May 25, 2016

Superman by Gary Rose


What an intriguing idea- replacing the "s" in the heart of Jesus' name, with the emblem of "Superman"!!!  Immediately, the words, Truth, Justice and the American way come to mind. Of course, Jesus was not the "superman" portrayed in the media, but he was one super-man; a person who was committed to do the will of God, no matter what the cost, period!!!  And the hallmark of his greatness- humility. Consider this passage from the book of John...

John, Chapter 13 (WEB)

  1 Now before the feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that his time had come that he would depart from this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.  2 During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him,  3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he came from God, and was going to God,  4 arose from supper, and laid aside his outer garments. He took a towel, and wrapped a towel around his waist.  5 Then he poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6 Then he came to Simon Peter. He said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” 

  7  Jesus answered him, “You don’t know what I am doing now, but you will understand later.” 

  8  Peter said to him, “You will never wash my feet!” 

Jesus answered him, “If I don’t wash you, you have no part with me.” 

  9  Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head!” 

  10  Jesus said to him, “Someone who has bathed only needs to have his feet washed, but is completely clean. You are clean, but not all of you.”   11 For he knew him who would betray him, therefore he said, “You are not all clean.”   12 So when he had washed their feet, put his outer garment back on, and sat down again, he said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you?   13 You call me, ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord.’ You say so correctly, for so I am.   14  If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.   15  For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you.   16  Most certainly I tell you, a servant is not greater than his lord, neither one who is sent greater than he who sent him.   17  If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.   18  I don’t speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen. But that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me.’  19  From now on, I tell you before it happens, that when it happens, you may believe that I am he.   20  Most certainly I tell you, he who receives whomever I send, receives me; and he who receives me, receives him who sent me.” 

  21  When Jesus had said this, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, “Most certainly I tell you that one of you will betray me.” 

  22  The disciples looked at one another, perplexed about whom he spoke.  23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was at the table, leaning against Jesus’ breast.  24 Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said to him, “Tell us who it is of whom he speaks.” 

  25  He, leaning back, as he was, on Jesus’ breast, asked him, “Lord, who is it?” 

  26  Jesus therefore answered, “It is he to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. 27 After the piece of bread, then Satan entered into him. 

Then Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.” 

  28  Now no man at the table knew why he said this to him.  29 For some thought, because Judas had the money box, that Jesus said to him, “Buy what things we need for the feast,” or that he should give something to the poor.  30 Therefore having received that morsel, he went out immediately. It was night. 

  31  When he had gone out, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him.   32  If God has been glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him immediately.  (emp. added GDR) 33  Little children, I will be with you a little while longer. You will seek me, and as I said to the Jews, ‘Where I am going, you can’t come,’ so now I tell you.   34  A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another.   35  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” 

  36  Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going?” 

Jesus answered, “Where I am going, you can’t follow now, but you will follow afterwards.” 

  37  Peter said to him, “Lord, why can’t I follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.” 

  38  Jesus answered him, “Will you lay down your life for me? Most certainly I tell you, the rooster won’t crow until you have denied me three times. 


Washing feet was the work of slaves. Jesus humbled himself to do this menial task as an example of both submission and humility in the service of the Almighty. By his actions and attitudes he showed the path to glorifying God. He set in motion (through giving Judas the piece of bread) events that would lead to both his crucifixion and all of mankind that will obey him.

Jesus was a superman, in the most GODLY sense of the word!!! His sacrifice is the only remedy for sin and because of what he did for us-  WE HAVE HOPE!!!! And hope is what the insignia of the house of EL (superman's family name) means!!! 

This chapter calls all who will listen to follow Jesus in all that we do. 
So, do it- Gary!!!

Bible Reading May 25 by Gary Rose


Bible Reading  May 25  (The World English Bible)

