October 3, 2017

Incredible!!! by Gary Rose











Over the past few years, my wife and I have gravitated to watching "vet" shows. Dr.Pol, Dr.Chris.,Dr. Jeff and several others have become a staple in our home.

The vast majority of times I have seen cow birthings, a single calf was born. Once in a great while, twins- but I have never seen anything more than that.

So, you can imagine how surprised I was to see this picture of a cow with four calves. Amazing, simply amazing!!!

Just for a moment, consider an old man, say someone in his 90's (with a wife about his age) being told that he will have children like the stars in the heaven. This is not just a hypothetical scenario, but history. And it is found in the book of Genesis... 


Genesis, Chapter 15 (World English Bible)

 1 After these things Yahweh’s word came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Don’t be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.” 

  2 Abram said, “Lord Yahweh, what will you give me, since I go childless, and he who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?”  3 Abram said, “Behold, you have given no children to me: and, behold, one born in my house is my heir.” 

  4 Behold, Yahweh’s word came to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir, but he who will come out of your own body will be your heir.”  5 Yahweh brought him outside, and said, “Look now toward the sky, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” He said to Abram, “So your offspring will be.”  6 He believed in Yahweh, who credited it to him for righteousness.



How many untold thousands upon thousands of people have believed God like Abraham? Only God knows. This bit of history shows us how God can bless those who trust in HIM. 

While having four calves is impressive, it is nothing to that of children numbering in the quantity of the stars of heaven!!!

TRULY, WE HAVE AN AWESOME GOD!!!


P.S. I can only wonder if that cows' calves will be as productive as her. If the markings on their heads mean anything- three out of four isn't bad!!!

Bible Reading October 3 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading  October 3
World English Bible

Oct. 3
Psalms 128-130

Psa 128:1 Blessed is everyone who fears Yahweh, who walks in his ways.
Psa 128:2 For you will eat the labor of your hands. You will be happy, and it will be well with you.
Psa 128:3 Your wife will be as a fruitful vine, in the innermost parts of your house; your children like olive plants, around your table.
Psa 128:4 Behold, thus is the man blessed who fears Yahweh.
Psa 128:5 May Yahweh bless you out of Zion, and may you see the good of Jerusalem all the days of your life.
Psa 128:6 Yes, may you see your children's children. Peace be upon Israel.

Psa 129:1 Many times they have afflicted me from my youth up. Let Israel now say,
Psa 129:2 many times they have afflicted me from my youth up, yet they have not prevailed against me.
Psa 129:3 The plowers plowed on my back. They made their furrows long.
Psa 129:4 Yahweh is righteous. He has cut apart the cords of the wicked.
Psa 129:5 Let them be disappointed and turned backward, all those who hate Zion.
Psa 129:6 Let them be as the grass on the housetops, which withers before it grows up;
Psa 129:7 with which the reaper doesn't fill his hand, nor he who binds sheaves, his bosom.
Psa 129:8 Neither do those who go by say, "The blessing of Yahweh be on you. We bless you in the name of Yahweh."

Psa 130:1 Out of the depths I have cried to you, Yahweh.
Psa 130:2 Lord, hear my voice. Let your ears be attentive to the voice of my petitions.
Psa 130:3 If you, Yah, kept a record of sins, Lord, who could stand?
Psa 130:4 But there is forgiveness with you, therefore you are feared.
Psa 130:5 I wait for Yahweh. My soul waits. I hope in his word.
Psa 130:6 My soul longs for the Lord more than watchmen long for the morning; more than watchmen for the morning.
Psa 130:7 Israel, hope in Yahweh, for with Yahweh there is loving kindness. With him is abundant redemption.
Psa 130:8 He will redeem Israel from all their sins.



Oct. 3
2 Corinthians 13

2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. "At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
2Co 13:2 I have said beforehand, and I do say beforehand, as when I was present the second time, so now, being absent, I write to those who have sinned before now, and to all the rest, that, if I come again, I will not spare;
2Co 13:3 seeing that you seek a proof of Christ who speaks in me; who toward you is not weak, but is powerful in you.
2Co 13:4 For he was crucified through weakness, yet he lives through the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we will live with him through the power of God toward you.
2Co 13:5 Test your own selves, whether you are in the faith. Test your own selves. Or don't you know as to your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified.
2Co 13:6 But I hope that you will know that we aren't disqualified.
2Co 13:7 Now I pray to God that you do no evil; not that we may appear approved, but that you may do that which is honorable, though we are as reprobate.
2Co 13:8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.
2Co 13:9 For we rejoice when we are weak and you are strong. And this we also pray for, even your perfecting.
2Co 13:10 For this cause I write these things while absent, that I may not deal sharply when present, according to the authority which the Lord gave me for building up, and not for tearing down.
2Co 13:11 Finally, brothers, rejoice. Be perfected, be comforted, be of the same mind, live in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you.
2Co 13:12 Greet one another with a holy kiss.
2Co 13:13 All the saints greet you.
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. Amen.

