The Founders on Homosexuality by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1126

The Founders on Homosexuality

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Of those living today in America who were alive 50 years ago, few could have imagined, let alone predicted, that homosexuality would encroach on our culture as it has. In fact, it would have been unthinkable. The rapidity with which homosexual activists continue successfully to bully the nation to normalize what once was universally considered abnormal is astonishing. And toleration has not satisfied them. Allowing their views to be taught in public schools has not appeased them. No, they insist that societal endorsement extend to redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.
A pernicious plague of sexual insanity is creeping insidiously through American civilization. Far more deadly than the external threat of terrorism, or even the inevitable dilution of traditional American values caused by the infiltration of illegal immigrants and the influx of those who do not share the Christian worldview, this domino effect will ultimately end in the moral implosion of America. Indeed, America is being held captive by moral terrorists. The social engineers of “political correctness” have been working overtime for decades to restructure public morality.
The Founding Fathers of these United States would be incredulous, incensed, and outraged. They understood that acceptance of homosexuality would undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization. Sodomy, the longtime historical term for same-sex relations, was a capital crime under British common law. Sir William Blackstone, British attorney, jurist, law professor, and political philosopher, authored his monumental Commentaries on the Laws of England from 1765-1769. These commentaries became the premiere legal source admired and used by America’s Founding Fathers. In Book the Fourth, Chapter the Fifteenth, “Of Offences Against the Persons of Individuals,” Blackstone stated:

IV. WHAT has been here observed..., which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast.... But it is an offence of so dark a nature...that the accusation should be clearly made out....
I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which treats it, in it’s very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; peccatum illud horribile, inter chriftianos non nominandum [“that horrible sin not to be named among Christians”—DM]. A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: ubi fcelus eft id, quod non proficit fcire, jubemus infurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquifitis poenis fubdantur infames, qui funt, vel qui futuri funt, rei [“When that crime is found, which is not profitable to know, we order the law to bring forth, to provide justice by force of arms with an avenging sword, that the infamous men be subjected to the due punishment, those who are found, or those who future will be found, in the deed”—DM]. Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.
THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to death; though Fleta says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Goths. But now the general punishment of all felonies is the fame, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur [“advocates and conspirators should be punished with like punishment”—DM] (1769, 4.15.215-216, emp. added).
Here was the law of England—common law—under which Americans lived prior to achieving independence. That law did not change after gaining independence. To say the least, such thinking is hardly “politically correct” by today’s standards.

Sir William Blackstone

How many Americans realize that while serving as the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, the Father of our country was apprised of a homosexual in the army. The response of General Washington was immediate and decisive. He issued “General Orders” from Army Headquarters at Valley Forge on Saturday, March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose (“George...,” underline in orig., emp. added).

Images courtesy of Library of Congress, Manuscript Division

Observe that the Father of our country viewed “sodomy” (the 18th-century word for homosexual relations) “with Abhorrence and Detestation.”
Homosexuality was treated as a criminal offense in all of the original thirteen colonies, and eventually every one of the fifty states (see Robinson, 2003; “Sodomy Laws...,” 2003). Severe penalties were invoked for those who engaged in homosexuality. In fact, few Americans know that the penalty for homosexuality in several states was death—including New York, Vermont, Connecticut, and South Carolina (Barton, 2000, pp. 306,482). Most people nowadays would be shocked to learn that Thomas Jefferson advocated “dismemberment” as the penalty for homosexuality in his home state of Virginia, and even authored a bill to that effect (1781, Query 14; cf. 1903, 1:226-227).

Image courtesy of Library of Congress, General Collections

In the greater scheme of human history, as civilizations have proceeded down the usual pathway of moral deterioration and eventual demise, the acceptance of same-sex relations has typically triggered the final stages of impending social implosion. America is being brought to the very brink of moral destruction. The warning issued by God to the Israelites regarding their own ability to sustain their national existence in the Promised Land is equally apropos for America:Where did the Founding Fathers and early American citizenry derive their views on homosexuality? The historically unequivocal answer is—the Bible. “Traditional” (i.e., biblical) marriage in this country has always been between a man and a woman. In the words of Jesus: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5, emp. added). He was merely quoting the statement made by God regarding His creation of the first man and woman (Genesis 1:27; 2:24). God created Adam and Eve—not Adam and Steve, or Eve and Ellen. And throughout the rest of biblical history, God’s attitude toward same-sex relations remained the same (Miller, et al., 2003).

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.... Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations...lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you (Leviticus 18:22-28, emp. added).

Mark it down: THE GOD OF THE BIBLE WILL NOT ALLOW THE ABOMINATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY TO GO UNCHALLENGED AND UNPUNISHED. Unless something is done to stop the moral degeneration, America would do well to prepare for the inevitable, divine expulsion.

REFERENCES

Barton, David (2002), Original Intent (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilders), 3rd edition.
Blackstone, William (1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch15.htm.
“George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders” (1778), The George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799, from ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit (gw110081)).
Jefferson, Thomas (1781), Notes on the State of Virginia, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.
Miller, Dave, et al.(2003), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Reason & Revelation, 24[9]:81, December, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2577.
Robinson, B.A. (2003), “Criminalizing Same-Sex Behavior,” [On-line], URL: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws1.htm.
“Sodomy Laws in the United States” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/usa.htm.

Historical Support for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I] by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=743

Historical Support for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This two-part article is the fruit of Eric’s in-depth analysis of the historical evidence that demonstrates man and dinosaurs lived together on the Earth in the not-too-distant past. Look for Part II next month.]

No animal, extinct or living, captures the attention of people more than dinosaurs. For decades, they have mesmerized children and entertained adults. Dinosaurs are pictured on television, in books, classrooms, movies, magazines, and on all sorts of paraphernalia. Advertisers use them to sell everything from oatmeal to hamburgers and board games to piggy banks. This animal is so popular with children that it often has its own section in bookstores. Unfortunately, dinosaurs also play a major role in teaching evolutionary theory.
We at Apologetics Press feel compelled to write about these extinct reptiles occasionally because they are the poster children for the theory of evolution. What the gecko is to Geico®, dinosaurs are to evolution. Consider an example of their “poster child” status. In the widely used, 100-page middle school science textbook titled Evolution—Change Over Time (published by Prentice Hall), attempts are made to establish evolution as a fact by using a variety of alleged proofs. One piece of “evidence,” however, that appears on nearly one out of every three pages, centers on dinosaurs. The first two chapters in this three-chapter textbook begin with pictures and text about dinosaurs. In several sections of the book (in which the main thrust is not dinosaurs), students are asked to participate in reading or writing activities that focus on dinosaurs. Truly, the authors and editors of this “science” textbook (which recently was used throughout the United States) have attempted to indoctrinate young minds with the “truths” of evolution by using dinosaurs more than anything else. Indeed, these animals are so entwined with evolutionary thinking that in his anti-creationist book titled Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted that solid evidence for the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans would “shake the foundations of evolutionary theory, because, of course, the dinosaurs are supposed to have been long extinct by the time the hominids arrived on the scene” (1982, p. 121, emp. added).
What does history have to tell us about these extinct creatures? If dinosaurs and humans once walked the Earth together (as the Bible implies—Exodus 20:11), it is logical to conclude that humans would have left behind at least two different types of evidence. First, similar to how we take pictures of places we visit and wildlife we see in modern times, people living hundreds or thousands of years ago (before the invention of cameras) likely would have drawn or carved pictures of dinosaurs, as well as many other animals. As we have noted previously in Reason & Revelation, such ancient drawings actually exist (see Butt and Lyons, 2005). Second, just as we tell stories today of interesting things that we have seen and heard, the ancients would have told stories about dinosaurs, if they ever encountered these creatures. Do such stories exist? Is there historical support for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans? You be the judge.

