7/15/15

From Mark Copeland... "THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT" Sins Of Moral Impurity



                       "THE FLESH AND THE SPIRIT"

                         Sins Of Moral Impurity

INTRODUCTION

1. In Ro 1:18-32, we find a description of moral decay that sounds
   similar to today...
   a. While we have enjoyed great advances in technology, we are still
      in the "dark ages" as far as morality is concerned
   b. The challenge for Christians to live holy lives is not much
      different today, than in the First Century A.D.

2. But passages like 1Co 6:9-11 remind us that there is hope...
   a. People in the first century were able to make remarkable changes
      in their lives
   b. Today the same Power is available to change us as well!
      1) We too can be "washed", "sanctified", and "justified in the
         name of Jesus"
      2) How?  Note that Paul says it is "...by the Spirit of our God"!

3. In our previous lesson, we saw that by "walking in the Spirit" it is
   possible to overcome the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit
   a. By setting our minds on the things of the Spirit (via the Word of God)...
   b. And obtaining the aid of the Spirit (via prayer)...
   ...we can produce the "fruit of the Spirit" in our lives, instead of
   the "works of the flesh"

4. But we also noted that one step in "Overcoming The Conflict" was 
   through an awareness of the enemy...
   a. Otherwise we might be succumbing to the enemy, and not even know it!
   b. Fortunately, Paul has provided a list of such things that 
      comprise the "works of the flesh" - Ga 5:19-21

[With this lesson, we begin a careful examination of the words used to
describe the "works of the flesh".  We start with a look at those sins
that might be classed together as "Sins Of Moral Impurity".

The KJV and NKJV begin with a word ("adultery") that is not found in 
some of the oldest manuscripts.  But it is certainly covered by the 
next word, which we shall focus upon first...]

I. PORNEIA (fornication, immorality, sexual vice)

   A. A GENERIC WORD FOR UNLAWFUL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS...
      1. Originally, it meant "to act the harlot" and then "to indulge
         unlawful lust"
      2. As used in the New Testament, we find it having at least four
         different meanings...
         a. Pre-marital sex - 1Co 7:1-2
         b. A synonym for adultery - Mt 19:9
         c. A generic sense referring to all forms of unchastity - 1Co 6:13,18
         d. A specific sense referring to harlotry and prostitution - 
            Re 2:20-21
      3. It therefore includes any sort of sexual intercourse between
         partners who are not married to each other (pre-marital sex, 
         adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, incest)
      4. God's disdain for such immorality is seen in the fact...
         a. There are seven lists of evil in the writings of Paul
         b. Fornication is listed in five of them, and is the first in
            each of them

   B. THIS WORD BECAME SYNONYMOUS WITH FIRST CENTURY LIFE...
      1. As it truly reflected...
         a. Their attitude toward "adultery":  "We keep mistresses for
            pleasure, concubines for day-to-day needs of the body, but
            we have wives in order to produce children legitimately and
            to have a trustworthy guardian of our homes" (Demosthenes)
         b. Their attitude toward "divorce":  "Roman women were married
            to be divorced and were divorced to be married. Some of 
            them distinguished the years, not by the names of the 
            consuls, but by the names of their husbands." (Seneca)
         c. Their attitude toward "family":  "Caligula lived in incest
            with his sister Drusilla, and the lust of Nero did not even
            spare his mother Agrippina." (Suetonius)
         d. Their attitude toward "those of the same sex":
            1) "It were better not to need marriage, but to follow 
               Plato and Socrates and to be content with the love of
               boys." (Lucian)
            2) "Of the first fifteen emperors, Claudius was the only 
               one whose taste in love was entirely correct." (Gibbons)
      2. Does it require much insight to see that this word has come to
         reflect life in the twentieth century as well?
         a. Adultery is considered inevitable, even acceptable by many
         b. Divorce has been made "no-fault"
         c. Families have been torn asunder by incest
         d. Homosexuality has become an "acceptable alternative lifestyle"

[Indeed, the works of the flesh are as rampant today as they were in 
the first century.  As we continue, we see other words that remind us 
of the times in which we live...]