The Biblical Doctrine of the Godhead by Wayne Jackson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Jackson/Boyd/Wayne/1937/godhead.html

The Biblical Doctrine of the Godhead
Since the late second century A.D., controversy has existed concerning the nature of the Godhead. Is God a solitary person—simply manifested in three forms? Or do three separate personalities exist, each of whom possesses the nature of deity? Is the popular doctrine of the Trinity true or false?
Though the word “Trinity” is not explicitly found in the Bible, the teaching that there are three individual personalities of divine nature (known in the New Testament as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is thoroughly scriptural, and has been generally acknowledged by the writers of “Christendom” since the apostolic age.
Around A.D. 190, Theodotus of Byzantium advocated the absolute personality of God. Asserting that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one person, he sought to propagate his views in the church at Rome. He is said to be “the first representative of Dynamistic Monarchianism whose views have been recorded” (Newman 1931, 198).
Later, however, the “oneness” heresy found its fullest expression in Sabellius of Libya, who commenced the publication of his errors about A.D. 260. Sabellius denied the doctrine of the Trinity, maintaining that God is uni-personal, and that the names Father, Son, and Holy Ghost merely designate the same person in different capacities. As the Father, God created the world; as the Son, he redeemed it; as the Holy Ghost, he sanctifies the elect. These three, he said, are no more different persons than the body, soul, and spirit of man are three persons (Sanford 1910, 827).
In modern times, this doctrine has been taught by the United Pentecostal Church and other religious groups. It is, however, false. This survey will show: (a) The Scriptures do teach the concept of monotheism, i.e., there is oneGod—one unified divine nature. (b) However, the divine nature, i.e., the nature or quality which identifies one as deity (as opposed, for example, to the angelic or human natures) is shared by three distinct personalities, and that these personalities are characterized in the New Testament as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of the three personalities of the Godhead is eternal and equal in essence, though they may assume individual roles in their respective work (which may involve subordination).

Biblical Monotheism

Monotheism is the belief in one God, in contrast to polytheism, the notion that numerous gods exist. Unquestionably, the Bible affirms the concept of monotheism. In the first commandment of the Decalogue, Jehovah charges, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3). Again, “Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Or, “Jehovah, he is God; there is none else besides him” (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 1 Kings 8:60; 1 Chronicles 17:20; Isaiah 43:11; Zechariah 14:9).
In the New Testament, Paul says that “God is one” (Galatians 3:20), while James notes: “You believe that God is one; you do well: the demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19). Clearly, therefore, the oneness of God, in some sense, is a biblical truth. The question is: what does Scripture mean by one God?
In the Old Testament, the words eleloah, and elohim, from related roots, are generic designations of God. The New Testament term is theos. These appellations, when used of the true God, simply suggest the nature or quality of being divine — deity. The word “God” is not the name of a personality; it is the name of a nature, a quality of being. When it is said, therefore, that there is but one God, the meaning is: there is but one divine nature. There is a unified set of traits or characteristics that distinguish a personality as God.

The Divine Three

It is also clear that the Scriptures teach that there is a personal distinction between those individuals identified in the New Testament as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these persons are in some sense three. Study very carefully the following passages in which the persons of the divine Godhead are distinguished: Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; Luke 1:35; John 14:26; 15:26; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Ephesians 2:18; 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21; Revelation 1:4-5.
It is obvious that these inspired verses reveal three separate persons. Furthermore, additional biblical data reveal that each of these three persons is God — i.e., each possesses the quality or nature of deity. The Father is deity (Ephesians 1:3), as is the Son (Hebrews 1:8), and so also the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). Any elementary student of logic knows perfectly well that the Godhead cannot be both one and three without a logical contradiction being involved — if the adjectives “one” and “three” are employed in the identical sense. But the fact of the matter is, they are not used in the same sense. There is but one divine nature, but there are three distinct personalitiespossessing that unified set of infinite qualities. Thus, there is no contradiction at all.
Without a recognition of the above principle, some Bible passages would be difficult to harmonize. For example, in Isaiah 44:24 Jehovah affirms that he “stretches forth the heavens alone; that spreads abroad the earth (who is with me?).” So, God was alone. Yet in John 8:29 Christ said, “And he [the Father] that sent me is with me; he has not left me alone.” And so, Jesus was not alone, for the Father was with him; correspondingly, the Father was not alone. The question is: how can God be both alone and not alone?
In Isaiah’s passage, God (the one divine nature) was being contrasted with the false gods of paganism; the personalities of the Godhead were not a consideration there. In John 8:29, the relationship of two divine personalities (Father and Son) was in view. Different subjects, but no discrepancy. Similarly, when a certain scribe affirmed that “he [God] is one; and there is none other but he” (Mark 12:32), he was correct. He was declaring monotheism, as suggested above. In another setting though, Christ, revealing a distinction between himself and the Father, said: “It is another that bears witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesses of me is true” (John 5:32).

