December 28, 2016

Pocket watches, God's Word and a serendipity by Gary Rose



"Bulova 96B249 Men's UHF White Dial Brown Leather Strap Chronograph Pocket Watch Bulova 96B249 UHF chronograph men's pocket watch features a 56mm wide solid stainless steel case with a fixed bezel and smooth push-pull crown with function pushers. Bulova 96B249 is powered by a reliable quartz chronograph movement. This stylish watch also features a sharp looking milky white dial with black luminous hands and Arabic numeral hour markers along with the chronograph and date display functions, scratch resistant mineral crystal and water resistant to 30 meters. Bulova 96B249 is equipped with a 22mm wide brown leather strap with a buckle clasp. Bulova 96B249 men's UHF white dial brown leather strap chronograph pocket watch is brand new and comes in an original Bulova gift box and is backed by a 3 years limited warranty."
Yesterday, I bought this from Wallmart. Brand name, great price and at 56mm, one of the largest pocket watches made (except perhaps for the Goliath watch and a few others). Well, now you know, I LIKE POCKET WATCHES, and the bigger the better! Even though I have a few that date from the 1920's or so, I have grown fond of the newer ones, primarily because they are more accurate (quartz is more accurate than a mechanical watch and a radio controlled one [set by an atomic clock] is extremely accurate).
So, I have been thinking a lot about time a lot today. But where did time come from and what is it really like? From man's perspective, it is a linear thing and is constant (except, of course as you approach the speed of light). From God's point of view, I imagine that he sees things differently. Probably views it as a whole, from beginning to end. But, then again, I may have this wrong. Point here is this: God's thoughts are not as my thoughts!
Isaiah the prophet says...
Isaiah, Chapter 55 (World English Bible)
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, 
and your ways are not my ways,” says Yahweh. 

  9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, 
so are my ways higher than your ways, 
and my thoughts than your thoughts. 

  10 For as the rain comes down and the snow from the sky, 
and doesn’t return there, but waters the earth, 
and makes it grow and bud, and gives seed to the sower and bread to the eater; 

  11 so is my word that goes out of my mouth: 
it will not return to me void, 
but it will accomplish that which I please, and it will prosper in the thing I sent it to do.
And then there is the Word of God. God sends his message though an Apostle or a prophet in a way that like his thoughts is a bit hard to understand. One thing seems certain, God communicates to us what we really need to know, through flawed human beings. The Bible in its original form is without error and as pure as its originator. Human translations are another matter. In French class a number of decades ago (what seems FOREVER to me) I learned that some things translate do not translate perfectly from one language to another.
So, what does this mean for me? Simply put: find the most literal translation of the Koine Greek into English and compare that to something easier to understand. I do this in a three step process from easiest to more difficult to most difficult. 
What translation (s) you use is up to you, but I encourage you to go literal.  The thing is: I started with the King James Version, then to a very poor transliteration, followed by Green's translation and then to the American Standard Version (1901) and last of all to The World English Bible. Sometimes, I even use them all together (see - The Composite Bible for more information on this.  (http://cbs.barnold.us/Cbs/Index.php)
Even with all this (and having reached retirement age), I am still learning. Recently, (about a month ago) I purchased Bibliotheca (http://www.bibliotheca.co/#about) and as I re-read Ephesians Tuesday evening, I felt like I was reading the letter for the first time. God is Great; I can't wait to see what God will do with HIS WORD in my life next. 
HOW ABOUT YOU... ARE YOU GROWING? NO? Maybe its time you started (but first- check your pocket watch to see if you have the right time)!!!

Bible Reading December 28 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading December 28 (World English Bible)



Dec. 28
Zechariah 5-8

Zec 5:1 Then again I lifted up my eyes, and saw, and behold, a flying scroll.
Zec 5:2 He said to me, "What do you see?" I answered, "I see a flying scroll; its length is twenty cubits, and its breadth ten cubits."
Zec 5:3 Then he said to me, "This is the curse that goes out over the surface of the whole land; for everyone who steals shall be cut off according to it on the one side; and everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off according to it on the other side.
Zec 5:4 I will cause it to go out," says Yahweh of Armies, "and it will enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him who swears falsely by my name; and it will remain in the midst of his house, and will destroy it with its timber and its stones."
Zec 5:5 Then the angel who talked with me came forward, and said to me, "Lift up now your eyes, and see what is this that is appearing."
Zec 5:6 I said, "What is it?" He said, "This is the ephah basket that is appearing." He said moreover, "This is their appearance in all the land
Zec 5:7 (and behold, a talent of lead was lifted up); and this is a woman sitting in the midst of the ephah basket."
Zec 5:8 He said, "This is Wickedness;" and he threw her down into the midst of the ephah basket; and he threw the weight of lead on its mouth.
Zec 5:9 Then lifted I up my eyes, and saw, and behold, there were two women, and the wind was in their wings. Now they had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the ephah basket between earth and the sky.
Zec 5:10 Then said I to the angel who talked with me, "Where are these carrying the ephah basket?"
Zec 5:11 He said to me, "To build her a house in the land of Shinar. When it is prepared, she will be set there in her own place."

Zec 6:1 Again I lifted up my eyes, and saw, and behold, four chariots came out from between two mountains; and the mountains were mountains of brass.
Zec 6:2 In the first chariot were red horses; in the second chariot black horses;
Zec 6:3 in the third chariot white horses; and in the fourth chariot dappled horses, all of them powerful.
Zec 6:4 Then I asked the angel who talked with me, "What are these, my lord?"
Zec 6:5 The angel answered me, "These are the four winds of the sky, which go forth from standing before the Lord of all the earth.
Zec 6:6 The one with the black horses goes out toward the north country; and the white went out after them; and the dappled went forth toward the south country."
Zec 6:7 The strong went out, and sought to go that they might walk back and forth through the earth: and he said, "Go around and through the earth!" So they walked back and forth through the earth.
Zec 6:8 Then he called to me, and spoke to me, saying, "Behold, those who go toward the north country have quieted my spirit in the north country."
Zec 6:9 The word of Yahweh came to me, saying,
Zec 6:10 "Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah; and come the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah, where they have come from Babylon.
Zec 6:11 Yes, take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest;
Zec 6:12 and speak to him, saying, 'Thus says Yahweh of Armies, "Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Yahweh;
Zec 6:13 even he shall build the temple of Yahweh; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; and he shall be a priest on his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
Zec 6:14 The crowns shall be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, for a memorial in the temple of Yahweh.
Zec 6:15 Those who are far off shall come and build in the temple of Yahweh; and you shall know that Yahweh of Armies has sent me to you. This will happen, if you will diligently obey the voice of Yahweh your God." ' "

Zec 7:1 It happened in the fourth year of king Darius that the word of Yahweh came to Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, the month of Chislev.
Zec 7:2 The people of Bethel sent Sharezer and Regem Melech, and their men, to entreat Yahweh's favor,
Zec 7:3 and to speak to the priests of the house of Yahweh of Armies, and to the prophets, saying, "Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?"
Zec 7:4 Then the word of Yahweh of Armies came to me, saying,
Zec 7:5 "Speak to all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, 'When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month for these seventy years, did you at all fast to me, really to me?
Zec 7:6 When you eat, and when you drink, don't you eat for yourselves, and drink for yourselves?
Zec 7:7 Aren't these the words which Yahweh proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and its cities around her, and the South and the lowland were inhabited?' "
Zec 7:8 The word of Yahweh came to Zechariah, saying,
Zec 7:9 "Thus has Yahweh of Armies spoken, saying, 'Execute true judgment, and show kindness and compassion every man to his brother.
Zec 7:10 Don't oppress the widow, nor the fatherless, the foreigner, nor the poor; and let none of you devise evil against his brother in your heart.'
Zec 7:11 But they refused to listen, and turned their backs, and stopped their ears, that they might not hear.
Zec 7:12 Yes, they made their hearts as hard as flint, lest they might hear the law, and the words which Yahweh of Armies had sent by his Spirit by the former prophets. Therefore great wrath came from Yahweh of Armies.
Zec 7:13 It has come to pass that, as he called, and they refused to listen, so they will call, and I will not listen," said Yahweh of Armies;
Zec 7:14 "but I will scatter them with a whirlwind among all the nations which they have not known. Thus the land was desolate after them, so that no man passed through nor returned: for they made the pleasant land desolate."