II. AKATHARSIA (uncleanness, impurity)

   A. THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD...
      1. It originally had reference to dirt or dirtiness in a physical sense
      2. In the Greek OT, it is used to denote ritual and ceremonial 
         impurity which made it impossible for the worshipper to 
         approach God - cf. Lev 22:3-9
      3. It then came to be used in a moral sense, of that moral 
         depravity which disgusts the person who sees it

   B. THREE IDEAS ARE THEREFORE INHERENT IN THE WORD...
      1. The quality of that which is soiled and dirty; some minds are
         like that
      2. An impurity where there is a repulsive quality that awakens 
         disgust in those persons who are decent
      3. That which separates man from God; in contrast, compare Mt 5:8; Re 3:4

[There appears to be a progression of thought in the order of these 
words used by Paul.  While "porneia" indicates sin within a specific 
area of life (that of sexual relation), "akatharsia" indicates a 
general defilement of personality, tainting every sphere of life.

The next word indicates a love of sin so reckless and audacious that
one has ceased to care what God or man thinks of their actions...]

III. ASELGIA (lasciviousness, licentiousness, sensuality)

   A. THE BASIC MEANING OF THE WORD...
      1. In the NT it seems to be linked with sexual excess in a public way
      2. Barclay distinguishes three characteristics of this sin:
         a. It is wanton and undisciplined action
         b. It has no respect for the persons or rights of anyone else
         c. It is completely indifferent to public opinion and to 
            public decency

   B. THE GENERAL IDEA IS ONE OF SHAMELESS BEHAVIOR...
      1. Thayer defines this word by giving these examples:
         a. "filthy words"
         b. "indecent bodily movements"
         c. "unchaste handling of males and females"
      2. This word is one that best describes...
         a. What is often seen in much of modern dance, music, and theater
         b. What goes on at many concerts, and on many talk shows
      3. The context in which it is often found in the Scriptures helps
         to understand this word - cf. Ro 13:11-14; Ep 4:17-19; 1Pe 4:1-4

CONCLUSION

1. With these three words (porneia, aktharsia, aselgeia), we learn that
   the "works of the flesh" involve "Sins Of Moral Impurity"

2. It has been said that "chastity" (the condition of being morally 
   pure or chaste) was the one completely new virtue which Christianity
   introduced into the pagan world

3. Three reasons made this introduction difficult...
   a. Immorality in sexual matters was not immorality to Grecian 
      society; it was established custom and practice
   b. Certain philosophies separated the actions of the body from the spirit
   c. In many cases, prostitution was connected with religion
   -- It should not be surprising, then, to find Paul having to deal 
      with this problem - cf. 2Co 12:20-21

4. Today, we find ourselves facing similar problems...
   a. We live in a culture that calls immorality "The New Morality"
   b. We are influenced by philosophies (evolution and secular 
      humanism) that downplay the need for the spirit to control the flesh
   c. More and more religions are giving their stamp of approval to 
      various forms of sexual immorality

5. In response to the culture in which we live...
   a. We must first proclaim Jesus' diagnosis of the problem:  that 
      sinful conduct exists, and it comes from within man - cf. Mk 7:
      21-23
   b. We can then offer the gospel's solution to the problem:  
      forgiveness of sin, and the power to live holy lives! - cf. 1Co 6:9-11

Have you been "washed", "sanctified", and "justified" in the name of 
the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God?  Paul explains how this is 
done in Tit 3:4-7 (cf. Ac 2:38; 22:16)...

NOTE:  In defining the words in this study, I depended heavily upon 
William Barclay's "Flesh And Spirit - An Examination of Galatians 
5:19-23" (Baker Book House), and Ferrell Jenkins' "Flesh And Spirit - A
Word Study" (Guardian Of Truth Foundation).  The same will be true in 
the following outlines in this study.