May 25
Judges 7, 8

Jdg 7:1 Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people who were with him, rose up early, and encamped beside the spring of Harod: and the camp of Midian was on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley.
Jdg 7:2 Yahweh said to Gideon, The people who are with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, My own hand has saved me.
Jdg 7:3 Now therefore proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whoever is fearful and trembling, let him return and depart from Mount Gilead. There returned of the people twenty-two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.
Jdg 7:4 Yahweh said to Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down to the water, and I will try them for you there: and it shall be, that of whom I tell you, This shall go with you, the same shall go with you; and of whoever I tell you, This shall not go with you, the same shall not go.
Jdg 7:5 So he brought down the people to the water: and Yahweh said to Gideon, Everyone who laps of the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, you shall set him by himself; likewise everyone who bows down on his knees to drink.
Jdg 7:6 The number of those who lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, was three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down on their knees to drink water.
Jdg 7:7 Yahweh said to Gideon, By the three hundred men who lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into your hand; and let all the people go every man to his place.
Jdg 7:8 So the people took food in their hand, and their trumpets; and he sent all the men of Israel every man to his tent, but retained the three hundred men: and the camp of Midian was beneath him in the valley.
Jdg 7:9 It happened the same night, that Yahweh said to him, Arise, go down into the camp; for I have delivered it into your hand.
Jdg 7:10 But if you fear to go down, go with Purah your servant down to the camp:
Jdg 7:11 and you shall hear what they say; and afterward your will hands be strengthened to go down into the camp. Then went he down with Purah his servant to the outermost part of the armed men who were in the camp.
Jdg 7:12 The Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like locusts for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand which is on the seashore for multitude.
Jdg 7:13 When Gideon had come, behold, there was a man telling a dream to his fellow; and he said, Behold, I dreamed a dream; and behold, a cake of barley bread tumbled into the camp of Midian, and came to the tent, and struck it so that it fell, and turned it upside down, so that the tent lay flat.
Jdg 7:14 His fellow answered, This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon the son of Joash, a man of Israel: into his hand God has delivered Midian, and all the army.
Jdg 7:15 It was so, when Gideon heard the telling of the dream, and its interpretation, that he worshiped; and he returned into the camp of Israel, and said, Arise; for Yahweh has delivered into your hand the army of Midian.
Jdg 7:16 He divided the three hundred men into three companies, and he put into the hands of all of them trumpets, and empty pitchers, with torches within the pitchers.
Jdg 7:17 He said to them, Look on me, and do likewise: and behold, when I come to the outermost part of the camp, it shall be that, as I do, so you shall do.
Jdg 7:18 When I blow the trumpet, I and all who are with me, then blow the trumpets also on every side of all the camp, and say, For Yahweh and for Gideon.
Jdg 7:19 So Gideon, and the hundred men who were with him, came to the outermost part of the camp in the beginning of the middle watch, when they had but newly set the watch: and they blew the trumpets, and broke in pieces the pitchers that were in their hands.
Jdg 7:20 The three companies blew the trumpets, and broke the pitchers, and held the torches in their left hands, and the trumpets in their right hands with which to blow; and they cried, The sword of Yahweh and of Gideon.
Jdg 7:21 They stood every man in his place around the camp; and all the army ran; and they shouted, and put them to flight.
Jdg 7:22 They blew the three hundred trumpets, and Yahweh set every man's sword against his fellow, and against all the army; and the army fled as far as Beth Shittah toward Zererah, as far as the border of Abel Meholah, by Tabbath.
Jdg 7:23 The men of Israel were gathered together out of Naphtali, and out of Asher, and out of all Manasseh, and pursued after Midian.
Jdg 7:24 Gideon sent messengers throughout all the hill country of Ephraim, saying, Come down against Midian, and take before them the waters, as far as Beth Barah, even the Jordan. So all the men of Ephraim were gathered together, and took the waters as far as Beth Barah, even the Jordan.
Jdg 7:25 They took the two princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb; and they killed Oreb at the rock of Oreb, and Zeeb they killed at the winepress of Zeeb, and pursued Midian: and they brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon beyond the Jordan.