Zec 8:1 The word of Yahweh of Armies came to me.
Zec 8:2 Thus says Yahweh of Armies: "I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great wrath."
Zec 8:3 Thus says Yahweh: "I have returned to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be called 'The City of Truth;' and the mountain of Yahweh of Armies, 'The Holy Mountain.' "
Zec 8:4 Thus says Yahweh of Armies: "Old men and old women will again dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, every man with his staff in his hand for very age.
Zec 8:5 The streets of the city will be full of boys and girls playing in its streets."
Zec 8:6 Thus says Yahweh of Armies: "If it is marvelous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, should it also be marvelous in my eyes?" says Yahweh of Armies.
Zec 8:7 Thus says Yahweh of Armies: "Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country;
Zec 8:8 and I will bring them, and they will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; and they will be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness."
Zec 8:9 Thus says Yahweh of Armies: "Let your hands be strong, you who hear in these days these words from the mouth of the prophets who were in the day that the foundation of the house of Yahweh of Armies was laid, even the temple, that it might be built.
Zec 8:10 For before those days there was no wages for man, nor any wages for an animal; neither was there any peace to him who went out or came in, because of the adversary. For I set all men everyone against his neighbor.
Zec 8:11 But now I will not be to the remnant of this people as in the former days," says Yahweh of Armies.
Zec 8:12 "For the seed of peace and the vine will yield its fruit, and the ground will give its increase, and the heavens will give their dew; and I will cause the remnant of this people to inherit all these things.
Zec 8:13 It shall come to pass that, as you were a curse among the nations, house of Judah and house of Israel, so will I save you, and you shall be a blessing. Don't be afraid. Let your hands be strong."
Zec 8:14 For thus says Yahweh of Armies: "As I thought to do evil to you, when your fathers provoked me to wrath," says Yahweh of Armies, "and I didn't repent;
Zec 8:15 so again have I thought in these days to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. Don't be afraid.
Zec 8:16 These are the things that you shall do: speak every man the truth with his neighbor. Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates,
Zec 8:17 and let none of you devise evil in your hearts against his neighbor, and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate," says Yahweh.
Zec 8:18 The word of Yahweh of Armies came to me.
Zec 8:19 Thus says Yahweh of Armies: "The fasts of the fourth fifth, seventh, and tenth months shall be for the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts. Therefore love truth and peace."
Zec 8:20 Thus says Yahweh of Armies: "Many peoples, and the inhabitants of many cities will yet come;
Zec 8:21 and the inhabitants of one shall go to another, saying, 'Let us go speedily to entreat the favor of Yahweh, and to seek Yahweh of Armies. I will go also.'
Zec 8:22 Yes, many peoples and strong nations will come to seek Yahweh of Armies in Jerusalem, and to entreat the favor of Yahweh."
Zec 8:23 Thus says Yahweh of Armies: "In those days, ten men will take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, they will take hold of the skirt of him who is a Jew, saying, 'We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.' "

Dec. 28
Revelation 17, 18

Rev 17:1 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and spoke with me, saying, "Come here. I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who sits on many waters,
Rev 17:2 with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality, and those who dwell in the earth were made drunken with the wine of her sexual immorality."
Rev 17:3 He carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet-colored animal, full of blasphemous names, having seven heads and ten horns.
Rev 17:4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of the sexual immorality of the earth.
Rev 17:5 And on her forehead a name was written, "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH."
Rev 17:6 I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I wondered with great amazement.
Rev 17:7 The angel said to me, "Why do you wonder? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.
Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not; and is about to come up out of the abyss and to go into destruction. Those who dwell on the earth and whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel when they see that the beast was, and is not, and shall be present.
Rev 17:9 Here is the mind that has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sits.
Rev 17:10 They are seven kings. Five have fallen, the one is, the other has not yet come. When he comes, he must continue a little while.
Rev 17:11 The beast that was, and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is of the seven; and he goes to destruction.
Rev 17:12 The ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority as kings, with the beast, for one hour.
Rev 17:13 These have one mind, and they give their power and authority to the beast.
Rev 17:14 These will war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings. They also will overcome who are with him, called and chosen and faithful."
Rev 17:15 He said to me, "The waters which you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and languages.
Rev 17:16 The ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the prostitute, and will make her desolate, and will make her naked, and will eat her flesh, and will burn her utterly with fire.
Rev 17:17 For God has put in their hearts to do what he has in mind, and to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God should be accomplished.
Rev 17:18 The woman whom you saw is the great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth."

Rev 18:1 After these things, I saw another angel coming down out of the sky, having great authority. The earth was illuminated with his glory.
Rev 18:2 He cried with a mighty voice, saying, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, and she has become a habitation of demons, a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird!
Rev 18:3 For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her sexual immorality, the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from the abundance of her luxury."
Rev 18:4 I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, that you have no participation in her sins, and that you don't receive of her plagues,
Rev 18:5 for her sins have reached to the sky, and God has remembered her iniquities.
Rev 18:6 Return to her just as she returned, and repay her double as she did, and according to her works. In the cup which she mixed, mix to her double.
Rev 18:7 However much she glorified herself, and grew wanton, so much give her of torment and mourning. For she says in her heart, 'I sit a queen, and am no widow, and will in no way see mourning.'
Rev 18:8 Therefore in one day her plagues will come: death, mourning, and famine; and she will be utterly burned with fire; for the Lord God who has judged her is strong.
Rev 18:9 The kings of the earth, who committed sexual immorality and lived wantonly with her, will weep and wail over her, when they look at the smoke of her burning,
Rev 18:10 standing far away for the fear of her torment, saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For your judgment has come in one hour.'
Rev 18:11 The merchants of the earth weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise any more;
Rev 18:12 merchandise of gold, silver, precious stones, pearls, fine linen, purple, silk, scarlet, all expensive wood, every vessel of ivory, every vessel made of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble;
Rev 18:13 and cinnamon, incense, perfume, frankincense, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wheat, sheep, horses, chariots, and people's bodies and souls.
Rev 18:14 The fruits which your soul lusted after have been lost to you, and all things that were dainty and sumptuous have perished from you, and you will find them no more at all.
Rev 18:15 The merchants of these things, who were made rich by her, will stand far away for the fear of her torment, weeping and mourning;
Rev 18:16 saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, she who was dressed in fine linen, purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls!
Rev 18:17 For in an hour such great riches are made desolate.' Every shipmaster, and everyone who sails anywhere, and mariners, and as many as gain their living by sea, stood far away,
Rev 18:18 and cried out as they looked at the smoke of her burning, saying, 'What is like the great city?'
Rev 18:19 They cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and mourning, saying, 'Woe, woe, the great city, in which all who had their ships in the sea were made rich by reason of her great wealth!' For in one hour is she made desolate.
Rev 18:20 "Rejoice over her, O heaven, you saints, apostles, and prophets; for God has judged your judgment on her."
Rev 18:21 A mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, "Thus with violence will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down, and will be found no more at all.
Rev 18:22 The voice of harpists, minstrels, flute players, and trumpeters will be heard no more at all in you. No craftsman, of whatever craft, will be found any more at all in you. The sound of a mill will be heard no more at all in you.
Rev 18:23 The light of a lamp will shine no more at all in you. The voice of the bridegroom and of the bride will be heard no more at all in you; for your merchants were the princes of the earth; for with your sorcery all the nations were deceived.
Rev 18:24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on the earth."

