April 3, 2017

Thank you by Gary Rose

I was greatly impressed with this picture! Jesus:The music of my soul- what a thought!!!  As I looked at the scriptures concerning this topic, the "music" seemed to relate to a joyousness of heart that results in thankfulness and praise to God. Whether it be deliverance from destruction or sin or thankfulness for a myriad of reasons, the heart seems to express itself best in song. Consider the following...

Psalm 108 (World English Bible)
 1 My heart is steadfast, God. 
I will sing and I will make music with my soul. (emp. added vs 1b)
 
  3 I will give thanks to you, Yahweh, among the nations. 
I will sing praises to you among the peoples. 

  4 For your loving kindness is great above the heavens. 
Your faithfulness reaches to the skies. 

  5 Be exalted, God, above the heavens! 
Let your glory be over all the earth.
Exodus, Chapter 15 (World English Bible)
 1 Then Moses and the children of Israel sang this song to Yahweh, and said, 

“I will sing to Yahweh, for he has triumphed gloriously. He has thrown the horse and his rider into the sea. (emp. added vs 1b)

  2 Yah is my strength and song. (emp. added vs 2a)
He has become my salvation. 
This is my God, and I will praise him; my father’s God, and I will exalt him.


Ephesians, Chapter 5  (World English Bible)
 15 Therefore watch carefully how you walk, not as unwise, but as wise,  16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil.  17 Therefore don’t be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.  18 Don’t be drunken with wine, in which is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit,  19 speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs; singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;  20 giving thanks always concerning all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God, even the Father;(emp added vss 18-20)


Revelation, Chapter 15 (World English Bible)
 3 They sang the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, 

“Great and marvelous are your works, Lord God, the Almighty! Righteous and true are your ways, you King of the nations. 


Where the intellect and the heart meet, a song of thankfulness to God in praise and adoration is often the result.  I wonder how God feels about such matters- I am thinking HE just might have the most wonderful smile on his face. Wonderful things can happen with a thank you!!!  

ABORTION AND TORTURE (Policy of Killing the Unborn and Cuddling the Terrorist.) Donald R. Fox

http://essaysbyfox.org/html/essays/

ABORTION AND TORTURE
(Policy of Killing the Unborn and Cuddling the Terrorist.)
Donald R. Fox
President Obama supports a woman’s right to abortion. He has no problems with abortion. He supports Roe vs. Wade. With that said, our government is having all sorts of conscience problems with the gaining of information from terrorists with waterboarding and the like. Our liberal leaders say that such like things are torture and to use such is against our values. Our values, what in the world does that mean? It’s all right to kill the unborn; that we all know is a human being. The bloodthirsty terrorist would in a flash behead folks. However, it’s wrong to seek information via waterboarding from a terrorist.
Terrorists, we’re told by pro-abortion liberals suffer excruciating pain while the ejected unborn and euthanized elderly feel nothing. And even if the latter do suffer pain, say these liberals, that pain is worth it. After all, abortion and euthanasia sustain a pleasant and peaceful lifestyle for the strong.” (Reference: Obama’s Torture Policy for the Unborn, by George Neumayr, dated 23 April 2009).
Concerning President Obama: He opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions when he was an Illinois Senator.
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute." Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, page 238, August 1, 2008 (Copied from: www.ontheissues.org) NOTE: Our President is our national leader, and therefore, his moral/ethical value system plays a great role on how we Americans are perceived.
Lets summarize: (1) Killing the unborn via abortion is legal. Therefore, it is not torture. (2) Abortion is not a conscience problem, and it is within our value system. (3) For some lawmakers, concerning partial-birth abortion: our conscience should not be bothered by this procedure and should be a legalized way to kill the unborn. No value problem here! (4) However, in order to obtain information from an enemy that desires to kill us, the use of waterboarding or the like is torture. (5) Waterboarding and the like is torture and against our value system.
We wonder now what value system we are talking about? If we remember history of the Nazis, they had a similar value system. Note: September 10, 1935: The Nuremberg Laws, the third law in part, “to clarify the position of Jews in the Reich." This law led to the “final solution," the extermination of Jews, the killing of the innocent people.
THE WORD OF GOD CONDEMNS INFANTICIDE: We remember that our God condemns such inhuman and unnatural behavior (See Exodus 21: 22-23; Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35).
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS CONDEMNED ABORTION: I would like to share with you some writings of the early church fathers. One of the greatest evils of heathens was infanticide and abortion.


You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Tertullian, Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).
"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).
Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).
Proverbs: 14:12: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
Proverbs 14:34: “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”
Note: For further study on this issue see essays entitled: “BACK TO HEATHENISM”, “IT’S THE LAW” and “VALUES”.

Is The Devil Real? By Eddie Cooper

http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/nov/page9.shtml

Is The Devil Real?

By Eddie Cooper

There has been much discussion about satanic power and the influence Satan has on our lives.  There is even a church of Satan.  Years ago, there was even a movie “The Exorcist” – which tells in vivid detail the horrors of supposed demon possession. Flip Wilson promoted, through his television program, the statement: “The devil made me do it.”  Not too many years ago, a shirt company made quite a bit of money from that statement by selling shirts for children that read: “The devil made me do it.”  Parents thought it was cute to have their children parading around with that shirt.  The children really believed that they could just about do whatever they wanted to do because, “the devil made me do it.”  It seems that became such a mindset, that now nothing appears to be wrong anymore because “the devil made me do it.”
Is the devil real?  Yes, he is.  If you were asked this question:  “What is the source of our temptations, troubles and evils?” what would be your answer?
From the time of Adam and Eve until the present, everyone has been subject to temptations of the devil.  Even Jesus had to engage in conflict with him (Matthew 4).  He was able to resist those temptations because he knew the Word.  Each time he was tempted, he was able to meet it with “It is written . . .”
The devil has the ability to make that which is good appear to be bad and that which is bad appear to be good (Isaiah 5:20).  He attacks the Bible and would make one believe that those who follow it are narrow-minded bigots.  He is working hard to attack the church, for which Jesus gave his life’s blood (Acts 20:28) and trying to get those within the church to go back into the world (2 Peter 2:20-22).
Then the devil also makes evil appear good.  I’m sure all of us have heard the following expressions:  “Everybody is doing it;” “Don’t be chicken;” “Don’t be inhibited;” “If it feels good, do it” or, perhaps the saddest of all, “If you are lost, you won’t be alone.”  If you look at all of these and the consequences of believing them, you will see the lengths to which Satan goes to deceive.
But, as we study our New Testaments, we can find out that Christ has already won the victory (John 16:33).  And, because of this, we can overcome  (1 John 5:4).
One of the devil’s greatest and most effective weapons is to cause one to surrender to the troubles and sorrows of life.  Sooner or later, all of us must face trials, sorrows and frustrations.  We must either overcome them by the power of Christ or Satan will cause us to be overcome by them.
But, someone might ask, “If God is so mighty and controls all things, why does evil dominate so many things?  Why does evil contradict and work against the good?  Is God divided, or is he unable to bring fruition to that which He desires.”
Satan is the author of all evil.  Some do not believe this.  They believe that evil and sin are the results of human mistakes and errors.  They do not believe that the devil is the author of such acts.  But, the Bible teaches differently.
Christ is the “author and finisher of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2).  Let us all be courageous enough to follow him and not the devil.
[As noted above, it is responsible and compatible with biblical teaching for each accountable soul both to recognize the existence of Satan and his participation in sin as well as to acknowledge personal responsibility for the sins we commit.  As brother Cooper observed, it is ever so important whom we follow as to the kind of lives we live on earth and the disposition in eternity that we can expect. ~ Editor.]