Jdg 8:1 The men of Ephraim said to him, Why have you treated us this way, that you didn't call us, when you went to fight with Midian? They rebuked him sharply.
Jdg 8:2 He said to them, What have I now done in comparison with you? Isn't the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?
Jdg 8:3 God has delivered into your hand the princes of Midian, Oreb and Zeeb: and what was I able to do in comparison with you? Then their anger was abated toward him, when he had said that.
Jdg 8:4 Gideon came to the Jordan, and passed over, he, and the three hundred men who were with him, faint, yet pursuing.
Jdg 8:5 He said to the men of Succoth, Please give loaves of bread to the people who follow me; for they are faint, and I am pursuing after Zebah and Zalmunna, the kings of Midian.
Jdg 8:6 The princes of Succoth said, Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand, that we should give bread to your army?
Jdg 8:7 Gideon said, Therefore when Yahweh has delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into my hand, then I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers.
Jdg 8:8 He went up there to Penuel, and spoke to them in like manner; and the men of Penuel answered him as the men of Succoth had answered.
Jdg 8:9 He spoke also to the men of Penuel, saying, When I come again in peace, I will break down this tower.
Jdg 8:10 Now Zebah and Zalmunna were in Karkor, and their armies with them, about fifteen thousand men, all who were left of all the army of the children of the east; for there fell one hundred twenty thousand men who drew sword.
Jdg 8:11 Gideon went up by the way of those who lived in tents on the east of Nobah and Jogbehah, and struck the army; for the army was secure.
Jdg 8:12 Zebah and Zalmunna fled; and he pursued after them; and he took the two kings of Midian, Zebah and Zalmunna, and confused all the army.
Jdg 8:13 Gideon the son of Joash returned from the battle from the ascent of Heres.
Jdg 8:14 He caught a young man of the men of Succoth, and inquired of him: and he described for him the princes of Succoth, and its elders, seventy-seven men.
Jdg 8:15 He came to the men of Succoth, and said, See Zebah and Zalmunna, concerning whom you taunted me, saying, Are the hands of Zebah and Zalmunna now in your hand, that we should give bread to your men who are weary?
Jdg 8:16 He took the elders of the city, and thorns of the wilderness and briers, and with them he taught the men of Succoth.
Jdg 8:17 He broke down the tower of Penuel, and killed the men of the city.
Jdg 8:18 Then said he to Zebah and Zalmunna, What kind of men were they whom you killed at Tabor? They answered, They were like you. Each one resembled the children of a king.
Jdg 8:19 He said, They were my brothers, the sons of my mother: as Yahweh lives, if you had saved them alive, I would not kill you.
Jdg 8:20 He said to Jether his firstborn, Up, and kill them. But the youth didn't draw his sword; for he feared, because he was yet a youth.
Jdg 8:21 Then Zebah and Zalmunna said, Rise and fall on us; for as the man is, so is his strength. Gideon arose, and killed Zebah and Zalmunna, and took the crescents that were on their camels' necks.
Jdg 8:22 Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, Rule over us, both you, and your son, and your son's son also; for you have saved us out of the hand of Midian.
Jdg 8:23 Gideon said to them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: Yahweh shall rule over you.
Jdg 8:24 Gideon said to them, I would make a request of you, that you would give me every man the earrings of his spoil. (For they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.)
Jdg 8:25 They answered, We will willingly give them. They spread a garment, and did cast therein every man the earrings of his spoil.
Jdg 8:26 The weight of the golden earrings that he requested was one thousand and seven hundred shekels of gold, besides the crescents, and the pendants, and the purple clothing that was on the kings of Midian, and besides the chains that were about their camels' necks.
Jdg 8:27 Gideon made an ephod of it, and put it in his city, even in Ophrah: and all Israel played the prostitute after it there; and it became a snare to Gideon, and to his house.
Jdg 8:28 So Midian was subdued before the children of Israel, and they lifted up their heads no more. The land had rest forty years in the days of Gideon.
Jdg 8:29 Jerubbaal the son of Joash went and lived in his own house.
Jdg 8:30 Gideon had seventy sons conceived from his body; for he had many wives.
Jdg 8:31 His concubine who was in Shechem, she also bore him a son, and he named him Abimelech.
Jdg 8:32 Gideon the son of Joash died in a good old age, and was buried in the tomb of Joash his father, in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.
Jdg 8:33 It happened, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children of Israel turned again, and played the prostitute after the Baals, and made Baal Berith their god.
Jdg 8:34 The children of Israel didn't remember Yahweh their God, who had delivered them out of the hand of all their enemies on every side;
Jdg 8:35 neither did they show kindness to the house of Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, according to all the goodness which he had shown to Israel.