What are love feasts? by Roy Davison


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


What are love feasts?
Love feasts are mentioned by Jude in verse 12. Referring to certain base persons, he states: "These are spots in your love feasts, while they feast with you without fear, serving only themselves" (NKJV).
Other translations render the verse as follows: "These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear" (KJV). "These are they who are hidden rocks in your lovefeasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves" (ASV). "These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves" (RSV). "These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love-feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves" (NASV). (Some manuscripts also have the same use of the word in 2 Peter 2:13.)
What does Jude mean when he speaks of "love feasts"?
The actual word used is the plural form of "love" (agape). The context in Jude 12 provides little help in understanding the meaning. To speak of "blemishes" (as in some manuscripts) or "reefs" (as in others) in love feasts is something of a mixed metaphor. That this word has the meaning of "love feast" in this context is concluded by most scholars because the word is used with that meaning in early church history.
Some have suggested that the expression originally was just another designation for the Lord's supper. Some think the word referred to meals which Christians ate together in their own homes as in Acts 2:46. Others feel that it referred to the type feast which Christ recommends in Luke 14:12, 13 to which the poor are to be invited, rather than wealthy friends. On the basis of the information we have in the New Testament, the above suggestions may be considered as possible, but we cannot know for sure.
Many commentators, however, make the definitely erroneous statement that the love feast in N.T. times was a meal in the assembly either before, or after, the Lord's supper. No doubt influenced by them, some brethren have suggested that we should or may do this.
That this is not the meaning of "love feast" in Jude 12 is clear from 1 Corinthians 11:22 & 34 where Paul expressly forbids such: "If any one is hungry, let him eat at home!" and "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?"
Some have misused this passage to object to eating a meal "in the building" or "on the grounds" at any time. But Paul is clearly referring to a meal which was an actual part of the assembly. Acts 20:11 is probably an example of Paul himself eating "in the building" after he had preached until midnight.
Strangely enough 1 Corinthians 11 is the very passage often used by commentators to support their claim that the Lord Supper was eaten in connection with a regular meal in the assembly. In this passage, however, there is no mention of them having the Lord's Supper BEFORE or AFTER a meal. They were having a meal INSTEAD of the Lord's Supper! Among the Greeks it was customary to have drunken parties to honor their gods. This might explain their behavior.
When this passage is cited in support of the theory, something like this is generally claimed: "Paul doesn't condemn their having a meal in the assembly. It is just the excess and the lack of sharing which he condemns." Such is contrary to the clear statement of Paul, however: "What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?" He does not say: "Do you not have houses to eat too much and to drink too much in." The Lord's Supper is not a meal for nourishment. If one is hungry he is to eat at home. Paul explains exactly how the Lord's Supper is to be eaten.
Paul said what the Corinthians were doing was not even the Lord's Supper (verse 20). Neither could it be called a 'love feast.' Their actions were condemned by Paul in no uncertain terms, not only the selfishness, but the very idea of having a meal for nourishment as a part of the assembly.
Commentators who state that in early church history the love feast was a meal connected with the Lord's supper have no basis for that claim either.
In early descriptions of the Lord's supper, no mention is made of a love feast (for example Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch. 65-67).
Ignatius (30-107 A.D.) in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 8, mentions the two, but separately. Little information is provided by the context. The love feast he mentions could be another name for the Lord's supper or it could be something different.
Clement of Alexandria (153 - c. 200) in the "Instructor" Book I, Ch. 1 opposes calling a sumptuous feast an 'agape'. He makes reference to Luke 14:12,13 as the proper way to have an agape.
According to Tertullian (145-220) the agape was a supper to benefit the needy (Apology, Ch. 39). He mentions that the meal was begun and ended by prayer and that hymns were sung. But it is not stated when or where the meal was eaten.
In the "Constitutions of the H. Apostles" Book II, Sec. IV, Ch. 28 the love feast is something which an individual Christian might hold in his own home for the benefit of poor widows.
These references tend to indicate that the love feast in early church history was a meal provided by an individual Christian in his own home for poor people in application of Luke 14:12, 13.
It is possible that this practice dated back to N.T. times and that this is also what "love feast" in Jude refers to, but it might be a development of a later date.
How then may the expression "love feast" be used by Christians? First, we should be very careful about using the word, since in the only passage in the Bible where the word is used, its meaning is not at all clear.
The only completely safe way to use it is in the SAME WAY it is used in Jude 12. We could refer to hypocrites in the church as blemishes in our love feasts. Such usage would definitely be in accordance with the scriptures.
If someone wishes to use the expression to describe a meal which a Christian provides in his own home for the needy, that would be in agreement with the use in early church history. But there is some question as to whether that is the meaning in Jude 12.
To use the expression as a description of the Lord's supper or to describe a meal which Christians eat together, might be justified on the basis of the argument that such meals are meals at which love is demonstrated. But it must be kept in mind that there is no proven connection with the biblical use of the word in Jude 12.
And we certainly may NEVER include a meal for physical nourishment as a part of our assembly, since that is expressly forbidden by Paul.
Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982,
Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.
Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

Confused Critics, Not God by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=507&b=1%20Corinthians

Confused Critics, Not God

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

One of the many criticisms that skeptics have levied against the Bible writers is that the Scriptures paint a contradictory picture of God, specifically regarding whether or not God “authors confusion.” Since God confused the language of man at Babel (11:1-9; apparently in the days of Peleg—Genesis 10:25), then, allegedly, Paul’s claim that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33) must be erroneous. How could He purposefully confuse mankind, while at the same time not be the “author of confusion”?
Certainly, God punished mankind for his disobedience at Babel by confusing their language (i.e., He brought into existence additional languages). After the Flood, God had instructed man to “[b]e fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1, emp. added). At Babel, however, humanity rebelled against God’s will, saying, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens...lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11:4, emp. added). What’s more, the descendants of Noah at Babel also were guilty of attempting to “make a name” for themselves (11:4; cf. 1 John 2:16). Thus, God chose to “confuse their language” that they might be “scattered...over the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9).
This kind of confusion, however, was not the same kind that Paul had in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians. When Paul wrote, “God is not the author of confusion” (14:33), he was addressing problems that the Corinthian Christians were having in the worship assembly. He gave specific instructions about how those with spiritual gifts (e.g., tongues, prophecies, interpretations) were to conduct themselves in the assembly. Those with the gift of tongues were to speak “in turn” (14:27), and if no interpreter was present they were to “keep silent in the church” (14:28). Those with the gift of prophecy were to “prophecy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged” (14:31, emp. added). Paul concluded this section of his letter by encouraging the church to “[l]et all things be done decently and in order” (14:40). In short, God desires worship that is free from the kind of chaos and confusion caused when (among other things) various individuals are speaking at the same time.
Consider the teacher who tells his class that he is not a person of confusion (i.e., he likes order and wants an orderly class). Later, however, this same teacher coaches a football team and desires to “cause confusion” among the opposing team’s players by implementing a complex game plan on both offense and defense. Might this man still be considered a man of integrity, whose personality is one that others would describe as the antithesis of chaotic? Certainly. Simply because a person initiates confusion in one particular setting does not mean that his very nature is chaotic.
Attempting to equate the dispersion God caused among sinful people at Babel with the confusion God condemned in Corinth is both unjustified and unreasonable. Remember, for there to be a legitimate contradiction, one must make sure that the words (or concepts) under discussion are used in the same sense. In Genesis 11:9 and 1 Corinthians 14:33, they are used in totally different senses.

Hollywood is UnAmerican by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=3740

Hollywood is UnAmerican

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The entertainment industry is a multi-billion dollar business. It would be difficult to measure the impact on society of the seemingly limitless forms of entertainment. More Americans voted in the 2009 American Idol contest than have voted for any U.S. President (Bella, 2009; “2008 Official…,” 2009). The time and money spent on making, marketing, and viewing movies and television programs is staggering. Prior to the baby boomer generation, forms of amusement in American society were tempered and significantly curtailed—by design. The WW2 generation spent very little time and money on diversion, recreation, and “playing.” And it wasn’t just that they did not have the financial resources; they believed that their time and money were better spent on more meaningful, worthwhile pursuits. But with the arrival of the “party generation” (and the two generations since), devotion to amusement and entertainment has escalated, and that devotion now literally dominates life in America.
Hollywood did not exist prior to the 20th century. Its influence on American civilization over the last century has been catastrophic. The invention of the camera, cinema, television, and the multitude of electronic formats now available have significantly transformed daily living. These inventions, though harmless in themselves, have provided citizens with the means of entertainment unparalleled in human history. What’s more, the influence of Hollywood and the entertainment industry has so encroached on moral and spiritual sensibilities that political leaders, news organizations, and even church leaders routinely incorporate into their roles homage to Hollywood personalities and entertainers.
The Bible plainly teaches that, while some diversion is appropriate, the obsession with pleasure and frivolous amusement that has come to dominate many Americans is sinful and destructive to spiritual health and mental sobriety (1 Timothy 5:6; 2 Timothy 3:4; Titus 3:3; James 4:1-3; 5:5; 2 Peter 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11). Since the Founders of America were so whetted to the Christian religion and familiar with their Bibles, they were well aware of the harmful effects of entertainment in general, and the acting profession in particular, on efforts to preserve the American way of life. So much so that the Continental Congress considered the following two resolutions on October 12, 1778:
Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness:
Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several states, to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof, and for the suppressing of theatrical entertainments, horse racing, gaming, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners.
Resolved, That all officers in the army of the United States, be, and hereby are strictly enjoined to see that the good and wholesome rules provided for the discountenancing of prophaneness and vice, and the preservation of morals among the soldiers, are duly and punctually observed (Journals of…, 12:1001, emp. added).
Four days later (Friday, October 16, 1778), Congress considered a resolution that was intended to exclude from public office those who participated in the entertainment industry:
Whereas frequenting play houses and theatrical entertainments has a fatal tendency to divert the minds of the people from a due attention to the means necessary for the defence of their country, and the preservation of their liberties:
Resolved, That any person holding an office under the United States, who shall act, promote, encourage or attend such plays, shall be deemed unworthy to hold such office, and shall be accordingly dismissed (Journals of…, 12:1018, emp. added).
Most Americans would probably laugh out loud upon reading these statements. They would consider such thinking archaic, old-fashioned, ludicrous, and outright wrong. They see no danger to national security when the propensity for entertainment characterizes those we trust to protect and govern us. They certainly see no connection between the widespread devotion to frivolous entertainment within the general population, and the resulting “idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners.”
How does one convince such people otherwise? The only way to do so is to nurture their spirit with the profound words of Jesus Christ and the spiritual nourishment available from the Bible. If they will not expose their minds to the uplifting, spiritually enriching Word of God, they are doomed to develop a degenerate, depraved mind that pursues pleasure. Listen carefully to the observation issued by the Holy Spirit to the Ephesians:
This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness (Ephesians 4:17-24, emp. added).
What better description of an increasing number of Americans? And what will be the outcome for the nation? According to the Founders, Americans will be unable to defend their country and preserve their liberties. May God enable us to renew our minds (Romans 12:2). May we be “lovers of God” rather than “lovers of pleasure” (2 Timothy 3:4).