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" The Times Of Restoration (3:21) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                    The Times Of Restoration (3:21)

INTRODUCTION

1. As Peter preached his second gospel sermon...
   a. He called on his audience to repent and be converted - Ac 3:19
   b. He promised that their sins would be blotted out - ibid.

2. Also that Jesus must remain in heaven until "the times of
   restoration of all things"... - Ac 3:21
   a. What are "the times of restoration"?
   b. Is it limited to events to occur at the end times, just before Jesus returns?
   c. Or does it encompass the period between Jesus' first coming and His final coming?

[The language in the text allows for either understanding.  To be sure we
understand the distinction between the two views, let's first summarize them...]
 
I. TWO PROPOSED EXPLANATIONS

   A. REGENERATION OF ALL THINGS AT THE END TIMES...
      1. Many connect the word "restoration" with "regeneration" - cf. Mt 19:28
      2. That when Christ comes (or shortly before) all things will be restored, or regenerated
      3. Including the heavens and the earth, currently in bondage to
         pain and decay, but presumably will be "restored" (regenerated)
         as a permanent dwelling for the righteous - cf. Ro 8:18-22

   B. PROPHETIC FULFILLMENT THROUGHOUT THE MESSIANIC AGE...
      1. The word "restoration" can mean establishment or fulfillment 
         a. "the Greek could just as easily mean that a process of
            restoration is already underway and that Jesus' return will
            mark its climax and dramatic conclusion." - D.G. Peterson
         b. 'Establishment' or 'fulfillment' is equally well attested,
            and makes good sense in the present context, in reference to
            the fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecy - F.F. Bruce
      2. As seen in the RSV:  "whom heaven must receive until the time
         for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy 
         prophets from of old." - Ac 3:21
      3. This understanding is supported further by Peter:  "and all the
         prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have 
         spoken, have also foretold these days." - Ac 3:24

["It is difficult to determine the exact force of the term restoration in
this connection" (McGarvey).  Even so, I believe the second explanation
gains merit when one considers the following question...]

II. THE END TIMES:  REGENERATION OR RECREATION?

   A. THE REGENERATION OF ALL THINGS...
      1. Many believe that when Jesus returns the current heavens and
         earth will be purified by fire (i.e., refurbished, regenerated,
         not annihilated)
      2. A cosmic redemption, if you will, to serve as the eternal home
         of the righteous (not to be confused with any millennial reign
         on the earth)
      3. Hoekema (and other amillennialists) gives four reasons for
         renewal rather than annihilation:
         a. The word for "new" (kainos) means "new in nature or in
            quality," not new in the sense of "totally other"
         b. Paul speaks of a universe longing to be liberated from
            corruption, not replaced - cf. Ro 8:19-22 
         c. The continuity between our old and new bodies is an analogy of the old earth 
             being made new 
         d. If God has to annihilate this present cosmos, then His
            original purpose for it will have been thwarted and Satan will have won a victory
         -- The Bible And The Future, Anthony Hoekema, p. 280-281

   B. THE RECREATION OF ALL THINGS...
      1. Putting Ro 8:19-22 aside for the moment, consider what is revealed elsewhere:
         a. The earth and the heavens will perish - Ps 102:25-26; cf. He 1:10-12
         b. The heavens will vanish away like smoke, the earth grow old
            like a garment - Isa 51:6
         c. Heaven and earth will pass away - Mt 24:35; Mk 13:31; Lk 21:33
         d. The Lord will shake the earth and heaven, indicating its removal - He 12:26-27
         e. The earth will be burned up, the heavens will be dissolved,
            the elements will melt, therefore we look for new heavens and a new earth - 2Pe 3:10-13
         f. Earth and the heaven will have fled away, no place found for them - Re 20:11
         g. There will a new heaven and a new earth, for the first
            heaven and the first earth will have passed away - Re 21:1
      2. Every indication is that earth and the heavens will be
         annihilated; what then of Ro 8:19-22 and the four arguments 
         offered above in favor of renewal?
         a. It is true that "new" (kainos) means "new in nature or in
            quality", but if something is new in sense of "totally other"
            could it not also be "new in nature or in quality"?
         b. Ro 8:19-22 does speak of the universe longing to be liberated
            from corruption, but for what purpose?  Note carefully what
            is actually written, that the creation:
            1) "eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God" - Ro 8:19
            2) "will be delivered...into the glorious liberty of the children of God" - Ro 8:21
            3) Seeks not its own revealing or glorious liberty, but that of the children of God!
            4) Is not actually said to be refurbished when freed of its corruption
            5) The focus in the passage is on what happens for the
               people of God when the creation is finally freed (which it
               will be when annihilated by fire)
         c. The analogy between our bodies and the earth with the
            heavens is never made by Paul
         d. Any victory by Satan when the earth and heavens are removed
            is negated by a new heavens and new earth, just as any 
            victory by Death and Hades is negated when our decayed bodies
            are raised in incorruption and immortality as spiritual bodies - 1Co 15:52-55

CONCLUSION

1. When Jesus returns, there will first be a de-creation followed by a re-creation...
   a. All things will not be regenerated or restored, but annihilated by fire
   b. All things will pass away, and there will be found no place for them
   c. In their place will be a new heavens and a new earth:  new in
      "nature and quality", because it will also be new in the sense of "totally other" 

2. If such is to be the case, then it is best to understand "the
   restoration of all things" as...
   a. Translated by the RSV:  "whom heaven must receive until the time
      for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy 
      prophets from of old." - Ac 3:21
   b. Referring to the fulfillment of those things foretold by the
      prophets concerning the Messiah and His kingdom

This fulfillment of prophecy began with the first coming of Christ and
the establishment of His reign (cf. "the prophets...have also foretold of
these days" - Ac 3:24), and will continue until all is fulfilled with the
events of His second coming and the culmination of His reign (cf. 1Co
15:22-26).

