! If everything is physical forces operated on by physical laws resulting in genetics shaping people, then all talk of "morality" is the beating of our gums (which is also chemistry). Environment is no less the product of the mindless forces and the necessity of physical laws. It doesn't matter at that point precisely how many factors are involved in the production of the human sense of "ought"—it doesn't matter; "ought" is nothing but amoral chemistry. You might not like it scummy but it's nonsense to connect "ought" to a pond getting scummy—it's the result of mindless realities. You can't get "ought" out of the universe that atheists postulate, but apparently only a few can see that or are willing to admit it. You may hate with a near perfect passion what Stalin, Pol Pot or the Nazis have done but when you reduce everything to chemistry you can't say they were immoral in doing what they did. Our highest emotions, Weinberg said, are chemistry--they aren't a sign of moral superiority. Marquis de Sade was upset because he was thrown into prison for beating the blood out of the prostitute he used. He told them that was his chemistry—that's what pleased him. He had a point—but then they had a point too; their chemistry meant it pleased them to throw him in prison. Atheist Bertrand Russell confessed sadly that he had no rational grounds for condemning the awful things that went on in the world so they grieved him deeply. He granted that "morals" was what other people wanted you to do rather than what you "ought" to do. One quantum mechanics scientist told me he thought that, morally speaking, we believers were "gutless wonders". He wasn't quite able to tell me why his chemically based moral opinion was a moral opinion.
Weinberg said science can only offer "a lot of little truths". One truth he offers is this, "Religion is an insult to human dignity." That's a self-confessed bag of bio-chemicals speaking.
This bag of bio-chemicals much prefers the words of Jesus Christ, "I am the truth."
But if we're all bags of chemicals why argue with each other. Everything that we all do is chemically based behaviour. Some bags enjoy doing "nice" things and others get pleasure in butchery. The Mengele bag did unspeakable things but how can we call them "immoral"? One consistent atheist (Walter Kaufmann) said, "Try not to call actions immoral." Oh well.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Motives Matter by Eric Lyons, M.Min