LEGENDS

Often, people refer to stories of the distant past as legends. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “legend” as “1a. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical. b. A body or collection of such stories. c. A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times” (2000, p. 1000). Although sometimes told in a believable fashion, many legends, no doubt, are pure fantasy. They are filled with imaginary people and animals performing all sorts of unbelievable, magical, mythical deeds. Santa Claus flying through the air with his reindeer on the eve of December 25 delivering gifts all over the world; Rip Van Winkle sleeping for 20 years under a shade tree; or Paul Bunyan and his blue ox creating Minnesota’s lakes with their giant footprints—all could be categorized as legendary characters performing imaginary feats. Legends of mermaids, sphinxes, and centaurs also can be safely classified as pure fantasy.
Other legends, however, are not so fanciful. Stories that are ubiquitous, included in reputable, historical writings as factual, and supported by science cannot reasonably be disregarded as “just unbelievable legends.” Take, for example, the legend of a worldwide flood. Stories have surfaced in hundreds of cultures throughout the world that tell of a huge, catastrophic flood which destroyed most of mankind, and that was survived only by a few individuals and animals (Perloff, 1999, p. 167). The Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese, Aztecs, Toltecs, and many others have variations of the flood story. According to evolutionary geologist Robert Schoch, “Noah is but one tale in a worldwide collection of at least 500 flood myths” (2003, p. 249). Canadian geologist Sir William Dawson wrote about how the record of the Flood “is preserved in some of the oldest historical documents of several distinct races of men, and is indirectly corroborated by the whole tenor of the early history of most of the civilized races” (1895, pp. 4ff.). Even the most well-preserved book of antiquity, the Bible, which Christians believe to be the truthful, inspired Word of God, testifies repeatedly that a worldwide flood engulfed the Earth in the days of the patriarch Noah (Genesis 6-8; Isaiah 54:9; Matthew 24:36-39; Luke 17:26-27; 1 Peter 3:20). What’s more, much scientific evidence exists suggesting the occurrence of a universal flood sometime in the past. In their book The Genesis Flood, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris spent nearly 100 pages presenting such data (1961, pp. 116-211). Worldwide stories of a worldwide flood? Preserved in some of the oldest historical documents, including the Bible? Corroborated by an assortment of scientific facts? Though various details in the hundreds of worldwide flood legends have been tainted over time with multiple errors and contradictions (e.g., the Aztecs’ legend that indicates only two people survived the global Flood rather than eight), there are logical reasons to believe that the general outlines of flood legends are true and testify to the Bible’s reliability (see Lyons and Butt, 2003).

DRAGON LEGENDS

But what about dinosaurs? Is there any evidence from history that humans lived with these giant reptiles from the past? Are there stories of humans interacting with large reptilian creatures that possessed massive tails, fearsome teeth, hefty legs, horned heads, and spiked backs?

Indeed, a wide variety of stories of large reptiles have been passed down through the ages from cultures all over the world. Many of these creatures sound very much like dinosaurs, or dinosaur-like (marine or flying) reptiles (e.g., plesiosaurus and pterodactyl). However, these animals never are called dinosaurs in the stories. Since the term “dinosaur” (from the Greek words deinos, meaning “fearfully great,” and sauros, meaning “lizard” or “reptile”) was not coined until the early 1840s (when fossilized dinosaur bones were first discovered and reconstructed in modern times), stories told previously of “fearfully great reptiles” could not have included the word “dinosaur.” Instead, the name attached to these creatures was “dragon.” Have some dragon legends been embellished over time? Of course. Just as people today tend to embellish the size of fish they catch or the size of a dog that nips their leg, people in the past said things about dragons that undoubtedly were exaggerations. Such inaccuracies, however, do not negate the overriding truth that “fearfully great reptiles” of many different shapes and sizes once lived with humans—anymore than the differences in worldwide flood legends mean we must discount the idea of a universal flood.

The Ubiquity and Antiquity of Dragon Legends

Were legends of large dinosaur-like reptiles only to appear late in the histories of a handful of cultures around the world, one might well argue for their dismissal in legitimate historical discussions. After all, what is a smattering of strange animal descriptions and fairy-tale-like stories interspersed in only a few places on Earth? Such similar stories of unique reptilian creatures in only a handful of places on the globe might reasonably be passed off as just coincidence. The “coincidence card,” however, looks rather weak in light of the vast amount of testimony regarding the longstanding, widespread nature of dragon legends.

Many authors are adamant that dragons were purely mythical creatures. Yet, interestingly, these same writers testify to the ubiquity of dragon legends. Take, for example, Carl Lindall, contributing writer for World Book Encyclopedia. He believes “[d]ragons did not really exist,” even though “[e]very country had them in its mythology. In Greece dragons were slain by Hercules, Apollo, and Perseus. Sigurd, Siegfried, and Beowulf killed them in Norse, German, and English legend” (1996, 5:265-266, emp. added). In his brief book on Chinese Dragons, Roy Bates, like Lindall, suggested that the dragon “was never a real beast” (2002, p. 15). Yet, Bates similarly confessed: “No other creature in the world has had such a far-reaching influence on the minds of so many people” (p. vii, emp. added). A 1981 Science Digest article, titled “The Spread of Dragon Myths,” informed readers, “as myth they [dragons—EL] are among the most...persistent and widespread in the world. From millennium to millennium and over all the earth’s continents, dragon and serpent lore shows remarkable similarity” (1981, 89:103). Still, Science Digest was adamant that “[d]ragons, of course, are myth” (89:103).

Several others also have testified to the widespread nature of dragon legends. The famed twentieth-century evolutionist, Carl Sagan, noted: “The implacable mutual hostility between man and dragon, as exemplified in the myth of St. George is strongest in the West.... But it is not a Western anomaly. It is a worldwide phenomenon” (1977, p. 150, emp. added). Militant evolutionist and LiveScience.com staff writer Ker Than admitted: “Dragons are...found in the myths and legends of cultures all around the world” (2007). James Perloff wrote:

The Flood is not the only common remembrance of the world’s cultures. They also remember “dragons.” From England to China, these were a long part of national “mythologies.” The Indians of North and South America had legends about them. They were written of in Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Persia, Russia, India, and Japan (1999, p. 181).