Living in the days of such fulfillment, and looking forward to the Lord's
return, are we living as we should...?

   "Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens
   and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.  Therefore, beloved,
   looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in
   peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the 
   longsuffering of our Lord is salvation..." - 2Pe 3:14-15
 

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" The Times Of Refreshing (3:19) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                    The Times Of Refreshing (3:19)

INTRODUCTION

1. As Peter preached his second gospel sermon...
   a. He called on his audience to repent and be converted - Ac 3:19
   b. He promised that their sins would be blotted out - ibid.

2. He also promised that "times of refreshing" will come from the presence of the Lord...
   a. What are "the times of refreshing"?
   b. Is it something to experience now, or in the future?

[The word refreshing occurs only once in the New Testament, making it
difficult to ascertain the precise meaning of the word (Kistemaker).  But let us consider...]

I. THREE POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS

   A. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST...
      1. Some connect "the times of refreshing" with "the times of restoration" - cf. Ac 3:19,21
      2. Blessings accompanying the return of Christ:
         a. "the future times of refreshing when Jesus returns" - C.E. Arnold (ZIBBC)
         b. "likely synonymous with the concept of "restoration" in v. 21" - J.B. Polhill (NAC)

   B. THE BLESSINGS OF SALVATION...
      1. Some view it as general blessings accompanying salvation in Christ
      2. A foretaste of what is to come:
         a. "a kind of advance anticipation of the full and final
            'refreshment'" - N.T. Wright (AE)
         b. "periodic seasons in which the forgiven and restored
            believer experiences the refreshing nearness of the Lord" 
            - S.J. Kistemaker (BNTC)
         c. "features of the new age" - F.F. Bruce (NICNT)

   C. THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT...
      1. Others suggest that it refers to "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Ac 2:38; compare:
         a. Repent (2:38) = Repent (3:19)
         b. Be baptized (2:38) = Be converted (3:19)
         c. For the remission of sins (2:38) = That your sins may be blotted out (3:19)
         d. Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (2:38) = That times of
            refreshing may come (3:19)
      2. Refreshment from the indwelling Holy Spirit in the life of the Christ:
         a. "The reference of these words is, doubtless, to the gift of
            the Spirit; for they occupy the same place here that the gift
            of the Spirit did in the former discourse". - J.W. McGarvey (ACTS)
         b. "In 2:38 the steps are, (1) Repentance, (2) baptism, (3)
            remission of sins, (4) the gift of the Holy Spirit. Here, the
            order is (1) Repentance, (2) to turn, (3) the blotting out of
            sins, (4) the seasons of refreshing. One passage aids in
            interpreting the other." - B.W. Johnson (PNT)
         c. "A comparison with Peter's promises in 2:38 suggests that
            the Holy Spirit may be the one who brings this refreshment."
            - D.G. Peterson (PNTC)
         d. "people are 'refreshed' in their spirits when the Holy
            Spirit comes to dwell within them." - ESV Study Bible

[All three explanations have merit. But I suggest Peter had in mind the
gift of the Spirit, not only because of similarities between Ac 2:38 and
Ac 3:19, but because what is revealed elsewhere about...]

II. THE REFRESHING GIFT OF THE SPIRIT

   A. THE METAPHOR OF WATER AND THE SPIRIT...
      1. A blessing promised by God in Isaiah - Isa 44:3
         a. "I will pour water on him who is thirsty"
         b. "I will pour My Spirit...and My blessing"
      2. A blessing promised by Jesus in John - Jn 7:37-39
         a. "If any one thirsts, let him come to Me and drink"
         b. "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water"

   B. THE REFRESHING NATURE OF THE SPIRIT...
      1. God's love is poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit - Ro 5:5
      2. Assistance in putting to death the deeds of the body - Ro 8:12-13
      3. Endearment engendered to God ("Abba, Father") - Ro 8:14-16; Ga 4:6
      4. Righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit - Ro 14:17
      5. Abundance of hope by the power of the Holy Spirit - Ro 15:13
      6. Washing, sanctification, and justification by the Spirit - 1Co 6:11; Tit 3:4-7
      7. A deposit (guarantee) of our inheritance - 2Co 1:21-22; 5:5; Ep 1:13-14
      8. Strengthening with might the inner man - Ep 3:16,20
      9. Producing the nine-fold fruit of the Spirit - Ga 5:22-23

   C. THIS REFRESHMENT IS AVAILABLE, PROVIDED...
      1. We do not grieve the Spirit - Ep 4:29-31; cf. 1Co 6:18-20; 1Th 4:3-8
         a. Through sinful conduct instead Christ-like conduct
         b. Because our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit
         c. We have been called to holiness, and God has given us of His Spirit
      2. We do not quench the Spirit - 1Th 5:19-20; cf. Ep 6:17
         a. By despising prophesies, i.e., the Word of God
         b. For the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit

CONCLUSION

1. Exactly what "the times of refreshing" means might be uncertain...
   a. Whether present or future, "refreshing times" are promised to Christians
   b. The Holy Spirit in particular qualifies as a refreshing gift for the Christian!

2. In light of what the Spirit does for the Christian, how tragic it would be...
   a. If we were to quench the Spirit through sinful conduct and neglect
   b. When He is given to Christians in order to quench our spiritual thirst!

If you desire to be "refreshed" with "living water", then believe,
repent, and be baptized that you might receive the promised gift of the
Holy Spirit (Jn 7:37-39; Ac 2:38-39; 3:19)...!
 