.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=750&b=Hosea

Motives Matter

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In roughly 841 B.C., the commander of Israel’s army, Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, was anointed king over the northern kingdom and was instructed by the Lord to “strike down the house of Ahab” and “cut off from Ahab all the males in Israel, both bond and free” (2 Kings 9:6-10). After receiving this command from the Lord via one of “the sons of the prophets,” Jehu began his assassination of Ahab’s family. He started by slaying Ahab’s son, Joram (also known as Jehoram), who was ruling Israel at the time Jehu was anointed king. He then proceeded to kill Ahaziah (the king of Judah and grandson of Jezebel—9:27-29) and forty-two of Ahaziah’s brethren (10:12-14). Later, he slew (or had others slay) Jezebel (the mother of Joram and former wife of the deceased Ahab—9:30-37), all seventy sons of Ahab who were living in Samaria, and “all who remained to Ahab in Samaria” (10:1-10,17), and “all who remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel,” including “all his great men and his close acquaintances, and his priests” (10:11). Jehu’s final stop was at the temple of Baal where, upon gathering all the Baal-worshipping leaders of Israel into the temple, he locked them up and had them massacred (10:18-27).
After Jehu had carried out his orders to obliterate all males from the house of Ahab, the Lord said to him, “Because you have done well in doing what is right in My sight, and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in My heart, your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation” (10:30). Jehu had taken the most thorough means of suppressing the idolatry in Israel, and thus was granted protection on his throne, along with his sons after him unto “the fourth generation.” The following chapters of 2 Kings indicate that the Lord was true to His word (as always; cf. Titus 1:2). Although the reigns of Jehu’s sons were described as kings who “did evil in the sight of Yahweh,” the Lord allowed them to reign to the fourth generation in order to fulfill His promise to Jehu.
Several years after the above events took place, the prophet Hosea expressed words that many skeptics have claimed are in opposition to what is stated in 2 Kings 9-10. When Gomer, Hosea’ s wife, bore a son, Hosea declared that the Lord said, “Call his name Jezreel, for in a little while I will avenge the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu, and bring an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel” (1:4). Those trying to discredit the Bible’s integrity argue that Hosea put himself into obvious disagreement with the inspired writer of 2 Kings, who thought that Jehu had done “all” that was in God’s heart. Skeptics claim that the author of 2 Kings heaped praise on Jehu for the Jezreel massacre, but Hosea contradicted him when he said that Lord would avenge the blood of Jezreel and end the reign of the house of Jehu in Israel.
What can be said about this “obvious disagreement”? Are these two passages harmonious, or is this a legitimate contradiction that should cause all Bible believers to reject the book that has been tried and tested for hundreds of years?
First, we cannot be 100% certain that Hosea 1:4 is referring to the events in 2 Kings 9-10. Although nearly all skeptics and Bible commentators link the two passages together, it must be understood that just because 2 Kings 9-10 is the only place in the Old Testament that describes suitable events located at Jezreel, it does not mean that Hosea must have been referring to those events. The honest student of God’s Word has to admit that Hosea may have been referring to Jehu’s sons who reigned after him. Perhaps his sons performed serious atrocities in Jezreel that are not recorded in 2 Kings. One cannot be certain that Hosea was indeed referring to the events recorded in 2 Kings 10. Having made such a disclaimer, it is my position that these two passages should be linked, and thus the alleged contradiction raised by skeptics deserves an adequate explanation: How could God tell Jehu to destroy the house of Ahab, and then later condemn him (his house) through the words of Hosea for having done so?
The answer really is quite simple. As Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe observed: “God praised Jehu for obeying Him in destroying the house of Ahab, but condemned Jehu for his sinful motive in shedding their blood” (1992, p. 194). Skeptics are fond of citing 2 Kings 10:30 to support their position, but they often conveniently overlook verses 29 and 31, which state: “ Jehu did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin, that is, form the golden calves that were at Bethel and Dan.... Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart; for he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam, who had made Israel sin.” Jehu obeyed God’s command to “strike down the house of Ahab” and utterly exterminate his descendents (2 Kings 9:7-8; 10:30), but he did not obey God in all that he did. The passage in 2 Kings 10:29-31 indicates that even though Jehu had done what God commanded, “he did so out of a carnal zeal that was tainted with protective self-interest” (Archer, 1982, p. 208). It seems obvious that since Jehu followed in the footsteps of Israel’s first wicked king by worshipping false gods and not walking according to God’s law, he did not destroy Ahab’s descendents out of any devotion to the Lord. Furthermore, in commentating on Jehu’s actions, biblical scholar Gleason Archer noted:
The important principle set forth in Hosea 1:4 was that when blood is shed, even in the service of God and in obedience to His command, blood-guiltiness attaches to God’s agent himself if his motive was tainted with carnal self-interest rather than by a sincere concern for the purity of the faith and the preservation of God’s truth (such as, for example, animated Elijah when he had the 450 prophets of Baal put to death after the contest with them on Mount Carmel) [p. 209].
Considering Jehu’s actions by examining the motives behind those actions solves the alleged contradiction. Jehu’s failure to obey God’s commands and depart from the sins of Jeroboam reveals that he would have equally disobeyed the other commands as well, had it been contrary to his own desires. The story of Jehu’s conquest teaches a great lesson, which Albert Barnes acknowledged in his commentary on Hosea: “[I]f we do what is the will of God for any end of our own, for anything except God, we do, in fact, our own will, not God’s.” Indeed, just as the apostle Paul taught in his discourse on love—motives matter (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)!

REFERENCES
Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask: A Comprehensive Handbook on Bible Difficulties(Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Take It or Leave It by Eric Lyons, M.Min. Brad Harrub, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=295&b=Matthew

Take It or Leave It

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Brad Harrub, Ph.D.



Perhaps the most difficult alleged Bible contradiction that we have been asked to “tackle” at Apologetics Press was presented to us some time ago by the mother of a dear friend. She asked, “When Jesus sent out the twelve apostles on what is commonly called the ‘limited commission,’ did He instruct them to take staffs or not?” Her question was the result of studying the three following parallel passages in the synoptic Gospels (the difficult portions are in bold type).
Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals,nor staffs (literally, “a staff”); for a worker is worthy of his food” (Matthew 10:9-10).

“He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts—but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics” (Mark 6:8-9).