Old Testament Evidence of Divine Plurality

The biblical doctrine of the Godhead is progressive. By that we mean that the concept unfolds, being gradually illuminated from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Nevertheless, the multiple personalities of the holy Godhead clearly are distinguished in the Old Testament.
(1) “In the beginning God [elohim — plural] created [bara — singular]” (Genesis 1:1). In the plural form elohim, many scholars see a “foreshadowing of the plurality of persons in the Divine Trinity” (Smith 1959, 11). Adam Clarke declared that the term “has long been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature” (n.d., 28). Richard Watson wrote that elohim “seems to be the general appellation by which the Triune Godhead is collectively distinguished in Scripture” (1881, 1024).
Though some scholars call this plural form a “plural of majesty” (i.e., a suggestion of multiple majestic traits), Nathan Stone observed that the plural of majesty “was not known then” (1944, 12). Professor Harold Stigers noted: “A multiplicity of personalities in the Godhead, implied in the creative process in the use of the titles ‘God’ (1:1) and ‘Spirit of God’ (1:2), is involved in the creative and redemptive work of God” (1976, 47).
(2) Multiple divine personalities are alluded to in such passages as follows:
  • “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). (Note: this cannot refer to angels, as is often claimed, for angels are themselves created (Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 148:2, 5), not creators; and the context limits the creating to God [v. 27].)
  • “The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” (Genesis 3:22).
  • “Come, let us go down, and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7). (Incidentally, “come” in the Hebrew text is plural, so that the divine spokesman must be addressing and acting in union with at least two others [Thiessen 1949, 126].)
  • “And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” (Isaiah 6:8).
  • “Remember also thy Creator [Hebrew plural] in the days of thy youth” (Ecclesiastes 12:1).
(3) Numerous other passages reveal a distinction of personalities within the Godhead:
  • In Genesis 18:21, Jehovah, temporarily assuming the form of a man, visits Sodom. Surveying the evil of that area, this “Jehovah” then “rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven” (19:24). Two persons are clearly denominated “Jehovah.”
  • “Thus says Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6). (Note: the language of this verse is applied to Christ in Revelation 1:17.)
  • In Zechariah 11:12, 13, Christ prophetically says: “And I said unto them, if ye think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver. And Jehovah said unto me ...”
  • “Jehovah [the first person] said unto my Lord [the second person], Sit thou at my right hand” (Psalm 110:1).
  • “Jehovah [the Father] laid on him [Christ] the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).
  • “The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against Jehovah, [the Father] and against his anointed [the Son] saying, Let us break their bonds asunder, And cast away their cords from us” (Psalm 2:2, 3).
This is but a fractional sampling of a vast amount of Old Testament evidence for the plural personalities of deity.

