Now that Same-Sex Unions Have Been Legalized by Melvin Otey, J.D., M.Div.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5177

Now that Same-Sex Unions Have Been Legalized

by	Melvin Otey, J.D., M.Div.

[NOTE: Auxiliary staff writer Melvin Otey served in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, D.C. as a Trial Attorney in the Review and Policy Unit of the Organized Crime and Gang Section, responsible for reviewing all RICO and VICAR prosecutions nationwide. He also taught at the University of the District of Columbia Law School. In addition to writing for Apologetics Press, Otey now serves as an Associate Professor of Law at the Faulkner University Jones School of Law in Montgomery and as an adjunct professor at Amridge University.]

There are watershed moments in the history of any nation, and America is no different in this regard. Critical turning points have included armed conflicts like the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. They have included speeches like Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” address to Virginia’s delegates in 1775 and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech at the March on Washington in 1963. The course of affairs in America has also been decisively impacted by court rulings like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court reached a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that will surely qualify as yet another watershed moment in American history.

WHAT THE COURT HAS DONE

With the Supreme Court’s mandate that all 50 states recognize homosexual “marriages,” American authorities have once again declined to restrain evil and decided instead to sanction what Jehovah clearly condemns (but see Romans 13:3-5). Make no mistake: whatever popular opinions may be in society today, whatever novel theories are bandied about in the halls of academia to explain homosexual conduct, and whatever laws are passed by men, this is sinful behavior. It is one of several behaviors for which unrepentant sinners will be eternally lost (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
Jehovah, the Creator of mankind and marriage, is as clear on this matter as He is on any subject. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22, ESV). “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). While many today seemingly accept the notion that people are “born homosexual” (without any scientific support), homoerotic behavior is really a consequence of people turning away from Jehovah to worship themselves and lower aspects of His creation. In Romans 1, the apostle Paul explained:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committingshameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty fortheir error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done (emp. added).

Of course, in the first century when Paul wrote, homosexuality was common and accepted in the Roman Empire, just as it is becoming more common and more accepted in America and Western Civilization at-large. Remember, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34; cf. Ezekiel 16:49-50).
The Court’s decision is merely the latest in a line of critical markers for the accelerated and abysmal moral decline of the United States. It follows on the heels of the introduction of the theory of evolution into school curricula, the legalization of abortion on demand, and the proliferation of no-fault divorce. Our society is at war with our God, and the Court’s decision once again crystallizes the stark contrast between God’s law and man’s law. This decline in our national morality does not bode well for our national future: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).

WHAT CHRISTIANS MUST DO

More than ever before, it is absolutely vital that Christians in America grasp the reality of our circumstances. Whatever ideals one may hold about what America used to be, and whatever dreams one may have about what it will become, we must walk circumspectly in these evil and decadent days (Ephesians 5:15-16). We live in Sodom and Gomorrah. This is Babylon and Rome, and we must develop realistic expectations in order to prepare for what is forthcoming. All those who resist this latest ordinance of the State and speak against homosexuality as the Bible does should anticipate mounting aggression and increasingly overt hostility from his neighbors and the authorities. “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).
Of course, aggression and hostility and persecution have been evident for some time now (albeit at a relatively lower level). Those who have dared to voice concern with their employers’ “diversity” campaigns, designed largely to compel acceptance of homoerotic behavior, have been sent to “sensitivity training” or fired. Business owners who have declined to sell flowers or cakes for homosexual wedding ceremonies specifically because of their religious convictions have been sued, fined and driven out of business. People from all walks of life are publicly excoriated and harassed if they even suggest that this particular sin is unnatural and unhealthy for individuals, families, and society-at-large. Increasingly, everyone is thought to have freedom of speech in America except those who disagree with homosexuality, and the tide is unlikely to change in the near future.
There is room to lament and decry what is occurring, but Christians cannot expend inordinate energy in this regard because we cannot afford to be inert any longer. We must move forward. In light of what is occurring in American society, in general, and the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding same-sex unions, in particular, Christians must consider how the church should proceed in the days to come.

Preach the Truth

We must preach and teach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It will make us unpopular, but we must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29) and bear the consequences for preaching and teaching Christ (Acts 5:40-42). Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that Biblical speech opposing homosexual behavior is a “hate crime” in February 2013. It is seemingly only a matter of time before American courts do the same, and well-funded advocates of the homosexual agenda are aggressively marshaling their resources to ensure that they do.
Following their latest victory in the Supreme Court, these advocates will ramp up their focus on policing speech in the workplace, schools, businesses, and public squares across America. Consequently, the costs for teaching “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) on matters of marriage and sexuality will increase dramatically. People are going to be sued and convicted as criminals for merely saying what the Bible says; they will be fined and ultimately jailed. Still, we must not waver or compromise; rather, we must “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2).