On the inside front dust jacket of his book, Dragons: A Natural History, Dr. Karl Shuker noted that dragons “have been found in an astounding number of places. Dragons and their near relatives have found niches in every ecosystem on the planet—from the mountains of Greece to the forests of northern Europe to the volcanic plain of Mesoamerica to the river valleys of China—and have, as a consequence, become deeply embedded in human culture” (1995). Shuker even included a world map showing the existence of dragon legends in cultures on every continent except Antarctica (pp. 6-7). Daniel Cohen called the dragon “the most common monster in the world.... People all over the world have believed in dragons” (1975, p. 97). “A thousand years ago dragons were such familiar creatures that what they looked like and how they behaved was common knowledge to every man, woman, and child,” wrote Dr. Peter Hogarth and Val Cleary in their book Dragons (1979, p. 12). They continued: “No matter where they lived, everyone could describe dragons and dragon behavior...” (p. 12). In her book, British Dragons, Jacqueline Simpson mentioned how in Great Britain alone some 80 dragon legends have been uncovered (1980, p. 10). “Over 70 villages and small towns [in Great Britain—EL] still have a tradition about a local dragon, or can be shown on good evidence to have had such a tradition in the past” (p. 9).
In 2005, Animal Planet aired a program (later released on DVD) titled Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real. The film incorporated legend, alleged scientific facts, various theories (including, and especially, evolution), state-of-the-art CGI animation, and the voice talent of Patrick Stewart. It was a highly publicized film that once again put a spotlight on dragons. Although it was far from a legitimate documentary, several statements from the film reinforce the ubiquitous nature of dragon stories. Within the first minute of the program, the viewer learns:

There is one creature remembered in the legends of almost every human culture that’s ever existed. A creature depicted with remarkable similarity by the Chinese, the Aztecs, even the Inuit who live in a frozen land where no reptiles are found—even they have stories of this animal: the dragon. Cultures from different continents, people who had no contact with one another yet all of them have stories describing the same mythical animal (Dragons: A Fantasy..., 2005a).

The dragon is “a creature that burns bright in the memory of all humankind” (2005a). “People that could have never spoken to one another shared visions of the same creature”—the dragon (Dragons: A Fantasy..., 2005b). On the back cover of the Dragons DVD, Animal Planet highlighted how “[t]hroughout human history, people have been fascinated with dragons, which have appeared in the myths and legends of almost every world culture” (2005a). Although, admittedly, Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real was more “docu-fantasy” than documentary, the repeated comments about the world’s immersion in dragon lore are backed by an enormous reserve of testimony. All historians and dragon lovers seem to be in agreement on at least this one point: reports of dragons are universal.
Dragon legends also are characterized by their longstanding tradition. According to The New Encyclopedia Britannica, “From ancient times, it [the Chinese dragon—EL] was the emblem of the Imperial family, and until the founding of the republic (1911) the dragon adorned the Chinese flag” (“Dragon,” 1997, 4:209, emp. added; see also Bates, 2002, p. vii). In his book, History Begins at Sumer, Dr. Samuel Kramer observed how “the dragon-slaying theme was an important motif in the Sumerian mythology of the third millennium B.C.” (1959, p. 170, emp. added). “[F]our thousand years ago,” Hogarth and Clery wrote, “sightings of dragons seem to have been almost as frequent as sightings of whales today” (1979, p. 13). Dragons are anything but new. Unlike new breeds of dogs and other animals which seem to pop up every few years, the dragon seems always to have been in the mind of man. Animal Planet admitted: “This is the animal about which humankind has throughout our history been most compelled by” (Dragons: A Fantasy..., 2005a, emp. added). Though we would disagree highly with Science Digest’s extended, evolutionary timetable, notice what the journal suggested about the antiquity of dragon legends: “[T]he earliest dragonlike [sic] myths may have originated as long as 100,000 years ago.... As myth they [dragons—EL] are among the most ancient.... Dragon legends have been with humanity since the dawn of recorded history...” (“The Spread...,” 1981, 89:103). Dragon legends are not just cute stories that our ancestors began telling only in the last few centuries. They have been told all over the world for millennia. Such antiquity and ubiquity deserves an adequate explanation.

The Variety of Dragons

The English word “dragon” is derived from the Greek word drakonvia the Latin draco, which “was used originally for any large serpent” (“Dragon,” 1997, 4:209) or reptile (Hogarth and Clery, 1979, p. 80), whether real or mythological, aquatic, aerial, or terrestrial. [NOTE: The Greek legend of Medea flying through the air in a chariot pulled by dragons indicates that even in Greek culture something more than just large snakes often was implied by the use of drakon.] In English, “dragon” came to mean a creature that was “basically reptilian,” though with a variety of possible features, such as wings, legs, claws, horns, etc. (cf. Simpson, 1980, p. 14). The forms of dragons “varied from the earliest of times,” but its reptilian traits were always dominant (“Dragon,” 4:209).
In his book, Dragons: A Natural History, Dr. Shuker observed: “For although the winged, four-legged, flame-spewing horror of classical mythology may well be the most famous type of dragon in the Western world, it is far from being the only type on record” (1995, p. 9). Daniel Cohen agreed, saying, “[T]here are many kinds of dragons” (1975, p. 97). Tiamat of ancient Babylon was said to have a scaly body, four legs, and wings (“Dragon,” 4:209). Sirrush was depicted in Babylon with four legs, scales, a horned head, and a snake-like tongue. Chinese dragons have “a long, scaly, serpentine neck and body,” as well as four legs, but they are mostly wingless (Rose, 2000, p. 279). According to Hogarth and Clery, Chinese dragons were said to have resembled each other in nine ways, more or less: “The horns resemble those of a stag, his head that of a camel, his eyes those of a demon, his neck that of a snake, his belly that of a clam, his scales those of a carp, his claws those of an eagle, his soles like those of a tiger, his ears those of a cow” (1979, p. 53). Western dragons, like the oriental dragons, had large, scale-covered, elongated bodies with two or four legs, and tails. Unlike most of the Eastern dragons, however, many of the Western dragons had “vast wings like those of a bat” (Rose, p. 104), and some with crested heads.
Wales, whose national flag predominately displays a red dragon (an animal associated with the country for centuries), reportedly once had many reptiles occupying its airspace. According to Marie Trevelyan:

The woods round Penllyne Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike.... Some of them had crests sparkling with all the colours of the rainbow. When disturbed they glided swiftly...to their hiding places. When angry, they flew over people’s heads, with outspread wings bright...like the features in a peacock’s tail (as quoted in Simpson, 1980, p. 34).

After being wounded, one of these “winged serpents” was said to have begun beating its assailant about the head with its wings” (p. 34).
In the English epic Beowulf, more than 1,000 years old, the hero is said to have encountered a “fearsome earth-dragon.” It was described as a “crooked, coiled worm” that “flies through the night, enveloped in flame,” causing men to “fear him greatly.” As the story goes, Beowulf killed the beast, but not before its venomous bite ultimately led to his own doom (see Simpson, pp. 28-29).
Two well-known ancient historians documented that flying reptiles and humans were contemporaries more than 2,000 years ago. Herodotus, respected Greek historian who lived in approximately 450 B.C., once wrote:

There is a place in Arabia...to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of a water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat (n.d., emp. added).

Herodotus recognized that such creatures were not birds, mammals, or insects—but reptiles with wings. In the first-century A.D. the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Moses and the Israelites having a difficult time passing through a particular region because of the presence of flying reptiles.