May 24, 25
John 5

Joh 5:1 After these things, there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
Joh 5:2 Now in Jerusalem by the sheep gate, there is a pool, which is called in Hebrew, "Bethesda," having five porches.
Joh 5:3 In these lay a great multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, or paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water;
Joh 5:4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain times into the pool, and stirred up the water. Whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was made whole of whatever disease he had.
Joh 5:5 A certain man was there, who had been sick for thirty-eight years.
Joh 5:6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he had been sick for a long time, he asked him, "Do you want to be made well?"
Joh 5:7 The sick man answered him, "Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up, but while I'm coming, another steps down before me."
Joh 5:8 Jesus said to him, "Arise, take up your mat, and walk."
Joh 5:9 Immediately, the man was made well, and took up his mat and walked. Now it was the Sabbath on that day.
Joh 5:10 So the Jews said to him who was cured, "It is the Sabbath. It is not lawful for you to carry the mat."
Joh 5:11 He answered them, "He who made me well, the same said to me, 'Take up your mat, and walk.' "
Joh 5:12 Then they asked him, "Who is the man who said to you, 'Take up your mat, and walk' ?"
Joh 5:13 But he who was healed didn't know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, a crowd being in the place.
Joh 5:14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, "Behold, you are made well. Sin no more, so that nothing worse happens to you."
Joh 5:15 The man went away, and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.
Joh 5:16 For this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill him, because he did these things on the Sabbath.
Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is still working, so I am working, too."
Joh 5:18 For this cause therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Joh 5:19 Jesus therefore answered them, "Most certainly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise.
Joh 5:20 For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel.
Joh 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he desires.
Joh 5:22 For the Father judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son,
Joh 5:23 that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who doesn't honor the Son doesn't honor the Father who sent him.
Joh 5:24 "Most certainly I tell you, he who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has eternal life, and doesn't come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
Joh 5:25 Most certainly, I tell you, the hour comes, and now is, when the dead will hear the Son of God's voice; and those who hear will live.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself.
Joh 5:27 He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man.
Joh 5:28 Don't marvel at this, for the hour comes, in which all that are in the tombs will hear his voice,
Joh 5:29 and will come out; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.
Joh 5:30 I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don't seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.
Joh 5:31 "If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid.
Joh 5:32 It is another who testifies about me. I know that the testimony which he testifies about me is true.
Joh 5:33 You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth.
Joh 5:34 But the testimony which I receive is not from man. However, I say these things that you may be saved.
Joh 5:35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light.
Joh 5:36 But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John, for the works which the Father gave me to accomplish, the very works that I do, testify about me, that the Father has sent me.
Joh 5:37 The Father himself, who sent me, has testified about me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form.
Joh 5:38 You don't have his word living in you; because you don't believe him whom he sent.
Joh 5:39 "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these are they which testify about me.
Joh 5:40 Yet you will not come to me, that you may have life.
Joh 5:41 I don't receive glory from men.
Joh 5:42 But I know you, that you don't have God's love in yourselves.
Joh 5:43 I have come in my Father's name, and you don't receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him.
Joh 5:44 How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory that comes from the only God?
Joh 5:45 "Don't think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you, even Moses, on whom you have set your hope.
Joh 5:46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me.
Joh 5:47 But if you don't believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

Can We Give an Answer? by Richard Mansel


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

Can We Give an Answer?

In 1 Peter 3:15 we are told, "Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason of the hope that is within you." This is a very sobering challenge to all of us as Christians. Do we know what we believe and why? Can we defend it from Scripture?
Frequently you will ask someone to tell you what they believe and they will say, "I don't know, I will have to go ask my..." Naturally, it is acceptable to seek answers from a knowledgeable person. Moreover, "I don't know" is a legitimate answer.
But, I am talking about very simple questions we should be able to answer. Can you imagine going to a mechanic with twenty years experience and asking him a simple question about how an exhaust system works and hearing him say, "Um, I'm going to have to ask my boss."
What if you were at the mall and saw a friend you had not seen in a year. In "catching up" you find out that she is engaged. You ask, "What is your fiancee like?" She says, "Um, I don't know, I'll have to go ask his Mother."
These examples are easy to understand. Yet, we sometimes fail to apply the same principle to Christians who have been attending Bible classes and hearing sermons for years and can't tell someone what they believe or answer questions about the Bible. They just say, "Well, I'm not a preacher." Instead, they ought to be hanging their heads in shame.
We all have the same Bible. Attending seminary or Bible college does not give someone a special understanding of Scripture. All it does is provide the student with the tools to study the Scriptures in greater depth. Yet, the basics are there for everyone. We can all understand Scripture. John 8:31-32 says, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
We all must be more diligent Bible students if we wish to know God. If all you know about God is what you hear in Bible classes and sermons you will not know Him well. You must spend time studying the Word to become well acquainted with the Father and the Son.
Start today.
Richard Mansel


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

Does God “Look on Wickedness”? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=3529&b=Habakkuk


