From Jim McGuiggan... I'M SICK AND TIRED


I'm sick and tired of alarmist statements that shake societies which are then told by the same people, "Don't be alarmed!" I'm sick and tired of unproven claims and manipulated numbers that close schools, cost billions of dollars to tax-payers and fatten the money belts of pharmaceutical companies, that burden GPs who haven't enough time to deal with that they know is wrong with people and that feed the egos of those who want to make a name for themselves by saving us from another PANDEMIC!!!!!!
What follows is a piece from Jenny Thompson of the HSI group. I don't by any means swallow all that this group puts out but this I think is worth reading.
These are tough days for pigs, and hogs, and especially...swine.

"PLEASE don't call it swine flu!"

That request comes from the Davis family – HSI members who happen to be hog farmers. The Davis e-mail continues: "It has cut our income from our hogs down to way below profit. The flu has nothing to do with hogs."

And the very same day, I received this e-mail from Belden Farms: "I am from a swine farm here in Kansas, in the US. The swine flu has really devastated our industry, just because of the name. Could you possibly use the initials for the flu, instead of swine flu? My grandchildren (teenagers) work in our swine facility. If there were any chance of them catching the flu from the pigs, they would not be working out there."

So for Belden Farms and the Davis family, I'll be glad to start calling this flu by its true name: H1N1. Not very catchy, but then neither is this strain of flu.

About three months ago, World Health Organization (WHO) officials agreed to drop their use of the word "swine" and only refer to the flu as H1N1. Their reasoning: No swine, pigs, or hogs in any country in the world have been diagnosed with the illness. H1N1 does have elements of swine flu, but it also has elements of human and avian strains.

Bottom line: You can't pick up H1N1 from bacon, ham, pork chops, etc.

Hard to get 

As noted above, H1N1 is not very catchy. Literally.

When Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers in the US, recently compared characteristics of H1N1 to other flu strains, they found that this new variety of H1N1 is not effective in binding to human receptors.

H1N1 has also been found to transmit poorly between ferrets. This is significant because flu viruses happen to affect ferrets in ways similar to humans. When ferrets were separated, airborne respiratory droplets were not effective in spreading H1N1. But the virus spread more easily when ferrets were in close contact. And this has been the case so far with H1N1 in humans: high risk of transmission in a close family unit, low risk of transmission in public places.

But while H1N1 is hard to get, an H1N1 vaccine should be pretty easy to come by a couple of months from now. 

According to the Associated Press, the US government is planning to purchase millions of H1N1 vaccines, which will be distributed free to states. And it appears that public schools will provide the launch pad. Never mind that safety and side effects are still a big question mark. Never mind that the seasonal flu vaccine is known to be less effective among younger children.

Never mind ANY of that. Children will probably get the first big wave of H1N1 shots. But today, parents are more aware than ever that new vaccines often produce surprising adverse side effects – some of them quite dangerous. So it's going to be very interesting to see if large numbers of parents opt out of the H1N1 vaccine offer.

The states just might end up holding a huge surplus of a vaccine that may or may not actually prevent a flu that's hard to get in the first place. 

About 115 million doses of seasonal flu vaccine are produced each year. Compare that to the 600 million doses of H1N1 flu vaccine the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC) is reportedly considering and you have an idea of the enormous payday H1N1 is going to be for vaccine manufacturers.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

Does the Quran Encourage Violence? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Does the Quran Encourage Violence?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


Does the Quran encourage violence?


Yes. The Quran—the holy book of Islam that 1.3 billion Muslims believe to be the word of God—is replete with explicit and implicit sanction and promotion of armed conflict, violence, and bloodshed by Muslims. Read Surah 47:4 from the celebrated translation by Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall:
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).
Many other verses in the Quran forthrightly endorse armed conflict and war to advance Islam. Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns (cf. Lings, pp. 86,111). Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight” (n.d., p. xxvi).


Lings, Martin (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International).
Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

An Interview With Israel Finkelstein by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.