When the ground was difficult to be passed over, because of the multitude of serpents (which it produces in vast numbers...some of which ascend out of the ground unseen, and also fly in the air, and do come upon men at unawares, and do them a mischief)....

[Moses] made baskets like unto arks, of sedge, and filled them with ibes [i.e., birds], and carried them along with them; which animal is the greatest enemy to serpents imaginable, for they fly from them when they come near them; and as they fly they are caught and devoured by them (1987, 2:10:2, emp. added).

Although these two historians did not mention the extremely large flying reptiles, they did record snake-like winged creatures that could fly.
In the 1200s, Italian explorer Marco Polo wrote of seeing long, two-legged reptiles (called “lindworms”) while passing through Central Asia (n.d., 2:49). Time-Life reported how one ancient Chinese emperor of the Sung Dynasty (c. A.D. 1000-1300) is said to have raised a dragon in his palace (Dragons..., 1984, p. 57). According to a chronicle in Canterbury Cathedral, around A.D. 1449, Englishmen reported seeing “two fire-breathing dragons engaged in a fierce, hour-long struggle.” One was black, while the other was “reddish and spotted” (Folklore..., 1973, p. 241). In her book British Dragons, Jacqueline Simpson brings to light several dragon legends, including one that in 1866 was reported to have originally occurred in 1405.

Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail, extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep. There came forth in order to shoot at him with arrows the workmen of the lord on whose estate he had concealed himself, being Sir Richard de Waldegrave, Knight; but the dragon’s body, although struck by the archers, remained unhurt, for the arrows bounced off his back as if it were iron or hard rock. Those arrows that fell upon the spine of his back gave out as they struck it a ringing of tinkling sound, just as if they had hit a brazen plate, and then flew away off by reason of the hide of this great beast being impenetrable. Thereupon, in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again about to be assailed with arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more seen (p. 60, emp. added).

[to be continued]

REFERENCES

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Bates, Roy (2002), Chinese Dragons (Oxford: University Press).
Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2005), “A Trip Out West—To See the Dinosaurs,” Resources, 4[3]:9R-11R, March, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2705.
Cohen, Daniel (1975), The Greatest Monsters in the World (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Company).
Dawson, John William (1895), The Historical Deluge in Relation to Scientific Discovery (Chicago, IL: Revell).
“Dragon” (1997), The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica).
Dragons: The Enchanted World (1984), (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books).
Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real (2005a), Animal Planet (Silver Spring, MD: Discovery Communications).
Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real (2005b), “Trailer: Dragon Culture,” Animal Planet, [On-line], URL: http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/dragons.html.
Folklore, Myths and Legends of Britain (1973), (London: Readers’ Digest).
Herodotus (no date), The History of Herodotus, trans. George Rawlinson, [Online], URL: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/mirror/classics.mit.edu/ Herodotus/history.2.ii.html.
Hogarth, Peter and Val Clery (1979), Dragons (New York: Viking Press).
Josephus, Flavius (1987 edition), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Kitcher, Philip (1982), The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Kramer, Samuel Noah (1959), History Begins at Sumer (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Lindall, Carl (1996), “Dragon,” World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago, IL: World Book).
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2003), “Legends of the Flood,” Reason & Revelation, 23[11]:102-103, November, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/40.
Perloff, James (1999), Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism (Arlington, MA: Refuge Books).
Polo, Marco (no date), The Travels of Marco Polo, [On-line], URL: https://www.nauticus.org/ebooks/TheTravelsofMarcoPoloVolume2.pdf.
Rose, Carol (2000), Giants, Monsters, and Dragons: An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend, and Myth (New York: W.W. Norton).
Sagan, Carl (1977), The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House).
Schoch, Robert M. (2003), Voyages of the Pyramid Builders (New York: Jeremy P. Parcher/Putnam).
Shuker, Karl (1995), Dragons: A Natural History (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Simpson, Jacqueline (1980), British Dragons (London: B.T. Batsford).
“The Spread of Dragon Myths” (1981), Science Digest, 89:103, May.
Than, Ker (2007), “Top 10 Beasts and Dragons: How Reality Made Myth,” LiveScience.com, [On-line], URL: http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_dragons.html.
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed).

Historical Support for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part II] by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1247

Historical Support for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part II]

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the September issue. Part II follows below, and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Although some will continue to dismiss all dragons as purely mythical creatures, the widely purported, eyewitness accounts of these animals indicate otherwise. In his foreword to Dr. Shuker’s book Dragons: A Natural History, Desmond Morris remarked: “As recently as the seventeenth century, scholars wrote of dragons as though they were scientific fact, their anatomy and natural history being recorded in painstaking detail” (Shuker, 1995, p. 8). Hogarth and Clery agreed, saying, “No matter where they lived, everyone could describe dragons and dragon behavior in colorfully lurid detail” (1979, p. 12). They continued:

The evidence [for dragons—EL] is not confined to works of natural history and literature but appears in everyday chronicles of events.... And such eyewitness accounts are not derived from hearsay or anonymous rumor; they were set down by people of some standing, by kings and knights, monks and archbishops, scholars and saints (pp. 13-14).

Even Animal Planet could not help but be impressed by the voluminous amount of documentation for these animals. In their 2005 film on dragons they expressed amazement over “how much was known about dragons.... All the different kinds of dragons. And it’s all documented in medieval manuscripts and Chinese encyclopedias” (Dragons: A Fantasy..., emp. added). One of the producers of the film even asked: “Everyday of the week Animal Planet tells you about all the animals around this planet that we live on. But what about the one animal that we all know about, the one animal that we all grew up with, the one animal that’s in popular culture around the world?” (2005, emp. added). Why do more people not consider these animals as historical? After all, as consultant Dr. Peter Hogarth pointed out, “People believed in dragons as real animals, just like any other animal. And, actually if you think about it, how could you say in Western Europe in the Middle Ages that an elephant was a real animal and a dragon wasn’t? The information you had about them was both the same in each case” (2005).

Pteranodon had a wingspan of over 23 feet.

Even the Bible—the most historically documented, widely read ancient book in all the world—describes dragon-like animals. Like Herodotus and Josephus, it mentions the “flying serpent” (Isaiah 30:6). In Job 40, God described a behemoth with bones “like bars of bronze,...ribs like bars of iron” (vs. 18) whose tail “moves...like a cedar” (vs. 17). This behemoth was “chief of the ways of God” (vs. 19, ASV). Though there likely was much speculation about this animal, since he apparently lived a more secluded life “under the lotus trees, in a covert of reeds and marsh” (vs. 21), it was no fairytale creature, for God told Job that, the behemoth, “I made along with you” (vs. 15).
Still, perhaps more notable than the massive behemoth is the creature that God described next. In speaking to Job about His sovereignty over the natural world, Jehovah described a real animal called leviathan. God began by asking several rhetorical questions:

Can you draw out leviathan with a hook, or snare his tongue with a line which you lower? Can you put a reed through his nose, or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he make many supplications to you? Will he speak softly to you? Will he make a covenant with you? Will you take him as a servant forever? Will you play with him as with a bird, or will you leash him for your maidens? Will your companions make a banquet of him? Will they apportion him among the merchants? Can you fill his skin with harpoons, or his head with fishing spears? Lay your hand on him; remember the battle—never do it again! Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false; shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him? No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.... I will not conceal his limbs, his mighty power, or his graceful proportions. Who can remove his outer coat? Who can approach him with a double bridle? Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around (41:1-14)?

