Assumption-Based Rejection of Design by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2522

Assumption-Based Rejection of Design

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In a recent New Scientist article titled “Evolution: A Guide for the Not-Yet Perplexed,” Michael Le Page expressed great confidence in The General Theory of Evolution, even going so far as to declare, “Evolution is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth” (2008, 198[2652]:25). Le Page then proceeded to suggest various reasons why evolutionists reject Intelligent Design. After alleging the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (see DeYoung, 2005 andThompson, 2001 for refutations of this idea), Le Page wrote:

Suppose for a moment that life was designed rather than having evolved. In that case organisms that appear similar might have very different internal workings, just as anLCD screen has a quite different mechanism to a plasma screen. The explosion of genomic research, however, has revealed that all living creatures work in essentially the same way: they store and translate information using the same genetic code, with only a few minor variations in the most primitive organisms (p. 26, emp. added).

Le Page continued: “[I]f organisms had been designed for particular roles, they might be unable to adapt to changing conditions. Instead, countless experiments...show that organisms of all kinds evolve when their environment is altered, provided the changes are not too abrupt” (p. 26, emp. added).

Notice Le Page’s reasons for rejecting Intelligent Design: (1) if life was designed, “organisms...might have very different internal workings,” and (2) designed organisms “might be unable to adapt” to changing environments (p. 26, emp. added). As should be obvious to anyone reading this recent issue of New Scientist, Le Page’s arguments are pure speculation. Neither the similarities in the genetic make-up of living organisms nor the ability of living things to adapt to their environments are reasons to reject design and accept evolution.

Creationists have long recognized similarities among animals and humans. In fact, such similarities (even on a cellular level) should be expected among creatures that drink the same water, eat the same food, breathe the same air, live on the same terrain, etc. But, similarities are just that—similarities. Evolutionists interpret these similarities to mean we all share common ancestors, but they cannot prove it. Likewise, the ability of animals to adapt to their surroundings could just as easily be explained as the product of an omniscient Designer programming life long ago with the ability to adapt to its environment.

New Scientist’s assumption-based rejection of design is completely unsubstantiated. Neither homology nor organisms’ adaptation abilities are proof of The General Theory of Evolution.

REFERENCES

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Le Page, Michael (2008), “Evolution: A Guide for the Not-Yet Perplexed,” New Scientist, 198[2652]:24-33, April 19.

Thompson, Bert (2001), “The Young Earth,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991.

Was Jesus Married? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=4519

Was Jesus Married?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The parade of alleged gospels that purport to alter the foundational doctrines of the Christian religion is endless. Most recently, a papyrus fragment written in Coptic that dates to the fourth century has created a stir. Among its eight badly faded lines are two phrases, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife...’” and a second provocative clause that is believed to say, “she will be able to be my disciple” (Goodstein, 2012). No matter how tentative and flimsy the evidence, liberal scholars and atheists glory in any item that might discredit Christ and Christianity. Yet, even the lead expert on the fragment, historian at the Harvard Divinity School, Karen King, repeatedly cautioned that it “should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question” (Goodstein, emp. added).

Many Christians and non-Christians fail to grasp the fact that the legitimacy and credibility of Christianity does not finally depend on archaeological discovery. If the Bible can be proven to possess the attributes of inspiration, demonstrating its divine origin, then no artifact will ever be discovered that will contradict that truth. If any manuscript or artifact appears to do so, it is being misinterpreted and misconstrued. Since we know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God (based on a careful and thorough analysis of its internal attributes—see the category “Inspiration of the Bible” at apologeticspress.org), then we know that Jesus never married just as the New Testament represents. [NOTE: That is not to say that the Catholic notion of celibacy finds biblical support—it does not. See Pinedo, 2008, pp. 60ff.]

Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that the textual basis of the New Testament was settled and fully authenticated many years ago. The longstanding discipline of Textual Criticism has yielded abundant evidence for the trustworthiness of the text of the New Testament. Over the last two centuries, the manuscript evidence has been thoroughly examined, resulting in complete exoneration for the integrity, genuineness, and accuracy of the Bible. Prejudiced university professors refrain from divulging to their students that the vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not affect salvation nor alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. Even those variants that might be deemed doctrinally significant pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness is unobscured. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. When all of the textual evidence is considered, the vast majority of discordant readings have been resolved (e.g., Metzger, 1978, p. 185). One is brought to the firm conviction that we have in our possession the Bible as God intended.