Protect the Church

Of course, being committed to speaking and living the truth does not mean Christians should be ignorant of or unprepared for the consequences. We are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16). Those promoting acceptance of homoeroticism are doing it largely through the courts, and this means they will continue suing people. Consequently, church sermons and Web sites will be scoured for statements disapproving of homosexuality. Also, preachers and churches will increasingly receive inquiries from litigious individuals concerning their willingness to perform same-sex weddings, and they must take proper precautions.
In anticipation of inquiries like this, preachers should strongly consider adopting an announced policy of refusing to officiate wedding ceremonies where he has not personally provided pre-marital, Bible-based, spiritual counseling to those wanting to exchange vows. This is advisable for several reasons, but a consistent practice in this regard will require those seeking the preacher’s assistance for a homosexual union to submit to several sessions of counseling on what the Bible teaches about marriage. Those who are not interested in entering a union guided by the Scriptures are unlikely to participate in such a series. However, even if two men or two women participated in the series (which would be great), a preacher could still decline to officiate the ceremony if the parties are unwilling to repent of their sin, just as he would decline to officiate if he discovered that the union would be adulterous (e.g., Matthew 5:31-32, 19:9). The basis for refusal, then, would be the parties’ express intention of entering into a union that does not conform to the teachings of Scripture, which he is duty-bound to uphold.
Congregations should also be proactive and adopt insulating language and policies before trouble of this kind darkens its doors. For instance, every church’s bylaws should include a statement of faith regarding marriage, gender, and sexuality and clearly identify the Bible as the final authority for all matters of faith and practice. A church might also adopt a policy limiting the use of its facilities and grounds to the religious purposes expressed in its bylaws. If its buildings and grounds are to be used for weddings, the church should amend its bylaws to expressly state that weddings conducted by church staff or on church grounds are “religious ceremonies” (because they involve acts of prayer, singing hymns, reading Scripture, and an exchange of vows in which a man and woman enter into a covenant with God and one another; see Matthew 19:6 and Malachi 2:14-15) and limit the use of church facilities to ceremonies involving “members in good standing” (and perhaps “their children” or “immediate family members”). As long as the limitation is not based on sexual orientation and is consistently applied, the congregation is likely to either avoid a lawsuit or successfully withstand a legal challenge if it comes.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will certainly lead to increased pressure on the church. Those who support the homosexual agenda will target conservative preachers and churches (they have already been targeted in other countries), and the ones saying “no gay marriages” are surely going to end up in litigation, whether civil or criminal. Of course, this does not change our responsibilities one iota; we must stand with the Lord in speaking and teaching the truth. Along the way, we must be prudent and wise in protecting the church because, even if churches successfully defend against lawsuits of this kind, the drain on resources that comes with being swept up in litigation would distract its members and significantly undermine its work.

Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance--Proof of Evolution? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=572

Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance--Proof of Evolution?

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

On November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, was published. As a result, the concept of organic evolution was popularized. The science of genetics, of course, was completely unknown at that time, and would not come into its own until approximately forty-one years later. Since around 1900, evolutionists have advocated “neo-Darwinism,” as opposed to “classical Darwinism.” In classical Darwinian thought, natural selection alone served as the mechanism of evolution. In neo-Darwinian thought, natural selection and genetic mutations work together as evolution’s mechanism.
Genetics has played an increasingly important role in evolution, especially in regard to mutations that alter the genetic code within each organism. That code is expressed biochemically in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Mutations are “errors” in DNA replication (Ayala, 1978, pp. 56-69). It is those errors that cause the genetic change necessary for evolution to occur. In 1957, George Gaylord Simpson wrote: “Mutations are the ultimate raw materials for evolution” (1957, p. 430). Twenty-six years later, nothing had changed when Douglas J. Futuyma remarked:
By far the most important way in which chance influences evolution is the process of mutation. Mutation is, ultimately, the source of new genetic variations, and without genetic variation there cannot be genetic change. Mutation is therefore necessary for evolution (1983, p. 136).
Mutations can occur in several different ways, and can affect individual genes or entire chromosomes (see Futuyma, 1983, p. 136). Further, mutations can be placed, theoretically, into at least three categories: (a) bad; (b) neutral; and (c) good.
Some mutations, therefore, can have profound effects. They can alter the structure of a critical protein so much that the organism becomes severely distorted and may not survive. Other mutations may cause changes in the protein that do not affect its function at all. Such mutations are adaptively neutral—they are neither better nor worse than the original form of the gene. Still other mutations are decidedly advantageous (Futuyma, 1983, p. 136).
Neither bad nor neutral mutations aid evolution, since the bad ones produce effects that are deleterious (and often lethal), and the neutral ones neither help nor hurt an organism. Neo-Darwinian evolution relies entirely on good mutations, since they not only alter the genetic material, but are, to use Futuyma’s words, “decidedly advantageous.” Evolutionary progress, then, is dependent upon nature “selecting” the good mutations, resulting in genetic change that ultimately produces new organisms.