Job could do none of these things. Through poetic language, God obviously was reminding Job of leviathan’s renowned strength and ferocity. God continued his description of leviathan, saying:

“Leviathan” by Lewis Lavoie

His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted. His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth. Strength dwells in his neck, and sorrow dances before him. The folds of his flesh are joined together; they are firm on him and cannot be moved. His heart is as hard as stone, even as hard as the lower millstone. When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid; because of his crashings they are beside themselves. Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins. His undersides are like sharp potsherds; He spreads pointed marks in the mire. He makes the deep boil like a pot; he makes the sea like a pot of ointment. He leaves a shining wake behind him; one would think the deep had white hair. On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear. He beholds every high thing; He is king over all the children of pride (41:15-34).

Could a better description of a dragon be found anywhere? Leviathan had mighty power, an extremely strong neck, “terrible teeth all around,” tightly joined rows of scales that were virtually impenetrable, and a jagged underside that left pointed marks on the ground when it came on land. Most impressive was its ability to expel “sparks of fire” from its mouth and “smoke” from its nose. Were this found in a book of mythology, one might chalk it up to fantasy. However, leviathan and behemoth were anything but mythical (see Lyons, 2001, 21[1]:1-7). These creatures are recorded in the Bible, not a book of fables and mythology, and they were described by God Himself. What’s more, these creatures were described in a context where many other real animals were mentioned, including the horse, the hawk, and the ostrich (Job 38-39). Finally, if behemoth and leviathan were, in fact, make-believe, God’s entire speech (regarding His sovereignty over the created world) would be pointless.

DINOSAUR DESCRIPTIONS?

So what were dragons? The stories about them are worldwide. They are recorded in reputable, historical writings as factual. If one cannot reasonably dismiss all of these creatures with a mere wave of the hand, what could they have been? Are there any animals alive today that resemble dragons? Or, do we know of any good candidates that are now extinct?
In an article titled “Top 10 Beasts and Dragons: How Reality Made Myth,” evolutionist Ker Than explored “what may have inspired the look of dragons” (2007). He first proposed that “Chinese alligators may have been one of the inspirations for the Asian dragon” (2007). Other nominees included the three-foot frill-neck lizard, the 20-inch bearded dragon, the seven-inch flying dragon (which uses wing-like folds of skin to jump from tree to tree), the 18-inch fish we call a sea dragon, the 10-foot-long Komodo dragon, and the 30-foot python. Incredibly, Than’s number one explanation for dragon legends centered around—not animals—but comets.

To people living in ancient times, a comet streaking through the skies with an icy tail millions of miles long would have closely resembled such a creature.... If comets were the inspiration for some dragons, it could help explain why dragons are ubiquitous in the myths and legends of so many different cultures in all corners of the world (2007).

Which one looks more like a dragon to you?

A comet? The litany of dragon legends around the world are indebted to comets for their existence? Such an explanation borders on the ridiculous. Suggesting that small lizards were the inspiration for one of man’s most dreaded, worldwide foes seems equally absurd. Pythons and certain alligators certainly can be frightening, and undoubtedly were considered formidable foes, but they simply do not fit the characteristics of many of the dragons described throughout history. Though komodo dragons are intimidating creatures, even Than admitted the unlikelihood of them being the inspiration of European dragons since “Europeans didn’t discover them until 1910” (2007).
Surprisingly, Than acknowledged:

Of all the creatures that ever lived, pterosaurs probably most closely resemble the dragons of European legend. Reptilian and featherless, pterosaurs flew on wings of hide that were supported by a single long and boney finger. The smallest pterosaur was the size of a sparrow, while Quetzalcoatlus—named after the Aztec god—had a wingspan of more than 40 feet, making it the largest flying creature ever (2007, emp. added).

With scaly skin, serrated teeth, and sharp claws, Allosaurus certainly fits some dragon descriptions.

Indeed, extinct, dinosaur-like flying reptiles (e.g., Quetzalcoatlus, Rhamphorhynchus, and Pterodactyl) with two legs, large wingspans, claws, slender tails, and toothed beaks more closely resemble many dragons, by a considerable margin, than any animal alive today. One wonders how Than could make such a statement and still list pterosaurs as number three on his top ten list of what gave rise to dragon legends.
Could dinosaurs or dinosaur-like marine or flying reptiles really be the inspiration for dragon legends? Although Carl Lindall believes that the animals which inspired dragon legends “did not really exist,” he confessed that “dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past.... They are much like the great reptiles which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on Earth” (1996, 5:265, emp. added). The New Encyclopedia Britannica referred to dinosaurs as “gigantic, prehistoric, dragon-like reptiles,” yet the encyclopedia was careful to say that dragon legends “apparently arose without the slightest knowledge” of these real animals “on the part of the ancients” (“Dragon,” 1997, 4:209, emp. added).
Dragons and dinosaurs also gave Daniel Cohen difficulty. He admitted what so many people know all too well:

No creature that ever lived looked more like dragons than dinosaurs. Like the dragons, dinosaurs were huge reptiles. Dinosaurs themselves didn’t fly, but at the time of the dinosaurs, there were a number of large flying reptiles.... It sounds as though the dragon legend could have begun with the dinosaurs. Through the ages, stories about dinosaurs would have been confused and exaggerated” (1975, pp. 104,106, emp. added).

In 2003, a nearly complete dinosaur skull was excavated in the Hell Creek Formation in South Dakota. The long, knobby, spiky skull appeared so similar to descriptions and paintings of certain “legendary” dragons, it actually was named Dracorex, meaning “dragon king” (see Bakker, et al., 2006). The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, which now possesses the skull, referred to it as “a new type of dinosaur” that is “66-million-years-old” and “looks like a dragon” (“Dracorex...,” n.d., emp. added). The Children’s Museum displayed a placard next to a Dracorex image that read: “When we saw this creature’s head, we weren’t sure what kind of dinosaur it was. Its spiky horns, bumps and long muzzle looked more like a dragon” (“Dracorex...,” n.d., emp. added). A dinosaur that looks more like a dragon? Interesting.