An Interview With Israel Finkelstein

by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

For the May/June 2010 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks interviewed Israel Finkelstein, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University and co-director (with archaeologist David Ussishkin) of the excavations at the biblical site of Megiddo since 1994. Finkelstein is a prominent Israeli archaeologist who has authored or co-authored several books that are highly critical of the traditional reading of Scripture. These include The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts and David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition.
Finkelstein has a well-deserved reputation as a critic of the Bible. He has long been accused of being a biblical minimalist, someone who believes that only a bare minimum of the Bible is historically trustworthy. Prominent minimalists in modern academia include Thomas Thompson, Philip Davies, and Niels Peter Lemche, all of whom have authored works highly critical of the historical accuracy of the Bible. Finkelstein is not as radical as the minimalists, who approach the Bible with a level of skepticism that borders on outright hostility. At the same time, Finkelstein expresses his belief that the story of David contains mere “historical germs” (Shanks, 2010, p. 51). He admits that there was a group of people called “Israel” as early as the late 13th century B.C. and that Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem, but disagrees that the Bible is historically accurate.
Although Finkelstein is not as extreme as the minimalists, he is often guilty of using the same unwarranted skepticism when reading the Bible. In the interview with Shanks, he says that he believes that he is “in the center” (p. 48) and is “more critical” (in the sense of reading the Bible with a greater level of scrutiny and discernment, p. 51) without venturing into pure minimalism, but denies that the history of major biblical events occurred as they are presented in the pages of Scripture.
Finkelstein is highly critical of those who take the Bible at face value. He says, “I do think we are in a process of liberation from an antiquated reading of the Biblical text… [Some archaeologists] still interpret the Bible very literally…. We tend to give it a more sophisticated reading. This is not to say that the Bible has no history. It means that we need to look at the Biblical material more carefully, in a more sophisticated way (p. 58).
From Finkelstein’s comments throughout the interview, it seems that by having “greater sophistication” in reading the Bible he really means “greater skepticism.” Unfortunately, this seems to be a common way of looking at the Bible. For many critics, it is read not to be understood, but to be condemned. Modern critics assume they are more advanced than the ancient authors, and approach Scripture with an air of chronological arrogance. In reality, those archaeologists and scholars who read the Bible “very literally” are in many ways interpreting Scripture just as the ancient authors intended. They are also interpreting the Bible just as scholars would interpret texts from other cultures. The biblical authors intended their work to be read so that the reader understands that their work is presenting facts that took place in real time. Few scholars in other areas of ancient history would read ancient texts with the same skepticism as Finkelstein and others view the Bible.
It has long been the case that those who read the Bible hold it to a much higher standard—it would not be unfair to call it a double standard—than other sources of information. For instance, when archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered and identified what she considered to be the palace of David in Jerusalem based partially on her reading of the Bible (Mazar, 2006), Finkelstein and several colleagues disputed her findings (Finkelstein, et al., 2007). When the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription was discovered, Finkelstein warned against the “revival in the belief that what’s written in the Bible is accurate like a newspaper” (Friedman, 2008). In other words, he argues that we cannot expect the Bible to report factual details with any great degree of certainty. For the last two hundred years scholars have mined ancient texts, including mythological texts, for details that might help with locating ancient sites. Finkelstein apparently believes that this cannot be done with the Bible.
Finkelstein has a brilliant mind, and is witty, engaging, and humorous in his interview with Shanks. At the same time, he also possesses a level of skepticism that finds no place among mainstream scholarship. Experts usually approach the ancient evidence with a degree of confidence, assuming that the literary and material evidence are generally trustworthy unless there is reason for suspicion. Minimalists approach the biblical evidence with an extreme degree of skepticism that they often do not employ elsewhere. They hold the biblical text to an extreme double standard, and disregard the Bible unless incontrovertible extrabiblical evidence is found that corroborates the text. If the same method were applied to reading the daily paper, minimalists would never get past the first paragraph of the lead article.
The minimalists’ approach, which Finkelstein’s resembles closely, is decried by many scholars, both theistic and atheistic. An example of the former is Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world’s foremost Egyptologists. In his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, he spends considerable time examining the biblical minimalists and their history in the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship (2003, pp. 449-500). Specifically of Finkelstein’s book The Bible Unearthed (coauthored by Neil Asher Silberman), he says, “[A] careful critical perusal of this work—which certainly has much to say about both archaeology and the biblical writings—reveals that we are dealing very largely with a work of imaginative fiction, not a serious or reliable account of the subject” (p. 464). Concerning their treatment of the patriarchal period, which the two describe as a virtual fiction, Kitchen comments, “our two friends are utterly out of their depth, hopelessly misinformed, and totally misleading” (p. 465). Finkelstein’s and Silberman’s discussion of the exodus prompts Kitchen to remark, “Their treatment of the exodus is among the most factually ignorant and misleading that this writer has ever read” (p. 466).
As for non-Christian scholars, there are several who would oppose Finkelstein’s treatment of the Bible. One of these is William Dever, who has often described himself as an agnostic at best. Dever’s battle with Finkelstein is well-known to those in archaeological circles, as well as to readers of Biblical Archaeology Review. The two have feuded publicly in print, although Dever generally commands more respect than Finkelstein. [NOTE: In a personal conversation, a Canadian archaeologist from the University of Toronto told me in 2006 that not only does Finkelstein have a reputation for criticizing other archaeologists’ conclusions without examining their evidence, but other Israeli archaeologists have been critical and almost dismissive of him and his methods.]
Both believers and nonbelievers view Finkelstein’s approach as unwarranted. His point of view has won very few converts in archaeological circles. His skepticism borders on extremism not only because of the way he approaches the biblical text, but also because of the way he treats other scholars who disagree with him. In the end, Finkelstein may be a respected archaeologist in some circles, but he is spectacularly incorrect in his conclusions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.


Finkelstein, Israel, et al. (2007), “Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?” Tel Aviv, 34[2]:142-164.
Friedman, Matti (2008), “Archaeolgist Says He Found Oldest Hebrew Writing,” http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-10-30-424395593_x.htm.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Mazar, Eilat (2006), “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 32[1]:16–27,70, January/February.
Shanks, Hershel (2010), “The Devil is Not So Black as He is Painted,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 36[3]:48-58, May/June.

A Lesson From the Sophists by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