The world’s foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion. Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime director and principal librarian at the British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements on textual criticism was second to none, stated: “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, 1940, p. 288). The late F.F. Bruce, longtime Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, England, remarked: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1960, pp. 19-20). J.W. McGarvey, declared by the London Timesto be “the ripest Bible scholar on earth” (Brigance, 1870, p. 4), conjoined: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still” (1956, p. 17). And the eminent textual critics Westcott and Hort put the entire matter into perspective when they said:

Since textual criticism has various readings for its subject, and the discrimination of genuine readings from corruptions for its aim, discussions on textual criticism almost inevitably obscure the simple fact that variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text. In the New Testament in particular it is difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free from variation, and need only to be transcribed (1964, p. 564, emp. added).

Noting that the experience of two centuries of investigation and discussion had been achieved, these scholars concluded: “[T]he words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole of the New Testament” (p. 565, emp. added).

Think of it. Men who literally spent their lives poring over ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, devoting their lives to meticulous, tedious analysis of the evidence, conversant with the original languages, without peer in their expertise and qualifications, have concluded that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. No scrap of papyrus written 200+ years after the fact can overturn the last two centuries of scholarly investigation and validation—let alone the Bible’s own inspired testimony to the contrary.

REFERENCES

Brigance, L.L. (1870), “J.W. McGarvey,” in A Treatise on the Eldership by J.W. McGarvey (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications, 1962 reprint).

Bruce, F.F. (1960), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Goodstein, Laurie (2012), “A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife,” The New York Times, September 18, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120919&moc.semityn.www.

Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York, NY: Harper).

McGarvey, J.W. (1956 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Metzger, Bruce M. (1978 reprint), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), second edition.

Pinedo, Moises (2008), What the Bible says about the Catholic Church (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/wtbsatcc.pdf.

Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York, NY: MacMillan).

Differences Do Not Demand Discrepancies by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=459

Differences Do Not Demand Discrepancies

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Sometimes statements differ because they are contradictory. The fact is, nothing can both be and not be for the same person, place, or thing, at the same time, and in the same sense (cf. Jevons, 1928, p. 117; Aristotle, 3:4). It is impossible for a single door to be completely shut and completely open at the same time. It is contradictory for a man to say, “Yesterday I never left my house to go to the store,” if indeed he did leave his house yesterday to go to the store. Differences in stories may very well be the result of lies and contradictory statements.

At the same time, differences do not necessarily mean that various accounts are discrepant. For example, a person may affirm, “I went shopping with my daughter yesterday.” That same person might also tell someone, “Yesterday, I went to several different stores with my best friend.” Both of these statements, though different, easily could be true. Perhaps the mother went shopping with her daughter and her best friend, Melissa. Or, it could be that the daughter is the mother’s best friend. Either way, it would be irresponsible and unreasonable to interpret such differences as contradictions.

People generally understand that differences can abound in various accounts without a person needing to resort to charges of discrepancy. Imagine how long an employee would keep his job if he operated under the assumption that every time one of his colleagues said something that differed from a previous comment or from what another colleague stated, “someone was lying.” Such an employee would soon find himself unemployed. Generally speaking, people who make accusations without sufficient evidence to prove their case are quickly marginalized and distrusted.

Sadly, when it comes to the Bible, many people leave behind reason and fair-mindedness. Different accounts must be “contradictory.” Different wordings by different writers must mean someone was wrong. Though unproven and unprovable assertions in nearly every other area of life are quickly exposed as baseless allegations, when it comes to the Bible, differences are often thought to equal discrepancies.

The fact is, the different but truthful wordings in Scripture are exactly what a person should expect to find in a book composed of 66 smaller books written by approximately 40 different writers, who wrote to different people, at different times, and in different places. Furthermore, the differences in Scripture are parallel to the justifiable differences we expect from each other’s accounts in modern times.