New Testament Evidence of Divine Plurality

There are many obvious indications of distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in the New Testament. For instance, there is the clear case of the baptismal scene of Christ, where Jesus is in the water, the Father is speaking from heaven, and the Spirit is descending as a dove (Matthew 3:16-17).
Then there is Matthew’s record of the “great commission” where baptism is “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). The term “name” (Greek onoma) stands for becoming the possession of, and under the protection of, the one into whose name an individual is immersed (Arndt and Gingrich 1967, 575), and its singular form here likely stresses the unity of the holy Three. The multiple use of the article “the” before the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, however, according to a well-known rule of Greek grammar (Dana and Mantey 1955, 147), plainly demonstrates that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are separate persons, and not merely three manifestations of one person (Warfield 1952, 42).
There are other New Testament evidences revealing a distinction between the divine persons of the holy Godhead:
(1) Christ is said to be a “mediator” between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5). The word “mediator” translates the Greek mesites (from mesos, “middle,” and eimi, “to go”), and so literally, a go-between. Arndt and Gingrich note that the term is used of “one who mediates between two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal. Of Christ with the genitive of persons between whom he mediates ...” (508). Clearly, Christ cannot be a mediator between God and man if he is the totality of the holy Godhead.
(2) In John 8:16-17, the Lord cited the Old Testament principle of multiple witnesses for legal documentation. He is countering the Pharisaic allegation that his witness is not true (v. 13). He reasons, therefore, that just as the law requires at least two witnesses to establish credibility, so the Lord is “not alone”; he bears witness of himself, and the Father bears witness of him. If Jesus is the same person as the Father, his argument makes no sense!
(3) Christ once taught: “I am the vine, and my Father is the husbandman” (John 15:1). In the same allegory he identified the disciples as “branches.” The narrative thus has three principal features: husbandman (the Father), vine (the Son), and branches (disciples). It is not difficult to see that there is as much distinction between the husbandman and the vine as there is between the vine and the branches.
(4) “But of that day nor that hour knows no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). While Jesus was upon the earth, he knew not the time of the judgment day. The Father, however, did know! Thus, clearly the Father and the Son were not the same person. Similarly, “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him” (Matthew 12:32). The contrast here between the Son and the Holy Spirit plainly shows that they are not identical in personality. These two arguments make it certain that Christ was neither the Father nor the Spirit.
(5) In speaking of Christ’s subordination to God, Paul says: “[T]he head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). Edward Robinson noted the use of “head” (Greek kephale): “Trop. of persons, i.e., the head, the chief, one to whom others are subordinate” (1855, 398). Would it make any sense to speak of one being head of himself?
(6) Jesus is said to be “the very image” of the Father’s substance (Hebrews 1:3). Of the word “image” (Greek charakter), W. E. Vine observed:
In the New Testament it is used metaphorically in Heb. 1:3, of the Son of God as ‘the very image (marg. – the impress) of His substance,’ RV. The phrase expresses the fact that the Son is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint (1940, 247).
(7) The following passages contain contrasts which reveal a distinction between the Father and the Son:
  • Christ did not seek his own will, but the will of his Father (John 5:30).
  • His teaching was not his, but the Father’s (John 7:16).
  • He came not of himself, but was sent of the Father (John 7:28; 8:42).
  • He glorified him (John 8:54).
  • The Father does not judge, but has given judgment unto the Son (John 5:22).
(8) The Jews had neither heard the Father’s voice, nor seen his form at any time (John 5:37; cf. 1:18). But they had both seen and heard Christ. Hence, he was not the same person as the Father.
(9) There are many grammatical forms which show the distinction between the persons of the Godhead. In addition to plural pronouns (e.g., “our,” “we,” “us” [John 14:23; 17:11, 21]), prepositions frequently function in this capacity. The Spirit is sent from the Father (John 15:26). In the beginning Christ was with (Greek pros) God (John 1:1). He spoke the things which he had seen with (Greek para) him (John 8:38), and he came forth fromthe Father (John 16:27). All created things are of the Father, and through Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6). ThroughChrist we have access in the Spirit unto the Father (Ephesians 2:18).
Conjunctions can also indicate a distinction. He that abides in the teaching of Christ has both the Father and the Son (2 John 9). Jesus rebuked the Jews: “Ye know neither me, nor my Father: if ye knew me, ye would know my Father also [Greek kai—as an adverb]” (John 8:19). Comparative terms reveal distinction. Though Christ did not hold onto his equality with God (Philippians 2:6)—in terms of the independent exercise of divine privileges—nonetheless, in essence he was equal with God (John 5:18). In Christ’s subordinate position, though, the Father was greater than he (John 14:28).
(10) Many verbal forms indicate that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate in personality. The Father sentthe Son (John 7:29), and the Son sent the Spirit (John 15:26). The Father loves the Son (John 3:35) and abidesin him (John 14:10). The Father gave the Son (John 3:16), exalted him (Philippians 2:9), and delivered all things unto him (Matthew 11:27). Jesus commended his spirit into the Father’s hands (Luke 23:46) and ascended unto him (John 20:17). The Bible contains many such expressions which are meaningless if the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person.
If we were so disposed, not only could we introduce a number of additional biblical arguments, but we could also show that the writers of the first several centuries of the post-apostolic age were virtually one in affirming that the Godhead consists of three separate, divine persons. Concerning the matter of their being three persons in the Trinity, A. C. Cox wrote: “Evidences, therefore, are abundant and archaic indeed, to prove that the Ante-Nicean Fathers, with those of the Nicean and the Post-Nicean periods, were of one mind, and virtually of one voice” (1855, 49).