A Lesson From the Sophists

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

The ancient Sophists occupied the period in Greek philosophical history just after the physical philosophers had posited various explanations concerning the substance of the material world (ca. 450 B.C. [Kahn, 2005]). Sophists are often dismissed as charlatans or hypocrites, and to some degree this charge is just. Our purpose here, however, is not to evaluate the Sophists’ project, but rather to learn a lesson from the circumstance in which the Sophists found themselves and from the major question they posed. As the answer to this question highlights the value of special revelation, it is relevant to Christian apologetics.
The earliest Greek philosophers (e.g., Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, etc.), had focused primarily on developing accounts of physical reality, asking “Of what is the world made?” However, social and political unrest demanded that philosophers move beyond the merely physical questions (i.e., questions about substance) in order to address spiritual and ethical issues. The traditional Greek religion, with its accompanying supernatural explanations for the phenomenal world, were being questioned. Likewise, traditional laws were being questioned (see Rogers, 1923, p. 45). As all citizens in Athens had the opportunity to participate directly as legislators, those who wanted to advance in politics desired special training in rhetoric for the purpose of learning to persuade audiences in the legal/political realm. The Sophists occupied themselves as teachers of rhetoric, among other topics. Consider the following summary:
The basis [of the Sophists’] work was apt to be rhetorical, but with the abler Sophists, this was broadened out to cover the field of an all-round and liberal culture. Any knowledge that was available of the workings of the human mind, of literature, history, language, or grammar, of the principles underlying the dialectic of argument, of the nature of virtue and justice, was clearly appropriate to the end in view.... Now all this seems innocent enough.... In reality, however, there were some grounds for...suspicion. On the practical side, merely, there always was a danger lest the Sophistic skill be prostituted to unsocial ends.... Apart, however, from such chances for abuse, which no doubt were often taken advantage of, there was a more fundamental reason for the popular distrust. The habit of unrestricted inquiry and discussion which was crystallized by the Sophistic movement, the free play of the mind over all subjects that interest men, meant the overthrow of much in the existing civilization.... (Rogers, pp. 42-43).
While some of the Sophists had high ideals (e.g., Protagoras [see Plato, 1997, pp. 746-790]), nonetheless the legacy of the Sophists is that of a general ethical relativism.
Greek culture was at a crossroads. At issue was whether the traditions of previous generations of society would be maintained, or the desires of each present individual would be accepted as his own standard. Should the individual or society take prominence? The Sophists, exposing at times the lack of rational support for tradition, essentially offered the solution of “Every man for himself.” In so doing, they posed the following philosophical question: Is man the measure of all things (as modern secular humanists allege; see Colley, 2007), or is there some external, objective standard to guide human action? Some philosophers, such as Socrates, were rightly concerned that any solution whatever be subjected to the test of human reason, and that the solution be applied to all humanity. Yet, even a Platonic solution, such as that presented in the Republic, has aspects that are unsatisfactory to many (especially its communistic aspects [Plato, 1997, pp. 971-1223]).
This quandary is ancient, yet bears a strikingly current application. Our present culture is largely divided concerning the validity of divine authority and religious tradition. At least two lessons present themselves for the Christian apologist. The first, general lesson to be learned from this Greek predicament is that man needs divine guidance in order to flourish (Jeremiah 10:23). Anytime man rejects an objective standard concerning what is good, relativism threatens. “Someone who holds that nothing is simply good, but only good for someone or from a certain point of view, holds a relativist view of goodness,” and has invited revolution, as did the Greeks (Craig, 2005, p. 894). Yet, even a universally accepted standard, if not grounded in objective truth, is not desirable (it could happen to be philosophical pessimism, Nazism, etc.).
It is interesting to note that within a few generations of the Sophists, the greatest theophony Jesus Christ would appear, providing the way to human fulfillment and peace in the fullness of time (see John 10:10; 14:6; Galatians 4:4). The Greek-speaking world would be influenced heavily by Christianity, and many philosophers throughout the centuries would come to appreciate Christian principles, even developing philosophical systems involving biblical teaching (see Rogers, pp. 185ff.).
The second, specific lesson to be learned from the Greek situation during the Sophistical age is that Christianity provides grounds for perfect balance between emphasis upon the individual person and deference to his community. The individual is uniquely responsible for his own obedience and righteous lifestyle (Acts 2:40; 2 Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 11:6; Jude 21-23). The individual’s own rationality is central, but not for the purpose of originating religious truth. Rather, the individual uses his rationality to examine evidence for the validity of revealed truth, and to apply revelation properly. At the same time, he is divinely situated in the church, a community of believers who bear each others’ burdens (Philippians 2:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 John 4:7), exercise godly discipline (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Peter 5:5), and appeal to a single standard for conduct (2 Samuel 22:31; Romans 10:13-17; Colossians 3:17). Christianity is not designed in such a way that its adherents exercise faith in isolation. No one Christian is more valuable or more important than another (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11).


The Bible contains the answers to philosophical questions—even those asked by the ancients. The Sophists indirectly raised the question of the degree to which such a source should be consulted when philosophers develop ethical and metaphysical arguments. To defend the affirmative answer is the task of the Christian apologist, who considers philosophy in light of divine revelation in order to develop the most effective response.


Colley, Caleb (2007), “Secular Humanism and Evolution,”http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3336.
Craig, Edward (2005), “Relativism,” in The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig (New York: Routledge).
Kahn, Charles H. (2005), “Sophists,” in The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward Craig (New York: Routledge).
Rogers, Arthur Kenyon (1923), A Student’s History of Philosophy (New York: Macmillan).
Plato (1997), Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).

Christ Emptied…Himself! by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Christ Emptied…Himself!

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Through the years, some theologians have used Philippians 2:6-7 to defend the idea that the second Person of the Godhead, at the time of the incarnation (when “the Word became flesh”—John 1:14), “emptied Himself” of deity. It has been alleged that whereas Christ existed in the “form of God” prior to the incarnation, He “emptied” himself of that status while on Earth.
Despite the popularity of such ideas in some religious circles, they cannot be proven by citing Philippians 2:6-7 or any other passage in the Bible. In Philippians 2:7, Paul wrote that Jesus “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” Exactly what did the apostle mean by the phrase, “emptied himself”? Because it is assumed that the verb “emptied” (Greekekenōsen) requires an object (a genitive qualifier), then Christ must have “emptied himself” of something. However, as Gordon Fee has mentioned in his commentary on Philippians, “Christ did not empty Himself of anything, the text simply says that He emptied himself, He poured Himself out” (1995, p. 210, emp. added). The NIV seems to have captured this sense by stating that He “made himself nothing” (emp. added). The Greek word kenόō literally means “to empty; to make empty; or to make vain or void.” This word is rendered “made void” in Romans 4:14, where Paul stated that “faith is made void.” Faith did not empty itself of anything, rather faith emptied itself. Similarly, commenting on Jesus death as if it had already occurred, Isaiah wrote: “He [Jesus—EL] poured out his soul unto death” (Isaiah 53:12). What did Christ pour out? Himself.
But how does Philippians 2:7 say Christ emptied Himself? “Grammatically, Paul explains the ‘emptying’ of Jesus in the next phrase: ‘Taking the form of a servant and coming in the likeness of men’” (Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary). Unlike Adam and Eve, who made an attempt to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), humbled Himself and obediently accepted the role of the bondservant. As N.T. Wright stated: “The real humiliation of the incarnation and the cross is that the one who was himself God, and who never during the whole process stopped being God, could embrace such a vocation” (1986, p. 346).
Although this text does not instruct us regarding of what Christ emptied Himself, we can be assured that there was no change in His divine nature. While Jesus was on Earth, He claimed equality with God the Father (John 10:28) and allowed others to call him “God” (John 20:30; Matthew 16:16). He also accepted worship, even though He plainly taught that only God is worthy of worship (Matthew 8:2; Matthew 4:10). If one contends that Jesus was not divine while upon the Earth, then they make Him either a fraud or a madman.
Philippians 2:7 does not teach that Christ emptied himself of His deity. Rather, to His divinity He added humanity (i.e., He was “made in the likeness of men”). For the first time, He was subject to such things as hunger, thirst, pain, disease, and temptation (cf. John 19:28; Hebrews 4:15). In short, He came to Earth as a God-man.