• Why must Luke be mistaken about the temptations of Jesus because he wrote them in a different order than Matthew (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; see Lyons, 2004)? Can a person not give an honest description of something without everything being in chronological order? If a person never said the details are in the precise order in which they occurred, would he not have the freedom to arrange his story however he chose (e.g., climactically or thematically)?

• Was it essential for the apostle John to mention every woman who came to the tomb of Jesus on the morning of His resurrection, or was he at liberty to mention as few as he wanted (John 20:1; cf. Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; cf. Butt, 2004)? If Mary Magdalene was at the tomb on that Sunday morning, and John recorded that she was there, without ever denying that others also were there, could his record of the events be truthful? Of course. Differencesexist among the gospel writers’ accounts, but no one can prove that they are dischordant. Just as a person might say, “I went to the park with Bill, Bob, and Bubba,” he might also truthfully say, “I went to the park with Bill and Betty.” These statements are not contradictory. One merely supplements the other. A person may only mention Bill and Betty in one setting (e.g., at worship where the church knows the married couple), while at another setting (e.g., at the office where only the men are known) he may truthfully just mention the men.

The fact is, if the apostles and prophets wrote independently of each other, and penned their accounts at different times, in different places, to different people, and for different reasons, differences should be expected. However, the differences are not demonstrated discrepancies. They are only “contradictions” in the minds of those (1) who reject reason, and/or (2) who refuse to “retain God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28).

REFERENCES

Aristotle, Metaphysics, trans. W.D. Ross, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.4.iv.html.

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Addition Does Not a Contradiction Make,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=541.

Jevons, W. Stanley (1928), Elementary Lessons in Logic (London: Macmillan).

Lyons, Eric (2004), “In What Order Did Satan Tempt Jesus?” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=746.

Exceptional Spider Silk by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2150

Exceptional Spider Silk

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

To the average person, a spider’s web looks rather weak and flimsy. With the greatest of ease, a person can destroy a web. In only a second, the spider’s house is razed with the wave of a hand. Even Job’s uninspired friend, Bildad, testified of the fragileness of webs when he likened the unrighteous to those “whose trust is a spider’s web” (Job 8:14), who are leaning upon a house that easily perishes. So why are scientists increasingly mesmerized by the spider’s silk webbing?

Scientists are so enamored with spider silk because it has an “exceptional capacity to absorb kinetic energy” (Cunningham, 2007). Although it may not seem strong and tough from the vantage point of a human who easily can tear down a spider’s web, pound-for-pound, the silk from certain kinds of spiders is five times stronger than steel. What’s more, it can stretch 30 percent farther than the stretchiest known nylon, and is twice as flexible. Scientists have discovered that spider silk can even stretch 40 percent beyond its original length without breaking. In fact, due to its amazing strength and flexibility, it has been said that you could stop a jumbo jet in mid-flight with a spider web made of silk only one centimeter thick.

Since harvesting silk from spiders is impractical, scientists are attempting to make synthetic “spider silk” that could be used for countless things, including bulletproof vests, bridge suspension cables, and artificial tendons. Scientists especially covet the silk’s “exceptional capacity to absorb kinetic energy” and are hoping to copy what they call its “winning formula.” How have scientists fared thus far? In truth, even “[t]he best industrial fibers don’t absorb as much kinetic energy as spider silk does.... Despite years of research, scientists still can’t make a material as tough as the silk found within a spider web” (Cunningham, emp. added). Zoologist Chris Holland admitted that synthetic fibers “can’t even come close to” equaling the amazing qualities of spider-produced silk (as quoted in Cunningham).

What explanation do scientists give for the origin of spiders and their exceptional silk? To what do we owe this “winning formula” that intelligent scientists have been attempting to copy for years? According to Holland, “[s]piders...evolved the capacity to spin silk” (as quoted in Cunningham, emp. added). The mastermind behind the unequalled, “energy-efficient, high-performance” fibers in spider silk is, allegedly, mindless evolution. Truly, “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Corinthians 1:25). “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

REFERENCE

Cunningham, Aimee (2007), “Taken for a Spin,” Science News, April 14, [On-line], URL:http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070414/bob8.asp.

