March 9, 2017

Last thoughts... by Gary Rose


















Life, death, reality. Owls represent wisdom, but they are also predators. However, the owl is not the focus of my thoughts about this picture, the mouse is.  I wonder if it knows that it is about to die? If so, what is going through its mind? 
Now, you and I are far more complex than the smartest mouse that ever lived. Again, I pause to wonder.... what if I knew I would soon die- what would I be thinking about? 
The apostle Paul knew he was about to die and wrote...
2 Timothy, Chapter 4 (World English Bible)
 1 I command you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at his appearing and his Kingdom:  2 preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all patience and teaching.  3 For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts,  4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn away to fables.  5 But you be sober in all things, suffer hardship, do the work of an evangelist, and fulfill your ministry. 

  6 For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure has come.  7 I have fought the good fight. I have finished the course. I have kept the faith.  8 From now on, the crown of righteousness is stored up for me, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will give to me on that day; and not to me only, but also to all those who have loved his appearing. (emp. added vss. 6-8, GDR)


Paul writes to Timothy, his young disciple and friend because he wants to exhort him to proclaim Jesus and realize the obstacles he may encounter when he does.  As for himself, Paul realizes he will soon die. Along with this, he acknowledges his faithfulness to God and looks forward to the life after this life and the reward given to the faithful.
Simple question: If you knew you were about to die, could you honestly say what Paul did in vss. 7 and 8?
No? Open your Bible and read the Acts 2:22-42.  Go from there...

Bible Reading March 9 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading March 9 (World English Bible)
Mar. 9
Exodus 19
Exo 19:1 In the third month after the children of Israel had gone forth out of the land of Egypt, on that same day they came into the wilderness of Sinai.
Exo 19:2 When they had departed from Rephidim, and had come to the wilderness of Sinai, they encamped in the wilderness; and there Israel encamped before the mountain.
Exo 19:3 Moses went up to God, and Yahweh called to him out of the mountain, saying, "This is what you shall tell the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel:
Exo 19:4 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then you shall be my own possession from among all peoples; for all the earth is mine;
Exo 19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."
Exo 19:7 Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which Yahweh commanded him.
Exo 19:8 All the people answered together, and said, "All that Yahweh has spoken we will do." Moses reported the words of the people to Yahweh.
Exo 19:9 Yahweh said to Moses, "Behold, I come to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and may also believe you forever." Moses told the words of the people to Yahweh.
Exo 19:10 Yahweh said to Moses, "Go to the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments,
Exo 19:11 and be ready against the third day; for on the third day Yahweh will come down in the sight of all the people on Mount Sinai.
Exo 19:12 You shall set bounds to the people all around, saying, 'Be careful that you don't go up onto the mountain, or touch its border. Whoever touches the mountain shall be surely put to death.
Exo 19:13 No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether it is animal or man, he shall not live.' When the trumpet sounds long, they shall come up to the mountain."
Exo 19:14 Moses went down from the mountain to the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes.
Exo 19:15 He said to the people, "Be ready by the third day. Don't have sexual relations with a woman."
Exo 19:16 It happened on the third day, when it was morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud on the mountain, and the sound of an exceedingly loud trumpet; and all the people who were in the camp trembled.
Exo 19:17 Moses led the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the lower part of the mountain.
Exo 19:18 Mount Sinai, all it, smoked, because Yahweh descended on it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly.
Exo 19:19 When the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him by a voice.
Exo 19:20 Yahweh came down on Mount Sinai, to the top of the mountain. Yahweh called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up.
Exo 19:21 Yahweh said to Moses, "Go down, warn the people, lest they break through to Yahweh to gaze, and many of them perish.
Exo 19:22 Let the priests also, who come near to Yahweh, sanctify themselves, lest Yahweh break forth on them."
Exo 19:23 Moses said to Yahweh, "The people can't come up to Mount Sinai, for you warned us, saying, 'Set bounds around the mountain, and sanctify it.' "
Exo 19:24 Yahweh said to him, "Go down and you shall bring Aaron up with you, but don't let the priests and the people break through to come up to Yahweh, lest he break forth on them."
Exo 19:25 So Moses went down to the people, and told them.
Mar. 9, 10
Mark 7
Mar 7:1 Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem.
Mar 7:2 Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault.
Mar 7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders.
Mar 7:4 They don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.)
Mar 7:5 The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?"
Mar 7:6 He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
Mar 7:8 "For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men-the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things."
Mar 7:9 He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
Mar 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.'
Mar 7:11 But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;" '
Mar 7:12 then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother,
Mar 7:13 making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this."
Mar 7:14 He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand.
Mar 7:15 There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.
Mar 7:16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!"
Mar 7:17 When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable.
Mar 7:18 He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him,
Mar 7:19 because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?"
Mar 7:20 He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man.
Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts,
Mar 7:22 covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness.
Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man."
Mar 7:24 From there he arose, and went away into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. He entered into a house, and didn't want anyone to know it, but he couldn't escape notice.
Mar 7:25 For a woman, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having heard of him, came and fell down at his feet.
Mar 7:26 Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by race. She begged him that he would cast the demon out of her daughter.
Mar 7:27 But Jesus said to her, "Let the children be filled first, for it is not appropriate to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."
Mar 7:28 But she answered him, "Yes, Lord. Yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."
Mar 7:29 He said to her, "For this saying, go your way. The demon has gone out of your daughter."
Mar 7:30 She went away to her house, and found the child having been laid on the bed, with the demon gone out.
Mar 7:31 Again he departed from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the region of Decapolis.
Mar 7:32 They brought to him one who was deaf and had an impediment in his speech. They begged him to lay his hand on him.
Mar 7:33 He took him aside from the multitude, privately, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat, and touched his tongue.
Mar 7:34 Looking up to heaven, he sighed, and said to him, "Ephphatha!" that is, "Be opened!"
Mar 7:35 Immediately his ears were opened, and the impediment of his tongue was released, and he spoke clearly.
Mar 7:36 He commanded them that they should tell no one, but the more he commanded them, so much the more widely they proclaimed it.
Mar 7:37 They were astonished beyond measure, saying, "He has done all things well. He makes even the deaf hear, and the mute speak!"