Barnes’ Notes (1997), Electronic Database, Biblesoft.
Fee, Gordon D. (1995), Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (1986), Electronic Database, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Biblesoft.
Wright, N.T. (1986), “αρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2:5-11,” Journal of Theological Studies, 37:321-52, April.

"Those Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, Wicked Creationists" by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


"Those Ignorant, Stupid, Insane, Wicked Creationists"

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

The attack is on. It’s not the first time. And if history teaches us anything, it will not be the last. Evolutionists are mad. But they do not intend to just “get angry”; they intend to “get even.” The walls of their Neo-Darwinian Jericho are crumbling around them. They know it. They’ve known it for a long, long time. The problem is, now other people are figuring it out as well. A lot of other people! The time to act has come. Take off the gloves. Get down. Get mean. Get dirty. Win—at all cost!
Creationism has been making far too much headway, in far too many places—with far too much favorable publicity. Sound the battle call. Rally the troops. Call out the reserves. Enlist the allies. Engage the enemy. Press forward. Refuse to retreat!
What enemy? The late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to that enemy as the “militant fundamentalists who label themselves with the oxymoron ‘scientific creationists,’ and try to sneak their Genesis literalism into high school classrooms under the guise of scientific dissent.” Dr. Gould complained: “I’m used to their rhetoric, their dishonest mis-and half-quotations, their constant repetition of ‘useful’ arguments that even they must recognize as nonsense.” Yet, he explained to his fellow evolutionists, “our struggle with these ideologues is political, not intellectual.” And last, he said he refused to engage in dialog with creationists, but rather chose instead to deal with “our allies among people committed to reason and honorable argument”—a description that, from Gould’s vantage point, apparently would exclude creationists by definition (1987, 8[1]:64, emp. added).
And it gets worse. Richard Dawkins, the enraged evolutionist of Oxford University, put it this way: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” [1989, p. 3, emp. added].
Now comes John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American, to enter the fray. In the July 2002 issue, Mr. Rennie penned an article titled “15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense” in which he caricatured creationism, while feebly attempting to bolster the increasingly faltering theory of organic evolution. Joining Mr. Rennie is Thomas Hayden, a staff writer for U.S. News & World Report who authored the cover story of the magazine’s July 29, 2002 issue (“A Theory Evolves”)—a feature plainly intended to “strike back” at creationists, as Hayden made clear when he echoed the evolutionists’ party line: “The evidence against evolution amounts to little more than ‘I can’t imagine it.’ That’s not evidence. That’s just giving up” (133[4]:50).
Well, gentlemen, I have news for you. We are not giving up! You have thrown down the gauntlet; we will not hesitate to pick it up. You have drawn the line in the sand; we will not shrink from crossing it. Your bullying tactics and name calling may intimidate some and impress others. It accomplishes neither with us. We know what you are trying to do, and we know why you are trying to do it. We know about your “hidden agenda.”
Your compatriot, geneticist Richard Lewontin of Harvard, let it slip in his 1997 review of Carl Sagan’s posthumously published book, Billions and Billions, when he admitted that evolutionists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” (1997, p. 31, emp. added).
Just as we thought all along! You must find a way—organic evolution—to rid yourself of that “Divine Foot in the door.” Nice to see you finally admit it. Well, once again, gentlemen, I have news for you. God’s foot is in the door, whether you like it or not—all your attempts to prevent it notwithstanding. And there is nothing you can say or do to stop it, because neither He, nor we, will be going “quietly into the night.” Not now. Not ever. Yes, the attack is on. But we are at the vanguard of that attack. You are losing the battle—and you will lose the war! Truth always triumphs over error.


Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review” (of Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey’s Blueprint), The New York Times, section 7, April 9.
Gould, Stephen J. (1987), “Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory,” Discover, 8[1]:64-65,68-70, January.
Hayden, Thomas (2002), “A Theory Evolves,” U.S. News & World Report, 133[4]:42-50, July 29.
Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.
[NOTE: Our responses to both U.S. News & World Report and Scientific American in this issue ofReason & Revelation are the abbreviated versions. To view or download the complete, uncut versions, please click here for the U.S. News & World Report refutation, or click here for the Scientific American rebuttal.] — Bert Thompson

A Mind to Work by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


A Mind to Work

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Recently I spoke with a kind, contrite gentleman who confessed that, up to this point in time, he had lived a slothful life. He admitted that he had never had a real job in 33 years (three years of which were spent in prison). In fact, he had never even filled out a single job application. He begged, borrowed, stole, and sold drugs to get by day after day, year after year. Thankfully, all of that changed only a few weeks ago as he began his first work at a fast-food restaurant.
Many hard-working Americans currently find themselves unemployed and searching for jobs. A number of sincere Christians may be seeking employment as they petition God for opportunities to work and provide for their families and others. These individuals are serious about their search for work, understanding God’s desire for them to be as self-sufficient as possible (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12). But, it is also true that many Americans (even some who call themselves Christians) seem to care less about work. They have a flippant attitude toward having a job.
Many willfully choose to live lazy lives. They seem to work harder at getting out of work, or at finding ways for others to take care of them, than actually performing a worthwhile job. I once heard a group of pregnant teenage girls say that they deserved to be taken care of (by the government) financially. Why? Because they had children out of wedlock. I know one small business owner who has several employees on “disability,” and yet most of them are more than capable of performing physically demanding construction jobs, much less jobs that require relatively little physical prowess. I spoke with a physical therapist recently who confessed having major frustration with so many patients who are in the process of filing for disability, yet are clearly capable of performing all sorts of jobs. Certainly, many Americans are genuinely disabled and unable to perform basic tasks that are necessary in order to make a normal living, but no doubt thousands, and perhaps even millions, of the 8.7 million disabled Americans are more than capable of working for a living (Jeffrey, 2012). [NOTE: 15% more Americans (1,264,808) are on federal disability than there were just three years ago (Jeffrey).]
The Good Book says to help those in need (Proverbs 28:27; Ephesians 4:28; Luke 3:11). Jesus expects His faithful followers to help the destitute (Matthew 25:34-46). Notice, however, that Jesus’ powerful discourse regarding helping the needy was taught following a story about a “lazy servant” who was cast into outer darkness for his unprofitable slothfulness (Matthew 25:26,30). The same apostle who reminded the Ephesian elders of Jesus’ statement, “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” wrote to the church of the Thessalonians, saying, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, nor working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread” (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12). The inspired wise man candidly rebuked the lazy man, saying,
Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, which, having no captain, overseer or ruler, provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest. How long will you slumber, O sluggard? When will you rise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep—so shall your poverty come on you like a prowler, and your need like an armed man (Proverbs 6:6-11).
Indeed, “He who gathers in summer is a wise son; he who sleeps in harvest is a son who causes shame” (Proverbs 10:5). “The desire of the lazy man kills him, for his hands refuse to labor” (Proverbs 21:25).
Depending on the situation, the next time that a healthy, able-bodied person asks you for money, it might be appropriate for you to kindly ask him if he would like to mow your lawn, wash your car, weed your garden, etc. Are you really helping a lazy man if you give him anything more than what the Bible says he needs—the Gospel and an opportunity to work?
“Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need” (Ephesians 4:28, emp. added).
“And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men” (Colossians 3:23).