Baptism in the Name of Jesus Only

Before concluding, we need to address the Oneness Pentecostal idea that only certain words may be spoken during a baptismal ceremony (e.g., “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ”). Oneness clergymen contend that should the statement be made, “I baptize you into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” it would be a violation of Scripture, and thus negate the validity of the immersion. This exhibits a lack of biblical information on this theme.
First, let us note the illogical consequences of such a doctrine. If a specific set of words is to be pronounced at the time of a baptism, exactly what are those words? A brief look at the New Testament will reveal that a variety of expressions are employed when the terms “baptize” and “name” are connected. Observe the following:
  • “... baptizing them into (eis) the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
  • “... be baptized ... in (epi) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38).
  • “... baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).
  • “... baptized in (en) the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48).
  • “... baptized into (eis) the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5).
These passages contain five variant phraseologies. Which one is to be pronounced at the time of the baptism, to the exclusion of the others? The truth of the matter is none of them has reference to any set of words to be pronounced at the time of baptism.
Second, the language is designed to express certain truths, not prescribe a ritualistic set of words. If the phrase “in the name of Christ” implies the saying of those words in connection with the act to which they are enjoined, what would Colossians 3:17 require?—“And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Accordingly, one would have to preface every word and act with the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Such highlights the absurdity of the Oneness position.
Wayne Jackson
Sources/Footnotes
  • Arndt, W. F. and F. W. Gingrich. 1967. Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Clarke, Adam. n.d. Clarke’s Commentary. Vol. 1. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
  • Cox, A. Cleveland, ed. 1885. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 6. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
  • Dana, H. E. and J. R. Mantey. 1955. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  • Newman, A. H. 1931. Manual of Church History. Vol. 1. Chicago, IL: American Baptist Publication Society.
  • Robinson, Edward. 1855. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.
  • Sanford, E. B., ed. 1910. A Concise Cyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Hartford, CT: S. S. Scranton.
  • Smith, R. Payne. 1959. Genesis. Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
  • Stigers, Harold. 1976. A Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
  • Stone, Nathan. 1944. Names of God. Chicago, IL: Moody.
  • Thiessen, H. C. 1949. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
  • Vine, W.E. (1940), Expository Dictionary of the New Testament (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
  • Warfield, Benjamin. 1952. Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed.
  • Watson, Richard. 1881. A Biblical and Theological Dictionary. Nashville, TN: Southern Methodist Publishing House.
Copyright © 2013 Christian Courier. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

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

The Interpretation of Daniel 2:39 by AP Staff

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=765&b=Daniel

The Interpretation of Daniel 2:39

by AP Staff

Of the difficult passages in the Bible, skeptics often bring out one that may seem more difficult than the rest. They cite it as positive proof that the Old Testament contains historical inaccuracies. Because of its difficult nature, Daniel 2:31-45 bears special consideration, and requires one to “think outside the proverbial box.” The section tells of Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s prophetic dream:
Thou, O king, sawest, and, behold, a great image. This image, which was mighty, and whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the aspect thereof was terrible. As for this image, its head was of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, its legs of iron, its feet part of iron, and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces….
Thou, O king, art king of kings, unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory; and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens hath he given into thy hand, and hath made thee to rule over them all: thou art the head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee; and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things; and as iron that crusheth all these, shall it break in pieces and crush….
And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure (Daniel 2:31-34,37-40,44-45, emp. added).
There are two proposed fallacies in this section of Scripture. The first is the kingdoms supposedly associated with the different sections of the statue, and the second concerns verse 39 where Daniel stated that, “after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee….”
The most widely accepted view of the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is that the silver, brass, and iron and/or clay sections of the statue refer respectively to the Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires. But some question this view, saying that the sections of the statue refer to the Median, Persian, and Greek empires, respectively. This, however, is an easily refutable view: the Medians were never a great empire, but rather existed only as a small kingdom where present-day northern Iran is located. As Leupold stated: “If the statue represents the truth of history, the silver could not refer to a Median empire, for there never was such an empire” (1989, p. 117).
The kingdom of Persia conquered the kingdom of Media, among with other peoples and nations, and became the great Persian Empire upon the capture of Babylon and the subjugation of the Babylonian Empire. (The Persian Empire also is known as the Medo-Persian Empire, cf. Esther 1:19; Daniel 5:28). Some speak vehemently against this interpretation, using only exegesis to derive their view. In doing so, they ignore every piece of contrary historical, archeological, and even prophetic evidence. Barnes correctly stated that “[t]he kingdom here referred to was undoubtedly the Medo-Persian, established by Cyrus in the conquest of Babylon, which continued through the reigns of his successors until it was conquered by Alexander the Great” (1973, 1:158).
Since the second empire must represent the Medo-Persian Empire and not the non-existent Median Empire, critics claim that Daniel is historically inaccurate since the Medo-Persian Empire was larger and richer than the Babylonian Empire, and Daniel 2:39 refers to the second empire as being “inferior.” Keep in mind that the reference to it being inferior does not mean that it necessarily was inferior in all respects. Leupold mentioned the fact that the Persian Empire was inferior in the sense of influence on the rest of the world. Babylonian culture was dominant in that part of the world for around 2,000 years, and is well known for many of its accomplishments in architecture and science (p. 116).
But does Daniel have to be referring solely to materialism when he says that the kingdom was to be inferior? After all, Daniel’ s prophecy dealt mainly with the establishment of the kingdom of Christ (represented by the rock), which is not defined by size, shape, or wealth, but by its people. Perhaps “inferior” could be referring to the moral situation of the empire during the reign of the Persians, as opposed to the Babylonians. Both Barnes and Leupold mention this as a possibility, stating that from the close of the Babylonian Empire, all throughout the time of the Roman Empire, ethics and morals declined greatly (Barnes, 1:160; Leupold, p. 116).
Whether it was in influence or morals, the Medo-Persian Empire was clearly inferior in some respects, yet superior in others (such as size and wealth). Daniel 2:39 never mentioned what was inferior about the second kingdom; rather, he merely stated that something would be inferior, not necessarily everything. When viewed in this light, the supposed historical inaccuracy of Daniel disappears.
REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1973), Notes on the New Testament: Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Leupold, H.C. (1989), Exposition of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Borrowing from Other Nations by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2829