I Will Build My Church by J. C. Bailey

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Bailey/John/Carlos/1903/Articles/iwillbui.html

I Will Build My Church

This, my friends, is the statement of the Saviour in Matthew 16:18. In this article we intend to ask, and with the Scriptures answer, certain questions.

God is a God of order, plan and design. In the working of nature, we see this amply demonstrated. "Let everything produce after its kind" was and is a fundamental law. By miracle He created the first oak tree but from that time forward the acorn produces the oak and the oak produces the acorn. The maple produces after its kind, and so with all nature. Man was given dominion (Genesis 1:26). He may produce different varieties within a class, but he cannot set aside God's law of reproduction.

David said, "The heavens declare the glory of God." So perfect is His system that man as he studies can foretell to the very minute when there will be an eclipse.

The God who thus controls the universe also has a fixed purpose in regard to the church. We ask the question and propose to answer it from the New Testament: What is God's purpose in regard to the church?

We shall begin our study in Ephesians 2:11-21. We find under the old law that there was a partition between the Jew and the Gentile. The Israelites were God's chosen people. The Gentiles were strangers, separate from Christ, without God and having no hope. In Christ Jesus we have been made near by His blood. Christ broke down the partition (law of commandments) on the cross, and in one body He proposed to reconcile both (Jew and Gentile) to God. In Ephesians 1:22, 23 we learn that the body of Christ is the church. So God's law is that all men are to be reconciled to Him in the body (church) of Christ. Denominations do not exist in the divine plan of God.

"Mark them that are causing divisions" (Romans 16:17). Christ died for the purpose of reconciling the world in one body (church). Man has set up human institutions. Are you a member of the body of Christ or of a man-made body? Christ purchased the church with His blood. He did not purchase a denomination. Jesus gave himself for the church (Ephesians 5:25). Christ is the head of the church as the husband is the head of the wife (Ephesians 5:23). The church is one body (not many bodies as some teach). There is no scripture that intimates that these various denominations are part of the body of Christ. Quite the reverse is true. These denominational churches are independent bodies (not a part of the body). They are additions to God' plan. Read God's condemnation in II John 9.

The apostles tell us further, the two shall become one flesh, and he said he speaks of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:31, 32). Are you trusting in God's law or do you think that God is going to sanction and endorse spiritual adultery by adding or joining many bodies to Christ? God forbid.

It is God's purpose that through the church the manifold wisdom of God is to be made known. Man regards this command (Ephesians 3:10, 11) with indifference. Are you trusting in God or man? Is it not time that all human dross were removed from our religion and we proclaimed only the wisdom of God? Peter says (I Peter 4:11), "If any man speaketh, speaking as the oracles of God...." When men speak only as the oracles of God, then all human institutions will cease to be and human societies will no longer encumber the work of Christ. The church will shine in all its beauty as the bride of Christ.

The next Scripture we wish to consider bears out much of what we have already adduced. "Unto him be the glory in the church and in Jesus Christ unto all generations forever and ever. Amen" (Ephesians 3:21). Are we obeying God's law or are we following man? Are you hoping God will set aside His law and accept your disobedience? Read Hebrews 10:28, 29; Hebrews 2:1- 4.

One more passage as to God's purpose in the church. It is the pillar and ground of the truth (I Timothy 3:15). Pilate asked the question, "What is truth?" but didn't wait for an answer. Jesus said in His prayer to His Father, "Thy word is truth." The church, therefore, is the pillar and ground of the Word of God.

How did Christ build his church? What is the foundation? It was to be a rock. The foundation is Christ (I Corinthians 3:11). The rock is Christ (I Corinthians 3:10). On Pentecost this fact is proclaimed (Acts 2:36). We are added as living stones (I Peter 2:5). Those who believe, repent, and are baptized are added to the body of Christ (see Acts 2:38, 41, 47). Acts 18:8 tells us that the Corinthians heard, believed, and were baptized. They thus are named the church of God (I Corinthians 1:2). We are baptized into one body (I Corinthians 1:13). He cleansed and sanctified (set apart) the church by the washing of water with the word (Ephesians 5:26).

Where are the records? The church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven (Hebrews 12:23). Are your name and mine written there?
Is my name written there
On the page white and fair?
In the book of thy kingdom
Is my name written there?

J. C. Bailey, 1936, Ogema, Saskatchewan

This article was published in the first issue of The Gospel Herald, March 1936.