BACTERIA AND RESISTANCE TO ANTIBIOTICS

What does all of this have to do with the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics? Over the past several years, the medical community has become increasingly concerned over the ability of certain bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics. Undoubtedly this concern is justified. Antibiotics, which usually are substances naturally produced by certain microorganisms, inhibit the growth of other microorganisms. One of the first antibiotics to be discovered (in 1928) was penicillin, produced by the mold Penicillium chrysogenum. Since then, more than a thousand similar substances have been isolated. Most people recognize the tremendous impact antibiotics have had in the battle with pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms. Without antibiotics, the death toll from infections and diseases would be much higher than it is.
Today, however, there is compelling evidence that we are in danger of losing our battle against certain pathogens. Bacteria sometimes develop resistance to even powerful antibiotics. As a result, the number of antibiotics that can be used against certain diseases is dwindling rapidly. Both scientific and popular publications have addressed the seriousness of this issue. The cover story of the March 28, 1994 issue of Newsweek was titled, “Antibiotics: The End of Miracle Drugs?” (Begley, 1994). Articles in Scientific American (Beardsley, 1994), Science (Travis, 1994; Davies, 1994), Discover (Caldwell, 1994), and Natural History (Smith, 1994), have all called attention to the impact on our lives that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is causing.
The phenomenon of bacterial drug resistance was first documented around 1952 (see Lederberg and Lederberg, 1952). Interest in the phenomenon has increased as fewer antibiotics are effective against pathogens, and as deaths from bacterial infections increase. Scientific interest in this problem is both pragmatic and academic. In the pragmatic sense, those working in medical fields (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, etc.) are interested because lives are at stake. In an academic sense, this issue is of importance to evolutionists because they believe the mutations in bacteria responsible for drug resistance are, from the standpoint of the bacterial population, “good,” and thus offer significant proof of evolution. Their point is that the bacteria have adapted so as to “live to fight another day”—an example of “decidedly advantageous” mutations. Evolutionist Colin Patterson of Great Britain has commented: “The development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, and also of insects resistant to DDT and a host of other recently discovered insecticides, are genuine evolutionary changes (1978, p. 85, emp. added). But are these mutations sufficient to explain long-term, large-scale evolution (macroevolution)?

AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION

Bacteria do not become resistant to antibiotics merely by experiencing genetic mutations. In fact, there are at least three genetic mechanisms by which resistance may be conferred. First, there are instances where mutations produce antibiotic-resistant strains of microorganisms. Second, there is the process of conjugation, during which two bacterial cells join and an exchange of genetic material occurs. Inside many bacteria there is a somewhat circular piece of self-replicating DNA known as a plasmid, which codes for enzymes necessary for the bacteria’s survival. Certain of these enzymes, coincidentally, assist in the breakdown of antibiotics, thus making the bacteria resistant to antibiotics. During conjugation, plasmids in one organism that are responsible for resistance to antibiotics may be transferred to an organism that previously did not possess such resistance.

GERM WARFARE: During conjugation, one bacterial cell (A) can transfer any tiny DNA circle (plasmid) to another cell (B). This act can occur even between cells of different species. The transfer gives bacterium B a resistance to a drug that formerly was not present in its own DNA. In this example, the plasmid contains a gene (shown in red) to manufacture an enzyme that destroys the drug’s ability to interfere with bacterial cell division (as in the case of penicillin).

Third, bacteria can incorporate into their own genetic machinery foreign pieces of DNA by either of two types of DNA transposition. In transformation, DNA from the environment (perhaps from the death of another bacterium) is absorbed into the bacterial cell. In transduction, a piece of DNA is transported into the cell by a virus. As a result of incorporating new genetic material, an organism can become resistant to antibiotics. Commenting on these processes, Walter J. ReMine wrote:

Transformation and transduction occur extremely infrequently, but this rarity can be offset somewhat by the enormous population sizes that bacteria can achieve, especially under laboratory conditions. By those three methods bacteria can acquire DNA that alters their survival.... For example, DNA transposition can result in reduced permeability of the cell wall to certain substances, sometimes providing an increased resistance to antibiotics (1993, p. 404).