John Quincy Adams on Islam by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1142

John Quincy Adams on Islam

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The average American’s lack of awareness of the past has left our nation in an extremely vulnerable position. The multi-culturalism, pluralism, “diversity,” and political correctness that now blanket American culture mean that many are oblivious to and unconcerned about the threat that Islam poses to the American (and Christian) way of life. The Founders of the American Republic were not so dispossessed. They were well-studied in the ebb and flow of human history, and the international circumstances that could potentially impact America adversely. They, in fact, spoke openly and pointedly about the anti-American, anti-Christian nature of the religion of Islam.
Consider, for example, the writings of an early President of the United States, John Quincy Adams. Not only did Adams live during the founding era (born in 1767), not only was his father a primary, quintessential Founder, but John Quincy was literally nurtured by his father in the vicissitudes and intricacies of the founding of the Republic. John Adams involved his son at an early age in his own activities and travels on behalf of the fledgling nation. John Quincy accompanied his father to France in 1778, became Secretary to the American Minister to Russia, was the Secretary to his father during peace negotiations that ended the American Revolution in 1783, served as U.S. foreign ambassador, both to the Netherlands and later to Portugal, under George Washington, to Prussia under his father’s presidency, and then to Russia and later to England under President James Madison. He served as a U.S. Senator, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then as the nation’s sixth President (1825-1829), and finally as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was a staunch and fervent opponent of slavery.
After his presidency, but before his election to Congress in 1830, John Quincy penned several essays dealing with one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars. In these essays, we see a cogent, informed portrait of the threat that Islam has posed throughout world history:
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.
Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.).
Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine, including the degrading practice of polygamy.
A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam:
The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force (Blunt, 29:274).
No Christian would deny that many Christians in history have violated the precepts of Christ by mistreating others and even committing atrocities in the name of Christ. However, Adams rightly observes that one must go against Christian doctrine to do so. Not so with Islam—since violence is sanctioned:
The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse (Blunt, 29:300, emp. added).
The Founders were forthright in their assessment of the nature and teachings of Islam and the Quran. Americans and their political leaders would do well to take a sober look at history. To fail to do so will be catastrophic.

REFERENCES

Blunt, Joseph (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402, [On-line], URL: http://www.archive.org/stream/p1americanannual29blunuoft.

The Myth of "Factual" Bible Contradictions by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=40

The Myth of "Factual" Bible Contradictions

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

His preacher described the young man as a “solid Christian.” He was a devout follower of Christ who was enthusiastic about living for Jesus. From the time he was a young boy, his grandmother had taken him to worship God on the first day of every week. After becoming a Christian, he had, according to his preacher, “attended every service of the church.” He grew in the faith, and began taking part in leading the congregation in prayer. Later, he personally taught the congregation by occasionally standing before the church and reading the Bible to them aloud, at times even delivering short talks. Before departing for the university (about an hour away from his hometown), the young 18-year-old from West Virginia was considered by those who knew him best as a dedicated Christian with impressive potential—one whose shield of faith would stand strong when worldliness attacked, and whose foundation would remain firm when shaken by the devil’s doctrines.
Sadly, only a short time passed before this young man lost his faith. He went to college as a believer in the God of the Bible, and came home an “enlightened” skeptic. One of the first classes he took at the university was an elective course on world religions. Initially, he thought he could handle whatever questions came his way about Christianity. He had memorized numerous verses in the Bible. He knew all about the uniqueness of the church. He even could tell people what to do in order to have their sins forgiven. It took, however, little time for one teacher in one class in one university to turn this “solid Christian” into an unbeliever.
What led to the demise of this young man’s belief in God, and the Bible as His Word? Why did this young Christian’s faith crumble so easily? It all began with his inability to handle the “factual discrepancies” that his newly found friends had convinced him were in the Bible. When asked to explain to his teacher and fellow classmates how hundreds of “Bible contradictions” are not contradictions at all, but simply misunderstandings on man’s part, he would not...because he could not. After being bombarded with hundreds of questions that he was incapable of answering, eventually he began denying the truths he once believed. Not long after this young man’s “transformation,” he gave one of his childhood mentors (the preacher of the church where he was reared) a document titled “Factual Discrepancies.” That document (of which I have a copy) contains nearly seventy alleged “factual” contradictions that supposedly are found within the Bible. Because this frustrated young man from West Virginia (who had been taught the Bible his whole life) was unable to answer these allegations, he gave up on the God of the Bible. His faith in the inerrant, inspired Word of God was replaced with the vacuousness of a skeptic’s uncertainty—all because he was unable to defend the Truth against the vicious, frequent attacks leveled against it by infidelity.
I wonder how many times this true story could be rehearsed by mothers and fathers all over the world? How many grandmothers (like the one mentioned above) have seen their “work” (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15) destroyed at the hands of infidels? How many young college students leave home as “solid” Christians, and return four years later as “enlightened” skeptics?
This issue of Reason & Revelation is dedicated to answering six of the list of seventy alleged “factual” Bible contradictions the young West Virginian was presented at the university. It is my hope that you will see how easily these allegations can be answered—logically and truthfully. [The numbers of each “contradiction” match those on the list given to the young man. Our responses to most of the others can be found on the “Alleged Discrepancies” section of the Apologetics Press Web site.]

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #2

Animals or Man Created First?