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

If It's Just a Good Book, Then It's Not God's Book by Eric Lyons, M.Min.




https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=831


If It's Just a Good Book, Then It's Not God's Book

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Some time ago, I read an article by a college professor who stated that “the best thing that could happen to the New Testament has happened to it.... Within the University, at least, the Bible has become simply another ‘great book.’” Many in the world today consider the Bible to be a “good book” containing moral teachings written by noble men, yet reject the idea that the Bible was “given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). Many college professors today teach that the Bible simply is a “good book” that is no more inspired than Homer’s Odyssey or Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. It is the mere result of natural genius characteristic of men of unusual ability.
Common sense, however, compels the honest person to reject such illogical notions. If the Bible is a “great book,” but not inspired of God, it makes either liars or lunatics of the biblical writers, who claimed the Holy Spirit as the ultimate source of their writings. The honest person surely will admit that the Bible—a book that has been studied and examined more than any other book in human history—definitely is not a product of insane men. Its unity, fulfilled prophecy, historical accuracy, and scientific foreknowledge testify to an intelligent source. Thus, the Bible was written either by the honest or the dishonest. Logically, no other choices exist.
Moses either lied or was truthful when he recorded: “And God spoke all these words, saying: ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me’” (Exodus 20:1-3, emp. added). Moses claimed such inspiration literally hundreds of times. Was he a liar, or did he tell the truth? In the New Testament, Peter wrote that “prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, emp. added). Did Peter tell the truth, or was he lying? This same question can be asked of all the writers of the Bible who claimed inspiration. To say that the Bible is simply a “great book” written by “good men” makes liars of the biblical writers who repeatedly claimed that God was the ultimate source of their documents (cf. 2 Samuel 23:2; Acts 1:16).
The Bible is either a product of God or a product of liars. There are no other options. If these men were liars, then they “insanely” pronounced their own destruction, for they claimed that lying was wrong and that all impenitent liars would burn in hell (cf. Exodus 20:16; Colossians 3:9; Revelation 21:8). If these men were liars, it leaves as inexplicable the mystery of why modern man, with all his accumulated learning, has not been able to produce a comparable book to make the Bible obsolete. Finally, if these men were compulsive liars who filled an alleged historical work with thousands of lies, pray tell, why do so many unbelievers still call it a “great book”? Non-Christians who profess an admiration for the Bible should consider the foolishness of their position.

Feeling Design by Kyle Butt, M.A.




https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2469


Feeling Design

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Those in the medical field of prosthetics (artificial limbs) are faced with a daunting task—to mimic human body parts. Experts in this field of study are quick to admit that the natural, biological human body is far superior to anything that humans can design. Yet, even though prostheses are clumsy, awkward, and inefficient when compared to human limbs, progress is slowly being made toward more human-like limbs.
One step toward better prosthetics is the ability to feel, also known as tactile sensation. “[S]cientists from Northwestern University, in Chicago, have shown that transplanting the nerves from an amputated hand to the chest allows patients to feel hand sensation there” (Singer, 2007). This new technology has the potential to enable amputees to feel sensations such as cold and hot, distinguish between surface texture such as smooth (like marble) or rough (like sandpaper), and various other sensations that biological hands can feel.
Todd Kuiken, the lead doctor in the research that was presented in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Kuiken, et al., 2007), said that improving and refining the technology will take time. Emily Singer, writing for Technology Review, commented on the process of creating usable, “feeling” prostheses, saying, “The task is likely to be difficult” (2007). Kuiken further noted: “Our hands are incredible instruments that can feel things with exquisitely light touch and incredible resolution; to emulate that through a device is incredibly challenging.... All we’re giving our patients is a rough approximation, but something is better than nothing” (as quoted in Singer, 2007).
Notice the necessary inference implied in this research. Humans are brilliant, creative beings. They are using existing nerves to design prostheses that have “a rough approximation” of the sense of touch that a biological hand has. Millions of dollars are being spent, thousands of hours used, and massive amounts of various other resources are being employed to make this muted sensation available. Yet, evolutionary scientists expect thinking people to believe that the original, biological limbs that have an “exquisite” sense of touch and “incredible resolution” arose due to blind processes and random chance over multiplied billions of years of haphazard accidents overseen by no intelligence? Such a conclusion is irrational. Design demands a designer. If the “rough” prostheses have a designer, the human limbs after which they are modeled must, of logical necessity, have one as well.