Have the Bones of Jesus Been Found? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2102

Have the Bones of Jesus Been Found?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Simcha Jacobovici, a television director, and movie director James Cameron (of Titanic fame) have teamed up to produce a television documentary for Discovery Channel titled “The Jesus Family Tomb.” In this production, Jacobovici suggests that the real tomb of Jesus has been discovered, complete with ossuaries for His body, Mary Magdalene’s body, His mother Mary’s body, and the body of Judah, allegedly the son of Jesus. This outlandish claim, although supposedly backed by scientific and historical “evidence,” is another sad example of senseless hype surrounding baseless claims about Jesus Christ.

The available historic evidence overwhelmingly destroys the false assertions made by Jacobovici. First, the idea that Jesus’ bones were buried would contradict the most historically accurate book ever written—the Bible. As Newsweek writers Miller and Chen wrote: “Good sense, and the Bible, still the best existing historical record of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, argue against Jacobovici’s claims” (2007). Indeed they do. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the most historically documented event in ancient history (see Butt, 2002). The New Testament documents have been examined with a scrutiny beyond any applied to other historical books, and their authenticity and reliability have dumbfounded the most skeptical observers. With one voice, the books of the New Testament declare that Jesus Christ was buried in a borrowed tomb, rose three days after His death, and ascended to heaven, leaving no bones behind to be buried in an ossuary.

Furthermore, besides the fact that Jacobovici’s idea goes against the Bible, other details militate against the tomb being Jesus’ (not that any are needed). For instance, the names on the ossuary were very common. In fact, almost one-fourth of women in Jerusalem at the time would most likely have been named Mary or some derivative form of the name (Miller and Chen, 2007). In addition, the tomb is of a wealthy family and was located in Jerusalem. But Jesus’ family was poor from Nazareth. As Alan Segal, religion professor at Barnard College, stated: “Why would Jesus’ family have a tomb outside of Jerusalem if they were from Nazareth? Why would they have a tomb if they were poor?” (as quoted in Miller and Chen).

In truth, this latest “discovery” is little more than an attempt to cash in on the hype created by Dan Brown (author of The Da Vinci Code) and his ilk. It is so devoid of truth and legitimate historical scholarship that it is more of a science fiction film than a documentary. This and a host of future attempts to cast doubt on the biblical narratives will come and go, but rest assured that “the Word of the Lord endures forever.”

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, 22:9-15, February, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/121.

Miller, Lisa and Joanna Chen (2007), “Raiders of the Lost Tomb?” Newsweek, March 5, [On-line],URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/.

From Mark Copeland... "THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN" Introduction

                      "THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN"

                              Introduction

What was the early church like?  We know a lot about its early leaders,
such as apostles Paul and Peter; but what about the average Christians
themselves?  Were they more spiritual than Christians today?  Did they
experience the kind of problems seen so often in churches today?

Several books of the New Testament reflect the life of the early church,
and this is especially true of The Third Epistle of John.  It is a
private letter, between "The Elder" and a Christian named Gaius.  It
provides portraits of three different men, and in so doing gives us a
glimpse of 1st  century life in local churches.

When one examines the portraits found in this letter, we learn that
there is not much difference between people back then, and in the church
today. Therefore this epistle is very relevant, though we may live
almost 2000 years later.

AUTHOR

"The Elder" (3Jn 1:1) is believed by most conservative scholars to be
the apostle John.  The internal evidence for the third epistle is
similar to that of the second:

   *  The three epistles of John utilize much the same language and ideas

   *  All bear similarity to concepts and language to the Gospel of John

   *  The term "elder" would be a fitting description of John as the
      author, writing in his old age

The external evidence is slight, but Dionysius of Alexandria, living in
the third century A.D., credits John with being the author.

RECIPIENT

The epistle is addressed to "beloved Gaius".  Gaius was a common Roman
name, and appears five times in the New Testament (Ac 19:29; 20:4; Ro
16:23; 1Co 1:14; 3Jn 1:1).  Whether he is one of those mentioned by Luke
or Paul cannot be determined.  He was evidently a dear friend of John,
known for his hospitality (more below).

PLACE AND DATE

Ephesus is usually suggested as the location from which John wrote this
epistle, as he was known to live there in the later years of his life.
Estimation of the date of writing varies widely, some placing it before
the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.).  Most however place it around
90-95 A.D.