Borrowing from Other Nations

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


It’s no secret that the U.S. Government has been borrowing unprecedented amounts of money in an effort to stave off financial calamity (cf. Ip, 2009; Zuckerman, 2009). The sum of all recognized debt of federal, state, and local governments, international, private households, business and domestic financial sectors in America is now $57 trillion (Hodges, 2009). The majority of that debt has accumulated just in the last three decades, with 79% ($45 trillion) of total debt created since 1990. America is, in fact, the world’s largest international debtor (Hodges).
So what? Is that bad? After leading the nation for 40 years, before departing this life, Moses delivered a magnificent speech to the new generation of Israelites pertaining to their imminent occupation of the Promised Land. In his farewell remarks, God empowered him to articulate critical factors necessary to national survival. He also delineated the specific curses that would afflict the nation if it turned its back on God and His Word, as well as the specific blessings that would enrich the nation if the citizens maintained their commitment to God. Here are insightful, relevant social, political, and economic factors that beckon the attention of the United States of America.
Consider just one: In view of the economic woes facing our own nation, one feature in particular ought to give every American pause. It is listed first in the series of blessings that would characterize the nation if its citizens and leaders would “diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all His commandments” (Deuteronomy 28:1). That blessing? “You shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow” (vs. 12). If, on the other hand, the nation declined spiritually by failing to obey God and keep His commandments, aliens would lend to them (vs. 44).
Economists, politicians, and all Americans should beware. The God of the Bible has articulated precisely the details of national success as well as national catastrophe. We would do well to give sober consideration to them. America is moving swiftly down a pathway to destruction—and that end result will be due to a single factor: America’s shift away from offering due respect and submission to God and Jesus Christ. The solution?
If you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God,...the Lord your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 28:1-2).

REFERENCES

Hodges, Michael (2009), “America’s Total Debt Report,” Grandfather Economic Report, June, [On-line], URL: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm.
Ip, Greg (2009), “We’re Borrowing Like Mad. Can the U.S. Pay It Back?” The Washington Post, January 11.
Zuckerman, Mort (2009), “Drowning in Debt: Obama’s Spending and Borrowing Leaves U.S.Gasping for Air,” New York Daily News, October 10.