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

"Christ—the Firstfruits" by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=783&b=Revelation

"Christ—the Firstfruits"

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul wrote at length concerning the resurrection of the dead, because some of the Christians in Corinth taught “that there is no resurrection of the dead” (vs. 12). As one of his proofs for the Christian’s eventual resurrection, Paul pointed to the fact of the resurrection of Christ, and showed that the two stand or fall together, saying, “if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins” (vss. 16-17)! After hypothetically arguing from the absurd in an attempt to get the Corinthian Christians to see that their stance on the final resurrection completely undermined Christianity, Paul proceeded to demonstrate that Christ had risen, and thus made the resurrection of the dead inevitable. It is in this section of scripture that some find a difficulty. Beginning with verse 20, Paul wrote:
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, emp. added).
In view of the fact that Jesus was not the first person ever to arise from the dead (cf. 2 Kings 13:21; Luke 7:14-15; Matthew 10:8; 11:5), some have questioned why the apostle Paul twice described Jesus as “the firstfruits” from the dead in 1 Corinthians 15. Did Paul err? Was he ignorant of the widow’s son whom God revived at Zarephath (1 Kings 17:22)? Did he not know that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43-44)? How could Paul legitimately speak of Christ as “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep”?
One solution to this alleged discrepancy can be found in the fact that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead—never to die again. All who have ever arisen from the dead, including the sons of both the widow of Zarephath and the Shunammite (2 Kings 4:8-37), the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:35-43), Lazarus, et al., died in later years. Jesus, however, accurately could be called “the firstfruits” of the dead because “Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him” (Romans 6:9). All others who previously were raised at one time, died again, and are among those who “sleep” and continue to wait for the bodily resurrection; only Jesus has truly conquered death. In this sense, Christ is “the firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5; cf. Acts 26:23).
Another possible explanation of the difficulty surrounding 1 Corinthians 15:20,23 and Paul’s use of the word “firstfruits” (Greek aparche) is to understand how "firstfruits" was used in the Old Testament. Under the Old Law, the firstfruits were the earliest gathered grains, fruits, and vegetables that the people dedicated to God in recognition of His faithfulness for providing the necessities of life. The Israelites were to offer to God a sheaf of the first grain that was harvested on the day after the Sabbath following the Passover feast (Leviticus 23:9-14). Paul may have used the term “firstfruits” in this letter to the Corinthian church to reinforce the certainty of the resurrection. Just as the term “firstfruits” indicates that “the first sheaf of the forthcoming grain harvest will be followed by the rest of the sheaves, Christ, the firstfruits raised from the dead, is the guarantee for all those who belong to him that they also will share in his resurrection” (Kistemaker, 1993, p. 548). Jesus is God’s “firstfruits” of the resurrection. And, like the Israelites, God will gather the rest of the harvest at the final resurrection. It may be that Paul wanted the Corinthians to understand (by way of metaphor) that Christ’s resurrection is a pledge of our resurrection. It is inevitable—guaranteed by God Himself.

REFERENCES

Kistemaker, Simon J. (1993), Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Politics and Apologetics Press by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2030

Politics and Apologetics Press

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

For over 27 years, Apologetics Press has endeavored to defend the Christian Faith against the challenges of evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, humanists, and skeptics. We remain committed to demonstrating the accuracy of the Bible and the truth of the Christian religion. We continue to challenge the false claims of scientists in their rejection of the biblical account of Creation. Apologetics Press is not a political organization and has no interest in becoming one. However, in Satan’s perennial ploy to disguise evil and subvert people through deceit and calumny, he has managed to politicize moral and spiritual issues. More than ever before in American history, fundamental moral/religious issues have been hijacked by the politicians—forcing Christians to grapple with the dissonance created by loyalty to political party on the one hand, and loyalty to God on the other. The old adage—“politics and religion don’t mix”—has become a nonsensical concept as Christians increasingly are being forced to face up to their responsibility to react to the political forces that have encroached on Christian morality. Specifically, the two premiere moral issues that have been politicized are (1) homosexuality and the definition of marriage, and (2) the treatment of the unborn via abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. Christians must face the fact that, on these two issues alone, the very survival of America is at stake (see Miller, 2005; Miller, 2006). On these two crucial matters, Apologetics Press must, and will, continue to speak out.

Same-Sex Marriage

Assessing the November, 2006 elections from a spiritual/religious perspective cannot help but bring some alarm and sadness. True, seven more states (bringing the total to 26) passed state constitutional amendments that define marriage as a man and a woman (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Sadly, Arizona voters (by a narrow margin—51.4% to 48.6%) failed to pass a marriage protection amendment (“Marriage Protection...,” 2006). With elation, Victory, the nation’s largest LGBT [Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender—DM] political action committee reported: “In 15 years, Victory has helped the number of openly LGBT officials grow from 49 to more than 350. Roughly 22% of all Americans are represented by an openly LGBT elected official” (“Gay Candidates...,” 2006).
One bright spot: When Dr. Frank Kauffman, assistant professor of social work at Missouri State University, demanded that his class sign a letter affirming that homosexuals make healthy foster parents, student Emily Brooker refused. Pronounced in violation of the social workers’ code of ethics, she sued the school for violating its own policies regarding freedom of speech and expression on campus. Surprisingly, the case was settled when Brooker was offered a generous settlement (which included free school tuition and living expenses), and professor Kauffman was removed from the classroom (“Missouri State Settles...,” 2006).Nevertheless, the war over human sexuality remains at a high pitch.