“And He said to them, ‘Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs (literally, “a staff”) nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece’ “ (Luke 9:3).
A cursory reading of the above passages admittedly is somewhat confusing. Matthew and Luke seem to agree that Jesus prohibited the disciples from taking a staff on their journeys, while Mark appears to give them permission to take one. Furthermore, although Luke does not record Jesus’ command regarding sandals, some have concluded that Matthew and Mark also contradict each other on this point. To use the words of Steve Wells, author of The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, “In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus tells his disciples to go barefoot and take no staff. But the Jesus in Mark’s gospel (6:8-9) tells them to wear sandals and carry a staff” (emp. added). Actually then, the question at hand is about staffs and sandals, even though Luke mentioned only staffs.
The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verbs to express different meanings. In Matthew, the word “provide” (NKJV) is an English translation of the Greek word ktesthe. According to Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon, the root word comes from ktaomai, which means to “procure for oneself, acquire, get” (1979, p. 455). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb “acquire” in Matthew 10:9 (“Do not acquire….”), instead of “provide” or “take.” In Matthew, Jesus is saying: “Do not acquire anything in addition to what you already have that may tempt you or stand in your way. Just go as you are.” As Mark indicated, the apostles were to “take” (airo) what they had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies (extra apparel, staffs, shoes, etc.) or making preparations for their trip, but instead were instructed to trust in God’s providence for additional needs. Jesus did not mean for the apostles to discard the staffs and sandals they already had; rather, they were not to go and acquire more.
To illustrate this point using a modern day scenario, consider the CEO who came to his Personnel Director near the end of the day and said that he needed her to fly to Los Angeles on a business trip immediately. If he told the director not to acquire anything for this urgent trip, including clothes, shoes, or make-up, she would know that he meant not to take anything extra. Obviously the CEO did not intend for the Personnel Director to take off her shoes, clothes, and the make-up she already was wearing in order to make the trip. Furthermore, if her boss came back five minutes later (to ensure that she understood his instructions clearly) and stated, “Hurry. The plane is leaving in one hour. Don’t take anything with you except what you are wearing,” the Personnel Director would conclude the same thing she did the first time—do not take anything extra. The CEO said the same thing using two different phrases. Similarly, the wording in Matthew and Mark represent two different ways of saying virtually the same thing.
Most apologists and biblical commentators discontinue their discussion of these parallel passages at this point. They explain the difference between Matthew and Mark’s account of Jesus sending out the Twelve, but they omit Luke’s account. In order to answer the skeptic’s criticism adequately, however, Luke’s account must be included in this discussion. Otherwise, one still is left with an unanswered alleged contradiction. The differences surrounding Luke and Mark’s account are explainable, but it takes effort on the part of the reader to comprehend them. [The following facts must be read carefully in order to understand how the differences in these accounts do not point toward a contradiction.]
As is obvious from a comparison of the verses in Matthew and Luke, they are recording the same truth—that the apostles were not to spend valuable time gathering extra staffs—only they are using different words to do so.
Provide (Greek ktaomineither gold nor silver…nor staffs” (Matthew 10:9-10, emp. added).

Take (Greek airo) nothing for the journey, neither staffs” (Luke 9:3, emp. added).
Luke did not use ktaomi in his account because he nearly always used ktaomi in a different sense than Matthew did. In Matthew’s account, the word ktaomai is used to mean “provide” or “acquire,” whereas in the books of Luke and Acts, Luke used this word to mean “purchase, buy, or earn.” Notice the following examples of how Luke used this word.
“I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get” (ktaomai) [Luke 18:12, emp. added, NAS]

“Now this man purchased (ktaomai) a field with the wages of iniquity (Acts 1:18, emp. added).

“Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased (ktaomai) with money!” (Acts 8:20, emp. added).

The commander answered, “With a large sum I obtained (ktaomai) this citizenship” (Acts 22:28, emp. added).