PURPOSE AND THEME

The purpose of the epistle is threefold, related to the three men
mentioned by name:

   *  To confirm that Gaius did right in supporting those teachers who
      came his way, encouraging him to continue this hospitality - 3Jn  1:5-8

   *  To express his condemnation of Diotrephes for rejecting John and
      others whom he should had received - 3Jn 1:9-10

   *  To encourage Gaius to imitate what is good, commending Demetrius
      as a good example - 3Jn 1:11-12

As for the theme, with the examples of the three men preserved for us in
this letter, let me suggest one based on the words of John in verse 11:

             Do not imitate what is evil, but what is good

OUTLINE

Here is a simple outline of the book...

Greetings, with an expression of great joy (1-4)
The confirmation of Gaius (5-8)
The condemnation of Diotrephes (9-10)
The commendation of Demetrius (11-12)
Concluding remarks (13-14)

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) Who is author of The Third Epistle Of John?
   - The Elder, likely John the apostle who wrote the gospel of John

2) Who was the recipient of this epistle?
   - The beloved Gaius, identity otherwise unknown

3) When was it written?  From where?
   - Most date it from 90-95 A.D.; Ephesus

4) What has been suggested as its threefold purpose?
   - To confirm Gaius did right
   - To condemn Diotrephes for doing wrong
   - To commend Demetrius as a good example

5) What has been suggested as its theme?
   - Do not imitate what is evil, but what is good

6) What are the main divisions of this epistle as outlined above?
   - Greetings, with an expression of great joy (1-4)
   - The confirmation of Gaius (5-8)
   - The condemnation of Diotrephes (9-10)
   - The commendation of Demetrius (11-12)
   - Concluding remarks (13-14)

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2015

 

From Mark Copeland... "THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN" Chapter One

                      "THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN"

                              Chapter One

John greets Gaius, praying for his prosperity and health, rejoicing to
hear that he is walking in truth (1-4).  John approves his hospitality
toward brethren and strangers, especially those serving the Lord (5-8).
John condemns the deeds of Diotrephes (9-10), commends the testimony of
Demetrius (11-12), and concludes with a hope to see Gaius soon (13-14).

POINTS TO PONDER

   *  The joy of seeing one’s converts growing in Christ

   *  The importance of hospitality in the spread of the gospel

   *  The contrast between spirituality and carnality among Christians

REVIEW QUESTIONS

1) What are the main points of this chapter?
   - Greetings, with an expression of great joy - 3Jn 1:1-4
   - The confirmation of Gaius - 3Jn 1:5-8
   - The condemnation of Diotrephes - 3Jn 1:9-10
   - The commendation of Demetrius - 3Jn 1:11-12
   - Concluding remarks - 3Jn 1:13-14

2) To whom is this epistle addressed? (1)
   - The beloved Gaius

3) For what does John pray in behalf of Gaius? (2)
   - That he may prosper and be in health, just as his soul prospers

4) What gave John his greatest joy? (4)
   - To hear that his children walk in truth

5) For what does John praise Gaius? (5-7)
   - His kindness toward brethren and strangers, especially those
     serving the Lord

6) What benefit do we receive when we support those who serve the Lord?
   (8)
   - We become fellow workers for the truth

7) Of what was Diotrephes guilty? (9-10)
   - Seeking preeminence, refusing to receive John
   - Prating against him with malicious words
   - Refusing to receive brethren, putting out of the church those who
     do

8) What exhortation does John give to Gaius?  Who does he commend?
   (11-12)
   - Do not imitate what is evil, but what is good; Demetrius, for his
     good testimony

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2015

 

From Gary... To retain the very best of childhood!!!

Humm, I still do five of the thirteen; does that mean I am still a kid? How about you? Made a mudpie lately, or jump in puddles? Perhaps those things seem silly- well how about dreaming BIG or sleeping soundly? I would guess most of us would do at least a few of these things, so maybe we haven't completely grown up (and I DON'T WANT TO!!!)?

Nice picture, but one thing was omitted- see if you can guess what it is from the following passage....

1 Corinthians, Chapter 13 (WEB)

¹³ But now faith, hope, and love remain—these three. The greatest of these is love. 