Abortion & Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

Those who are making war on the unborn scored unfortunate victories in the recent election (“Bad Night...,” 2006). By a narrow margin, Missourians authorized the legalized killing of human embryos for their stem cells. In South Dakota, the dignity of the unborn was dashed when citizens failed to uphold a ban against abortion. In both California and Oregon, teenage girls were given the “right” to have abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent. Even now, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold the ban on the unbelievably barbaric procedure of partial-birth abortion.
These events are tragic circumstances for a nation that once openly avowed attachment to God and Christian virtue. The downward spiral into moral depravity stands in such stark contrast to the origins of America. The Founders would be horrified. After serving two terms as vice-president alongside President George Washington, on October 11, 1798, the second president of these United States, John Adams, delivered a speech to military officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts: “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (1854, 9:229). When Christian religion and morality no longer characterize the people and are therefore excluded from the political process, we can fully expect the nation, in time, to collapse.
While the ultimate solution to our nation’s woes is recommitment to God and the moral precepts of the Bible, one immediate strategy ought to be that Christians do more to control the political forces that are running amok. In the words of President James A. Garfield:
Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If that body be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature.... [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation...it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces (as quoted in Taylor, 1970, p. 180, emp. added).
On Friday, June 20, 1788, in the Virginia convention assembled to debate ratification of the federal Constitution, James Madison reminded his colleagues of the only ultimate safeguard for national preservation:
But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them (Elliot, 1836, 3:536-537, emp. added).
Judging by the recent nationwide elections, the virtue, intelligence, and wisdom of a sizable number of Americans has been called into question.

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1854), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company).
“Bad Night for Parents and Unborn Children” (2006), Traditional Values Coalition, November 9, [On-line], URL: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2928.
Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot), [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/ lled003.db&recNum=547&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field% 28DOCID%2B@lit%28ed0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1.
“Gay Candidates Win in Record Numbers Across U.S.” (2006), Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, November 8, [On-line], URL: http://www.victoryfund.org/index.php?src=news&prid=183& category=News%20Releases.
“Marriage Protection Amendments Win In 7 of 8 States” (2006), Traditional Values Coalition, November 9, [On-line], URL: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2929.
Miller, Dave (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full?” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/305.
Miller, Dave (2006), “Destruction of Marriage Equals Destruction of America,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3105.
“Missouri State Settles Lawsuit with Emily Brooker” (2006), Missouri State University Office of University Communications, November 8, [On-line], URL: http://www.news.missouristate.edu/releases/27833.htm.
Taylor, John (1970), Garfield of Ohio: The Available Man (New York: W.W. Norton).

Evolution's "New" Argument—Suboptimality by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=456

Evolution's "New" Argument—Suboptimality

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

In setting forth the case for creation, and establishing the existence of a Creator, creationists often employ what is commonly called the “design” argument. Put into logical form, the argument looks like this:
Premise #1 If the Universe evinces purposeful design, there must have been a designer.
Premise #2 The Universe does evince purposeful design.
Conclusion Thus, the Universe must have had a Designer.
Even atheists and agnostics admit that the form of argumentation is correct. Paul Ricci, an atheistic philosopher, has admitted in his book, Fundamentals of Critical Thinking, “...it’s true that everything designed has a designer.... ‘Everything designed has a designer’ is an analytically true statement” (1986, p. 190). Their disagreement, however, has been with the second premise, which affirms that the Universe does evince purposeful design. In the past, evolutionists simply denied the existence of any purposeful design in the Universe, and busied themselves in attempting to prove that point. For example, in 1986 Richard Dawkins, lecturer in animal science at Oxford University, wrote The Blind Watchmaker, in which he attempted to establish the case for no design in the Universe. Were such design to exist, evolutionists would be driven to admit, as Ricci concedes, that “everything designed has a designer.” And that, to them, is unthinkable.
At least that is the way it used to be. But, evolutionists apparently are beginning to recognize that they simply cannot explain away what the “man on the street” can so easily see as evidence of design in the Universe. Now, as unbelievable as it may seem, even evolutionists are finally admitting that design does, in fact, exist. Douglas Futuyma, for example, admits: “We look at the design of organisms, then, for evidence of the Creator’s intelligence, and what do we see? A multitude of exquisite adaptations to be sure; the bones of a swallow beautifully adapted for flight; the eyes of a cat magnificently shaped for seeing in the twilight” (1983, p. 198).
Does this mean, then, that evolutionists like Dr. Futuyma are admitting defeat, and becoming committed creationists in light of these new revelations? Hardly. Rather than abandon their sacrosanct theory of evolution, they have decided to “put their heads together” in an effort to explain all of this. The resulting argument is, admittedly, unique. It goes something like this.