Jeffrey, Terence (2012), “8,733,461: Workers on Federal ‘Disability’ Exceed Population of New York City,” July 2, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/8733461-workers-federal-disability-exceed-population-new-york-city.

From Mark Copeland... "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT" The Nature Of Worship In The Church

                        "THE CHURCH JESUS BUILT"

                  The Nature Of Worship In The Church


1. Our previous lessons examined the organization of the church, in
   a. A clear pattern emerges that illustrates its simplicity and 
      Divine Wisdom
   b. A congregation, when completely organized, consisted of:
      1) Bishops to oversee the local congregation
        (also called elders, pastors)
      2) Deacons to serve the congregation in its work
      3) Saints, i.e., the members of the congregation
                                                 -- As indicated in Paul's address to the church at
                                                    Philippi - Ph 1:1
 c. Authority was carefully limited
      1) A plurality of bishops in each church prevented one-man rule
      2) Charged to shepherd the flock of God among them, bishops were
         prevented from exercising authority over more than one congregation
      -- Thus the potential spread of error was severely hindered

2. In this lesson and the one to follow, we shall examine the worship of the church...
   a. For this too can help us identify "The Church Jesus Built"
   b. For certainly those who "continue steadfastly in the apostles'
      doctrine" today will worship in the same manner as did the early
      Christians under the instruction of Christ and His apostles

3. Now, it is important to appreciate that not all worship is acceptable to God...
   a. There is vain worship - Mt 15:7-9
   b. There is ignorant worship - Ac 17:22-23
   c. There is will (self-imposed) worship - Col 2:20-23
   d. We should seek to offer what Jesus described as true worship (see below)

[What can we learn about the worship of the church?  Consider some
thoughts regarding the nature of worship in the church...]


      1. As Jesus explained to the Samaritan woman at the well - Jn 4:23-24
      2. In which people are to worship the Father "in spirit and truth"
      3. In which those who seek to worship Him "must worship in spirit and truth"

      1. Some understand this to mean "to do so with sincerity, from the heart"
         a. But this does not fit in with the idea that Jesus is making
            a contrast between OT and NT worship - cf. Jn 4:19-24
         b. And sincerity was required under the OT - Deut 6:4-7; Isa 1:10-18
      2. I suggest that to worship in spirit means to offer 'spiritual worship'
         a. I.e., in contrast to worship that is physical or fleshly
         b. This contrast is in harmony with the context
            1) Jesus began by saying "God is Spirit"
            2) Therefore the worship of Him is to be 'spiritual', that
               is, in keeping with His nature
         c. This interpretation is in harmony with what we learn
            elsewhere about the contrast between OT and NT worship
            1) He 9:1-10 teaches that OT worship consisted of fleshly
               ordinances; e.g.:
               a) A physical structure (tabernacle)
               b) Special clothing for priests
               c) Lampstands
               d) Burning of incense
               e) Instruments of music
               f) Animal sacrifices
               -- All of which appealed to the physical senses
            2) But NT worship is focused toward the spiritual side of man:
               a) God's temple is spiritual, made up of Christians
                  - 1Co 3:16; Ep 2:19-22
               b) All Christians are priests, offering up spiritual
                  sacrifices - 1Pe 2:5,9; Ro 12:1; He 13:15
               c) Our prayers are as sweet incense - Re 5:8
               d) Our music is making melody with the heart - Ep 5:19
            3) Physical ordinances of the OT were to last until a "time
               of reformation" - He 9:9-10 (which has occurred with the
               coming of the New Covenant)
      -- To "worship in spirit", then, is to offer up spiritual worship
         as taught in the NT and not the physical worship as found in the OT

      1. Some understand this to worship according to the commands of God
         a. Certainly we should do this
         b. But again, this is no contrast to what God expected in the
            OT - cf. Deut 5:32-33
         c. Jesus admitted that the Jews had been right in their worship
            - Jn 4:22
         -- So the contrast is not between true and false worship
      2. The contrast is between that which is true (or real), and that
         which had been a shadow (or type) pointing toward the true!
         a. Many elements of OT worship were simply a 'shadow' of what
            was to come
            1) The Tabernacle was a symbol or type - He 9:8-9
            2) The Law with its worship was only a 'shadow' of that
               which was to come - He 10:1
         b. Christ is now in the true tabernacle (heaven)- He 9:11-12,24
            1) Therefore we should expect the worship of the true to be
               different from that of the shadow
            2) And we have already seen that to be the case:
               a) The OT worship, which was but a shadow, was physical
                  in nature
               b) But NT worship, which God now expects of "true
                  worshipers", is according to the true realities (God
                  is Spirit, Christ in heaven) and is therefore
                  spiritual in nature
      -- To "worship in truth", then, is to offer up the true, spiritual
         worship as taught in the NT, and not the physical worship in
         the OT which was but a shadow

[When we consider the elements of worship in our next lesson, I trust we
shall see that the worship in the early church was indeed spiritual in
its focus.  But before we conclude this study, two more things can be
said about the nature of worship in the church...]