After reading the first two chapters of the Bible, some skeptics, in an attempt to disprove the Bible’s inerrancy, have accused the writer of Genesis of erring in regard to the record of events occurring on day six of creation. While Genesis 1:24-27 plainly indicates that man was created after the animals, critics claim that Genesis 2:18-19 teaches that man was created before animals. Skeptics assert that such language by the author of Genesis proves that the Bible is not divinely inspired.
Some Bible students resolve this alleged contradiction by explaining that the Hebrew verb translated “formed” could have been translated “had formed.” In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold wrote:
Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts, the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: “He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added).
Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19, as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit via Moses intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but rather as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters 1 and 2 agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed,” it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above, and the translators of the NIV, all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.
The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible (especially regarding the order of God’s creation—whether vegetation, birds, land animals, man, etc.) is because they fail to realize the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purpose—to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and Old Testament:
Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complementary nature of the subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, p. 117).
Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe summarized some of the differences in Genesis 1-2 in the following chart (1992, p. 35).
Genesis 1 Genesis 2
Chronological order Topical order
Outline Details
Creating animals Naming animals
The fact is,
Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God’s work of creation as set forth in chapter 1.... Chapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69).
In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man in order to be named.
CreationIf one still rejects both the possibility of yatsar being translated “had formed,” and the explanation of the two chapters being worded differently because of the purposes they serve, a final response to the skeptic’s allegations is that the text never says that there were no animals created on the sixth day of creation after Adam. Although in my judgment it is very unlikely that God created a special group of animals to be named by Adam (after creating all others before the creation of man—Genesis 1:20-27), some commentators do hold this view. After his comments concerning the translation of yatsar, Victor Hamilton indicated that the creatures mentioned in 2:19 refer “to the creation of a special group of animals brought before Adam for naming” (1990, p. 176, emp. added). Hamilton believes that most all the animals on the Earth were created before Adam; however, those mentioned in 2:19 were created on day six after Adam, for the purpose of being named. In U. Cassuto’s comments on Genesis 2 regarding the time Adam named the animals, he stated: “Of all the species of beasts and flying creatures that had been created and had spread over the face of the earth and the firmament of the heavens, the Lord God now formed particular specimens for the purpose of presenting them all before man in the midst of the Garden” (1961, p. 129, emp. added). Both of these long-time Bible students recognize that the text never says there were no animals created after Adam, but that all animals were created either on day five or day six (before and possibly even after Adam’s creation). However unorthodox (or unlikely) this particular position might be, it does serve as another reason why skeptics have no foundation upon which to stand when they assert that a contradiction exists between Genesis 1:24-27 and 2:19.

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #7

A Slip of the Mind?

In 1 Corinthians 10:7-10, the apostle Paul gave four “examples” of how God’s chosen people in the Old Testament had sinned by lusting “after evil things.” At one time or another, the Israelites had been guilty of worshipping false gods (v. 7), committing sexual immorality (v. 8), as well as tempting God and complaining against the Almighty (vss. 9-10). It is the second example Paul gives in this list (involving the Israelites’ sexual immorality) that has been the brunt of much criticism. Allegedly, this verse is in direct opposition with what Moses recorded in the Pentateuch. Whereas Paul stated, “[I]n one day twenty-three thousand [Israelites—EL] fell” as a result of their sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 10:8), Moses recorded that “those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand” (Numbers 25:9).
Some apologists (Archer, 1982, p. 401; Geisler and Howe, 1992, pp. 458-459) have attempted to resolve this infamous case of “the missing thousand” by claiming that the Old Testament event to which Paul alluded was the plague Jehovah sent upon the people after they made a golden calf (Exodus 32:35), and not the plague recorded in Numbers 25:9. The problem with this explanation is that Exodus 32 focuses on idolatry, not sexual immorality. Although idolatry sometimes included sexual immorality, most likely Paul was not referring to the events that took place after Moses’ descent from Mount Sinai (Exodus 32).
So how can we explain Paul’s statement in light of the information given in Numbers 25:9 (the probable “sister” passage to 1 Corinthians 10:8)? The answer lies in the fact that Paul stated that 23,000 fell “in one day,” while in Numbers 25 Moses wrote that the total number of those who died in the plague was 24,000. Moses never indicated how long it took for the 24,000 to die, but only stated that this was the number “who died in the plague.” Thus, the record in 1 Corinthians simply supplies us with more knowledge about what occurred in Numbers 25—23,000 of the 24,000 who died in the plague died “in one day.”
It is troubling to see how one particular apologist attempts to explain this alleged contradiction. In the popular book, Hard Sayings of the Bible, Peter Davids made the following comments regarding “the missing thousand” in 1 Corinthians 10:8:
It is possible that Paul, citing the Old Testament from memory as he wrote to the Corinthians, referred to the incident in Numbers 25:9, but his mind slipped a chapter later in picking up the number.... We cannot rule out the possibility that there was some reference to 23 or 23,000 in his local environment as he was writing and that caused a slip in his mind.
Paul was not attempting to instruct people on Old Testament history and certainly not on the details of Old Testament history.
Thus here we have a case in which Paul apparently makes a slip of the mind for some reason (unless he has special revelation he does not inform us about), but the mental error does not affect the teaching. How often have we heard preachers with written Bibles before them make similar errors of details that in no way affected their message? If we notice it (and few usually do), we (hopefully) simply smile and focus on the real point being made. As noted above, Paul probably did not have a written Bible to check (although at times he apparently had access to scrolls of the Old Testament), but in the full swing of dictation he cited an example from memory and got a detail wrong (pp. 598-599, parenthetical comments in orig., emp. added).
Supposedly, Paul just made a mistake. He messed up, just like when a preacher today mistakenly misquotes a passage of Scripture. According to the repetitious testimony of Davids, Paul merely had “a slip of the mind” (thereby experiencing what some today might call a “senior moment”), and our reaction (as well as the skeptics’) should be to “simply smile and focus on the real point being made.”
Unbelievable! Walter Kaiser, Peter Davids, Manfred Brauch, and F.F. Bruce pen an 800-page book in an attempt to answer numerous alleged Bible contradictions and to defend the integrity of the Bible, and yet Davids has the audacity to say that the apostle Paul “cited an example from memory and got a detail wrong.” Why in the world did Davids spend so much time (and space) answering various questions that skeptics frequently raise, and then conclude that the man who penned almost half of the New Testament books made mistakes in his writings?! He has concluded exactly what the infidels teach—Bible writers made mistakes. Furthermore, if Paul made one mistake in his writings, he easily could have blundered elsewhere. And if Paul made mistakes in other writings, how can we say that Peter, John, Isaiah, and others did not “slip up” occasionally? The fact is, if Paul, or any of these men, made mistakes in their writings, then they were not inspired by God (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), because God does not make mistakes (cf. Titus 1:2; Psalm 139:1-6). And if the Scriptures were not “given by inspiration of God,” then the Bible is not from God. And if the Bible is not from God, then the skeptic is right. But as we noted above, the skeptic is not right! First Corinthians 10:8 can be explained logically without assuming Paul’s writings are inaccurate.
Sadly, Davids totally dismisses the numerous places where Paul claims his writings are from God. When Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia, he told them that his teachings came to him “through revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:12). In his first letter to the Thessalonian Christians, he claimed the words he wrote were “by the word of the Lord” (4:15). To the church at Ephesus, Paul wrote that God’s message was “revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (3:5). In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter put Paul’s letters on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures when he compared them to “the rest of the Scriptures.” And in the same epistle where Davids claims that Paul “made a slip of the mind,” Paul said, “the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37).
Paul did not “invent” facts about Old Testament stories. Neither did he have to rely on his own cognizance to remember particular numbers or names. The Holy Spirit revealed the Truth to him—all of it (cf. John 14:26; John 16:13). Just like the writers of the Old Testament, Paul was fully inspired by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Samuel 23:2; Acts 1:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21; 3:15-16; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #14