Does God “Look on Wickedness”?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The prophet Habakkuk once spoke to God, saying, “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (1:13). Some have questioned how this statement could be true, considering God allowed the diabolical devil to come before His presence on the “day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord” (Job 1:6). How can God be described accurately as having “purer eyes than to behold evil,” when Satan, “the evil one” (Matthew 6:13), was able to present himself before the Lord and have a conversation with Him? If God can be in the presence of “the wicked one” (1 John 3:12), how can He simultaneously not be able to “look on wickedness”?
Consider, first of all, the fact that the Bible repeatedly testifies to God’s omniscience and omnipresence. “[T]here is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13). Neither the righteous nor the wicked can flee from God’s presence (cf. Psalm 139:7-8). He fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24). Indeed, God is the all-knowing, ever-present One. Thus, given the Bible’s overall teaching about the nature of God, it should be obvious that Habakkuk 1:13 means something other than “God does not know or see what the wicked are doing.”
Second, that Habakkuk meant something other than “God cannot literally look upon wickedness” is also evident from the very chapter and verse in which he makes this statement. After declaring, “You are of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (1:13a), he asked, “Why do You look on those who deal treacherously, and hold Your tongue when the wicked devours a person more righteous than he?” (1:13b, emp. added). Those who “deal treacherously” certainly are engaged in wickedness, and yet, God looks on them. Consider also verse two where the prophet asked, “[H]ow long shall I cry, and You will not hear?” (emp. added). What did he mean by “hear”? He explained in his next statement: “Even cry out to You, ‘Violence!’ and You will not save” (emp. added). Thus, to “hear” in verse two meant “to save.” Similarly, in verse 13 the prophet was not suggesting that God cannot see the wicked. He does, in fact, see them and often even allows them to continue in their existence for a time in order to fulfill His purposes.
In context, Habakkuk was bewildered by the fact that God was using a wicked nation like Babylon to punish Judah. The prophet was undoubtedly aware of Judah’s perverse ways (1:1-4), but did not understand why God would “look” toward the extremely wicked nation of Babylon in order to punish the Jews. The truth is, however, God neither approved of nor ignored Babylon’s sins. After He providentially used them to punish the Jews, He likewise brought judgment upon the Babylonians. Just as He predicted (Jeremiah 50-51; Isaiah 21; 45:1; etc.), Babylon was soon destroyed in the sixth century B.C.
God’s perfectly holy, just, divine nature will not allow Him to “look on wickedness”—meaning, He cannot delight, accept, or ignore iniquity. He hates sin (Proverbs 6:16-19). He “is against those who do evil” (1 Peter 3:12). He may have allowed Satan to come into His presence with the sons of God, but God never looks upon wickedness with pleasure and approval.
Be careful, however, not to confuse God’s refusal to approve sin, with the idea that He does not use sinners—or even Satan—to accomplish His will. He used the extremely wicked Chaldeans to bring judgment upon the Jews. He used the Medes and Persians to destroy the Babylonians. And He even used Satan to prove that His servant Job was faithful, and ultimately to show Himself as the sovereign Ruler of the Universe, Who warrants man’s unwavering respect and loyalty.

Six or Eight Days? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=757&b=Matthew


Six or Eight Days?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

After Jesus prophesied during His earthly ministry that some would live to see the establishment of God’s kingdom, the first two books of the New Testament indicate six days expired before Peter, James, and John were led up on a high mountain to witness the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 16:28-17:2; Mark 9:1-2). Luke’s account, on the other hand, says that Jesus’ transfiguration occurred “about eight days after” Jesus prophesied of the approaching kingdom’s establishment (9:27-29). Skeptics charge that this difference in the time elapsed between the two events constitutes an obvious error. They profess that such textual differences should lead the honest person to admit that the Bible contains contradictions, and thus is not the inerrant Word of God.
Admittedly, at first glance it may seem to the casual reader that Luke’s time line contradicts Matthew and Mark’s account of the time that elapsed between Jesus’ prophecy and His transfiguration. However, a closer examination reveals that Luke never intended for his readers to understand that exactly 192 hours (i.e., eight 24-hour days) elapsed from the moment Jesus finished His prophecy to the time He and the others began their ascent to the “ mount of transfiguration.” Luke recorded that it was “about eight days,” not that it was eight days exactly. Although Luke was a physician (cf. Colossians 4:14), he did not use  “scientific precision” in this case. Rather, he merely approximated the time separating the two events.
Furthermore, it seems clear that whereas Matthew and Mark excluded the days of the two terminal events (the prophecy and the transfiguration), Luke included both days, as well as the six intermediate days, and thus mentioned that the two events were eight days apart. Even today when people rehearse something they witnessed a few days earlier, they may refer to the events as happening on “different” days. For example, if a store was robbed on a Monday afternoon, and the following Monday morning a witness told friends what he had seen, one could say truthfully that he recalled the events six days or eight days after they occurred. If one were counting only full days, then six would be correct (Tuesday through Sunday). But it also would be correct to speak of the events as occurring eight days earlier—if one were including both full and partial days (Monday through Monday). Whether one uses “six” or “ eight” does not discredit the account of what actually happened. Likewise, the time difference between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in no way represents a legitimate contradiction. Luke simply used the inclusive method of reckoning time (counting the portion of a day at either end of the period), whereas Matthew and Mark counted only complete days (Coffman, 1971, p. 261).
REFERENCES
Coffman, James Burton (1971), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Church Attendance and the Survival of the Republic by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3688