THE ARGUMENT FROM SUBOPTIMALITY

If design in the Universe proves the existence of a Designer, says the evolutionist, then “non-design” disproves the existence of that same Designer. Put into logical form, here is the argument.
Premise #1 If the Universe evinces traits of non-design, there is no Designer.
Premise #2 The Universe does evince non-design.
Conclusion Thus, the Universe had no Designer.
In recent years, this argument has grown in popularity. Dr. Futuyma, in Science On Trial, devoted almost an entire chapter to examples of “non-design” in nature. Other evolutionists are joining in the fracas. For example, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard has written extensively about examples of non-design in nature.
As a result of all this attention to the matter of design versus non-design, a new term has even been coined to express the evolutionary argument. It is called the argument from suboptimality. That is to say, if all design were considered perfect, everything would be optimal. However, since there are items in nature that (allegedly) are imperfect, there is suboptimality in nature. [NOTE: The argument sometimes is known as the argument from dysteleology.] It is my contention that the argument is flawed for several reasons.
First, in arguing the case for design, creationists are not obligated to show obvious design in every single feature of the Universe. It is necessary to produce only a reasonable number of sufficient evidences in order to establish design. For the evolutionist to produce an example of something which, to him, evinces either non-design, or poor design, does not somehow magically negate all the other evidences of obvious design!
Second, it is possible that an object possesses purposeful design, but that it is not recognized by the observer. Consider the following two cases. Percival Davis, in the book he co-authored with Wayne Frair, A Case for Creation, gives the following story.
My daughter was playing with her pet rat one day when a question occurred to her. “Daddy,” she said, “why does a rat have scales on its tail?” “You know perfectly well,” I replied. “The reptiles that were ancestral to rats and all other mammals had scales on their tails as well as on the rest of their bodies. Because there was no particular disadvantage to having them, they persisted in rats to this day.”
“Quit putting me on, Daddy. I know you don’t believe that!”
You cannot win, it seems. But it is true that one is hard put to discern the reason for the manifold adaptations that organisms possess. What I should have said to my daughter (and eventually did say) was that God had put the scales there for reasons He knew to be perfectly good ones but which may take us a lot of research to discover, since He has not told us what they are. Still, the fact was that I could not explain the presence of those scales... (1983, pp. 30-31).
Dr. Davis has raised two very important points with this simple story. First, we may not presently know why an organism is designed the way it is. To us, the design is either not yet recognizable, or not well understood. Second, with further research, the heretofore unrecognizable design eventually may be discovered. And, in the case that follows below, that is exactly what happened.
In his 1980 book, The Panda’s Thumb, Dr. Gould (one of suboptimality’s most vocal supporters) presented what he believed to be perhaps the finest known example of non-design ever to be found in nature—the panda’s thumb. After providing an exhaustive explanation of how the panda has 5 other digits in each “hand,” which function quite well in the panda’s everyday life, Dr. Gould then provided an equally exhaustive explanation of the panda’s “thumb.” It is, he says, “a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable” appendage which “wins no prize in an engineer’s derby.” His whole essay was intended to portray this as good evidence of suboptimality—non-design in nature. In fact, lest the reader miss his point, Gould says that “odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread, but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce” (pp 20-21).
Interestingly, while Dr. Gould was writing about the non-design that he felt was so evident, research (the same kind of research Dr. Davis said would be needed to elucidate the purpose of design in certain structures) was ongoing in regard to the panda’s thumb. And what did that research show? The panda’s thumb now has been found to exhibit design for very special functions, as the following information attests.
First, the San Diego Zoo’s Giant Panda Zoobook states: “In fact, the giant panda is one of the few large animals that can grab things as tightly as a human can” (n.d., p. 6). Second, in 1985 Schaller et al. authored The Giant Pandas of Wolong, in which they state: “The panda can handle bamboo stems with great precision by holding them as if with forceps in the hairless groove connecting the pad of the first digit and pseudothumb” (p. 4).
Do these kinds of statements seem to describe the panda’s thumb as a “jury-rigged” device? Does being able to grasp something tightly, with great precision, using a “pseudothumb” that is compared to surgical forceps seem to convey non-design? Such statements remind us of the point originally being made: an object may possess purposeful design, but that design may not be immediately evident to the observer. Dr. Gould could not see (for whatever reasons) the design in the panda’s thumb. Nevertheless, such design now is known to be present.
The panda’s “thumb” is an enlarged and extended wrist bone covered by a thick pad. It is separated from the pads of the five digits by a furrow that the panda uses to hold bamboo stalks.
There are other flaws with the suboptimality argument as well. One of the most serious is this: those who claim that something is “suboptimal” must, by definition, set themselves up as the sole judge of what is, and what is not, “optimal.” In other words, those who would claim non-design in nature must somehow “know” two things: (1) they must know that the item under discussion positively evinces no design; and (2) they must know what the absolute standard is in the first place (i.e., “the optimal”) in order to claim that something has become “suboptimal.”
These points have not escaped the evolutionists. For example, S.R. Scadding of Guelph University in Canada has commented that the suboptimality “argument is a theological rather than a scientific argument, since it is based on the supposed nature of the Creator” (1981, p. 174, emp. added). That is to say, the evolutionist sets himself up as the Creator, presupposes to know the mind of the Creator, and then presumes to say what the Creator did, or did not, do. Observe how one evolutionist does just that:
The case for evolution then has two sides; positive evidence—that evolution has occurred; and negative evidence—that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful Creator would have created (Futuyma, 1983, p. 198, emp. added).
Notice the phrase, “that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful Creator would have created.” The evolutionist looks at the creation, sees that it does not fit what he would do if he were the Creator, and then suggests on that basis that evolution is true. And all of this is from someone who does not even believe in a Creator in the first place! Such thinking makes for an extremely weak argument. As Frair and Davis have remarked: “It could be considered arrogant to assume knowledge of a design feature’s purpose in an organism, even if it had a purpose” (1983, p. 31). But such arrogance does not stand in the way of the evolutionists.