A Coin Called “Daric”

Before Solomon began building the “holy house” of God, his father David challenged the Israelites to consecrate themselves by bringing an offering to the Lord that would be used in the Temple’s construction (1 Chronicles 29:3-5). The text indicates that “the leaders of the fathers’ houses, leaders of the tribes of Israel, the captains of thousands and of hundreds, with the officers over the king’s work, offered willingly” (29:6). They gave 5,000 talents of gold, 10,000 talents of silver, 18,000 talents of bronze, and 100,000 talents of iron. First Chronicles 29:7 also indicates that these Israelites gave 10,000 darics of gold.
The use of currency known as darics in a narrative that predated the invention of the currency by 500 years has led some to believe the author of Chronicles lacked divine guidance. These critics correctly assert that the daric was a coin of the Persian Empire (probably derived from Darius the Mede). Furthermore, it is true that even though the chronicler used the daric to evaluate a Temple offering that took place around 970 B.C., this coinage was unknown to David (Wycliffe, 1962). It was not minted before 515 B.C. (Dillard and Longman, 1994, p. 171), and probably was not known in Palestine until the fifth century B.C. (when the book of Chronicles likely was written). So why does this not invalidate the inerrancy of the Scriptures? After all, a narrative that has things (like money) in it that obviously did not exist when the narrative took place is nothing but a fairy tale, right?
Actually, the use of the term “daric” by the writer of Chronicles in the fifth century B.C. does not mean that he believed (or wanted his readers to believe) that the Israelites in David’s time possessed darics. The chronicler merely expressed—in language that would be intelligible to his readers—the sum of the gold donated by the Israelites, without intending to assume that there were darics in use in the time of David (Keil and Delitzsch, 1996). He simply used a term that was popular in his own day to help his readers better understand the sacrifice of those who gave the gold (cf. Ezra 2:69; 8:27; Nehemiah 7:70-72).
Darics
Darics courtesy of ancient-coin-forum.com
The chronicler used a figure of speech known as “prolepsis” (the assignment of something, such as an event or name, to a time that precedes it). People often use prolepsis for the sake of convenience, or so that the reader or audience can better understand what is being communicated. For example, I might say, “My wife and I dated two years before we got married,” when actually she was not my wife when we were dating, but a very dear friend. We may see a special on television about when President Ronald Reagan was a boy, but the fact is, Ronald Reagan was not president of the United States when he was a boy. From time to time, even the Bible uses this kind of accommodative language. In John 11, the Bible speaks of a woman named Mary who “anointed the Lord with ointment” (11:1-2), yet this anointing actually did not occur for about three months. John merely spoke about it as having already happened because when he wrote his gospel account, this event generally was known. Another example of prolepsis is found in Genesis 13:3 where we read that Abraham “went on his journey from the South as far as Bethel.” This area actually did not wear the name Bethel until years later when Jacob gave it that name (Genesis 28:19). However, when Moses wrote of this name hundreds of years later, he was free to use it even when writing about a time before the name actually was given. Likewise, the chronicler used accommodative language when explaining the free-will offerings given to help in constructing the Temple of God.
Admittedly, the writer of Chronicles used measures of his period familiar to modern readers even when writing about events that took place 500 years beforehand. However, converting measures does not destroy the inerrancy of Scripture!