The issue is not whether bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics through alterations in their genetic material. They do. The issue is whether or not such resistance helps the evolutionists’ case. We suggest that it does not, for the following reasons.
First, the mutations responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria do not arise as a result of the “need” of the organisms. Futumya has noted: “...the adaptive ‘needs’ of the species do not increase the likelihood that an adaptive mutation will occur; mutations are not directed toward the adaptive needs of the moment.... Mutations have causes, but the species’ need to adapt isn’t one of them” (1983, pp. 137,138). What does this mean? Simply put, bacteria did not “mutate” after being exposed to antibiotics; the mutations conferring the resistance were present in the bacterial population even prior to the discovery or use of the antibiotics. The Lederbergs’ experiments in 1952 on streptomycin-resistant bacteria showed that bacteria which had never been exposed to the antibiotic already possessed the mutations responsible for the resistance. Malcolm Bowden has observed: “What is interesting is that bacterial cultures from bodies frozen 140 years ago were found to be resistant to antibiotics that were developed 100 years later. Thus the specific chemical needed for resistance was inherent in the bacteria” (1991, p. 56). These bacteria did not mutate to become resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, the non-resistant varieties did not become resistant due to mutations.
Second, while pre-existing mutations may confer antibiotic resistance, such mutations may also decrease an organism’s viability. For example, “the surviving strains are usually less virulent, and have a reduced metabolism and so grow more slowly. This is hardly a recommendation for ‘improving the species by competition’ (i.e., survival of the fittest)” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). Just because a mutation provides an organism with a certain trait does not mean that the organism as a whole has been helped. For example, in the disease known as sickle-cell anemia (caused by a mutation), people who are “carriers” of the disease do not die from it and are resistant to malaria, which at first would seem to be an excellent example of a good mutation. However, that is not the entire story. While resistant to malaria, these people do not possess the stamina of, and do not live as long as, their non-carrier counterparts. Bacteria may be resistant to a certain antibiotic, but that resistance comes at a price. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, acquiring resistance does not lead necessarily to new species or types of organisms.
Third, regardless of how bacteria acquired their antibiotic resistance (i.e., by mutation, conjugation, or by transposition), they are still exactly the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. The “evolution” is not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation). In other words, these bacteria “...are still the same bacteria and of the same type, being only a variety that differs from the normal in its resistance to the antibiotic. No new ‘species’ have been produced” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). In commenting on the changing, or sharing, of genetic material, ReMine has suggested: “It has not allowed bacteria to arbitrarily swap major innovations such as the use of chlorophyll or flagella. The major features of microorganisms fall into well-defined groups that seem to have a nested pattern like the rest of life” (1993, p. 404).
Microbiologists have studied extensively two genera of bacteria in their attempts to understand antibiotic resistance: Escherichia and Salmonella. In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed:

...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87).

Although E. coli allegedly has undergone a billion years’ worth of mutations, it still has remained “stabilized” in its “nested pattern.” While mutations and DNA transposition have caused change within the bacterial population, those changes have occurred within narrow limits. No long-term, large-scale evolution has occurred.

CONCLUSION

The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.

REFERENCES

Ayala, Francisco (1978), “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, 239[3]:56-69, September.
Beardsley, Tim (1994), “La Ronde,” Scientific American, 270[6]:26,29, June.
Begley, Sharon (1994), “The End of Antibiotics,” Newsweek, 123[13]:47-51, March 28.
Bowden, M. (1991), Science vs. Evolution (Bromley, Kent, England: Sovereign Publications).
Caldwell, Mark (1994), “Prokaryotes at the Gate,” Discover, 15[8]:45-50, August.
Davies, Julian (1994), “Inactivation of Antibiotics and the Dissemination of Resistance Genes,” Science, 264[5157]:375-382, April 15.
Futuyma, Douglas J. (1983), Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon Books).
Grass‚, Pierre-Paul (1977), The Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press).
Lederberg, J. and E.M. Lederberg (1952), Journal of Bacteriology, 63:399.
Patterson, Colin (1978), Evolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
ReMine, Walter J. (1993), The Biotic Message (St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Science).
Simpson, George Gaylord, C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World).
Smith, John Maynard (1994), “Breaking the Antibiotic Bank,” Natural History, 103[6]:39-40, June.
Travis, John (1994), “Reviving the Antibiotic Miracle?,” Science, 264:360-362, April 15.