Most of us have reached adulthood; but hopefully we can still love- and if we can still do this, we will never really grow old inside.

Consider this haunting song from old blue eyes...

Frank Sinatra- It was a very good year

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bhNz6saaE8

From Gary... Bible Reading May 3

Bible Reading  

May 3

The World English Bible

May 3

Deuteronomy 21, 22

Deu 21:1 If one be found slain in the land which Yahweh your God gives you to possess it, lying in the field, and it isn't known who has struck him;

Deu 21:2 then your elders and your judges shall come forth, and they shall measure to the cities which are around him who is slain:

Deu 21:3 and it shall be, that the city which is nearest to the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which hasn't been worked with, and which has not drawn in the yoke;

Deu 21:4 and the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer to a valley with running water, which is neither plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley.

Deu 21:5 The priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them Yahweh your God has chosen to minister to him, and to bless in the name of Yahweh; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be.

Deu 21:6 All the elders of that city, who are nearest to the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley;

Deu 21:7 and they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.

Deu 21:8 Forgive, Yahweh, your people Israel, whom you have redeemed, and don't allow innocent blood to remain in the midst of your people Israel. The blood shall be forgiven them.

Deu 21:9 So you shall put away the innocent blood from the midst of you, when you shall do that which is right in the eyes of Yahweh.

Deu 21:10 When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and Yahweh your God delivers them into your hands, and you carry them away captive,

Deu 21:11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire to her, and would take her to you as wife;

Deu 21:12 then you shall bring her home to your house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

Deu 21:13 and she shall put the clothing of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that you shall go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

Deu 21:14 It shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not deal with her as a slave, because you have humbled her.

Deu 21:15 If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers who was hated;

Deu 21:16 then it shall be, in the day that he causes his sons to inherit that which he has, that he may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn:

Deu 21:17 but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has; for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.

Deu 21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and, though they chasten him, will not listen to them;

Deu 21:19 then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out to the elders of his city, and to the gate of his place;

Deu 21:20 and they shall tell the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

Deu 21:21 All the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Deu 21:22 If a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and you hang him on a tree;

Deu 21:23 his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him the same day; for he who is hanged is accursed of God; that you don't defile your land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance.

Deu 22:1 You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely bring them again to your brother.

Deu 22:2 If your brother isn't near to you, or if you don't know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seek after it, and you shall restore it to him.

Deu 22:3 So you shall do with his donkey; and so you shall do with his garment; and so you shall do with every lost thing of your brother's, which he has lost, and you have found: you may not hide yourself.

Deu 22:4 You shall not see your brother's donkey or his ox fallen down by the way, and hide yourself from them: you shall surely help him to lift them up again.

Deu 22:5 A woman shall not wear men's clothing, neither shall a man put on women's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.

Deu 22:6 If a bird's nest chance to be before you in the way, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs, and the hen sitting on the young, or on the eggs, you shall not take the hen with the young:

Deu 22:7 you shall surely let the hen go, but the young you may take to yourself; that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days.

Deu 22:8 When you build a new house, then you shall make a battlement for your roof, that you don't bring blood on your house, if any man fall from there.

Deu 22:9 You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the whole fruit be forfeited, the seed which you have sown, and the increase of the vineyard.

Deu 22:10 You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.

Deu 22:11 You shall not wear a mixed stuff, wool and linen together.

Deu 22:12 You shall make yourselves fringes on the four borders of your cloak, with which you cover yourself.

Deu 22:13 If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and hates her,

Deu 22:14 and accuses her of shameful things, and brings up an evil name on her, and says, I took this woman, and when I came near to her, I didn't find in her the tokens of virginity;

Deu 22:15 then shall the father of the young lady, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the young lady's virginity to the elders of the city in the gate;

Deu 22:16 and the young lady's father shall tell the elders, I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he hates her;

Deu 22:17 and behold, he has accused her of shameful things, saying, I didn't find in your daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. They shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.

Deu 22:18 The elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him;

Deu 22:19 and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young lady, because he has brought up an evil name on a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

Deu 22:20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young lady;

Deu 22:21 then they shall bring out the young lady to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done folly in Israel, to play the prostitute in her father's house: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.