Used with permission from the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis

Dr. Shuker also recognized that “[s]ome dragons were clearly inspired by real-life animals long familiar to the zoological world” (1995, p. 10). He later connected dragons with dinosaurs, saying, “There is no doubt that dragons and certain dinosaurs (especially some of the larger predatory types) do exhibit a surprising outward similarity (p. 93). The truth is, the only reason to reject what appears so obvious and be “surprised” about the similarities between dragons and dinosaurs, is if a person buys into the evolutionary timeline. Cohen confessed: “The problem is time. As far as we know, all the dinosaurs died out over 70 million years ago. That long ago, there were no people on the earth. So who could remember the dinosaurs?” (1975, p. 106).
Renowned atheist Carl Sagan speculated that humans may very well “remember” dinosaurs. He recognized the ubiquity of dragon legends and indicated that the “pervasiveness” of these stories “is probably no accident” (1977, p. 149). Interestingly, Sagan hypothesized that “dragons posed a problem for our protohuman ancestors of a few million years ago, and that the terror they evoked and the deaths they caused helped bring about the evolution of human intelligence” (p. 150). Sagan then specifically addressed dinosaurs and dragons. He wrote:

The most recent dinosaur fossil is dated at about sixty million years ago. The family of man (but not the genus Homo) is some tens of millions of years old. Could there have been manlike creatures who actually encountered Tyrannosaurus rex? Could there have been dinosaurs that escaped the extinctions in the late Cretaceous Period? Could the pervasive dreams and common fear of “monsters,” which children develop shortly after they are able to talk, be evolutionary vestiges of quite adaptive—baboonlike—responses to dragons and owls? (p. 151).

The spikes and horns of Euoplocephalus were very “dragonesque.”

Notice that even Carl Sagan, one of the foremost evolutionists of the 20^th century, could not get around the fact that dragons sound eerily similar to dinosaurs. Such speculations on the origin of dragons would be meaningless unless one believed that dragons and dinosaurs appear to be one and the same. Still, the best explanation that Sagan could conjure up, while still holding onto some semblance of the evolutionary geologic timetable, is that our very early “baboonlike” ancestors encountered dinosaurs (who may have “escaped the extinctions in the late Cretaceous Period”) and passed their memories of them down to modern man. Once again, we find evolutionists’ explanations of dragon legends bizarre, irrational, and even laughable. If it were not for evolutionists’ commitment to their faulty billion-year timetable (see “The Geologic...,” 2003; see also DeYoung, 2005), it would appear they would have few problems accepting what is so obvious—that dinosaurs previously were called dragons, and humans once lived with them on Earth.

FIRE-BREATHING DRAGONS?

If dragons were dinosaurs, does that mean that dinosaurs breathed fire? After all, many dragon legends speak of these creatures expelling smoke and/or fire from their mouths. Even the Bible describes leviathan as a fire-breathing animal. Is this not as absurd as suggesting that our alleged animal ancestors passed down their memories of dinosaurs over tens of millions of years or that dragon legends originated from comets in outer space?
In his 1998 book, titled The Genesis Question, well-known progressive creationist Hugh Ross insisted that “[n]o dinosaur...ever breathed fire or smoke,” and he ridiculed the idea that leviathan was a dinosaur or dinosaur-like, aquatic creature that breathed fire (p. 48). (Ross chose rather to believe that the magnificent creature described by God in His second speech to Job was a crocodile; see Lyons, 2001 for a response to such a suggestion.) How can Ross or anyone else be so certain that “no dinosaur...ever breathed fire or smoke”? By Ross’s own candid admission, he has never seen a dinosaur (since he believes they became extinct 65+ million years ago; see pp. 48-49), and thus he obviously never has observed every dinosaur that walked on land (or dinosaur-like reptile that swam in the oceans). As Dr. Henry Morris remarked in his book, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, “To say that the leviathan could not have breathed fire is to say much more than we know about leviathans (or water dragons or sea serpents)” (1984, p. 359, parenthetical item in orig.). The truth is, Ross and many others simply cannot fathom a real animal with the ability to produce fire and smoke. Is this reasonable?
Ross and others, it seems, have forgotten that all animals, including dinosaurs, were designed and created by God on days five and six of Creation. From the creationist’s perspective, if Jehovah wanted to create one or more dinosaurs that could expel fire, smoke, or some deadly chemical out of their mouths without harming themselves, He certainly could have done so. Bearing in mind the way in which God described leviathan to Job in Job 41:18-21, and considering that many secular stories that describe “fiery dragons” have circulated for millennia, it is logical to conclude that He did create such creatures. It seems fitting to ask doubters the same rhetorical question God asked Abraham long ago: “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” (Genesis 18:14). Who is Hugh Ross (or anyone) to say that “no dinosaur...ever breathed fire”? The prophet Jeremiah proclaimed: “Ah, Lord God! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You” (32:17, emp. added).
What’s more, even modern science gives us a glimpse into the likelihood of an animal being able to do something as impressive as breathe fire. When a person considers that electric eels can produce enough electricity to stun a horse without ever shocking itself, that fireflies can make bioluminescent light, and that the Komodo dragon can store deadly bacteria inside its mouth (which only harms its prey, and never itself), it should be easy to accept the possibility that a dinosaur or a dinosaur-like reptile was capable of expelling certain hot, gaseous fumes that could ignite. Perhaps the closest living comparison to an extinct, fire-breathing animal is the little insect we call the bombardier beetle. One European encyclopedia described this creature as a “[b]eetle that emits an evil-smelling fluid from its abdomen, as a defence mechanism. This fluid rapidly evaporates into a gas, which appears like a minute jet of smoke, when in contact with air, and blinds the predator about to attack” (“Bombardier Beetle,” 2007). In 1985, TIME magazine featured this amazing creature, calling its defense system “extraordinarily intricate, a cross between tear gas and a tommy gun” (Angier, p. 70). How can one look at a living bombardier beetle that produces a boiling hot, acidic, noxious spray in its abdomen, which the insect then expels from its backend in a rapid-fire action, and conclude that no animal ever breathed fire or smoke?

Used with permission from Thomas Eisner

In reality, whether a person is a creationist or an evolutionist, he should have no problems believing in the possibility of an animal breathing fire. Surely creationists believe that an omniscient, omnipotent God could create a creature that expels fire from its body. And, if evolutionists believe (1) that the entire Universe came from the explosion of a period-size, dense ball of matter 15 billion years ago, (2) that life came from non-life, and (3) that the bombardier beetle evolved the capability to shoot a 212-degree, noxious spray from its backend, then one would think that for evolutionists to believe an animal evolved the ability to expel blasts of fire from its mouth would by no means be implausible.

CONCLUSION

Evolutionist Mark Norell admitted that “all the mythical creatures...have real underpinnings in biology” (as quoted in Hajela, 2007). What real animals prompted dragon legends? What rational explanation exists for the multitude of dragon legends around the world? Why did people in different places and times, separated by thousands of miles, all come up with stories of giant reptiles that sound more like extinct dinosaurs than any other animal on Earth? Why are descriptions of dinosaur-like aquatic, aerial, and terrestrial animals given in reputable, historical writings, including the Bible? Why does history record the existence of large reptilian creatures with serpentine necks, elongated bodies, enormous tails, hard skin, stout legs, spiked backs, knobby heads, terrible teeth, snake-like tongues, horned or crested heads, sharp claws, and membranous wings? Why are the physical characteristics of many dragons so similar to the anatomy of various dinosaurs? Is all of this just a coincidence?

The elongated neck of Mamenchisaurus was characteristic of certain dragons.