REFERENCES

Bella (2009), “Kris Allen is American Idol Winner 2009!” Celebrity News, May 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.thinkfashion.com/blogs/stylosity_hollywood_hookup/archive/2009/05/20/kris-allen-wins-american-idol-2009.aspx.
Journals of the Continental Congress (1904-1937), (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office), [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=012/lljc012.db&recNum=159&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(jc01240))%230120160&linkText=1.
“2008 Official Presidential General Election Results” (2009), Presidential Election Commission, [On-line], URL: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/2008presgeresults.pdf.

Gaining God's Perspective in the Midst of Trials by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1337

Gaining God's Perspective in the Midst of Trials

by  Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

Sometimes it seems that living for God yields no real tangible benefits. At least, that is what the psalmist said in a moving lament: “Surely I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocence. For all day long I have been plagued, and chastened every morning” (Psalm 73:13-14). Such a pessimistic statement, however, stands in bold relief to the introductory affirmation of this psalm: “Truly God is good to Israel, to such as are pure in heart” (v. 1).
The psalm alludes to the circumstances that gave rise to the feelings of futility expressed in verse 13. The psalmist, who took God seriously, apparently had been stricken with a debilitating disease that inflicted him with a prolonged period of discomfort (v. 14). On the contrary, evildoers who boasted of their infidelity appeared to prosper in every conceivable way (vv. 3-12). Reflecting on this perceived disparity, the psalmist began to lose faith in the special beneficence of his God (v. 2). However, something on the psalmist’s spiritual decline toward faithlessness caused him to alter his course radically, and exclaim: “But it is good for me to draw near to God; I have put my trust in the Lord God, that I may declare all your works” (Psalm 73:28).
The turning point occurred when this wearied follower of God entered the sanctuary and was reminded of the fate of the wicked, and God’s continued presence with the godly sufferer (vv. 17-24). The sanctuary of God was where the Law was read, prayers were uttered, and songs were sung. It was there that God’s sovereignty and vision of life were articulated and acknowledged. In the solemn presence of God, the psalmist recaptured and confessed his profound trust in Jehovah’s life-sustaining power, even though there is no indication that his external circumstances had changed.
Though written centuries ago, this psalm is as relevant today as it was when it fell from the author’s inspired pen. In bold language, it affirms the real struggles that the faithful face in their walk with God. The lament embraces the daunting reality that our faith in God’s benevolence can be subverted by extreme adverse circumstances. Yet, the psalm also demonstrates that expressing one’s waning faith and frustration to God is, itself, an act of faith. For in so doing, the complainant implicitly trusts that God will hear.
The psalm also provides meaningful language for all believers who struggle with the realities of living. While it embraces the negative emotions associated with the pain of unfavorable situations, it moves us beyond such potentially destructive thoughts. In the end, it offers us God’s perspective in the midst of our trials and invites us into His holy presence where we can find “the strength of our hearts and our portions forever” (v. 26).

Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3870

Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"?

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


[NOTE—For updates to this article, see Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? (Update) and Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? (2nd Update)]
The Higgs Boson particle, presumptuously called the “God Particle” by some physicists, is a theoretical elementary particle that is predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics, but which has yet to be observed by physicists through experimentation. It is “thought to be the fundamental unit of matter” (“Has Quest for the Elusive…?” 2011). In theory, the particle could explain how other elementary particles have mass. But why do some call it the “God Particle”? To Big Bang-believers, the Higgs Boson is “a theoretical energy particle which many scientists believe helped give mass to the disparate matter spawned by the Big Bang” (“Scientists Close in…,” 2010). Big Bang theorists consider its existence “crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang” (“Scientists…,” emp. added). Therefore, the particle is god-like to such sadly deluded individuals.
Recently, in an article titled, “Has Quest for the Elusive ‘God Particle’ Succeeded?,” Fox News reported on a “controversial rumor…based on a leaked internal note from physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)” that began circulating in the public eye (“Has Quest...”). The rumor suggests that the LHC, a particle accelerator located in Switzerland, may have run across proof of the Higgs’ existence. The leaked note “details an unexpected ‘bump’ in emissions that may be proof of the long-sought particle” (“Has Quest...”). Wait a minute. A “bump” could be proof of the Higgs Boson? Surely such an occurrence, which could be the result of any number of possibilities, would not constitute valid proof of anything to scientists. Although many scientists these days would consider such a vague incident enough proof to satisfy their longings, James Gillies, a spokesman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research responsible for building the LHC, admitted that “the leaked note faces several layers of scrutiny before it could be submitted for publication [in a scholarly scientific publication—JM].” He explains: “Things such as this show up quite frequently in the course of analysis…. It’s way too soon to get excited, I’m afraid. It’s not the physics find of the millennium, unfortunately” (“Has Quest...,” emp. added). So, atheistic evolution still stands as scientifically impossible.
As stated above, evolutionists consider the existence of the Higgs Boson “crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang” (“Scientists…,” emp. added). Notice that without the existence of this theoretical particle, Big Bang theorists recognize that the Universe could not even form after the Big Bang theoretically occurred. Its existence would not prove that the Universe did form in the manner suggested by Big Bang Theory. Its existence would not even prove that the Universe could form after a hypothesized Big Bang occurred. Further, its existence would not prove that the Big Bang itself could occur at all. Its existence would not prove that matter could exist forever or pop into existence out of nothing, one of which must be true in order for the Big Bang to even get started. And its existence would certainly not prove that the scientific laws governing the Universe could write themselves into existence. However, without the existence of the particle, theorists know the Big Bang could not happen. Thus, discovery of its existence would not prove anything in the end, but only allow evolutionists to cross one of the many chasms that stand in the way of their theory even being considered a remote possibility. In other words, the Big Bang has not even reached square one in the realm of proof. It still lies firmly in the realm of impossibility. Bottom line: the Creation model still stands as the most logical explanation for the origin of the Universe—the model that matches the scientific evidence.

REFERENCES

“Has Quest for the Elusive ‘God Particle’ Succeeded?” (2011), Fox News, April 25, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/25/quest-elusive-god-particle-succeeded/?test=faces.
“Scientists Close in on God Particle” (2010), Fox News, July 27, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/27/scientists-closing-god-particle/.

Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch--Tried and True by Eric Lyons, M.Min. A.P. Staff


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=36

Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch--Tried and True

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.
A.P. Staff

Some time ago, a young lady from a local university visited our offices at Apologetics Press and asked to talk to someone about a “new theory” she had been taught in a freshmen literature class. For the first time in her life, she had been told that Moses could not have been the author of the first five books of the Old Testament.
“He lived too early in human history to have written it.”
“The Pentateuch contains information Moses could not have known.”
“Many of the details are from a later age and are inappropriately inserted into the book of Genesis.”
“The Pentateuch actually was pieced together by anonymous sources (commonly called J, E, D, and P) at a fairly late date—long after Moses’ death.”
This impressionable young freshman was extremely disturbed by her professor’s statements. She was completely taken aback by the things skeptics and alleged “biblical scholars” had to say about the matter. Consequently, she began to question what she had learned regarding the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch in her Sunday school classes and at the Christian school she had attended nearly all of her life.
“Why would I be taught my whole life by teachers and preachers that Moses wrote Genesis through Deuteronomy, if he really didn’t?”
“Why did I not know about this until now?”
“Does it really matter who wrote Genesis, anyway?”

THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS

The idea that Moses did not write the Pentateuch actually has been around for more than a millennium. However, until the mid-seventeenth century, the vast majority of people still maintained that Moses was its author. It was in the mid-1600s that the Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza began to seriously question this widely held belief (Green, 1978, p. 47; Dillard and Longman, 1994, p. 40). French physician Jean Astruc developed the original Documentary Hypothesis in 1753, and it went through many different alterations until Karl Graf revised the initial hypothesis in the mid-nineteenth century. Julius Wellhausen then restated Graf’s Documentary Hypothesis and brought it to light in European and American scholarly circles (see McDowell, 1999, pp. 404-406). It thus has become known to many as the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis.
Since the “Period of Enlightenment,” the Graf-Wellhausen explanation of the origin of the Pentateuch has been thrust consistently into the faces of Christians. Liberal scholars teach that the Pentateuch was compiled from four original “source documents”—designated as J, E, D, and P. These four documents supposedly were written at different times by different authors, and eventually were compiled into the Pentateuch by a redactor (editor). The J, or Jehovahist, document (usually known as the Yahwehist document) supposedly was written around 850 B.C., and was characterized by its use of the divine name Yahweh. Elohim is the divine name that identifies the E, or Elohist, document, purportedly written around 750 B.C. The D, or Deuteronomist, document contained most of the book of Deuteronomy and was supposed to have been written around 620 B.C. The last section to be written was the P, or Priestly, document, which would have contained most of the priestly laws, and allegedly was written around 500 B.C. We are told these documents were then redacted (edited) into one work about 300 years later in 200 B.C. (Morris, 1976, p. 23; McDowell, 1999, p. 406).
It is becoming increasingly popular to believe this theory. For example, not long ago we at Apologetics Press received an e-mail “informing” us that “the documentary theory is accepted by almost all scholarly interpreters.” Numerous commentaries, religious journals, and Web sites consistently promote it. And many professors who teach religious courses espouse it. Undoubtedly, it is champion among the topics discussed in classes on a critical introduction to the Bible. In most “scholarly” circles, if one does not hold to the Documentary Hypothesis (or at least some form of it), he is considered fanatical and uneducated. In his book, The Darwin Wars, Andrew Brown mentioned an interview he had with the rabbi Jonathan Sacks, in which Dr. Sacks defended the proposition that Moses wrote (or dictated) the first five books of the Bible. Brown’s response was: “That is the most shocking thing I have ever heard an intellectual say” (1999, p. 167).
Why are people today having such a difficult time believing that Moses wrote the Pentateuch? Likely, the principal reason is because students are bombarded with adamant “assurance” statements like the following:
“One of the certain results of modern Bible study has been the discovery that the first five books of the Old Testament were not written by Moses” (Gottwald, 1959, p. 103, emp. added).
It is obvious that the Book of Genesis was not written by a single author” (Rendtorff, 1998, 14[1]:44, emp. added).
“The most determined biblicist can see that there is no way Moses could have written the Torah” (McKinsey, 1995, p. 366, emp. added).
Statements such as these have made their way into thousands of classrooms. Sadly, before hearing skeptics and liberal scholars present their ineffectual arguments for such beliefs, students frequently become so spellbound by the “intellectual” façade and bold affirmations of certainty that they rarely even consider the evidence at hand.

MOSES AND THE ART OF WRITING

Amazingly, one of the first assumptions upon which this theory rests was disproved long ago. From the earliest period of the development of the Documentary Hypothesis, it was assumed that Moses lived in an age prior to the knowledge of writing. One of the “founding fathers” of this theory, Julius Wellhausen, was convinced that “[a]ncient Israel was certainly not without God-given bases for ordering of human life; only they were not fixed in writing” (1885, p. 393, emp. added). Just thirteen years later, Hermann Schultz declared: “Of the legendary character of the pre-Mosaic narrators, the time of which they treat is a sufficient proof. It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing” (1898, pp. 25-26, emp. added). One year later, T.K. Cheyne’s Encyclopedia Biblica was published, in which he contended that the Pentateuch was not written until almost a thousand years after Moses (1899, 2:2055). These suppositions most certainly had an impact on these men’s belief in (and promotion of) the theory that Moses could not possibly have written the first five books of the Old Testament.
One major problem with the Documentary Hypothesis is that we now know Moses did not live “prior to all knowledge of writing.” In fact, he lived long after the art of writing was already known. A veritable plethora of archaeological discoveries has proven one of the earliest assumptions of the Wellhausen theory to be wrong.
1. In 1949, C.F.A. Schaeffer “found a tablet at Ras Shamra containing the thirty letters of the Ugaritic alphabet in their proper order. It was discovered that the sequence of the Ugaritic alphabet was the same as modern Hebrew, revealing that the Hebrew alphabet goes back at least 3,500 years” (Jackson, 1982, p. 32, emp. added).
2. In 1933, J.L. Starkey, who had studied under famed archaeologist W.M.F. Petrie, excavated the city of Lachish, which had figured prominently in Joshua’s conquest of Canaan (Joshua 10). Among other things, he unearthed a pottery water pitcher “inscribed with a dedication in eleven archaic letters, the earliest ‘Hebrew’ inscription known” (Wiseman, 1974, p. 705). According to Charles Pfeiffer,
The Old, or palaeo-Hebrew script is the form of writing which is similar to that used by the Phoenicians. A royal inscription of King Shaphatball of Gebal (Byblos) in this alphabet dates from about 1600 B.C. (1966, p. 33).
3. In 1901-1902, the Code of Hammurabi was discovered at the ancient site of Susa (in what is now Iran) by a French archaeological expedition under the direction of Jacques de Morgan. It was written on a piece of black diorite nearly eight feet high, and contained 282 sections. In their book, Archaeology and Bible History, Joseph Free and Howard Vos stated:
The Code of Hammurabi was written several hundred years before the time of Moses (c. 1500-1400 B.C.).... This code, from the period 2000-1700 B.C. , contains advanced laws similar to those in the Mosaic laws.... In view of this archaeological evidence, the destructive critic can no longer insist that the laws of Moses are too advanced for his time (1992, pp. 103,55, emp. added).
The Code of Hammurabi established beyond doubt that writing was known hundreds of years before Moses.
The truth is, numerous archaeological discoveries of the past 100 years have proven once and for all that the art of writing was known not only during Moses’ day, but also long before Moses came on the scene. Although skeptics, liberal theologians, and certain college professors continue to perpetuate the Documentary Hypothesis, they should be informed (or reminded) of the fact that one of the foundational assumptions upon which the theory rests has been completely shattered by archeological evidence.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DOCUMENTARY
HYPOTHESIS—REFUTED

Many of the questions surrounding this theory were answered years ago by the respected scholar J.W. McGarvey. His book, The Authorship of Deuteronomy, (first published in 1902) silenced many supporters of the Documentary Hypothesis. Critics simply could not overcome his ability to detect and expose the many perversions of their teachings. Over the last century, however, various critics eventually regained their confidence and began citing even more “evidence” for their theory. One category of “proof ‘ frequently mentioned by skeptics and liberal scholars is that of chronological lapses (also called anachronisms). Allegedly, numerous references found in the Pentateuch are said to be of a later time; hence, it is impossible for them to be Mosaic. According to Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman in their extremely popular book on archaeology and the Bible, The Bible Unearthed, “archaeology has provided enough evidence to support a new contention that the historical core of the Pentateuch...was substantially shaped in the seventh century BCE” (2001, p. 14; BCE stands for Before the Common Era)—about 800 years after Moses lived. Two years earlier, Stephen Van Eck wrote in the Skeptical Review: “[T]he best evidence against the Mosaic authorship is contained in the Pentateuch itself,” which “contains anachronistic references impossible to be the work of Moses” (1999, p. 2). Thus, allegedly, “at the very least, we can conclude that many elements in the patriarchal narratives are unhistorical” (Tobin, 2000).
Just what are these “anachronistic references” that are “impossible to be the work of Moses”? And are there reasonable explanations for them being in the Pentateuch? What can be said about the alleged chronological lapses that have led many to believe the stories of the Bible are unhistorical?