All the Smart People by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=910


All the Smart People

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


Even though any person who has ever dealt with logic understands that a groundless appeal to authority or “those on the bandwagon” carries no legitimate weight; it does not change the fact that at the popular level, many individuals have been persuaded to believe false ideas based on the argument that “the authorities” believe a certain way, or that “most people” believe something. Such is the case with the hypothesis of evolution. Richard Dawkins once stated: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (1989, p. 7). The implied argument in Dawkins’ statement is that smart, sane, knowledgeable, and noble people believe in evolution. In fact, one of the most powerful arguments used by evolutionists to convince the populace of evolution’s alleged truthfulness is the false idea that “all smart people believe in evolution,” or that “all scientists” believe in evolution.
To set the record straight, it should be noted that such a notion is false in every sense of the word. From ages past to the present, literally thousands of brilliant minds have recognized the falsity of organic evolution, and have embraced the truth that this Universe was created by a divine Designer. The following litany is but a scratch on the surface of names that would fall into this category.
SCIENTISTCONTRIBUTIONS TO SCIENCE
Lord William KelvinAbsolute temperature scale; study of thermodynamics; transatlantic cable
Sir Isaac NewtonCalculus; reflecting telescope; dynamics; law of gravity
Louis PasteurBacteriology; law of biogenesis; vaccination and immunization
Joseph ListerAntiseptic surgery
Michael FaradayElectric generator
Robert BoyleChemistry
Johannes KeplerCelestial mechanics
Wernher von BraunSpace program; NASA (for list see Huse, 1997, pp. 159,184-185)
Added to this list could be hundreds of names of contemporary scientists such as Dr. John Baumgardner, whose theory on plate tectonics was reported in Nature. Dr. Raymond Jones was described as one of the top scientists in Australia. Dr. Brian Stone has received numerous awards in his engineering field. Raymond Damadian invented MRI [magnetic resonance imaging] (Sarfati, 1999, pp. 26-27). Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith held three earned doctorates from three European universities. Dr. Melvin A. Cook won the 1968 E.G. Murphee Award in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry from the American Chemical Society. Dmitri Kouznetsov, M.D, Ph.D., D.Sc., won the Komsomol Lenin Prize in 1983, distinguishing himself as one of the two most promising scientists in Russia at the time (Gish, 1995, pp. 13-14).
While creationists may be in the minority when it comes to the sciences, they certainly are leaving a most impressive mark. With names such as Kepler, Newton, and Pasteur on the side of creation, it is a marvel that anyone would suggest that “all smart people” believe in evolution. On the contrary, a host of credentialed thinkers, past and present, have held firmly to, and continue to believe in, the statement: “In the beginning God….” (For a more exhaustive list, see Gish, pp. 13-15 and Huse, pp. 157-162.)
This discussion is in no way intended to sway anyone to believe in creation based on the views held by the “smart people” mentioned above. It is intended to report the truth that many intelligent thinkers have found “holes” in the hypothesis of evolution. Truly smart people do away with any faulty appeals to authority, and simply look at the evidence.

REFERENCES

Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review” (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint), The New York Times, section 7, p. 34. April 9.
Gish, Duane T. (1995), Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research).
Huse, Scott M. (1997), The Collapse of Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), third edition.
Sarfati, Jonathan (1999), Refuting Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

The Benevolent, "Leavening" Influence of Christianity by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=248


The Benevolent, "Leavening" Influence of Christianity

by Wayne Jackson, M.A.


In one of his delightfully instructive parables, Jesus set forth the following concept regarding his approaching reign:
The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened (Matthew 13:33).
It is agreed among Bible expositors that the “leaven” of this parable signifies the pervasive and benevolent influence of the kingdom of Christ, as this leaven would make its presence felt from the first century onward. In his classic work on the parables, Trench noted that Christianity, “[w]orking from the centre to the circumference, by degrees...made itself felt, till at length the whole Roman world was, more or less, leavened by it” (1877, p. 121). In his important treatise on the parables, Taylor affirmed that the leaven represents “the good, wholesome, aggressive influence which Christ introduced into the world when he came to earth, and lived and died, and rose again, as the Savior of sinners” (1928, p. 60).
There is, perhaps, no more graphic portrait of the vileness of the Mediterranean world than that which is painted by Paul in the opening chapter of his epistle to the Romans. It is dismal indeed. William Barclay observed:
When we read Romans 1:26-32 it might seem that this passage is the work of some almost hysterical moralist who was exaggerating the contemporary situation and painting it in colours of rhetorical hyperbole. It describes a situation of degeneracy of morals almost without parallel in human history. But there is nothing that Paul said that the Greek and Roman writers of the age did not themselves say (1957, p. 23).
The Scottish scholar then proceeded to document his depiction with ample citations from ancient historians who commented upon this period of depraved history. It was into this hostile environment that the religion of Jesus was inaugurated, gradually but surely changing—much for the better—the moral climate of that world. If one is inclined to think that this appraisal is biased, perhaps we may appeal to the testimony of a writer who never could be accused of entertaining sympathy for Christianity.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), an agnostic, has been characterized as the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature. He was a militant opponent of the religion of Jesus Christ, even producing a popular essay titled, “Why I am not a Christian.” I mention this to argue that whatever testimony we elicit from him certainly will not arise from a heart that is disposed toward the Teacher from Nazareth. Be that as it may, Russell, oddly enough, became an unwitting witness to the truth of the “leavening” activity of the Christian system in the Roman world.
First, the philosopher commented concerning the barbarous practice of infanticide (i.e., the destruction of newborn infants)—a practice so common in the Roman world.
Infanticide, which might seem contrary to human nature, was almost universal before the rise of Christianity, and is recommended by Plato to prevent over-population (1950, p. 92; emp. added).
Second, Russell gave a nodding tribute to the influence of Christianity relative to the status of women in the Roman world.
In antiquity, when male supremacy was unquestioned and Christian ethics were still unknown, women were harmless but rather silly, and a man who took them seriously was somewhat despised (p. 101; emp. added).
Third, there is this comment regarding Christian benevolence in general.
Christianity, as soon as it conquered the state, put an end to gladiatorial shows, not because they were cruel, but because they were idolatrous. The result, however, was to diminish the widespread education in cruelty by which the populace of Roman towns were degraded. Christianity also did much to soften the lot of slaves. It established charity on a large scale, and inaugurated hospitals (p. 137; emp. added).
Our world may be thankful indeed for the lingering influence of Jesus’ life and teaching upon this Earth.