There is yet another flaw in this “suboptimality” argument. And, like the one just discussed, it has to do with theology, not science. First, the evolutionist sets himself up as the Creator and proceeds to note that since things weren’t done as he would do them, there must not be a Creator. Second, when the real Creator does try to explain the evidences of “non-design” in the world (as the evolutionist sees them), the evolutionist refuses to listen. Consider the following as an explanation of this point.
It is at least possible that an object once clearly reflected purposeful design, but as a result of a process of degeneration, the design has been clouded or erased. Consider the following analogy:
Suppose a gardener, digging in a pile of rubbish, discovers an ancient book. Its cover is weathered, its pages are mostly stuck together, the type has faded, etc. It is, for all practical purposes, completely illegible. Does the current condition of the book mean that it never had a message—that it never evidenced design? Of course not. Though the book is in a degenerative condition, and the message has faded with time, there is no denying that the book was at one point quite communicative (Jackson, 1989, p. 2, emp. added).
The evolutionist surveys the Earth and finds examples of what he believes are evidences of “suboptimality.” Yet in many cases he may be witnessing simply degeneration instead. In fact, that is exactly what the Creator has stated. When man sinned, and evil was introduced to this planet, a state of progressive degeneration commenced. The whole creation suffered as a result of man’s sin (Romans 8:20-22). The Hebrew writer, quoting the psalmist, observed that “the earth, like a garment, is wearing out” (Hebrews 1:10-11).
Also consider this important point: the fact that the product of an orderly mechanism is flawed does not necessarily reflect upon either the initial design or the designer.
For example, if a machine which manufactures tin cans begins to turn out irregular cans, does this somehow prove the machine had no designer? Must one postulate that the machine’s inventor intended for mutilated cans to be produced, or that the machine was imperfectly designed? Surely we can conceive that the failure could be on the part of those who failed to follow the correct procedures for maintaining the machine, or who abused it in some fashion. When man rebelled against his Maker, the Lord allowed, as a consequence of that disobedience, degenerative processes to begin, which eventually result in death (Romans 5:12). But the fact that we have eye problems, heart failure, diseases, etc., does not negate the impact as a whole that the human body is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). We will not assume, therefore, that because our critic’s reasoning ability is flawed, this proves his brain was not designed. The “design” argument remains unscathed! (Jackson, 1989, p. 3, emp. in orig.).
Evolutionists, of course, ignore all of this. After all, they already have set themselves up as the Creator, and have determined that none of this is the way they would do it. When the real Creator speaks, they are too busy playing the Creator to hear Him. Here is a good example. Futuyma says:
The creationists admit that species can undergo limited adaptive changes by the mechanism of mutation plus natural selection. But surely an omniscient and omnipotent Creator could devise a more foolproof method than random mutation to enable his creatures to adapt. Yet mutations do occur, and we have experimental demonstration that they are not oriented in the direction of better adaptedness. How could a wise Creator, in fact, allow mutations to happen at all, since they are so often degenerative instead of uplifting? According to the creationists, there is “a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature” that we must suppose includes mutation. But why should the Creator have established such a principle? Didn’t He like the perfection of His original creation (1983, p. 200)?
Dr. Futuyma acknowledges that creationists have tried to get him to see that there is “a basic principle of disintegration now at work in nature.” Then he asks, “But why should the Creator have established such a principle? Didn’t He like the perfection of His original creation?” This is why we say that the problem is rooted in theology, not science. Dr. Futuyma questions why the Creator enacted this “principle of degeneration,” then makes it clear that he has no intention whatsoever of accepting the answer provided by the very Creator he questions. If Dr. Futuyma had studied what the Creator did say, he would have the answer to his question. Yes, the Creator liked His original creation, so much so He pronounced it “very good” (Genesis 1:31).
It was not God’s fault that the principle of degeneration became a reality. It was man’s fault because the first man wanted, like evolutionists today, to be the Creator. Is there a “principle of degeneration” at work? Indeed there is. Might it cause some organisms or structures to have their original message (i.e., design) diminished, or to lose it altogether? Certainly. But does that mean that there never was any design? Or, does it reflect poorly on the Designer, proving somehow that He does not exist? In the eyes of the evolutionists, the only possible answer to these questions is a resounding “yes.” As Scadding says:
Haeckel makes clear why this line of argument was of such importance to early evolutionary biologists.... It seemed difficult to explain functionless structures on the basis of special creation without imputing some lack of skill in design to the Creator (1981, p. 174).
So, God gets the blame for man’s mistakes. And, the evolutionists get another argument for their arsenal. Here, in a nutshell, is that argument, as stated by British evolutionist Jeremy Cherfas:
In fact, as Darwin recognized, a perfect Creator could manufacture perfect adaptations. Everything would fit because everything was designed to fit. It is in the imperfect adaptations that natural selection is revealed, because it is those imperfections that show us that structure has a history. If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence of history, and therefore nothing to favor evolution by natural selection over creation (1984, p. 29).
Henry Morris, speaking specifically about the comments made by Cherfas, made an interesting observation:
This is an amazing admission. The main evidence against creation and for evolution is that natural selection doesn’t work! If there were no “imperfect” structures in nature, the evidence would all favor creation. No wonder evolution has to be imposed by authority and bombast, rather than reason, if this is its only real evidence! (1985, p. 177).
Yet this is exactly what Gould has suggested: “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution...” (1980, p. 20, emp. added).
The creationist, however, is not willing to usurp the Creator’s prerogative and, like the evolutionist, tell Him what He can (and cannot) do, or what is (and what is not) acceptable. As Frair and Davis noted:
Yet the creationist lacks the option (open to the evolutionist) of assuming purposelessness. Human curiosity being what it is, the creationist will be motivated to inquire concerning the purpose of the universe and all its features. The purpose for most things will not be found. What we do find may, nonetheless, be sufficient justification for the endeavor (1983, pp. 31-32).