Evolutionists Want It Both Ways by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=728

Evolutionists Want It Both Ways

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Astronomers from more than 30 research institutions in 15 countries are working together to select a site for a giant telescope that they hope will read TV or radio signals from alien civilizations. Slated to cost one billion dollars, the Square Kilometer Array, or SKA, would be the world’s most powerful radio telescope. Speaking at a conference of the International Society for Optical Engineering in Orlando, Florida, project astronomers said they hope to find “immediate and direct evidence of life elsewhere in the Universe” (“Sites Under...,” 2006).
Despite this bold venture, the scientists admit that “such a search would have distinct limitations, to be sure.” “Distinct limitations”? Like what? For one, the scientists “aren’t sure how to recognize such signals, if they do turn up. The hope is that the signals would consist of organized patterns suggestive of intelligence, and not attributable to any known celestial sources” (“Sites Under...,” 2006, emp. added). Wait a minute. Evolutionary scientists are renowned for their condescending ridicule of creationists because those who believe in God assert that evidence of intelligent design in the Universe is proof of an Intelligent Designer. No, the evolutionists counter, the Universe got here by accident through random chance, mindless trial and error, and the blind, mechanistic forces of nature. They maintain that life on Earth owes its ultimate origin to dead, non-purposive, unconscious, non-intelligent matter. Yet they are perfectly willing to squander one billion dollars on a telescope with the speculative idea that solid proof—hard evidence—for the existence of alien life would reside in otherwise undecipherable radio or TV signals that convey “organized patterns suggestive of intelligence.” [NOTE: One is reminded of NASA’s Viking mission to Mars in the mid-seventies in which scientists eagerly declared evidence for life on Mars based on initial photos that appeared to show a “B” or even a face on a rock (cf. “‘Life’ on Mars,” 2006; Warren and Flew, 1976, pp. 112,156). Such judgments soon were deemed premature and incorrect.] Atheistic evolutionists want it both ways: organized patterns prove the existence of life and organized patterns do not prove the existence of God. Philosophers and logicians refer to such duplicitous posturing as irrational and “logical contradiction.” Apparently, evolutionists call it “science.”

REFERENCES

“‘Life’ on Mars” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/mars_life.html.
“Sites Under Review for Telescope that Could Detect Alien TV” (2006), World Science, July 10, [On-line], URL: http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060711_ska.htm.
Warren, Thomas B. and Antony Flew (1976), The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

How Big Is a Giant? by Kyle Butt, M.A.

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=904

How Big Is a Giant?

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

Who could ever forget the thrilling story of a youth named David who defeated the Philistine champion, Goliath? Touching the hearts of all “underdogs,” this story has become the battle cry for thousands who have found themselves up against a “giant.” But, due to Goliath’s status as a giant, some might view the tale of his defeat as a fable or myth. After all, don’t giants live at the top of huge beanstalks or under bridges waiting to grind bones into bread or gobble up passers-by? Surely, no reasonable adult is expected to believe that there is (or ever was) such a thing as a real giant.
The word “giant” conjures up all kinds of mental images. Probably the most common images are those of a huge, beastly fellow who stands at least 30 feet tall and makes monstrous imprints with his feet—imprints so impressive that they could be used as watering ponds for cattle. However, the biblical description of Goliath does not quite fit that mold. The text of 1 Samuel 17:4 states that Goliath’s height was “six cubits and a span.” Several suggestions as to the length of a cubit have been offered by Bible scholars. The most commonly accepted is the idea that a cubit was the measurement from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow, or about 18-21 inches. A span was the distance between the tip of the pinky finger and the thumb, about half a cubit, which equals about 9 inches (Elwell, 1988, p. 2136). Given these dimensions, Goliath was about 9 feet 9 inches tall. The text goes on to say that he had a coat of armor that weighed 5,000 shekels (1 Samuel 17:5). Referring again to Elwell’s Encyclopedia of the Bible, that armor would have weighed about 125 pounds. Also, the tip of his spear, which weighed 600 shekels, would have been about 15 pounds. The picture, then, that we are given is of a man about 9½ feet tall, who wore armor that weighed more that most fifth graders, and who carried a spear that had a tip which weighed as much as a trophy-sized large-mouth bass. This man was huge, but he was a far cry from the 30-feet-tall mythical characters we often envision.
In fact, documentation for other men reaching close to Goliath’s stature can be found in ancient writings, as well as modern records. The ancient historian, Herodotus, wrote about a man named Artachaees, who “was the biggest man in Persia—about 8 ft 2 ins. high—and had the loudest voice in the world” (1996, p. 408). Furthermore, most wrestling fans will recall the huge stature of “Andre the Giant,” who weighed in at about 500 pounds and reached a height of 7 feet 4 inches tall. The Guinness World Record group has something to say about large stature as well. Simply go to their Web site at www.guinnessworldrecords.com, type in the word “tallest,” do a little scrolling, and you will see all kinds of stature marvels. Take, for instance, one of the tallest NBA players in history, Gheorghe Muresan, who stands 7 feet 7 inches and can virtually dunk a basketball without jumping. Or consider the tallest man documented in modern times, Robert Pershing Wadlow, “for whom there is irrefutable evidence,” states the Guinness writer. On June 27, 1940, he was measured to be 2.72 meters or 8 feet 11.1 inches. Go to www.nightscribe.com/Sports_Recreation/tallest_folks.htm and see even more giants who hover around the 8 feet mark.
Granted, we have little documentation, besides Goliath, for any nine-footers, but Robert Wadlow surely opens the door of plausibility for the Philistine. In fact, after looking at just a few of the world’s tallest people, there is no legitimate reason to discount the Bible’s description of its most famous giant. When all the evidence is in, the story of David and Goliath remains a true victory for the “underdog”—one that cannot be relegated to the status of myth or legend. The story also reminds us that “if God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31).