REFERENCES

Barclay, William (1957), The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Russell, Bertrand (1950), Unpopular Essays (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Taylor, William (1928), The Parables of Our Savior (New York: Doubleday).
Trench, R.C. (1877), Notes on the Parables (London: Macmillan).

Things God Cannot Do by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1240

Things God Cannot Do

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Both Christians and atheists generally have assumed that if the God depicted in the Bible exists, He can do anything—since He is represented as being all-powerful. However, this assumption is incorrect. The Bible does not claim that the omnipotence of God implies that He can do anything and everything. In reality, “omnipotence” does not, and cannot, apply to that which does not lend itself to power. Skeptics and atheists have posed queries that they feel nullify the notion of omnipotence, thereby demonstrating the nonexistence of God. For example, “Can God create a boulder so large that He, Himself, cannot lift it?”
Separate and apart from the fact that God is not, Himself, physical, and that He created the entire physical Universe, though He is metaphysical and transcendent of the Universe, the question is a conceptual absurdity. It’s like asking, “Can God create a round square or a four-sided triangle?” No, He cannot—but not for the reasons implied by the atheist: that He does not exist or that He is not omnipotent. Rather, it is because the question is, itself, self-contradictory and incoherent. It is nonsensical terminology. Rather than saying God cannot do such things, it would be more in harmony with the truth to say simply that such things cannot be done at all! God is infinite in power, but power meaningfully relates only to what can be done, to what is possible of accomplishment—not to what is impossible! It is absurd to speak of any power (even infinite power) being able to do what simply cannot be done. Logical absurdities do not lend themselves to being accomplished, and so, are not subject to power, not even to infinite power (see Warren, 1972, pp. 27ff.).
While God can do whatever is possible to be done, in reality, He will do only what is in harmony with His nature. Further, to suggest that God is deficient or limited in power if He cannot create a rock so large that He cannot lift, is to imply that He could do so if He simply had more power. But this is false. Creating a rock that He, Himself, cannot lift, or creating a four-sided triangle, or making a ball that is at the same time both white all over and black all over, or creating a ninety-year-old teenager, or making a car that is larger on the inside that it is on the outside—to propose such things is to affirm logical contradictions and absurdities. Such propositions do not really say anything at all. Though one can imagine logical absurdities that cannot be accomplished, they do not constitute a telling blow against the view that God is infinite in power.
So, no, the concept of “omnipotence” does not mean that there are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do. In fact, the Bible pinpoints specific things that God cannot do. For example, the Bible states unequivocally that God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; 2 Timothy 2:13; Titus 1:2). He is a Being whose very essence entails truthfulness. Falsehood is completely out of harmony with His divine nature. Further, God cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13).
Another impossibility pertaining to God’s power is the fact that He shows no partiality or favoritism (Deuteronomy 10:17; Romans 2:11; Colossians 3:25; 1 Peter 1:17). He is “open and above board”—evenhanded—with all His creatures. He can be counted on to interact with human beings as He said He would. His treatment of us centers on our own self-chosen behavior—not on our ethnicity or skin color (Acts 10:34-35; 1 Samuel 16:7).
A third instance that qualifies the meaning of “omnipotent” is seen in God’s inability to forgive the individual who will not repent and forsake his or her sin (Joshua 24:19; Proverbs 28:13; Matthew 6:15; 18:35; Luke 13:3,5). As great and as magnificent as the mercy and forgiveness of God are, it is impossible to bestow forgiveness upon the person who does not seek that forgiveness by meeting the pre-conditions of remission. God is literally powerless to bestow forgiveness through any other avenue than the blood of Jesus and obedience to the Gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16; 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17).
The more one studies the Bible, examining the attributes and characteristics of the God depicted there, the more one is struck with (1) the inspiration of the Bible—since its skillful handling of such matters places it beyond the charge of successful contradiction, and (2) awe at the infinitude of God. Not one of the factors discussed in this article reflects adversely upon the reality of God’s omnipotence. But it is abundantly clear that a person may so live as to render the God of heaven incapable of coming to that person’s aid. It is imperative that every human being recognizes the need to understand His will and to conform one’s behavior to that will. It is imperative that every individual avoid placing self in the precarious position of being in need of that which God cannot do.

REFERENCES

Warren, Thomas B. (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).