Unfortunately, those who continue to sympathize with evolutionists’ billion-year timetable simply will not allow themselves to believe there actually is a connection between dinosaurs and dragons, even though it is readily apparent. Daniel Cohen admitted, “No creature that ever lived looked more like dragons than dinosaurs” (1975, p. 104). Yet, he went on to point out that since dinosaur fossils are supposedly millions of years old, “we have to assume that dinosaurs died out long before anyone could remember them.... [W]e must assume that dinosaurs have nothing to do with dragons” (pp. 106-107, emp. added). In truth, the problem is not with dragon legends and dinosaurs, but with the assumption-based, faulty dating methods of evolutionists (see DeYoung, 2005).
The reasonable view is that humans and dinosaurs once lived together, and the stories of their interaction were passed down from generation to generation. When you think about it, this is exactly what we would expect to find (ubiquitous stories of “dragons”), if humans once lived with dinosaurs.
Although there are other powerful evidences of the one-time coexistence of dinosaurs and humans, dragon legends certainly bear witness to the fact that dinosaurs and humans once lived together. Truly, evolutionists cannot logically explain away these “dinosaur descriptions.”

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:20-22, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Angier, Natalie (1985), “Drafting the Bombardier Beetle,” TIME, February 25.
Bakker, Robert, et al. (2006), “Dracorex Hogwartsia, N. Gen., N. Sp., A Spiked, Flat-headed Pachycephalosaurid Dinosaur from the Upper Cretaceous Hell Creek Formation of South Dakota,” New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Bulletin 35, [On-line], URL: http://www.childrensmuseum.org/dinosphere/draco_rex/dracorex_hogwartsia.pdf.
“Bombardier Beetle” (2007), Research Machines Encyclopaedia, [On-line], URL: http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0063590.html.
Cohen, Daniel (1975), The Greatest Monsters in the World (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Company).
DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
“Dracorex Hogwartsia” (no date), The Children’s Museum of Indianapolis, [On-line], URL: http://www.childrensmuseum.org/dinosphere/draco_rex/index.html.
“Dragon” (1997), The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica).
Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real (2005), Animal Planet (Silver Spring, MD: Discovery Communications).
“The Geologic Timetable and the Age of the Earth” (2003), Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/courses_pdf/hsc0304.pdf.
Hajela, Deepti (2007), “Natural History Museum Show on Dragons,” Associated Press, May 25, [On-line], URL: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070526/entertainment/art_mythic _creatures.
Hogarth, Peter and Val Clery (1979), Dragons (New York: Viking Press).
Lindall, Carl (1996), “Dragon,” World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago, IL: World Book).
Lyons, Eric (2001), “Behemoth and Leviathan—Creatures of Controversy,” Reason & Revelation, 21[1]:1-7, January, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/154.
Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Ross, Hugh (1998), The Genesis Question (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress).
Sagan, Carl (1977), The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House).
Shuker, Karl (1995), Dragons: A Natural History (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Than, Ker (2007), “Top 10 Beasts and Dragons: How Reality Made Myth,” LiveScience.com, [On-line], URL: http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_dragons.html.

Question and Answer: What is “The Beast”? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1732

Question and Answer: What is “The Beast”?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

Are you aware of the movie that is scheduled for release next summer called The Beast? I heard it was filmed in an effort to convince people that Jesus never lived. Is that true?

A.

According to the movie’s Web site (www.thebeastmovie.com), The Beast is scheduled to be released in theaters worldwide on June 6, 2006 (or 6/6/06—which I can assure you is no accident). And, yes, it does appear that the movie’s main focus will be to persuade audiences of the alleged “fact” that “Jesus Christ never existed.” It is a story about a young person named Danielle whose father mysteriously disappears after stumbling across “a cover-up of Christianity’s best-kept secret: That Jesus Christ never existed.” Brian Flemming, the movie’s director, supposedly dives “into factual territory” that is “well-explored by scholars but largely hidden from the view of the public” (http://www.thebeastmovie.com/about/index.html). Although The Beast is listed as “fictional,” based upon the movie’s Web site, the director’s aim will be to persuade his audiences that Jesus is equally fictional.
While I have not seen the movie (and certainly do not encourage Christians who are simply seeking to be entertained to view and support such an anti-Christian film, which will simply poke more fun at “fundamentalist Christians”), I can only imagine how the many sources that do testify to Jesus’ historicity will be critiqued. The historically reliable (not to mention inspired) New Testament documents likely will be dismissed with the slightest of ease. Even though every one of the New Testament writers testified to the reality of Christ, they must be rejected as liars or lunatics. Similarly, statements about Jesus from such reputable first and early second-century historians as Josephus, Tacitus, and Seutonius will also have to be explained away somehow (if even mentioned at all).
Who knows if this movie will even make it into theaters next summer? (My prayer is that it will not.) But, if it does, Christians do not have to be alarmed about some new piece of evidence that supposedly proves Jesus never lived. When all of the facts are gathered, the honest individual will come to the same conclusion that the French humanist Ernest Renan came to more than 100 years ago: “[A]ll history is incomprehensible without him [Jesus—EL]” (http://www.lexilogos.com/document/renan/life_jesus.htm).
By the way, Apologetics Press is scheduled to release a new book on the historicity and deity of Christ in the spring of 2006—sometime before the release of The Beast.

Male and Female Roles: Gender in the Bible by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5007

Male and Female Roles: Gender in the Bible

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In little more than half a century, American culture has experienced a massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards. One facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values has been dramatically altered gender roles. The feminist agenda has penetrated the American social landscape. Indeed, the onset of the feminist movement in the turbulent 1960s sparked a significant adjustment of societal norms resulting in the transformation of virtually every sphere of American culture—from the home and the church to the business world and beyond. Women now routinely serve in historically male capacities, including the military, politics, sports, and a host of community services including fire, police, ambulance, etc.
Make no mistake, a number of changes with regard to gender have emerged that may be deemed beneficial and positive. Nevertheless, the overall impact on American civilization has been negative, and the erosion of femininity has ushered in a host of evils that are hastening America’s moral implosion (e.g., abortion and homosexuality). Concomitant with the effort to eradicate gender differentiation has been the degradation of masculinity and the restructuring of the family unit (the fundamental building block of humanity—Genesis 1:27; 2:24). As womanhood has been devalued and her function altered, the rest of society has suffered dramatically. After all, women inevitably exert a profound influence on culture and society—for good or ill. Virtuous femininity is the glue that holds human civilization together. In the words of American poet William Ross Wallace’s immortal poem, “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, Rules the World” (1865). Sadly for America, feminism has overturned the rocker, thrown the baby out with the bathwater, punched Dad in the face, and stomped away from the house in a huff.

the bible still has the correct perspective

Amid this polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who wish to conform to Bible protocol and those who wish to modernize, update, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say we are the product of a male-dominated society and have consequently misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.
The underlying catalyst for this social turmoil, and resulting gender confusion, has been the rejection of the Bible as the authentic Word of the divine Being Who created the Universe and humans. Even among those who continue to profess their allegiance to Christianity, large numbers have capitulated to political correctness and abandoned the traditional, i.e., biblical, depiction of gender roles as defined by the Creator. In their quest to maintain relevance among the shifting sands of secular culture, they have imbibed the spirit of the age, been infected by humanistic philosophy, and consequently have compromised the clear teaching of Scripture on the role of women (cf. “Gender Inclusive…,” 2013; “Believe It…,” 2006; Pauls, 2013; “The Role of…,” 2006; Stirman, 2010).
As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as engaging in “fresh scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is guilty of prejudice and being unduly influenced by “Church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of American society?
Nevertheless, Bible teaching on this subject is not that difficult to ascertain. Recent attempts to redefine gender roles fall flat, not only before a sensible assessment of relevant Bible passages on the subject, but in the face of the 2,000 year history of Christianity which has, for the most part, demonstrated a generally accurate grasp of the basic parameters of God’s will on this matter. Such has certainly been true in America where the Founders and 18^th century men and women embraced the Christian worldview, and believed that “family integrity was indispensable for the public safety and happiness” (West, 1997, p. 85).