Deu 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman: so you shall put away the evil from Israel.

Deu 22:23 If there is a young lady who is a virgin pledged to be married to a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Deu 22:24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones; the lady, because she didn't cry, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.

Deu 22:25 But if the man find the lady who is pledged to be married in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only who lay with her shall die:

Deu 22:26 but to the lady you shall do nothing; there is in the lady no sin worthy of death: for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter;

Deu 22:27 for he found her in the field, the pledged to be married lady cried, and there was none to save her.

Deu 22:28 If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

Deu 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

Deu 22:30 A man shall not take his father's wife, and shall not uncover his father's skirt.

May 2, 3

Luke 18

Luk 18:1 He also spoke a parable to them that they must always pray, and not give up,

Luk 18:2 saying, "There was a judge in a certain city who didn't fear God, and didn't respect man.

Luk 18:3 A widow was in that city, and she often came to him, saying, 'Defend me from my adversary!'

Luk 18:4 He wouldn't for a while, but afterward he said to himself, 'Though I neither fear God, nor respect man,

Luk 18:5 yet because this widow bothers me, I will defend her, or else she will wear me out by her continual coming.' "

Luk 18:6 The Lord said, "Listen to what the unrighteous judge says.

Luk 18:7 Won't God avenge his chosen ones, who are crying out to him day and night, and yet he exercises patience with them?

Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them quickly. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

Luk 18:9 He spoke also this parable to certain people who were convinced of their own righteousness, and who despised all others.

Luk 18:10 "Two men went up into the temple to pray; one was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector.

Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this: 'God, I thank you, that I am not like the rest of men, extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.

Luk 18:12 I fast twice a week. I give tithes of all that I get.'

Luk 18:13 But the tax collector, standing far away, wouldn't even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'

Luk 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Luk 18:15 They were also bringing their babies to him, that he might touch them. But when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.

Luk 18:16 Jesus summoned them, saying, "Allow the little children to come to me, and don't hinder them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Luk 18:17 Most certainly, I tell you, whoever doesn't receive the Kingdom of God like a little child, he will in no way enter into it."

Luk 18:18 A certain ruler asked him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

Luk 18:19 Jesus asked him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good, except one-God.

Luk 18:20 You know the commandments: 'Don't commit adultery,' 'Don't murder,' 'Don't steal,' 'Don't give false testimony,' 'Honor your father and your mother.' "

Luk 18:21 He said, "I have observed all these things from my youth up."

Luk 18:22 When Jesus heard these things, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have, and distribute it to the poor. You will have treasure in heaven. Come, follow me."

Luk 18:23 But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was very rich.

Luk 18:24 Jesus, seeing that he became very sad, said, "How hard it is for those who have riches to enter into the Kingdom of God!

Luk 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to enter in through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

Luk 18:26 Those who heard it said, "Then who can be saved?"

Luk 18:27 But he said, "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

Luk 18:28 Peter said, "Look, we have left everything, and followed you."

Luk 18:29 He said to them, "Most certainly I tell you, there is no one who has left house, or wife, or brothers, or parents, or children, for the Kingdom of God's sake,

Luk 18:30 who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the world to come, eternal life."

Luk 18:31 He took the twelve aside, and said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all the things that are written through the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be completed.

Luk 18:32 For he will be delivered up to the Gentiles, will be mocked, treated shamefully, and spit on.

Luk 18:33 They will scourge and kill him. On the third day, he will rise again."

Luk 18:34 They understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they didn't understand the things that were said.

Luk 18:35 It happened, as he came near Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the road, begging.

Luk 18:36 Hearing a multitude going by, he asked what this meant.

Luk 18:37 They told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by.

Luk 18:38 He cried out, "Jesus, you son of David, have mercy on me!"

Luk 18:39 Those who led the way rebuked him, that he should be quiet; but he cried out all the more, "You son of David, have mercy on me!"

Luk 18:40 Standing still, Jesus commanded him to be brought to him. When he had come near, he asked him,

Luk 18:41 "What do you want me to do?" He said, "Lord, that I may see again."

Luk 18:42 Jesus said to him, "Receive your sight. Your faith has healed you."

Luk 18:43 Immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God. All the people, when they saw it, praised God.