Church Attendance and the Survival of the Republic

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

John Hancock -
Founding Father
The polling data grows more dismal every year. Polls now show that only 39% of Americans say they attend worship at least once a week (“How Religious...,” 2009; cf. Newport, 2010). That means that the majority of Americans no longer attend church of any kind. It is hard to believe that the nation could shift from a time when the vast majority of Americans attended church on Sundays for Christian (not Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist) worship, to a time when most Americans do not attend worship. It is hard even to imagine a time when the “Blue Laws” were in effect—laws that encouraged church attendance by prohibiting commercial activity on Sundays—and were endemic to American culture from the colonial period forward. Yet, here we are, with Americans growing increasingly irreligious, drifting further and further from Christian morality and civility.
The Founders of the American Republic stated explicitly that the promotion of the Christian religion in America is necessary for the preservation of the country and the civil institutions of the government. For example, John Hancock, whose signature is so conspicuous and prominent on the Declaration of Independence, in his inaugural address as governor of Massachusetts, expressed to his fellow citizens:
A due observation of the Lord’s Day is not only important to internal religion, but greatly conducive to the order and benefit of civil society. It speaks to the senses of mankind, and, by a solemn cessation from their common affairs, reminds them of a Deity and their accountableness to the great Lord of all. Whatever may be necessary to the support of such an institution, in consistence with a reasonable personal liberty, deserves the attention of civil government (as quoted in Brown, 1898, p. 269).
Among the many corrosives now eating away at American civilization is the widespread citizen neglect of Sunday Christian worship. This failure to publicly acknowledge the God of the Bible and the priority of the Christian religion is one more indication of the coming demise of the nation. “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread...” (Acts 20:7).

REFERENCES

Brown, Abram (1898), John Hancock: His Book (Boston, MA: Lee & Shepard Publishers).

“How Religious Is Your State?” (2009), The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, December 21, http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=504.

Newport, Frank (2010), “Mississippians Go to Church the Most; Vermonters, Least,” Gallup, February 17, http://www.gallup.com/poll/125999/Mississippians-Go-Church-Most-Vermonters-Least.aspx.

Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance--Proof of Evolution? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=572

Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance--Proof of Evolution?

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

On November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, was published. As a result, the concept of organic evolution was popularized. The science of genetics, of course, was completely unknown at that time, and would not come into its own until approximately forty-one years later. Since around 1900, evolutionists have advocated “neo-Darwinism,” as opposed to “classical Darwinism.” In classical Darwinian thought, natural selection alone served as the mechanism of evolution. In neo-Darwinian thought, natural selection and genetic mutations work together as evolution’s mechanism.
Genetics has played an increasingly important role in evolution, especially in regard to mutations that alter the genetic code within each organism. That code is expressed biochemically in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Mutations are “errors” in DNA replication (Ayala, 1978, pp. 56-69). It is those errors that cause the genetic change necessary for evolution to occur. In 1957, George Gaylord Simpson wrote: “Mutations are the ultimate raw materials for evolution” (1957, p. 430). Twenty-six years later, nothing had changed when Douglas J. Futuyma remarked:
By far the most important way in which chance influences evolution is the process of mutation. Mutation is, ultimately, the source of new genetic variations, and without genetic variation there cannot be genetic change. Mutation is therefore necessary for evolution (1983, p. 136).
Mutations can occur in several different ways, and can affect individual genes or entire chromosomes (see Futuyma, 1983, p. 136). Further, mutations can be placed, theoretically, into at least three categories: (a) bad; (b) neutral; and (c) good.
Some mutations, therefore, can have profound effects. They can alter the structure of a critical protein so much that the organism becomes severely distorted and may not survive. Other mutations may cause changes in the protein that do not affect its function at all. Such mutations are adaptively neutral—they are neither better nor worse than the original form of the gene. Still other mutations are decidedly advantageous (Futuyma, 1983, p. 136).
Neither bad nor neutral mutations aid evolution, since the bad ones produce effects that are deleterious (and often lethal), and the neutral ones neither help nor hurt an organism. Neo-Darwinian evolution relies entirely on good mutations, since they not only alter the genetic material, but are, to use Futuyma’s words, “decidedly advantageous.” Evolutionary progress, then, is dependent upon nature “selecting” the good mutations, resulting in genetic change that ultimately produces new organisms.