CONCLUSION

It is clear that evolutionists are “grasping at straws” when the “new” argument from suboptimality is the best they can offer. Actually, this argument is not new at all. Darwin, in his Origin of Species, addressed this very argument in 1859. Modern evolutionists—desperate to find something they can use as evidence against design in the Universe (and thus against the Designer)—have resurrected it from the relic heaps of history, given it a different name, and attempted to foist it upon the public as a legitimate response to the creationists’ argument from design. Once again they have had to set themselves up as the Creator in order to try to convince people that no Creator exists. And once again, they have failed.

REFERENCES

Cherfas, Jeremy (1984), “The Difficulties of Darwinism,” New Scientist, 102:28-30, May 17.
Davis, Percival, and Dean H. Kenyon (1989), Of Pandas and People (Dallas, TX: Haughton Publishing).
Dawkins, Richard (1986), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).
Frair, Wayne A. and Percival Davis (1983), A Case for Creation (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Futuyma, Douglas (1983), Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon).
Giant Panda Zoobook (undated), (San Diego, CA: San Diego Zoo).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1980), The Panda’s Thumb (New York: W.W. Norton).
Jackson, Wayne (1989), “Some Atheistic Arguments Answered,” Reason & Revelation, 9:1-3, January.
Morris, Henry M. (1985), Creation and the Modern Christian (El Cajon, CA: Master Books).
Ricci, Paul (1986), Fundamentals of Critical Thinking (Lexington, ME: Ginn Press).
Scadding, S.R. (1981), Evolutionary Theory, May.
Schaller, George B., Hu Jinchu, Pan Wenshi, and Zhu Jing (1985), The Giant Pandas of Wolong (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Can We Prove Jesus Was a Real Person? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=876

Can We Prove Jesus Was a Real Person?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

You may find this surprising, but there are many people in the world today who actually think that Jesus is nothing more than a fantasy figure that various secret societies created 2,000 years ago. Allegedly, His name belongs in the same fictional writings that contain such fairy-tale characters as Peter Pan, Hercules, and Snow White and the seven dwarfs. Gerald Massey, in his book, Gnostic and Historic Christianity, has “informed” us that “[w]hether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character [Jesus—EL] never existed as a person” (1985, p. 22). Skeptics like Massey, Acharya (1999), and others believe that Christians have been deceived into thinking that there really was a man named Jesus, when, in fact, He never lived.
How do those of us who believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ respond to such allegations? Can we really know that there was a sinless, miracle-working, death-defying man named Jesus who lived upon the Earth approximately 2,000 years ago, or have we accepted His existence blindly?
Even though the New Testament proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus actually lived, it is by no means the only historical evidence available. Around the year A.D. 94, a Jewish historian by the name of Josephus mentioned Jesus’ name twice in his book, Antiquities of the Jews. In section 18 of that work, Josephus wrote: “And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure” (emp. added). Then, in section 20, Josephus documented how a man named Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin “a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others” (emp. added).
About 20 years later, Tacitus, a Roman historian, wrote a book surveying the history of Rome. In it he described how Nero (the Roman emperor) “punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called).” He went on to write that “their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus” (Annals 15:44, emp. added). Even though Tacitus, Josephus, and other historians from the first and second centuries A.D. were not followers of Christ, they did have something to say about Him—and they even verified that Jesus was a real person Who was so famous that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!
Another obvious reason to believe that Jesus was a real person is because our entire dating method is based upon His existence. The letters “B.C.” stand for “before Christ,” and the letters “A.D.” (standing for Anno Domini) mean “in the year of the Lord.” So when a history teacher speaks of Alexander the Great ruling much of the world in 330 B.C., he or she is admitting that Alexander lived about 330 years before Jesus was born.
Even though this is only a sampling of the evidence relating to the man known as Jesus, it is enough to prove that He was a real person, and not just some imaginary character. We do not accept His existence blindly—it is a historical fact!

REFERENCES

Josephus, Flavius (1957 reprint), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whitson (Philadelphia, PA: John Whitson).
Massey, Gerald (1985), Gnostic and Historic Christianity (Edmond, WA: Holmes Publishing Group).
Acharya, S. (1999), The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (Kempton, IL: Adventures Unlimited Press).
Tacitus, Cornelius P. (1952 reprint), The Annals and the Histories, trans. Michael Grant (Chicago, IL: William Benton), Great Books of the Western World Series.