REFERENCES

Elwell, Walter A., ed. (1988), Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Herodotus (1996), The Histories, transl. Aubrey De Sẻlincourt (New York: Penguin Books).
“Tallest Famous Folks” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.nightscribe.com/Sports_Recreation/tallest_folks.htm.
“Guinness World Records” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com.

From Mark Copeland... "FASTING" Fasting In The Old Testament

                               "FASTING"

                      Fasting In The Old Testament

INTRODUCTION

1. In a culture where the landscape is dotted with shrines to the
   "GOLDEN ARCHES" and an assortment of "PIZZA TEMPLES", fasting seems
    out of place, out of step with the times - Richard Foster, The
    Celebration Of Discipline, p. 47

2. As I begin to deal with subject like fasting, I do so with some
   hesitation for several reasons:
   a. It is a very EMOTIONAL and VOLATILE subject
      1) Views about fasting usually go to extremes
         a) "Some have exalted religious fasting beyond all Scripture
            and reason, and others have utterly disregarded it."
            -- JOHN WESLEY
         b) Some consider fasting unnecessary, undesirable, and
            therefore to be ignored
         c) Others think fasting is to be bound as a matter of faith
            (like baptism)
      2) It touches upon a matter very personal to us:  FOOD!
         a) Many people are very dependent upon food
            1/ Not just for survival
            2/ But for dealing with anxiety, depression, boredom, etc.
            3/ Rather than eating to live, they live to eat
         b) It is like preaching on gluttony or smoking, it often
            touches on raw nerves
   b. It is an UNTRADITIONAL subject
      1) You rarely hear sermons on this subject
      2) One person found in his research that not a single book was
         published on fasting among some brethren from 1861 to 1954

3. But the Scriptures have so much to say about fasting...
   a. The list of Biblical persons who fasted becomes a "Who's Who" of
      Scripture:
      1) Moses the lawgiver             5) Daniel the seer
      2) David the king                 6) Anna the prophetess
      3) Elijah the prophet             7) Jesus the Son Of God
      4) Esther the queen               8) Paul the apostle
      -- Richard Foster, p.48, ibid.
   b. There is more teaching in the NT on fasting than repentance and
      confession!
   c. Jesus taught more on fasting than on baptism and the Lord's
      Supper!

4. What would account for this almost total disregard for a subject so
   frequently mentioned in Scripture?
   a. FIRST, fasting has developed a bad reputation as a result of the
      excessive ascetic practices of the Middle Ages - Foster, ibid.
   b. SECOND, many have simply concluded that fasting was a Jewish
      custom, of no value or need in the Christian age
   c. THIRD, we have been convinced through constant propaganda that if
      we do not have three large meals each day, with several snacks in
      between, we are on the verge of starvation (we eat, not because
      we NEED to eat. but because it's TIME to eat) - Foster, ibid.

5. Because the Bible has so much to say about fasting, it is only right
   that we consider what it says.  As we do so, I have several
   REQUESTS:
   a. Please withhold judgment until you have heard all the material
      - cf. Pr 18:13
      1) Let's be "SPELUNKERS" and not "ENGINEERS" with the Bible
      2) I.e., explore and follow what is there instead of rearranging
         what is there to fit our designs
   b. Don't be hasty in drawing conclusions or applying what you hear
      - cf. Pr 14:29
   c. If you have any additional information, questions or viewpoints,
      please feel free to share them with me - cf. Pr 11:14

[In this lesson, then, we shall take a look at "Fasting In The Old
Testament", beginning with... ]

I. OCCASIONS OF FASTING IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

   A. THE "DAY OF ATONEMENT"...
      1. Lev 16:29-31; 23:26-32; Num 29:7
      2. This was the only fast commanded by the Law, to be observed on
         the tenth day of the seventh month
      3. Though not called "fasting", the phrase "afflicting one's
         soul" was understood to refer to fasting
         a. Cf. Ps 69:10 ("chastened my soul with fasting")
         b. Cf. Ac 27:9 (where the term "Fast" refers to the Day of
            Atonement)
      4. The use of the phrase "afflict one's soul" to refer to fasting
         suggests a PURPOSE of fasting:
         a. To have an affect on the SOUL (not particularly the body)
         b. The goal of such affliction or chastening we shall notice 
            later