[Luke 21:19 is the only place one could argue where Luke may have used ktaomai to mean something other than “purchase, buy, or earn,” but even here there is a transactional notion in it (Miller, 1997)].
When Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14), used the word ktaomai, he meant something different than when Matthew, the tax collector, used the same word. Whereas Luke used ktaomai to refer to purchasing or buying something, Matthew used the Greek verb agorazo (cf. Matthew 14:15; 25:9-10; 27:6-7). Matthew used ktaomai only in the sense of acquiring something (not purchasing something). As such, it would make absolutely no sense for Luke to use ktaomai in his account of Jesus sending out the apostles (9:3). If he did, then he would have Jesus forbidding the apostles to “purchase” or “buy” money [“Buy nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money….”]. Thus, Luke used the more general Greek verb (airo) in order to convey the same idea that Matthew did when using the Greek verb ktaomai.
Just as ktaomai did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew, the Greek word airo (translated “take” in both Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3) often did not mean the same for Luke and Mark (see Miller, 1997). [Understanding this simple fact eliminates the “contradiction” completely, for unless the skeptic can be certain that Mark and Luke were using the word in the same sense, he cannot prove that the accounts contradict each other.] Mark consistently used airo in other passages throughout his gospel to mean simply “take” or “pick up and carry” (2:9; 6:29; 11:23; 13:16). That Luke (in 9:3) did not mean the same sense of airo as Mark did (in 6:8) is suggested by the fact that in Luke 19:21-22 he used this same verb to mean “acquire.” Another piece of comparative data between Mark and Luke is that when Mark recorded Jesus informing His listeners that to be His disciple one had to “take up his cross” (Mark 8:34), he used the word airo. Luke, on the other hand, used the Greek word bastazo (14:27) [Miller, 1997].
Without going any further with these language comparisons, one simply must understand that the Greek language (like most languages) is flexible enough so that sometimes two writers can use the same word to mean different things, and sometimes they can use different words to mean the same thing (as indicated by the following chart,* which serves as a summary of the comparisons and contrasts made in this article).
 
ktaomai
agorazo
airo
bastazo
Matthew
to acquire
to purchase, buy
  
Mark  
to take, pick up and carry
 
Luke
to purchase, buy
 
to acquire
to take, pick up and carry
*NOTE: Only the definitions that pertain to this article are shown.
In case you think such “language leeway” in the Greek sounds absurd, remember that this flexibility appears frequently in the English language. Consider two basketball coaches who are commenting on a player. One says, “He is bad;” the other says, “He is good.” The coaches may be using two different words to mean the same thing. The truth is, in some contexts the words “bad” and “good” are opposites, in other situations they are synonymous.
Although many have been misled about the differences regarding Jesus’ instructions when sending out His apostles on the limited commission, the truth is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all saying the same thing: “Hurry up and get moving!”
REFERENCES
Bauer, Walter. (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, ed. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich; revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s 5th edition (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition.
Miller, Glenn (1997), “Well, did Jesus Tell Them to Take a Staff or not? Another Contradiction?!” [On-line], URL: http://christian-thinktank.com/nostaff.html.
Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

Choosing Who Has To Die by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1014


Choosing Who Has To Die

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Imagine an armed soldier walking into a kindergarten class, followed closely by a doctor. In a gruff voice, the soldier demands that the 18 five-year-olds line up in single file. The scared children do as they are told. Starting with the first in line, the doctor inspects each child for genetic defects. Those who have asthma are removed from the line. Those with poor eyesight come out of the line. The little girl with scoliosis is taken aside. The Down syndrome boy is yanked from the line. After the inspections are finished, only five children pass the examination. They are given an official certificate from the soldier that says they can live. The other 13 are taken outside, shot in the head, and thrown in the dumpster. Does this sound like the plot from a horror movie, or one of the heinous crimes of Hitler and his henchmen? Do you think our “civilized” society is above such gruesome brutality? Think again.
In her article, “Picking the Best Embryo from the Bunch,” Emily Singer describes new testing methods that can be used on embryos that are created during in vitro fertilization. In a nutshell,in vitro fertilization is the process by which several eggs from a woman are fertilized in a lab. Medical personnel then screen the embryos for genetic health and viability. A few of the most promising embryos are implanted in the mother-to-be’s womb. Other “healthy” embryos might be frozen for future implantation, while the remaining “unhealthy” embryos are discarded. Disposed of. Basically, flushed down the drain.
So what characteristics do these genetic screening methods attempt to identify? Why are some embryos discarded? Singer explains: “Such embryos are less likely to lead to successful pregnancies—they either fail to implant or miscarry, or if they do come to term, they can produce babies with disabilities such as Down's [sic] syndrome.” Notice that Singer implies that a non-successful pregnancy would include one from which a Down syndrome baby is born. Also notice her subtle, but false, differentiation between an embryo and the babies “they can produce.” The truth of the matter is that an embryo is a baby. Sly semantic tactics cannot change that fact. An embryo does not produce a baby. It simply grows into maturity, just as a child does not produce a teenager, but grows into one (for a more complete discussion of this point see Harrub, 2002;Miller, 2006). In reality, then, these genetic screenings are little more than a doctor’s examination to see which babies “deserve” to live and which ones are not “normal” enough to get a chance—because they might be Down syndrome babies, or “defective” in some other way.
Have we forgotten the inspired words of the wise man: “These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood...” (Proverbs 6:16-17)? Just because we have acquired the ability to detect “normal” babies at their earliest stages does not give us the right to exterminate all others that might have “less of a chance” of survival, or might survive but have Down syndrome. Who gave us the prerogative to play God in such a vicious fashion? Hitler and his ilk tried to play God and were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yet our society has become so insensitive to the value of human life that those who frequently destroy thousands of babies in embryonic stages are decorated as scientific overachievers. As the prophet of old warned: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21). May God give us the wisdom and the courage to stand against the brutal holocaust that is being carried out in the name of Science!