BACTERIA AND RESISTANCE TO ANTIBIOTICS

What does all of this have to do with the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics? Over the past several years, the medical community has become increasingly concerned over the ability of certain bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics. Undoubtedly this concern is justified. Antibiotics, which usually are substances naturally produced by certain microorganisms, inhibit the growth of other microorganisms. One of the first antibiotics to be discovered (in 1928) was penicillin, produced by the mold Penicillium chrysogenum. Since then, more than a thousand similar substances have been isolated. Most people recognize the tremendous impact antibiotics have had in the battle with pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms. Without antibiotics, the death toll from infections and diseases would be much higher than it is.
Today, however, there is compelling evidence that we are in danger of losing our battle against certain pathogens. Bacteria sometimes develop resistance to even powerful antibiotics. As a result, the number of antibiotics that can be used against certain diseases is dwindling rapidly. Both scientific and popular publications have addressed the seriousness of this issue. The cover story of the March 28, 1994 issue of Newsweek was titled, “Antibiotics: The End of Miracle Drugs?” (Begley, 1994). Articles in Scientific American (Beardsley, 1994), Science (Travis, 1994; Davies, 1994), Discover (Caldwell, 1994), and Natural History (Smith, 1994), have all called attention to the impact on our lives that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is causing.
The phenomenon of bacterial drug resistance was first documented around 1952 (see Lederberg and Lederberg, 1952). Interest in the phenomenon has increased as fewer antibiotics are effective against pathogens, and as deaths from bacterial infections increase. Scientific interest in this problem is both pragmatic and academic. In the pragmatic sense, those working in medical fields (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, etc.) are interested because lives are at stake. In an academic sense, this issue is of importance to evolutionists because they believe the mutations in bacteria responsible for drug resistance are, from the standpoint of the bacterial population, “good,” and thus offer significant proof of evolution. Their point is that the bacteria have adapted so as to “live to fight another day”—an example of “decidedly advantageous” mutations. Evolutionist Colin Patterson of Great Britain has commented: “The development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, and also of insects resistant to DDT and a host of other recently discovered insecticides, are genuine evolutionary changes (1978, p. 85, emp. added). But are these mutations sufficient to explain long-term, large-scale evolution (macroevolution)?

AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION

Bacteria do not become resistant to antibiotics merely by experiencing genetic mutations. In fact, there are at least three genetic mechanisms by which resistance may be conferred. First, there are instances where mutations produce antibiotic-resistant strains of microorganisms. Second, there is the process of conjugation, during which two bacterial cells join and an exchange of genetic material occurs. Inside many bacteria there is a somewhat circular piece of self-replicating DNA known as a plasmid, which codes for enzymes necessary for the bacteria’s survival. Certain of these enzymes, coincidentally, assist in the breakdown of antibiotics, thus making the bacteria resistant to antibiotics. During conjugation, plasmids in one organism that are responsible for resistance to antibiotics may be transferred to an organism that previously did not possess such resistance.
 GERM WARFARE: During conjugation, one bacterial cell (A) can transfer any tiny DNA circle (plasmid) to another cell (B). This act can occur even between cells of different species. The transfer gives bacterium B a resistance to a drug that formerly was not present in its own DNA. In this example, the plasmid contains a gene (shown in red) to manufacture an enzyme that destroys the drug’s ability to interfere with bacterial cell division (as in the case of penicillin).
Third, bacteria can incorporate into their own genetic machinery foreign pieces of DNA by either of two types of DNA transposition. In transformation, DNA from the environment (perhaps from the death of another bacterium) is absorbed into the bacterial cell. Intransduction, a piece of DNA is transported into the cell by a virus. As a result of incorporating new genetic material, an organism can become resistant to antibiotics. Commenting on these processes, Walter J. ReMine wrote:
Transformation and transduction occur extremely infrequently, but this rarity can be offset somewhat by the enormous population sizes that bacteria can achieve, especially under laboratory conditions. By those three methods bacteria can acquire DNA that alters their survival.... For example, DNA transposition can result in reduced permeability of the cell wall to certain substances, sometimes providing an increased resistance to antibiotics (1993, p. 404).
The issue is not whether bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics through alterations in their genetic material. They do. The issue is whether or not such resistance helps the evolutionists’ case. We suggest that it does not, for the following reasons.
First, the mutations responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria do not arise as a result of the “need” of the organisms. Futumya has noted: “...the adaptive ‘needs’ of the species do not increase the likelihood that an adaptive mutation will occur; mutations are not directed toward the adaptive needs of the moment.... Mutations have causes, but the species’ need to adapt isn’t one of them” (1983, pp. 137,138). What does this mean? Simply put, bacteria did not “mutate” after being exposed to antibiotics; the mutations conferring the resistance were present in the bacterial population even prior to the discovery or use of the antibiotics. The Lederbergs’ experiments in 1952 on streptomycin-resistant bacteria showed that bacteria which had never been exposed to the antibiotic already possessed the mutations responsible for the resistance. Malcolm Bowden has observed: “What is interesting is that bacterial cultures from bodies frozen 140 years ago were found to be resistant to antibiotics that were developed 100 years later. Thus the specific chemical needed for resistance was inherent in the bacteria” (1991, p. 56). These bacteria did not mutate to become resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, the non-resistant varieties did not become resistant due to mutations.
Second, while pre-existing mutations may confer antibiotic resistance, such mutations may also decrease an organism’s viability. For example, “the surviving strains are usually less virulent, and have a reduced metabolism and so grow more slowly. This is hardly a recommendation for ‘improving the species by competition’ (i.e., survival of the fittest)” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). Just because a mutation provides an organism with a certain trait does not mean that the organism as a whole has been helped. For example, in the disease known as sickle-cell anemia (caused by a mutation), people who are “carriers” of the disease do not die from it and are resistant to malaria, which at first would seem to be an excellent example of a good mutation. However, that is not the entire story. While resistant to malaria, these people do not possess the stamina of, and do not live as long as, their non-carrier counterparts. Bacteria may be resistant to a certain antibiotic, but that resistance comes at a price. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, acquiring resistance does not lead necessarily to new species or types of organisms.
Third, regardless of how bacteria acquired their antibiotic resistance (i.e., by mutation, conjugation, or by transposition), they are still exactly the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. The “evolution” is not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation). In other words, these bacteria “...are still the same bacteria and of the same type, being only a variety that differs from the normal in its resistance to the antibiotic. No new ‘species’ have been produced” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). In commenting on the changing, or sharing, of genetic material, ReMine has suggested: “It has not allowed bacteria to arbitrarily swap major innovations such as the use of chlorophyll or flagella. The major features of microorganisms fall into well-defined groups that seem to have a nested pattern like the rest of life” (1993, p. 404).
Microbiologists have studied extensively two genera of bacteria in their attempts to understand antibiotic resistance: Escherichia and Salmonella. In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed:
...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87).
Although E. coli allegedly has undergone a billion years’ worth of mutations, it still has remained “stabilized” in its “nested pattern.” While mutations and DNA transposition have caused change within the bacterial population, those changes have occurred within narrow limits. No long-term, large-scale evolution has occurred.

CONCLUSION

The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.

REFERENCES

Ayala, Francisco (1978), “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, 239[3]:56-69, September.
Beardsley, Tim (1994), “La Ronde,” Scientific American, 270[6]:26,29, June.
Begley, Sharon (1994), “The End of Antibiotics,” Newsweek, 123[13]:47-51, March 28.
Bowden, M. (1991), Science vs. Evolution (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications).
Caldwell, Mark (1994), “Prokaryotes at the Gate,” Discover, 15[8]:45-50, August.
Davies, Julian (1994), “Inactivation of Antibiotics and the Dissemination of Resistance Genes,”Science, 264[5157]:375-382, April 15.
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1983), Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon Books).
Grass‚, Pierre-Paul (1977), The Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press).
Lederberg, J. and E.M. Lederberg (1952), Journal of Bacteriology, 63:399.
Patterson, Colin (1978), Evolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
ReMine, Walter J. (1993), The Biotic Message (St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Science).
Simpson, George Gaylord, C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World).
Smith, John Maynard (1994), “Breaking the Antibiotic Bank,” Natural History, 103[6]:39-40, June.
Travis, John (1994), “Reviving the Antibiotic Miracle?,” Science, 264:360-362, April 15.