Is Satan "Lucifer"? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1091

Is Satan "Lucifer"?

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Q.

Isaiah 14:12 mentions the name of "Lucifer." I’ve heard it said that this is Satan. Are Lucifer and Satan one and the same?
A.
It is sad, but nevertheless true, that on occasion Bible students attribute to God’s Word facts and concepts that it neither teaches nor advocates. These ill-advised beliefs run the entire gamut—from harmless misinterpretations to potentially soul-threatening false doctrines.
Although there are numerous examples from both categories that could be listed, perhaps one of the most popular misconceptions among Bible believers is that Satan also is designated as “Lucifer” within the pages of the Bible. What is the origin of the name Lucifer, what is its meaning, and is it a synonym for “Satan”? Here are the facts.
The word “Lucifer” is used in the King James Version only once, in Isaiah 14:12: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” The Hebrew word translated “Lucifer” is helel (or heylel), from the root, hâlâl, meaning “to shine” or “to bear light.” Keil and Delitzsch noted that “[i]t derives its name in other ancient languages also from its striking brilliancy, and is here called ben-shachar (son of the dawn)... (1982, 7:311). However, the KJV translators did not translate helel as Lucifer because of something inherent in the Hebrew term itself. Instead, they borrowed the name from Jerome’s translation of the Bible (A.D. 383-405) known as the Latin Vulgate. Jerome, likely believing that the term was describing the planet Venus, employed the Latin term “Lucifer” (“light-bearing”) to designate “the morning star” (Venus). Only later did the suggestion originate that Isaiah 14:12ff. was speaking of the devil. Eventually, the name Lucifer came to be synonymous with Satan. But is Satan “Lucifer”?
No, he is not. The context into which verse 12 fits begins in verse 4 where God told Isaiah to “take up this parable against the king of Babylon, and say, ‘How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!’” In his commentary on Isaiah, Albert Barnes explained that God’s wrath was kindled against the king because the ruler “intended not to acknowledge any superior either in heaven or earth, but designed that himself and his laws should be regarded as supreme” (1950, 1:272). The chest-pounding boast of the impudent potentate was:
I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High (vss. 13-14).
As a result of his egotistical self-deification, the pagan monarch eventually would experience both the collapse of his kingdom and the loss of his life—an ignominious end that is described in vivid and powerful terms. “Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming,” the prophet proclaimed to the once-powerful king. And when the ruler finally descends into his eternal grave, captives of that hidden realm will taunt him by saying, “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?” (vs. 16). He is denominated as a “man” (vs. 16) who would die in disrepute and whose body would be buried, not in a king’s sarcophagus, but in pits reserved for the downtrodden masses (vss. 19-20). Worms would eat his body, and hedgehogs would trample his grave (vss. 11,23).
It was in this context that Isaiah referred to the king of Babylon as “the morning star” (“son of the morning”; “son of the dawn”) to depict the once-shining-but-now-dimmed, once-lofty-but-now-diminished, status of the (soon to be former) ruler. In his Bible Commentary, E.M. Zerr observed that such phrases were “...used figuratively in this verse to symbolize the dignity and splendor of the Babylonian monarch. His complete overthrow was likened to the falling of the morning star” (1954, 3:265). This kind of phraseology should not be surprising since “[i]n the O.T., the demise of corrupt national powers is frequently depicted under the imagery of falling heavenly luminaries (cf. Isa. 13:10; Ezek. 32:7), hence, quite appropriately in this context the Babylonian monarch is described as a fallen star [cf. ASV]” (Jackson, 1987, 23:15).
Nowhere within the context of Isaiah 14, however, is Satan depicted as Lucifer. In fact, quite the opposite is true. In his commentary on Isaiah, Burton Coffman wrote: “We are glad that our version (ASV) leaves the word Lucifer out of this rendition, because...Satan does not enter into this passage as a subject at all” (1990, p. 141). The Babylonian ruler was to die and be buried—fates neither of which Satan is destined to endure. The king was called “a man” whose body was to be eaten by worms, but Satan, as a spirit, has no physical body. The monarch lived in and abided over a “golden city” (vs. 4), but Satan is the monarch of a kingdom of spiritual darkness (cf. Ephesians 6:12). And so on.
The context presented in Isaiah 14:4-16 not only does not portray Satan as Lucifer, but actually militates against it. Keil and Delitzsch firmly proclaimed that “Lucifer,” as a synonym, “is a perfectly appropriate one for the king of Babel, on account of the early date of the Babylonian culture, which reached back as far as the grey twilight of primeval times, and also because of its predominate astrological character” (1982, p. 312). They then correctly concluded that “Lucifer, as a name given to the devil, was derived from this passage...without any warrant whatever, as relating to the apostasy and punishment of the angelic leaders” (pp. 312-313).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1950 edition), Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Coffman, James Burton (1990), The Major Prophets—Isaiah (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
Jackson, Wayne (1987), “Your Question & My Answer,” Christian Courier, 23:15, August.
Keil, C.F. and Franz Delitzsch, (1982 edition), Commentary on the Old Testament—Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Zerr, E.M. (1954), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Publications).