      1. As we will see later, they sang 'hymns' - cf. Ep 5:19
      2. The definition of 'hymn' is a song of praise to God
      -- As God's creatures, especially those created in His image and
         redeemed by His Son, the Creator is the primary focus of any
         worship service - e.g., Re 4:9-11

      1. As Paul instructed the church in Corinth - 1Co 14:26
         a. All things were to be done "for edification"
         b. That is, for the purpose of "building up"
      2. Note that in regards to singing...
         a. They were "speaking to one another..." as well as to the
            Lord - Ep 5:19
         b. They were "teaching and admonishing one another" - Col 3:16
      3. Note the true source of their edification...
         a. Not the music or melody of the songs themselves
         b. But the words of the songs which taught and admonished them
         c. For spiritual worship is designed to impact the spiritual
            side of man, not his fleshly side
      -- Worship in the church should therefore edify or build up those
         engaged in it, not by what may sound good to the ears (the
         flesh), but by words that impact the heart of man (the spirit)

[Sadly, it is easy for us to be more interested in the melody and beat
of a song, than the actual words!  But those seeking true edification
will be careful to note the difference.  Finally...]


      1. At a time in which Christians enjoyed the gifts of tongues
         (speaking in a foreign language), those in Corinth were misusing them
         a. Tongues were designed to be a sign for unbelievers - 1Co 14:22
         b. They were speaking without interpreters, and all at once
            - 1Co 14:23
      2. Therefore Paul commanded them to do things decently and in
         a. They were to speak one at a time, and no more than three
            - 1Co 14:27
         b. If there were no interpreter, they were to remain silent
            - 1Co 14:28
      -- Thus they were to do things "decently and in order" - 1Co 14:40

      1. Worship that is 'decent' is that which...
         a. Is done "in a seemly manner"; i.e., fitting for the occasion
         b. Glorifies God by offering up "spiritual worship" (worship in
            keeping with His nature; not necessarily what we want) - cf.
            Jn 4:23-24
         c. Edifies the brethren by teaching and admonishing them - cf.
            1Co 14:26
      2. Worship that is 'in order' is that which...
         a. Follows "a fixed arrangement"; i.e., not totally spontaneous
            - e.g., 1Co 14:27
         b. Contributes to peace, not confusion - cf. 1Co 14:33


1. When we consider the elements of worship in our next lesson...
   a. We will see how they are consistent with the nature of worship
   b. That what the worship of the early church was indeed done:
      1) In spirit and truth
      2) For the purpose of edification
      3) Decently and in order

2. Remember, not all worship is acceptable to God.  Worship based upon...
   a. The doctrines of men is vain worship - Mt 15:7-9
   b. A lack of understanding of God's nature is ignorant worship - Ac 17:22-23
   c. What we think is best is will worship (self-imposed religion), and
      of no true value in overcoming the flesh - Col 2:20-23

Let those who seek to be a part of "The Church Jesus Built" listen
closely to the Master...

   "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers
   will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is
   seeking such to worship Him.  God is Spirit, and those who
   worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
                                                     (Jn 4:23-24)

Are we "true worshipers" of the Father?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