Relevant Bible Passages

A detailed study of the relevant biblical texts in one article is impossible. However, God’s Word is essentially simple on any significant subject in the Bible [NOTE: For useful discussions see Hicks and Morton, 1978; Piper and Grudem, 1991; Cottrell, 1992; Highers, 1991; Laws, 1994; Warren, 1975; Miller, 1994; Miller, 1996.] In fact, it is the more recently emerging “scholars” with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (e.g., Osburn, 1993). Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). Is such a cavalier attitude to be allowed to so easily dismiss the historical and biblical distinction between the sexes? The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.

1 Corinthians

Chapters 11 and 14 of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men. [NOTE: The equality of male and female in Galatians 3:28 pertains to salvation status, not role.] Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter 14. In chapter 11, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.
The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an authoritative act of leadership. They recognized that to wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an implicit directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated explicitly in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted in the created order—not culture. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).
Later in the same context (in chapter 14), Paul addresses further the confusion over spiritual gifts and returns specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasizes the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence.” Cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word, and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).
Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters 11 and 14 address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts are no longer available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see Miller, 2003a), and veils, in Western society, are no longer a cultural symbol of female submission (see Miller, 2003b; cf. Moore, 1998). Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.

1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.
In this passage, Paul affirms that adult males (andras) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech, metonymy, in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth from holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus on appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast framed in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text. Authentein should be translated “to have (or exercise) authority” (NKJV, ESV, NIV, RSV, NASB). Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.
Why? Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment, stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum, until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not. The Holy Spirit gives the reason for the limitations, and that reason transcends all culture and all locales. Paul states that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because Adam was created before Eve. Here we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate. But what does the chronological priority of Adam have to do with the interrelationship of male and female?

Grounded in Creation—Not Culture

Paul is saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male first as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate—though not inferior—assistant. God could have created the woman first, but He did not. He could have created both male and female simultaneously,but He did not. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.
This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created to be “an help meet for him,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that in a unique sense, the woman was created for the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating “the woman whom You gave to be with me” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued in the Corinthian letter on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of naming the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evidenced by the practice of primogeniture—the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man first was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission arrangement of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).
Observe that Paul next elaborates on this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with and act in violation of divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.
God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership, thereby circumventing the divine arrangement of male-female relations.
Paul concludes his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God, undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).
Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11 suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church—but then permit single women to lead?

Deaconesses

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word diakonos, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.
The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office is under consideration.
In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all non-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.
Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. “Our sister” designates her church membership and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.
Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2 translated “help” implies a technical usage. It is true that prostatis can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that diakonos does in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.
Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (paristemi) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (prostatis) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun prostates can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun prostatis means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.
The second passage that some have appealed to in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since gunaikas (from gune) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy: “female” in 2:9-12,14 and “wife” in 3:2,12; 5:9.
Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in a discussion of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual to switch in the middle to female deacons for one verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could simply mean that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with gunaikas (“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).
Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two ministrae (female ministers). This term has the same ambiguity within it that diakonos has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).
Not until the late third century in the Syrian Didascalia do we find reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women would hardly be content with such tasks.
Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.
The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.

unequal or inferior?

A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women are often superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of all human beings to the will of God (Ephesians 5:21). It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing am I to fit myself into God’s arrangement?”

Conclusion

The role of gender, like most of the values of Western civilization, is in the throes of confusion and redefinition. Those who resist unbiblical redefinitions are considered tradition-bound, narrow-minded, chauvinistic misogynists, as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters; as if the Bible has been misunderstood all these years. If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today.
Those who reject the divine inspiration of the Bible will remain unaffected by and disinterested in the teaching of the Bible regarding gender. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words we will be judged (John 12:48). For those who respect the Bible as the Word of God, Bible teaching is fatal to the notion of female leadership in the church and home. May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of Heaven.

References

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).
“Believe It Or Not” (2006), Christianity: Then and Now, ed. John Waddey, 5[11], July, http://www.christianity-then-and-now.com/PDF/CTN%20July%2006.pdf.
Cottrell, Jack (1992), Feminism and the Bible (Joplin, MO: College Press).
“Gender Inclusive and Egalitarian Churches in the Church of Christ Heritage” (2013), http://www.wherethespiritleads.org/gender_inclusive_churches.htm.
Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does kephale (‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” Trinity Journal, 6 NS, 38-59.
Hicks, John, and Bruce Morton (1978), Woman’s Role in the Church (Shreveport, LA: Lambert Book House).
Highers, Alan, ed., (1991), “Role of Women in the Church,” The Spiritual Sword, 22[2], January.
Laws, Jim, ed. (1994), Women To The Glory of God (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ).
Lewis, Jack (1988), Exegesis of Difficult Passages (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).
Miller, Dave (1994), “An Exegesis of 1 Tim. 2:11-15 (Part 1) & (Part 2),” The Restorer, 14[3]:12-16 & 14[4]:9-14, March & April.
Miller, Dave (1996), “Feminist Attitudes Toward the Bible,” The Spiritual Sword, 27[2]:3-6, January.
Miller, Dave (2003a), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0303b.htm.
Miller, Dave (2003b), “Veils, Footwashing, and the Holy Kiss,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1275&topic=379.
Moore, Kevin (1998), We Have No Such Custom (Wanganui, NZ: Kevin Moore).
Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993), Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Osburn, Carroll (1994), Women in the Church (Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).
Pauls, Dale (2013), “Good news!: Naomi Walters Named Minister in Residence at Stamford Church of Christ,” Reflections on Announcement, July 7, http://gal328.org/category/good-news/.
Piper, John and Wayne Grudem, eds. (1991), Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books).
“The Role of Women in the Church” (2006), Cole Mill Road Church of Christ, http://www.colemillroad.org/.
Stirman, Sarah (2010), “Women in the Church: Moving Toward Equality,” Abilene Report-News, February 25, http://www.reporternews.com/news/2010/feb/25/women-in-the-church-moving-toward-equality/
Wallace, William Ross (1865), “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle Is The Hand That Rules The World,” Poets’ Corner, http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/wallace1.html.
Warren, Thomas, ed. (1975), “Woman—In the View of God,” The Spiritual Sword, 6[4], July.
West, Thomas (1997), Vindicating the Founders (New York: Rowman & Littlefield).
Woods, Guy N. (1986), Questions and Answers: Volume Two (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).