REFERENCES

Harrub, Brad (2002), “The Inherent Value of Human Life,” Reason and Revelation, July 22[7]:49-55, [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=531.
Miller, Dave (2006), “Embryos are People,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2995.
Singer, Emily (2007), “Picking the Best Embryo from the Bunch,” Technology Review, January, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=18027.

Atheists Admit Things Look Designed by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1691

Atheists Admit Things Look Designed

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The concept of creation by a supernatural Creator has been a powerful and persuasive aspect of truth since the beginning of time. The idea that there is no supernatural Creator, and that everything we see in the Universe—from hummingbirds to humans—has evolved through mindless, chance processes has been advanced in an attempt to dispel the truth of creation. One reason that naturalistic evolution has not made more head-way against creation than it has is because, intuitively, humans can see the obvious fact that the world exhibits every indication of intelligent design. Even the most outspoken atheistic evolutionists tacitly admit this to be the case.
For instance, Richard Dawkins stated: “Living things are not designed, but Darwinian natural selection licenses a version of the design stance for them. We get a short cut to understanding the heart if we assume that it is designed to pump blood” (2006, p. 182, emp. added). Did you catch that? He said that things weren’t designed by any intelligence, but we can understand them more readily if we assume they were.
University of Chicago professor Jerry Coyne, in his book Why Evolution is True, wrote:  “If anything is true about nature, it is that plants and animals seem intricately and almost perfectly designed for living their lives” (2009, p. 1, emp. added).  He further stated, “Nature resembles a well-oiled machine, with every species an intricate cog or gear” (p. 1). On page three of the same book, he wrote: “The more one learns about plants and animals, the more one marvels at how well their designs fit their ways of life.” Atheist Michael Shermer, in his book Why Darwin Matters, stated: “The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed” (2006, p. 65, ital. in orig.).
Consider another example. Kenneth Miller is an evolutionary biologist at Brown University and co-author of a biology textbook published by Prentice Hall that is used widely in high school classes across the country. In his book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, he admits that structural and molecular biologists, as they study the natural order, routinely mention the presence of design in their explorations. He, himself, admits that the human body shows evidence of design, pointing out examples like the design of the ball and socket joints of the human hips and shoulders, as well as the “S” curve of the human spine that allows us to walk upright (2008). So powerful is the design inference, Dawkins was forced to grudgingly admit: “So compelling is that illusion [of design—KB] that it has fooled our greatest minds for centuries, until Charles Darwin burst onto the scene” (2009, p. 416).
The irony of the situation is that each of these writers contends that such design is a product of naturalistic, mindless factors. But their telling statements underscore the obvious conclusion. If an Intelligent Designer really did create the world, what would it look like? Answer: Exactly like the one we have!

REFERENCES

Brown University (2008), “There is ‘Design’ in Nature, Biologist Argues,” ScienceDaily,http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm.
Coyne, Jerry (2009), Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking).
Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).
Dawkins, Richard (2009), The Greatest Show on Earth (New York: Free Press).
Shermer, Michael (2006), Why Darwin Matters (New York: Henry Holt and Company).