NO KING IN ISRAEL...YET

For most people, the 36th chapter of Genesis is “unfamiliar territory.” It is known more for being the chapter after Genesis 35 (in which details are given about Jacob’s name being changed to Israel) and before chapter 37 (where one reads about Joseph’s brothers selling him into slavery). Nowhere does Genesis 36 record the names of such patriarchs as Abraham, Isaac, or Joseph. (And Jacob is mentioned just once.) Nor are there any memorable stories from this portion of Genesis—of the kind that we learned in our youth. Perhaps the least-studied chapter in the first book of the Bible is Genesis 36—the genealogy of Esau.
Surprisingly, to some, this often-overlooked chapter contains one of the more controversial phrases in the book. Genesis 36:31 states: “And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel” (emp. added). According to skeptics and liberal theologians, the notation “before there reigned any king over the children of Israel” points to the days of the monarchs. Dennis McKinsey declared in his book, Biblical Errancy:
This passage could only have been written after the first king began to reign. ...It had to have been written after Saul became king, while Moses, the alleged author, lived long before Saul (2000, p. 521).
Paul Tobin also indicated that this portion of the Bible “must therefore have been written, at the very earliest, after the first Jewish King, Saul, began to rule over the Israelites which was around three centuries after the death of Moses” (2000). Tobin went on to ask (a question he feels cannot possibly be answered): “Now how could Moses have known that there would be kings that reigned over the Israelites?”
There are two logical reasons why Moses could mention future Israelite kingship. First, Moses knew about the explicit promises God had made both to Abraham and Jacob concerning the future kings of Israel. On one occasion, God informed Abraham and Sarah that many kings would be among their posterity. He promised Abraham saying, “And I will bless her [Sarah—EL], and moreover I will give thee a son of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be of her” (Genesis 17:16, emp. added). Years later (and just one chapter before the verse in question), when God appeared to Jacob at Bethel and changed his name to Israel, He said: “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins” (Genesis 35:11, emp. added). The fact that Genesis 36:31 reads, “And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,” does not mean this account must have been written by someone who lived after the monarchy was introduced to Israel. Rather, this statement was written with the promise in mind that various kings would come out of the loins of Abraham and Jacob, and merely conveys the notion that Edom became a kingdom at an earlier time than Israel. Keil and Delitzsch remarked: “Such a thought was by no means inappropriate to the Mosaic age. For the idea, that Israel was destined to grow into a kingdom with monarchs of his [Jacob’s—EL] own family, was a hope handed down to the age of Moses, which the long residence in Egypt was well adapted to foster” (1996). Furthermore, the placement of this parenthetical clause (“before any king reigned over the children of Israel”) in 36:31
was exceedingly natural on the part of the sacred historian, who, having but a few verses before (Gen 35:11) put on record the divine promise to Jacob that “kings should come out of his loins,” was led to remark [discuss—EL] the national prosperity and regal establishment of the Edomites long before the organization of a similar order of things in Israel. He could not help indulging such a reflection, when he contrasted the posterity of Esau with those of Jacob from the standpoint of the promise (Gen 25:23) [Jamieson, et al., 1997].
A second reason Moses is justified in having knowledge of Israelite kingship before it was known experientially is because Moses was inspired (John 5:46; Mark 12:26; cf. Exodus 20:1; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). For someone to say that the author of Genesis could not have been Moses, because the author spoke generally of Israelite kings prior to their existence, totally ignores the fact that Moses received special revelation from Heaven. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the passage found in Deuteronomy 17:14-15. Here, Moses prophetically stated:
When thou art come unto the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, “I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me;” thou shalt surely set him king over thee, whom Jehovah thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother (emp. added).
Under normal circumstances, such foreknowledge would be impossible. One must keep in mind, however, that “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26)—and God was with Moses (cf. Exodus 3:12; 6:2; 25:22).
Were the Christian to claim that Moses wrote Genesis without being inspired or without having knowledge of the earlier promises made to Abraham and Jacob about the future kingship of Israel, the critic would be correct in concluding that Genesis 36:31 is anachronistic. But, the truth is, a Christian’s faith is based on the evidences which prove that the Bible writers possessed access to supernatural revelation. Thus, Moses’ superior knowledge is not a problem. Rather, it is to be expected.

CAMELS BEARING A HEAVY LOAD

Arguably, the most widely alleged anachronisms used in support of the idea that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible are the accounts of the early patriarchs possessing camels. The word “camel(s)” appears twenty-three times in twenty-one verses in the book of Genesis. The first book of the Bible declares that camels existed in Egypt during the time of Abraham (12:14-17), in Palestine in the days Isaac (24:63), in Padan Aram while Jacob was employed by Laban (30:43), and were owned by the Midianites during the time when Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery (37:25,36). Make no mistake about it—the book of beginnings clearly teaches that camels had been domesticated since at least the time of Abraham.
According to skeptics, and a growing number of “biblical scholars,” however, the fact that Moses wrote about camels being domesticated in the time of Abraham directly contradicts the archaeological evidence. Over one hundred years ago, T.K. Cheyne wrote: “The assertion that the ancient Egyptians knew of the camel is unfounded” (1899, 1:634). In Norman Gottwald’s defense of the Documentary Hypothesis, he cited the mention of camels in Genesis as one of the main “indications that the standpoint of the writer was later than the age of Moses” (1959, p. 104). More recently, Finkelstein and Silberman confidently asserted:
We now know through archaeological research that camels were not domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millennium and were not widely used in that capacity in the ancient Near East until well after 1000 BCE (2001, p. 37, emp. added).
By way of summary, then, what the Bible believer has been told is: “[T]ame camels were simply unknown during Abraham’s time” (Tobin, 2000).
While these claims have been made repeatedly over the last century, the truth of the matter is that skeptics and liberal theologians are unable to cite one piece of solid archaeological evidence in support of their claims. As Randall Younker of Andrews University stated in March 2000 while delivering a speech in the Dominican Republic: “Clearly, scholars who have denied the presence of domesticated camels in the 2nd millennium BC have been committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. This approach should not be allowed to cast doubt upon the veracity of any historical document, let alone Scripture” (2000). The burden of proof actually should be upon skeptics to show that camels were not domesticated until well after the time of the patriarchs. Instead, they assure their listeners of the camel’s absence in Abraham’s day—without one shred of archaeological evidence. [Remember, for many years they also argued that writing was unknown during the time of Moses—a conclusion based entirely on “silence.” Now, however, they have recanted that idea, because evidence has been found to the contrary.]
What makes their claims even more disturbing is that several pieces of evidence do exist (and have existed for some time) that prove camels were domesticated during (and even before) the time of Abraham (approximately 2,000 B.C.). In an article that appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies a half-century ago, professor Joseph Free listed several instances of Egyptian archaeological finds supporting the domestication of camels. [NOTE: The dates given for the Egyptian dynasties are from Clayton, 2001, pp. 14-68]. The earliest evidence comes from a pottery camel’s head and a terra cotta tablet with men riding on and leading camels. According to Free, these are both from predynastic Egypt (1944, pp. 189-190), which according to Clayton is roughly before 3150 B.C. Free also lists three clay camel heads and a limestone vessel in the form of a camel lying down—all dated during the First Dynasty of Egypt (3050-2890 B.C.). He then mentions several models of camels from the Fourth Dynasty (2613-2498 B.C.), and a petroglyph depicting a camel and a man dated at the Sixth Dynasty (2345-2184 B.C.). Such evidence has led one respected Egyptologist to conclude that “the extant evidence clearly indicates that the domestic camel was known [in Egypt—EL] by 3,000 B.C.”—long before Abraham’s time (Kitchen, 1980, 1:228).
Perhaps the most convincing find in support of the early domestication of camels in Egypt is a rope made of camel’s hair found in the Fayum (an oasis area southwest of modern-day Cairo). The two-strand twist of hair, measuring a little over three feet long, was found in the late 1920s, and was sent to the Natural History Museum, where it was analyzed and compared to the hair of several different animals. After extensive testing, it was determined to be camel hair, dated (by analyzing the layer in which it was found) to the Third or Fourth Egyptian Dynasty (2686-2498 B.C.). In his article, Free also listed several other discoveries from around 2,000 B.C. and later, each of which showed camels as domestic animals (1944, pp. 189-190).
While prolific in Egypt, finds relating to the domestication of camels are not limited to the African continent. In his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, Kenneth Kitchen, professor emeritus at the University of Liverpool, reported several discoveries made outside of Egypt, proving that ancient camel domestication existed around 2,000 B.C. Lexical lists from Mesopotamia have been uncovered that show a knowledge of domesticated camels as far back as that time. Camel bones have been found in household ruins at Mari in present-day Syria that fossilologists believe are also at least 4,000 years old. Furthermore, a Sumerian text from the time of Abraham has been discovered in the ancient city of Nippur (located in what is now southeastern Iraq) that clearly implies the domestication of camels by its allusions to camels’ milk (Kitchen, 1966, p. 79).
All of these documented finds support the domestication of camels in Egypt many years before the time of Abraham. Yet, as Younker so well stated, skeptics refuse to acknowledge any of this evidence.
It is interesting to note how, once an idea gets into the literature, it can become entrenched in conventional scholarly thinking. I remember doing research on the ancient site of Hama in Syria. As I was reading through the excavation reports (published in French), I came across a reference to a figurine from the 2nd millennium which the excavator thought must be a horse, but the strange hump in the middle of its back made one think of a camel. I looked at the photograph and the figurine was obviously that of a camel! The scholar was so influenced by the idea that camels were not used until the 1st millennium, that when he found a figurine of one in the second millennium, he felt compelled to call it a horse! This is a classic example of circular reasoning (2000, parenthetical comment in orig.).
Finds relating to the domestication of camels are not as prevalent in the second millennium B.C. as they are in the first millennium. This does not make the skeptics’ case any stronger, however. Just because camels were not as widely used during Abraham’s time as they were later, does not mean that they were entirely undomesticated. As Free commented:
Many who have rejected this reference to Abraham’s camels seem to have assumed something which the text does not state. It should be carefully noted that the biblical reference does not necessarily indicate that the camel was common in Egypt at that time, nor does it evidence that the Egyptians had made any great progress in the breeding and domestication of camels. It merely says that Abraham had camels (1944, p. 191, emp. added).
Similarly, Younker noted:
This is not to say that domesticated camels were abundant and widely used everywhere in the ancient Near East in the early second millennium. However, the patriarchal narratives do not necessarily require large numbers of camels.... The smaller amount of evidence for domestic camels in the late third and early second millennium B.C., especially in Palestine, is in accordance with this more restricted use (1997, 42:52).
Even without the above-mentioned archaeological finds (which to the unbiased examiner prove that camels were domesticated in the time of Abraham), it only seems reasonable to conclude that because wild camels have been known since the Creation, “there is no credible reason why such an indispensable animal in desert and semi-arid lands should not have been sporadically domesticated in patriarchal times and even earlier” (see “Animal Kingdom,” 1988). The truth is, all of the available evidence points to one conclusion—the limited use of domesticated camels during and before the time of Abraham. The supposed “anachronism” of domesticated camels during the time of the patriarchs is, in fact, an actual historical reference to the use of these animals at that time. Those who reject this conclusion cannot offer a single piece of solid archaeological evidence on behalf of their theory. They simply argue from the “silence” of archaeology...which is silent no more!