From Gary... Bible Reading April 20

Bible Reading  

April 20

The World English Bible

Apr. 20
Numbers 31, 32
Num 31:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Num 31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward you shall be gathered to your people.
Num 31:3 Moses spoke to the people, saying, Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute Yahweh's vengeance on Midian.
Num 31:4 Of every tribe one thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, you shall send to the war.
Num 31:5 So there were delivered, out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
Num 31:6 Moses sent them, one thousand of every tribe, to the war, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the vessels of the sanctuary and the trumpets for the alarm in his hand.
Num 31:7 They warred against Midian, as Yahweh commanded Moses; and they killed every male.
Num 31:8 They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain: Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they killed with the sword.
Num 31:9 The children of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and all their livestock, and all their flocks, and all their goods, they took for a prey.
Num 31:10 All their cities in the places in which they lived, and all their encampments, they burnt with fire.
Num 31:11 They took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of man and of animal.
Num 31:12 They brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the congregation of the children of Israel, to the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan at Jericho.
Num 31:13 Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them outside of the camp.
Num 31:14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who came from the service of the war.
Num 31:15 Moses said to them, Have you saved all the women alive?
Num 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against Yahweh in the matter of Peor, and so the plague was among the congregation of Yahweh.
Num 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.
Num 31:18 But all the girls, who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Num 31:19 Encamp outside of the camp seven days: whoever has killed any person, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day, you and your captives.
Num 31:20 As to every garment, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood, you shall purify yourselves.
Num 31:21 Eleazar the priest said to the men of war who went to the battle, This is the statute of the law which Yahweh has commanded Moses:
Num 31:22 however the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
Num 31:23 everything that may abide the fire, you shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water for impurity: and all that doesn't withstand the fire you shall make to go through the water.
Num 31:24 You shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and you shall be clean; and afterward you shall come into the camp.
Num 31:25 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Num 31:26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of animal, you, and Eleazar the priest, and the heads of the fathers' houses of the congregation;
Num 31:27 and divide the prey into two parts: between the men skilled in war, who went out to battle, and all the congregation.
Num 31:28 Levy a tribute to Yahweh of the men of war who went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the cattle, and of the donkeys, and of the flocks:
Num 31:29 take it of their half, and give it to Eleazar the priest, for Yahweh's wave offering.
Num 31:30 Of the children of Israel's half, you shall take one drawn out of every fifty, of the persons, of the cattle, of the donkeys, and of the flocks, even of all the livestock, and give them to the Levites, who perform the duty of the tabernacle of Yahweh.
Num 31:31 Moses and Eleazar the priest did as Yahweh commanded Moses.
Num 31:32 Now the prey, over and above the booty which the men of war took, was six hundred seventy-five thousand sheep,
Num 31:33 and seventy-two thousand head of cattle,
Num 31:34 and sixty-one thousand donkeys,
Num 31:35 and thirty-two thousand persons in all, of the women who had not known man by lying with him.
Num 31:36 The half, which was the portion of those who went out to war, was in number three hundred thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep:
Num 31:37 and Yahweh's tribute of the sheep was six hundred seventy-five.
Num 31:38 The cattle were thirty-six thousand; of which Yahweh's tribute was seventy-two.
Num 31:39 The donkeys were thirty thousand five hundred; of which Yahweh's tribute was sixty-one.
Num 31:40 The persons were sixteen thousand; of whom Yahweh's tribute was thirty-two persons.
Num 31:41 Moses gave the tribute, which was Yahweh's wave offering, to Eleazar the priest, as Yahweh commanded Moses.
Num 31:42 Of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided off from the men who warred
Num 31:43 (now the congregation's half was three hundred thirty-seven thousand five hundred sheep,
Num 31:44 and thirty-six thousand head of cattle,
Num 31:45 and thirty thousand five hundred donkeys,
Num 31:46 and sixteen thousand persons),
Num 31:47 even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one drawn out of every fifty, both of man and of animal, and gave them to the Levites, who performed the duty of the tabernacle of Yahweh; as Yahweh commanded Moses.
Num 31:48 The officers who were over the thousands of the army, the captains of thousands, and the captains of hundreds, came near to Moses;
Num 31:49 and they said to Moses, Your servants have taken the sum of the men of war who are under our command, and there lacks not one man of us.
Num 31:50 We have brought Yahweh's offering, what every man has gotten, of jewels of gold, armlets, and bracelets, signet rings, earrings, and necklaces, to make atonement for our souls before Yahweh.
Num 31:51 Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all worked jewels.
Num 31:52 All the gold of the wave offering that they offered up to Yahweh, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred fifty shekels.
Num 31:53 (For the men of war had taken booty, every man for himself.)
Num 31:54 Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the Tent of Meeting, for a memorial for the children of Israel before Yahweh.
Num 32:1 Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of livestock: and when they saw the land of Jazer, and the land of Gilead, that behold, the place was a place for livestock;
Num 32:2 the children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and spoke to Moses, and to Eleazar the priest, and to the princes of the congregation, saying,
Num 32:3 Ataroth, and Dibon, and Jazer, and Nimrah, and Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Sebam, and Nebo, and Beon,
Num 32:4 the land which Yahweh struck before the congregation of Israel, is a land for livestock; and your servants have livestock.
Num 32:5 They said, If we have found favor in your sight, let this land be given to your servants for a possession; don't bring us over the Jordan.
Num 32:6 Moses said to the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brothers go to the war, and shall you sit here?
Num 32:7 Why do you discourage the heart of the children of Israel from going over into the land which Yahweh has given them?
Num 32:8 Your fathers did so when I sent them from Kadesh Barnea to see the land.
Num 32:9 For when they went up to the valley of Eshcol, and saw the land, they discouraged the heart of the children of Israel, that they should not go into the land which Yahweh had given them.
Num 32:10 Yahweh's anger was kindled in that day, and he swore, saying,
Num 32:11 Surely none of the men who came up out of Egypt, from twenty years old and upward, shall see the land which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; because they have not wholly followed me:
Num 32:12 save Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite, and Joshua the son of Nun; because they have wholly followed Yahweh.
Num 32:13 Yahweh's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander back and forth in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, who had done evil in the sight of Yahweh, was consumed.
Num 32:14 Behold, you have risen up in your fathers' place, an increase of sinful men, to augment yet the fierce anger of Yahweh toward Israel.
Num 32:15 For if you turn away from after him, he will yet again leave them in the wilderness; and you will destroy all this people.
Num 32:16 They came near to him, and said, We will build sheepfolds here for our livestock, and cities for our little ones:
Num 32:17 but we ourselves will be ready armed to go before the children of Israel, until we have brought them to their place: and our little ones shall dwell in the fortified cities because of the inhabitants of the land.
Num 32:18 We will not return to our houses, until the children of Israel have inherited every man his inheritance.
Num 32:19 For we will not inherit with them on the other side of the Jordan, and forward; because our inheritance is fallen to us on this side of the Jordan eastward.
Num 32:20 Moses said to them, If you will do this thing, if you will arm yourselves to go before Yahweh to the war,
Num 32:21 and every armed man of you will pass over the Jordan before Yahweh, until he has driven out his enemies from before him,
Num 32:22 and the land is subdued before Yahweh; then afterward you shall return, and be guiltless towards Yahweh, and towards Israel; and this land shall be to you for a possession before Yahweh.
Num 32:23 But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against Yahweh; and be sure your sin will find you out.
Num 32:24 Build cities for your little ones, and folds for your sheep; and do that which has proceeded out of your mouth.
Num 32:25 The children of Gad and the children of Reuben spoke to Moses, saying, Your servants will do as my lord commands.
Num 32:26 Our little ones, our wives, our flocks, and all our livestock, shall be there in the cities of Gilead;
Num 32:27 but your servants will pass over, every man who is armed for war, before Yahweh to battle, as my lord says.
Num 32:28 So Moses commanded concerning them to Eleazar the priest, and to Joshua the son of Nun, and to the heads of the fathers' houses of the tribes of the children of Israel.
Num 32:29 Moses said to them, If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben will pass with you over the Jordan, every man who is armed to battle, before Yahweh, and the land shall be subdued before you; then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession:
Num 32:30 but if they will not pass over with you armed, they shall have possessions among you in the land of Canaan.
Num 32:31 The children of Gad and the children of Reuben answered, saying, As Yahweh has said to your servants, so will we do.
Num 32:32 We will pass over armed before Yahweh into the land of Canaan, and the possession of our inheritance shall remain with us beyond the Jordan.
Num 32:33 Moses gave to them, even to the children of Gad, and to the children of Reuben, and to the half-tribe of Manasseh the son of Joseph, the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, and the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, the land, according to the cities of it with their borders, even the cities of the surrounding land.
Num 32:34 The children of Gad built Dibon, and Ataroth, and Aroer,
Num 32:35 and Atrothshophan, and Jazer, and Jogbehah,
Num 32:36 and Beth Nimrah, and Beth Haran: fortified cities, and folds for sheep.
Num 32:37 The children of Reuben built Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Kiriathaim,
Num 32:38 and Nebo, and Baal Meon, (their names being changed), and Sibmah: and they gave other names to the cities which they built.
Num 32:39 The children of Machir the son of Manasseh went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorites who were therein.
Num 32:40 Moses gave Gilead to Machir the son of Manasseh; and he lived therein.
Num 32:41 Jair the son of Manasseh went and took its towns, and called them Havvoth Jair.
Num 32:42 Nobah went and took Kenath, and its villages, and called it Nobah, after his own name.