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #21

Motives Matter

In roughly 841 B.C., the commander of Israel’s army, Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, was anointed king over the northern kingdom and was commanded by the Lord to “strike down the house of Ahab” and “cut off from Ahab all the males in Israel, both bond and free” (2 Kings 9:6-10). After receiving this command from the Lord via one of “the sons of the prophets,” Jehu began his assassination of Ahab’s family. He started by slaying Ahab’s son, Joram (also known as Jehoram), who was ruling Israel at the time Jehu was anointed king. He then proceeded to kill Ahaziah (the king of Judah and grandson of Jezebel—9:27-29) and forty-two of Ahaziah’s brothers (10:12-14). Later, he slew (or had others slay) Jezebel (the mother of Joram and former wife of the deceased Ahab—9:30-37), all seventy sons of Ahab who were living in Samaria and “all who remained to Ahab in Samaria” (10:1-10,17), and “all who remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel,” including “all his great men and his close acquaintances, and his priests” (10:11). Jehu’s final stop was at the temple of Baal where, upon gathering all the Baal-worshipping leaders of Israel into the temple, he locked them up and had them massacred (10:18-27).
After Jehu had carried out his orders to obliterate all males from the house of Ahab, the Lord said to him:
Because you have done well in doing what is right in My sight, and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in My heart, your sons shall sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation (10:30).
Jehu had taken the most thorough means of suppressing the idolatry in Israel, and thus was granted protection on his throne, along with his sons after him, unto “the fourth generation.” The following chapters of 2 Kings indicate that the Lord was true to His word (as always; cf. Titus 1:2). Although the reigns of Jehu’s sons were described as kings who “did evil in the sight of Yahweh,” the Lord allowed them to reign to the fourth generation in order to fulfill His promise to Jehu.
Several years after the above events took place, the prophet Hosea expressed words that many skeptics have claimed are in opposition to what is stated in 2 Kings 9-10. When Gomer, Hosea’s wife, bore a son, Hosea declared that the Lord said, “Call his name Jezreel, for in a little while I will avenge the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu, and bring an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel” (1:4). Those trying to discredit the Bible’s integrity argue that Hosea put himself into obvious disagreement with the inspired writer of 2 Kings, who thought that Jehu had done “all” that was in God’s heart. Skeptics claim that the author of 2 Kings heaped praise on Jehu for the Jezreel massacre, but Hosea contradicted him when he said that the Lord would avenge the blood of Jezreel, and bring to an end the reign of the house of Jehu in Israel. What can be said about this “obvious disagreement”? Are these two passages harmonious, or is this a legitimate contradiction that should cause Bible believers like the young man from West Virginia to reject the book that has been tried and tested for hundreds of years?
First, we cannot be 100% certain that Hosea 1:4 is referring to the events recorded in 2 Kings 9-10. Although nearly all skeptics (and Bible commentators) link the two passages together, it must be understood that just because 2 Kings 9-10 is the only place in the Old Testament that describes suitable events located at Jezreel, it does not mean that Hosea must have been referring to those events. The honest student of God’s Word has to admit that Hosea could have been referring to Jehu’s sons who reigned after him. Perhaps his sons performed serious atrocities in Jezreel that are not recorded in 2 Kings. One cannot be certain that Hosea was indeed referring to the events recorded in 2 Kings 10. Having made such a disclaimer, it is my position that these two passages should be linked, and thus the alleged contradiction raised by skeptics deserves an adequate explanation: How could God tell Jehu to destroy the house of Ahab, and then later condemn him (his house) via the words of Hosea for having done so?
The answer really is quite simple. As Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe observed: “God praised Jehu for obeying Him in destroying the house of Ahab, but condemned Jehu for his sinful motive in shedding their blood” (1992, p. 194). Skeptics are fond of citing 2 Kings 10:30 to support their position, but they often conveniently overlook verses 29 and 31, which state:
Jehu did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin, that is, from the golden calves that were at Bethel and Dan.... Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart; for he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam, who had made Israel sin.
Jehu obeyed God’s command to “strike down the house of Ahab” and utterly exterminate his descendants (2 Kings 9:7-8; 10:30), but he did not obey God in all that he did (cf. Genesis 6:22). The passage in 2 Kings 10:29-31 indicates that even though Jehu had done what God commanded, “he did so out of a carnal zeal that was tainted with protective self-interest” (Archer, 1982, p. 208). It seems obvious that since Jehu followed in the footsteps of Israel’s first wicked king by worshipping false gods and not walking according to God’s law, he did not destroy Ahab’s descendants out of any devotion to the Lord. Furthermore, in commenting on Jehu’s actions, biblical scholar Gleason Archer noted:
The important principle set forth in Hosea 1:4 was that when blood is shed, even in the service of God and in obedience to His command, blood-guiltiness attaches to God’s agent himself if his motive was tainted with carnal self-interest rather than by a sincere concern for the purity of the faith and the preservation of God’s truth (such as, for example, animated Elijah when he had the 450 prophets of Baal put to death after the contest with them on Mount Carmel) [1982, p. 209, parenthetical item in orig.].
Considering Jehu’s actions by examining the motives behind those actions solves the alleged contradiction. Jehu’s failure to obey God’s commands and depart from the sins of Jeroboam revealed that he would have equally disobeyed the other commands as well, had it been contrary to his own desires. The story of Jehu’s conquest teaches a great lesson, which Albert Barnes acknowledged in his commentary on Hosea: “[I]f we do what is the will of God for any end of our own, for anything except God, we do, in fact, our own will, not God’s” (1997). Indeed, just as the apostle Paul taught in his discourse on love—motives matter (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)!

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #48

In What Order Did Satan Tempt Jesus?

If you have ever compared Matthew’s account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness with Luke’s account, you likely noticed that there was a difference in the sequence of the recorded events (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Both Matthew and Luke agree that Satan first tested Jesus by challenging Him to turn stones to bread. However, while the two disciples of Jesus agree on the content of the next two tests, the second and third temptations recorded by Matthew are “flip-flopped” in Luke’s account. Matthew recorded that Satan’s second temptation involved him trying to persuade Jesus to throw Himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple. The third temptation listed by Matthew was Satan’s attempt to get Jesus to worship him. Even though Luke wrote about the same two events, he listed them in reverse order—Satan first desired adoration from Jesus, and then challenged Him to throw Himself down off the pinnacle of the Temple. Based upon this difference, skeptics claim we have a clear-cut “factual discrepancy.”
The problem with this allegation is that it is based upon an assumption. Those who claim that the “disorder” of temptations is a contradiction, presuppose that history always is written (or spoken) chronologically. However, common sense tells us otherwise. Open almost any world history textbook, and you will notice that even though most events are recorded chronologically, some are arranged topically. For example, in one chapter you may read about the European civilization in the late Middle Ages (A.D. 1000-1300). Yet, in the very next chapter you might learn about Medieval India (150 B.C.-A.D. 1400). Authors arrange textbooks thematically in order to reduce the confusion that would arise if every major event in those textbooks were arranged chronologically. Even when we rehearse life experiences to friends and family, oftentimes we speak climactically rather than chronologically. A teenager may return home from an amusement park, and tell his father about all of the roller coasters he rode at Six Flags. Likely, rather than mentioning all of them in the order he rode them, he will start with the most exciting ones, and end with the boring ones (if there is indeed such a thing as a “boring” roller coaster).
Had Matthew and Luke claimed to arrange the temptations of Jesus chronologically, then the skeptics would have a legitimate case. But, the fact of the matter is, neither Matthew nor Luke ever made any such claim. Either one of the two gospel writers recorded these events in the exact order in which they occurred, or both of them wrote topically. Most biblical scholars believe that it is very likely that Matthew was concerned more with the order of events in this story because of his use of words like “then” (4:5, Greek tote) and “again” (4:8, Greek palin). These two specific adverbs seem to indicate a more sequential order of the temptations. Luke simply links the events by using the Greek words kai and de (4:2,5-6, translated “and”). [The NKJV’s translation of kai as “then” in Luke 4:5 is incorrect. It should be translated simply “and” (cf. ASV, KJV, NASV, and RSV).] Similar to the English word “and” not having specific chronological implications, neither do the Greek words kai and de (Richards, 1993, p. 230). In short, Luke’s account of the temptations of Jesus is arranged topically (or possibly climactically), whereas Matthew’s account seems to be arranged chronologically.

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #56

Cock-a-doodle-do...Twice?