MOSES’ KNOWLEDGE OF GATES

A further “proof” against Mosaic authorship is the continuous mention of gates throughout the Pentateuch. As McKinsey wrote:
Deut. 15:22 says, “Thou shalt eat it within thy gates.” The phrase “within thy gates” occurs in the Pentateuch about twenty-five times and refers to the gates of Palestinian cities, which the Israelites did not inhabit until after the death of Moses (1995, p. 363, emp. in orig.).
In making this statement, however, Mr. McKinsey commits a gross error by assuming that the passage is referring solely to the “gates of Palestinian cities.” Moreover, what skeptics like McKinsey fail to mention is the fact that “gate” does not necessarily mean the large doors in the walls of fortified cities. Sometimes, gates are used to represent entrances into areas of dwelling, as in Exodus 32:26: “Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, ‘Whoso is on Jehovah’s side, (let him come) unto me.’ And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him” (emp. added). Would anyone suppose that the Israelites built walls and gates around their Bedouin-style tent cities? Of course not. Therefore, “gate” can mean the entrance to a city—of tents. In fact, the Hebrew word for gate (Å¡a‘ar) is translated as “entrance” ten times in the NIV. And in the NKJV, Å¡a‘ar is translated as “entrance” in Exodus 32:36.
Giving Dennis McKinsey the benefit of the doubt (that the term “gates” refers to the Palestinian cities), Moses could have been referring to the cities that the Israelites would capture in the future. Since he was inspired while writing the Pentateuch (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), this knowledge could have been the result of that inspiration, similar to the knowledge that Israel one day would have a king. Either way, the mention of “gates” in the Pentateuch is not anachronistic.

PHILISTINES IN THE TIME OF
ABRAHAM—FALLACY OR FACT?

The Bible declares that long before King David defeated the Philistine giant named Goliath in the valley of Elah (1 Samuel 17), Abraham and Isaac had occasional contact with a people known as the Philistines. In fact, seven of the eight times that the Philistines are mentioned in Genesis, they are discussed in connection with either Abraham’s visit with Abimelech, king of the Philistines (21:32,34), or with Isaac’s visit to the same city (Gerar) a few years later (26:1,8,14-15,18). For some time now, critics of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch have considered the mention of the Philistines—so early in human history—to be inappropriately inserted into the patriarchal account. Supposedly, “Philistines...did not come into Palestine until after the time of Moses” (Gottwald, 1959, p. 104, emp. added), and any mention of them before that time represents a “historical inaccuracy” (Frank, 1964, p. 323). Thus, as Millar Burrows concluded, the mention of Philistines in Genesis may be considered “a convenient and harmless anachronism,” which “is undoubtedly a mistake” (1941, p. 277).
As with most allegations brought against the Scriptures, those who claim the Philistine nation was not around in Abraham’s day are basing their conclusion on at least one unprovable assumption—namely, that the Philistines living in the days of the patriarchs were a great nation, similar to the one living during the time of the United Kingdom. The evidence suggests, however, that this assumption is wrong. The Bible does not present the Philistines of Abraham’s day as the same mighty Philistine nation that would arise hundreds of years later. Abimelech, the king of Gerar, is portrayed as being intimidated by Abraham (cf. Genesis 21:25). Surely, had the Philistine people been a great nation in the time of the patriarchs, they would not have been afraid of one man (Abraham) and a few hundred servants (cf. Genesis 14:14). Furthermore, of the five great Philistine city-states that were so prominent throughout the period of the Judges and the United Kingdom (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza—Joshua 13:3; 1 Samuel 6:17), none was mentioned. Rather, only a small village known as Gerar was named. To assume that the Bible presents the entire civilization of the Philistines as being present during Abraham’s day is to err. In reality, one reads only of a small Philistine kingdom.
The word “Philistine” was a somewhat generic term that meant “sea people.” No doubt, some of the Aegean sea people made their way to Palestine long before a later migration took place—one that was considerably larger. In commenting on these Philistines, Larry Richards observed:
While there is general agreement that massive settlement of the coast of Canaan by sea peoples from Crete took place around 1200 B.C., there is no reason to suppose Philistine settlements did not exist long before this time. In Abram’s time as in the time of Moses a variety of peoples had settled in Canaan, including Hittites from the far north. Certainly the seagoing peoples who traded the Mediterranean had established colonies along the shores of the entire basin for centuries prior to Abraham’s time. There is no reason to suppose that the Philistines, whose forefathers came from Crete, were not among them (1993, p. 40).
No archaeological evidence exists that denies various groups of “sea people” were in Canaan long before the arrival of the main body in the early twelfth century B.C. (see Unger, 1954, p. 91; Archer, 1964, p. 266; Harrison, 1963, p. 32). To assume that not a single group of Philistines lived in Palestine during the time of Abraham because archaeology has not documented them until about 1190 B.C. is to argue from negative evidence, and is without substantial weight. In response to those who would deny the Philistines’ existence based upon their silence in the archeological world before this time, professor Kitchen stated:
Inscriptionally, we know so little about the Aegean peoples as compared with those of the rest of the Ancient Near East in the second millennium B.C., that it is premature to deny outright the possible existence of Philistines in the Aegean area before 1200 B.C. (1966, p. 80n).
Likely, successive waves of sea peoples from the Aegean Sea migrated to Canaan, even as early as Abraham’s time, and continued coming until the massive movement in the twelfth century B.C. (Archer, 1970, 127:18).
Based on past experiences, one might think that critics of the Bible’s inerrancy would learn to refrain from making accusations when arguing from silence. For years, modernists and skeptics taught that the Hittite kingdom, which is mentioned over forty times in Scripture (Exodus 23:28; Joshua 1:4; et al.), was a figment of the Bible writers’ imaginations, since no evidence of the Hittite’s existence had been located. But those utterances vanished into thin air when, in 1906, the Hittite capital was discovered, along with more than 10,000 clay tablets that contained the Hittite’s law system. Critics of the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration at one time also accused Luke of gross inaccuracy because he used the title politarchas to denote the city officials of Thessalonica (Acts 17:6,8), rather than the more common terms strateegoi (magistrates) and exousiais (authorities). To support their accusations, they pointed out that the term politarch is found nowhere else in all of Greek literature as an official title. Once again, these charges eventually were dropped, based on the fact that the term politarchas has now been found in 32 inscriptions from the second century B.C. to the third century A.D. (Bruce, 1988, p. 324n), with at least five of these inscriptions originating from Thessalonica—the very city about which Luke wrote in Acts 17 (Robertson, 1997).
Although critics accuse biblical writers of revealing erroneous information, their claims continue to evaporate with the passing of time and the compilation of evidence.