Apr. 20, 21
Luke 12
Luk 12:1 Meanwhile, when a multitude of many thousands had gathered together, so much so that they trampled on each other, he began to tell his disciples first of all, "Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
Luk 12:2 But there is nothing covered up, that will not be revealed, nor hidden, that will not be known.
Luk 12:3 Therefore whatever you have said in the darkness will be heard in the light. What you have spoken in the ear in the inner chambers will be proclaimed on the housetops.
Luk 12:4 "I tell you, my friends, don't be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
Luk 12:5 But I will warn you whom you should fear. Fear him, who after he has killed, has power to cast into Gehenna. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
Luk 12:6 "Aren't five sparrows sold for two assaria coins? Not one of them is forgotten by God.
Luk 12:7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Therefore don't be afraid. You are of more value than many sparrows.
Luk 12:8 "I tell you, everyone who confesses me before men, him will the Son of Man also confess before the angels of God;
Luk 12:9 but he who denies me in the presence of men will be denied in the presence of the angels of God.
Luk 12:10 Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
Luk 12:11 When they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, don't be anxious how or what you will answer, or what you will say;
Luk 12:12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that same hour what you must say."
Luk 12:13 One of the multitude said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me."
Luk 12:14 But he said to him, "Man, who made me a judge or an arbitrator over you?"
Luk 12:15 He said to them, "Beware! Keep yourselves from covetousness, for a man's life doesn't consist of the abundance of the things which he possesses."
Luk 12:16 He spoke a parable to them, saying, "The ground of a certain rich man brought forth abundantly.
Luk 12:17 He reasoned within himself, saying, 'What will I do, because I don't have room to store my crops?'
Luk 12:18 He said, 'This is what I will do. I will pull down my barns, and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.
Luk 12:19 I will tell my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years. Take your ease, eat, drink, be merry." '
Luk 12:20 "But God said to him, 'You foolish one, tonight your soul is required of you. The things which you have prepared-whose will they be?'
Luk 12:21 So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
Luk 12:22 He said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, don't be anxious for your life, what you will eat, nor yet for your body, what you will wear.
Luk 12:23 Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing.
Luk 12:24 Consider the ravens: they don't sow, they don't reap, they have no warehouse or barn, and God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than birds!
Luk 12:25 Which of you by being anxious can add a cubit to his height?
Luk 12:26 If then you aren't able to do even the least things, why are you anxious about the rest?
Luk 12:27 Consider the lilies, how they grow. They don't toil, neither do they spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Luk 12:28 But if this is how God clothes the grass in the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith?
Luk 12:29 Don't seek what you will eat or what you will drink; neither be anxious.
Luk 12:30 For the nations of the world seek after all of these things, but your Father knows that you need these things.
Luk 12:31 But seek God's Kingdom, and all these things will be added to you.
Luk 12:32 Don't be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom.
Luk 12:33 Sell that which you have, and give gifts to the needy. Make for yourselves purses which don't grow old, a treasure in the heavens that doesn't fail, where no thief approaches, neither moth destroys.
Luk 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Luk 12:35 "Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning.
Luk 12:36 Be like men watching for their lord, when he returns from the marriage feast; that, when he comes and knocks, they may immediately open to him.
Luk 12:37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord will find watching when he comes. Most certainly I tell you, that he will dress himself, and make them recline, and will come and serve them.
Luk 12:38 They will be blessed if he comes in the second or third watch, and finds them so.
Luk 12:39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what hour the thief was coming, he would have watched, and not allowed his house to be broken into.
Luk 12:40 Therefore be ready also, for the Son of Man is coming in an hour that you don't expect him."
Luk 12:41 Peter said to him, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everybody?"
Luk 12:42 The Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the right times?
Luk 12:43 Blessed is that servant whom his lord will find doing so when he comes.
Luk 12:44 Truly I tell you, that he will set him over all that he has.
Luk 12:45 But if that servant says in his heart, 'My lord delays his coming,' and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken,
Luk 12:46 then the lord of that servant will come in a day when he isn't expecting him, and in an hour that he doesn't know, and will cut him in two, and place his portion with the unfaithful.
Luk 12:47 That servant, who knew his lord's will, and didn't prepare, nor do what he wanted, will be beaten with many stripes,
Luk 12:48 but he who didn't know, and did things worthy of stripes, will be beaten with few stripes. To whoever much is given, of him will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him more will be asked.
Luk 12:49 "I came to throw fire on the earth. I wish it were already kindled.
Luk 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished!
Luk 12:51 Do you think that I have come to give peace in the earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.
Luk 12:52 For from now on, there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
Luk 12:53 They will be divided, father against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against her mother; mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law, and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."
Luk 12:54 He said to the multitudes also, "When you see a cloud rising from the west, immediately you say, 'A shower is coming,' and so it happens.
Luk 12:55 When a south wind blows, you say, 'There will be a scorching heat,' and it happens.
Luk 12:56 You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky, but how is it that you don't interpret this time?
Luk 12:57 Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?
Luk 12:58 For when you are going with your adversary before the magistrate, try diligently on the way to be released from him, lest perhaps he drag you to the judge, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison.
Luk 12:59 I tell you, you will by no means get out of there, until you have paid the very last penny."