   B. OTHER FASTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT...
      -- People often fasted without specific commandment in time of
         distress; some were communal affairs while others were acts of
         the private individual
      1. THEY FASTED IN WAR, OR AT THE THREAT OF IT
         a. Israel fasted at Bethel in the war against the Benjamites
            - Judg 20:26
         b. Also at Mizpah in the Philistine war - 1Sa 7:6
      2. THEY FASTED WHEN LOVED ONES WERE SICK
         a. David fasted and wept for his son while the boy was ill
            - 2Sa 12:16-23
         b. The psalmist also mentions fasting for his enemies - Ps 35:11-13
      3. THEY FASTED WHEN LOVED ONES DIED
         a. The men of Jabesh-gilead fasted seven days for Saul - 1 Sa31:13; 1 Chron 10:12
         b. David and the people fasted for Saul and Jonathan - 2 Sa 1:12
      4. THEY FASTED WHEN THEY SOUGHT GOD'S FORGIVENESS
         a. Moses fasted forty days because of the sin of Israel - Deu
            9:15-18
         b. Ahab fasted to be forgiven - 1Ki 21:17-29
         c. Nineveh fasted at the preaching of Jonah - Jonah 3:4-10
         d. Daniel fasted as he confessed the sins of Israel - Da 9:3-5
         e. The general fast at the communal reading of the Law by Ezra
            was an act of penitence - Neh 9:1-3
      5. THEY FASTED WHEN FACED WITH IMPENDING DANGER
         a. Jehoshaphat fasted when threatened by Edom - 2 Chron 20:3
         b. Ezra led a fast when seeking the favor of God toward his 
            return from exile (a journey fraught with danger) - Ez 8:21
         c. Nehemiah fasted when he heard of the state of Jerusalem 
            - Neh 1:4
         d. The Jews fasted when they heard that Haman had obtained the
            king's decree against them - Esth 4:3
         e. Esther and Mordecai fasted before she went before the king
            - Esth 4:16
      6. THEY SET UP FASTS TO COMMEMORATE CERTAIN CALAMITIES
         -- During and after the Exile special fasts were observed on 
            the days the calamities had befallen Jerusalem
         a. The tenth of the fifth month was the burning of the Temple
            - Jer 52:12,13
         b. The second day of the seventh month was the murder of
            Gedaliah - 2Ki 25:23-95; Jer 41:1ff
         c. On the tenth day of the tenth month was the beginning of
            the siege of Jerusalem - 2Ki 25:1
         d. On the ninth day of the fourth was its fall - 2Ki 25:3,4

II. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT FASTING IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

   A. THE PURPOSE OF FASTING...
      1. Some fasting was a natural reaction to grief over the loss of 
         a loved one (like the men of Jabesh-gilead and David)
      2. But more often, fasting was done to purposely:
         a. "afflict the soul" - Lev 23:26-32
         b. "chasten the soul" - Ps 69:10
      3. The purpose of such affliction or chastening was to "humble"
         the soul (Ps 35:13), and not for any affect it might have on
         the body
      4. Evidently, they felt that by so humbling themselves they would
         more likely incur God's favor - cf. Ezra 8:21-23; Is 57:15;66:1-2
      5. So they would fast when they needed:
         a. Forgiveness for sin (Moses, Ahab, Daniel)
         b. Their loved ones restored to health (David)
         c. Protection from danger (Ezra)
         d. Deliverance from their enemies (the Israelites)
      6. Because they were seeking God's favor, FASTING WOULD ALMOST
         ALWAYS BE ACCOMPANIED WITH PRAYER

   B. THE NATURE OF FASTING...
      1. The NORMAL means of fasting involved ABSTAINING FROM ALL FOOD
         BUT NOT WATER
      2. Sometimes the fast was but PARTIAL - a restriction of diet but
         not total abstention - cf. Da 10:2-3
      3. On rare occasions there was the ABSOLUTE fast
         a. As in the case of the people of Nineveh, who also included
            the animals in their fast - cf. Jonah 3:5-10
         b. As in the case of Queen Esther - Esth 4:16 (cf. Paul, Ac 9:9)
         c. The absolute fasts of Moses and Elijah must have had divine
            assistance - Deut 9:9; 1Ki 19:8