DOES IT REALLY MATTER
WHO WROTE THE PENTATEUCH?

To some, the question of whether or not Moses wrote the Pentateuch is a trivial matter—one of secondary importance. After all, we do not consider it an absolute necessity to know whom God inspired to write the book of Job or the epistle of Hebrews. We do not draw lines of fellowship over who wrote 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles. Why, then, should the discussion of who penned the first five books of the Bible be any different? The difference is that the Bible is filled with references attributing these books to Moses! Within the Pentateuch itself, one can read numerous times how Moses wrote the law of God.
“Moses wrote all the words of Jehovah” (Exodus 24:4).
“Jehovah said unto Moses, ‘Write thou these words...’ ” (Exodus 34:27).
“Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Jehovah” (Numbers 33:2).
“Moses wrote this law and delivered it unto the priests...” (Deuteronomy 31:9).
Bible writers throughout the Old Testament credited Moses with writing the Pentateuch (also known as the Torah or “the Law”). A plain statement of this commonly held conviction is expressed in Joshua 8:32: “There, in the presence of the Israelites, Joshua copied on stones the law of Moses, which he [Moses—EL] had written” (NIV, emp. added). Notice also that 2 Chronicles 34:14 states: “Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the law of Jehovah given by Moses” (emp. added; cf. Ezra 3:2; 6:18, Nehemiah 13:1, and Malachi 4:4). As Josh McDowell noted in his book, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, these verses “refer to an actual written ‘law of Moses,’ not simply an oral tradition” (1975, pp. 93-94). [NOTE: The Hebrew Bible was not divided like our modern English Old Testament. It consisted of three divisions: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (cf. Luke 24:44). It contained the same “books” we have today; it was just divided differently. Genesis through Deuteronomy was considered one unit, and thus frequently was called “the Law” or “the Book” (2 Chronicles 25:4; cf. Mark 12:26). Even a casual perusal of its individual components will confirm that each book presupposes the one that precedes it. Without Genesis, Exodus reads like a book begun midway; without Exodus, Leviticus is a mystery; and so on. They were not intended to be five separate volumes in a common category, but rather, are five divisions of the same book. Hence, the singular references: “the Law” or “the Book.”]
The New Testament writers also showed no hesitation in affirming that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. John wrote: “The law was given through Moses” (John 1:17). Luke recorded of the resurrected Jesus: “And beginning from Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them [His disciples—EL] in all the scriptures the things concerning himself ‘ (Luke 24:27). Referring to the Jewish practice of publicly reading the Law, James affirmed Mosaic authorship: “For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath” (Acts 15:21). With this Paul concurred, saying, “For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them’ ” (Romans 10:5, NKJV, emp. added; cf. Leviticus 18:5). In 2 Corinthians 3:15, Paul also wrote: “Moses is read.” The phrase “Moses is read” is a clear example of the figure of speech known as metonymy (where one thing is put for another) [see Dungan, 1888, pp. 273-275]. Today, we may ask if someone has read Shakespeare, Homer, or Virgil, by which we mean to ask if he or she has read the writings of these men. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, one reads where Abraham spoke to the rich man concerning his five brothers saying, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them” (Luke 16:29). Were Moses and the Old Testament prophets still on Earth in the first century? No. The meaning is that the rich man’s brothers had the writings of Moses and the prophets.
Furthermore, both Jesus’ disciples and His enemies recognized and accepted the books of Moses. After Philip was called to follow Jesus, he found his brother Nathanael and said: “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45, NKJV, emp. added). Notice also that New Testament Sadducees considered Moses as the author, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, if a man’s brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother” (Mark 12:19, emp. added; cf. Deuteronomy 25:5).
A final reason that one must defend the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, instead of sitting by idly and claiming that “it doesn’t really matter who wrote it,” is because Jesus Himself acknowledged that “the Law” came from Moses. In Mark 7:10, Jesus quoted from both Exodus 20 and 21, attributing the words to Moses. Mark likewise recorded a conversation Jesus had with the Pharisees regarding what “Moses permitted” and “wrote” in Deuteronomy chapter 24 (Mark 10:3-5; cf. Matthew 19:8). Later, we see where Jesus asked the Sadducees, “Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the bush, how God spake unto him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” (Mark 12:26, emp. added). But, perhaps the most convincing passage of all can be found in John 5:46-47, where Jesus stated: “For if ye believed Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47, emp. added; cf. Deuteronomy 18:15-18). The truth is, by claiming that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch, one essentially is claiming that Jesus was mistaken. M.R. DeHaan expounded upon this problem in his book, Genesis and Evolution:
Prove that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch and you prove that Jesus was totally mistaken and not the infallible Son of God he claimed to be. Upon your faith in Moses as the writer of the five books attributed to him rests also your faith in Jesus as the Son of God. You cannot believe in Jesus Christ without believing what Moses wrote. You see, there is much more involved in denying the books of Moses than most people suppose (1978, p. 41).
Indeed, believing Moses wrote the Pentateuch is very important. It is not a trivial issue we should treat frivolously while suggesting that “it really doesn’t matter.” It matters because the deity of Christ and the integrity of the Bible writers are at stake!

REFERENCES

“Animal Kingdom” (1988), The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), orig. published by Moody Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Archer, Gleason (1964), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Archer, Gleason L. (1970), “Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham to Moses,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 127:3-25, January.
Brown, Andrew (1999), The Darwin Wars (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.
Burrows, Millar (1941), What Mean These Stones? (New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research).
Cheyne, T.K. (1899), Encyclopedia Biblica (London: A & C Black).
Clayton, Peter A. (2001), Chronicle of the Pharaohs (London: Thames & Hudson).
DeHaan, M.R. (1978), Genesis and Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Dillard, Raymond B. and Tremper Longman III (1994), An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Dungan, D.R. (no date), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001), The Bible Unearthed (New York: Free Press).
Frank, H.T. (1964), An Archaeological Companion to the Bible (London: SCM Press).
Free, Joseph P. (1944), “Abraham’s Camels,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 3:187-193, July.
Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gottwald, Norman (1959), A Light to the Nations (New York: Harper and Row).
Green, William Henry (1978), The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Harrison, R.K. (1963), The Archaeology of the Old Testament (New York: Harper and Row).
Jackson, Wayne (1982), Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.
Kitchen, K.A. (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Kitchen, K.A. (1980), The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale).
McDowell, Josh (1975), More Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, CA: Campus Crusade for Christ).
McDowell, Josh (1999), The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Nashville, TN: Nelson).
McGarvey, J.W. (1902), The Authorship of Deuteronomy (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Morris, Henry M. (1976), The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1966), The Biblical World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Rendtorff, Rolf (1998), “What We Miss by Taking the Bible Apart,” Bible Review, 14[1]:42-44, February.
Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).
Robertson, A.T. (1997), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Schultz, Hermann (1898), Old Testament Theology, transl. from fourth edition by H.A. Patterson (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark).
Tobin, Paul N. (2000), “Mythological Elements in the Story of Abraham and the Patriachal [sic] Narratives,” The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager [On-line], URL: http://www.geocit ies.com/paulntobin/abraham.html.
Unger, Merrill (1954), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Van Eck, Stephen (1999), “The Pentateuch: Not Wholly Moses or Even Partially,” Skeptical Review, 10:2-3,16, September/October.
Wellhausen, Julius (1885), Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black), translated by Black and Menzies.
Wiseman, D.J. (1974), The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Younker, Randall W. (1997), “Late Bronze Age Camel Petroglyphs in the Wadi Nasib, Sinai,” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin, 42:47-54.
Younker, Randall W. (2000), “The Bible and Archaeology,” The Symposium on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship, [On-line], URL: http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_26B/26Bc_457-477.htm.