Perhaps the most famous alleged Bible contradiction centers on Peter’s triple denial of Jesus and the crowing of a rooster. For years, skeptics have charged that Mark’s account of this event blatantly contradicts the other gospel accounts, thus supposedly “proving” the imperfection of the Scriptures. Even Bible believers have questioned the differences surrounding this event, yet relatively few have taken the time to understand them. Whenever people ask us about Peter’s denials and the differences within the gospel accounts, we often fail to give an adequate answer to their questions (see 1 Peter 3:15). This lack of understanding, and poor defense of God’s Word, has led skeptics to become more confident in their position (i.e., that the Bible is not God’s Word), and has caused some Bible believers (like the young West Virginia man I mentioned earlier) to abandon their position on the infallibility of the Scriptures.
The passages in question are found in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 13. Matthew, Luke, and John all quoted Jesus as saying that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed.
Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:34).
Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me” (Luke 22:34).
Jesus answered him...“Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times” (John 13:38).
After the third denial actually took place, these three writers recorded that Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled exactly the way He said it would be.
And immediately a rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:74b-75).
Immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Luke 22:60-61).
Peter then denied again [for the third time—EL]; and immediately a rooster crowed (John 18:27).
Matthew, Luke, and John all indicated that Peter denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. Mark’s account, however, says otherwise. He recorded Jesus’ prophecy as follows: “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times” (Mark 14:30, emp. added). Following Peter’s first denial of Jesus, we learn that he “went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed” (Mark 14:68). After Peter’s third denial of Jesus, the rooster crowed “a second time.... Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times’ ” (Mark 14:72).
Mark differs from the other writers, in that he specified the rooster crowed once after Peter’s first denial, and again after his third denial. But, do these differences represent a legitimate contradiction? Absolutely not!
Consider the following illustration. A family of three went to a high school football game together for the first time. The father and son had been to several games prior to this one, but the mother never had been fortunate enough to attend a high school game until now. After entering the stadium, Ricky tells his 16-year-old son, Cary, that they will meet him right outside Gate 12 after the buzzer sounds. Having filed away the instructions, Cary races to the stands to ensure that he sees the opening kickoff. Ricky’s wife, Vickie, who did not hear the instructions he gave Cary, then asks him when they were going to see Cary again. He responds, “We are going to meet him right outside the gate we just entered after the fourth buzzer.” After the fourth buzzer? But he told Cary after the buzzer sounded they would meet him. Did Ricky contradict himself? No. At this particular stadium, the time keepers normally sound a buzzer after each quarter. But, when we say “at the buzzer,” or when we speak of “a buzzer beater” (such as in basketball), usually we are referring to the final buzzer. Cary was familiar with sports lingo, and thus Ricky told him they would see him “after the buzzer sounds.” Vickie, on the other hand, having never attended a football game in her life, was given different instructions. In a more precise way, Ricky instructed her that Cary would meet them, not after the first, second, or third buzzer, but after the fourth and final buzzer that marks the end of regulation play. Ricky knew that if he told Vickie, “Cary will meet us after the buzzer sounds,” she would have expected to meet him after the first buzzer sounded. Thus, Ricky simply informed Vickie in a more detailed manner. Surely, no one would claim that Ricky had contradicted himself.
Cock-a-doodle-do
In a similar way, no one should assume that because three of the gospel writers mentioned one crowing, while Mark mentioned two crowings, that a contradiction exists. Realistically, there were two “rooster crowings.” However, it was the second one (the only one Matthew, Luke, and John mentioned) that was the “main” crowing (like the fourth buzzer was the “main” buzzer at the football game). In the first century, roosters were accustomed to crowing at least twice during the night. The first crowing (which only Mark mentioned—14:68) usually occurred between twelve and one o’clock. Relatively few individuals ever heard or acknowledged this crowing (see “cock,” Fausset’s Bible Dictionary, 1998). It is likely that Peter never heard it; else surely his slumbering conscience would have awakened.
The second crowing took place not long before daybreak. It was this latter crowing that commonly was called “the cockcrowing.” Why? Because it was at this time of night (just before daybreak) that roosters crowed the loudest, and their “shrill clarion” was useful in summoning laborers to work (see “cock-crowing,” McClintock and Strong, 1968, 2:398). This crowing of the roosters served as an alarm clock to those in the ancient world. Mark recorded earlier in his gospel account that Jesus spoke of this “main” crowing when He said: “Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming—in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning” (Mark 13:35, emp. added). Interestingly, even when workers were called to their labors via artificial devices (e.g., bugles), this time of the night still was designated by the proverbial phrase, “the cockcrowing” (see “cock-crowing” in McClintock and Strong, 2:398). If you lived in the first century, and your boss said to be ready to work when “the rooster crows,” you would know he meant that work begins just before daybreak. If he said that work begins at the second crowing of the rooster, likewise, you would know he meant the same thing—work begins just before daylight. These are not contradictory statements, but rather two ways of saying the same thing.
When Jesus said, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:34), it is obvious that He was using the phrase “the rooster crows” in the more conventional way. Mark, on the other hand, specified that there were two crowings. In the same way that the husband gives his wife more detailed instructions concerning a football game, Mark used greater precision in recording this event. It may be that Mark quoted the exact words of Jesus, while the other writers (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) saw fit to employ the less definite style to indicate the same time of night (McGarvey, 1875, p. 355). Or, perhaps Jesus made both statements. After Peter declared that he never would deny the Lord, Jesus could have repeated His first comment and added another detail, saying: “[E]ven this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times” (Mark 14:30, emp. added). We cannot be certain why Mark’s account is worded differently than the other writers, but by understanding that “the rooster crowing” commonly was used to indicate a time just before daybreak, we can be assured that absolutely no contradiction exists among the gospel writers.

CONCLUSION

In just over six thousand words, six of the seventy “factual” Bible contradictions given to the young West Virginian who abandoned his faith in the inspired, inerrant Word of God have been radically downgraded from “factual” to “fictitious.” If space permitted, each one of the “factual” contradictions could be refuted rather easily with the proper use of both “reason” and “revelation.”
What would have happened if the young man from West Virginia had taken the time to investigate these matters? Where would he be today, had someone been able to show him how all these “factual” Bible contradictions are anything but factual? Surely, by now you realize that the blows of the critic’s axe need not shake the Christian’s faith. Indeed, after almost 2,000 years of “skeptics’ blows,” God’s forest of inspiration still stands unmarred.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Cassuto, U. (1961), A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes).
“Cock” (1998), Fausset’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
“Cock-crowing,” McClintock, John and James Strong (1968 reprint), Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Dillard, Raymond B. and Tremper Longman III (1994), An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).
Hamilton, Victor P. (1990), The Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch (1996), Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.
Kitchen, Kenneth (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press).
Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).
Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962), (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).