   C. THE LENGTH OF FASTS...
      1. A fast was often for ONE DAY, from sunrise to sunset, and 
         after sundown food would be taken - Judg 20:26; 1Sa 14:24;
         2Sa 1:12; 3:35
      2. A fast might be for ONE NIGHT - Dan 6:18
      3. The fast of Esther continued for THREE DAYS, day and night,
         which seems to have been a special case - Esth 4:16
      4. At the burial of Saul, the fast by Jabesh-Gilead was SEVEN
         DAYS - 1Sa 31:13; 1 Chron 10:12
      5. David fasted SEVEN DAYS when his child was ill - 2Sa 12:16-18
      6. The longest fasts recorded in Scripture were the FORTY DAY
         fasts by Moses, Elijah, and Jesus - Exod 34:28; Deut 9:9;
         1Ki 19:8; Mt 4:2; Lk 4:2

   D. WARNINGS CONCERNING FASTING...
      1. Fasting CAN EASILY TURN INTO AN EXTERNAL SHOW AND CEREMONIAL
         RITUALISM; when it did, the prophets spoke out against it
      2. The most vigorous attack against such fasting is made in 
         Isaiah 58
         a. The people complained that they had fasted and God had not
            seen - Isa 58:3a
         b. But they had not been fasting for the right reason (to be
            heard by God) - Isa 58:3b-4
         c. In contrast to simply an external display of bowing one's 
            head like a bulrush and spreading sackcloth and ashes, the
            Lord would rather they:
            1) Loose the bonds of wickedness
            2) Let the oppressed go free
            3) Share bread with the hungry
            4) Bring the poor into one's house
            5) Cover the naked
            -- Then they should be heard in their prayers - Isa 58:6-9
         d. I.e. fasting without true repentance defeats the purpose of
            fasting:  to have your prayers heard by the Lord!
      3. The same point was made about the ceremonial fasts that had
         been added by the Israelites to commemorate certain occasions 
         - Zech 7:1-14
         a. The people wanted to know if they should fast on the 
            special occasions as they had done - Zech 7:1-3
         b. The Lord responded that the fasts had not be done for Him 
            - Zech 7:4-6
         c. They should have instead done the will of the Lord - Zech 7:7-10
         d. But because they did not, the fasting in the past was of no
            value - Zech 7:11-14

CONCLUSION

1. At this point we have not tried to establish whether fasting is for
   Christians today

2. Rather, we have just considered the practice of fasting as found in 
   the O.T., to have a better understanding of why people of God fasted

3. What have we learned?
   a. Only one fast was specifically commanded in the O.T. (The Day Of Atonement)
   b. But people often fasted when they wanted God to hear their 
      prayers
      1) The purpose of the fast was to humble themselves by 
         "afflicting their souls"
      2) Believing such humiliation would be pleasing in God's sight
         (and it often was)
   c. However, fasting was fruitless...
      1) When it was done for the wrong reason
      2) When it was done without true repentance
   d. We have also seen that there were no set principles concerning
      the length or nature of fasting

4. In our next lesson, we shall look at fasting as found in the New
   Testament

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... The internet, love and reward

Assume that:

1. A baby and a dog can communicate.

2. A baby could learn from a dog.

3. A baby could pee in the yard.

4. A baby would want to pee in the yard.

5. A baby would want a dog treat.

6. A baby would like a dog treat.

Success, you have entered the world of the internet; where you always get what you want!!! But, afterwards you wonder why you wanted it. The computer world is wonderful, isn't it? (Wait, wait, .... not sure about that one)

Then, there is this passage from John's gospel account...

John, Chapter 21 (WEB)

 12  Jesus said to them, “Come and eat breakfast.” 

None of the disciples dared inquire of him, “Who are you?” knowing that it was the Lord. 

  13  Then Jesus came and took the bread, gave it to them, and the fish likewise.  14 This is now the third time that Jesus was revealed to his disciples, after he had risen from the dead.  15 So when they had eaten their breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?” 

He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I have affection for you.” 

He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”   16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?” 

He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I have affection for you.” 

He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”   17 He said to him the third time,“Simon, son of Jonah, do you have affection for me?” 

Peter was grieved because he asked him the third time, “Do you have affection for me?” He said to him, “Lord, you know everything. You know that I have affection for you.” 

Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.  ...

Christianity is not a religion of action and reward (in this life, anyway); it is a relationship with God. Love is the force behind what we do and why we do it. Obedience follows love and who knows where that will lead. We follow and obey; God decides what happens to us in this life. Its as if Jesus were saying to me: Gary... do you love me? Since I must respond with a YES, then that's all there is to it; except of course to serve in any way I am led to serve.  God decides the rest of it, period!!!

There may, or there may not be, a treat at the end of my action in the here and now, but there will be a reward in heaven. I hope God allows dogs in heaven, but I wonder... will they be able to talk and what will they say to me???

Arf, arf, arf... you mean Moses really does have a treat on cloud nine?  Hope its not Gefilte fish-- again???