REFERENCES

Kuiken, Todd, et al. (2007), “Redirection of Cutaneous Sensation from the Hand to the Chest Skin of Human Amputees with Targeted Reinnervation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, [On-line], URL: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/104/50/20061.
Singer, Emily (2007), “Prosthetic Limbs that Can Feel,” Technology Review, [On-line], URL: http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19759/?nlid=689.

Better than God? by Kyle Butt, M.A.




https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=955


Better than God?

by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

On February 13, 1989, John Morris and Frank Zindler met together for a one-hour debate over the Flood of Noah. John Morris affirmed that there was a global flood as the Bible records; atheist Frank Zindler denied that such was the case. Dick Wolfsie hosted the debate for the NBC affiliate channel 13 in Indianapolis, Indiana. The debate was heated, to say the least, and bounced around to various topics including fossilization, DNA similarities between humans and animals, geological formations, and a host of other subjects.
During the debate, Zindler made a very shocking and telling statement regarding God. In their discussion of DNA, John Morris accused Zindler of claiming to have the mind of God, or be as smart as God. In reply, Zindler said: “Well, I'm better than god. If I couldn’t do better than god, John, I wouldn’t be on this show...god can’t do anything” (emp. added). Seconds later, Morris said: “What you’re saying is that if you were god, you’d have done a better job!” And Zindler replied: “Well, I certainly would!” (Zindler, 2004). These statements made by Zindler speak for themselves. Of interest is the fact that the American Atheists, Inc. have proudly posted this debate on their Web site, which would seem to indicate that they endorse Zindler’s comments.
Boiling this down, Zindler and the American Atheists society believe that they could have created a better Universe than the one created by God. Now that is interesting. It truly amazes me that many educated men and women, such as Zindler and others associated with the American Atheists, do not recognize the limitations of the human mind. While humans are extremely intelligent, millions of basic structures in the Universe still elude our most diligent experts. For example, atoms—the intricate workings of the building blocks of matter—are still very much a mystery to our most educated scientists. In addition, scientists have been studying the “simple cell” for decades, and still do not have a grasp on all of its functions. Our most brilliant minds have been working for at least half a century in an attempt to synthesize life, but to no avail. DNA codes information biochemically—a process that we never have been able to master. We humans do not even completely understand our own brains. In summary, we cannot code information chemically, we cannot create life, and we do not fully understand the most basic building blocks of matter or life—yet some among us think they could do a better job with this Universe than God!
This human arrogance is nothing new. The prophet Ezekiel was sent to the prince of Tyre with this message from God: “[Y]our heart is lifted up, and you say, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods, In the midst of the seas,’ yet you are a man, and not a god….” (Ezekiel 28:1). For millennia, we humans have wanted to think that we are the pinnacle of intelligence. But, truth be told, we are not. We are frail creatures created by the omniscient God, designed with the ability to recognize His activity in the Universe, but often too stubborn or too arrogant to allow the evidence to penetrate.
Make no mistake, should the Lord delay His return, Zindler and the American Atheists who have endorsed his material will go to their graves, as will the rest of us, having never unlocked most of the mysteries of this Universe. Others will rise up after them, just as they have after the prince of Tyre, and claim that they can “do better than God.” But God’s work cannot be improved upon. As He told those during the time of Isaiah: “ ‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts’ ” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

REFERENCES

Zindler, Frank (2004), “The Question of Noah’s Flood: A Debate,” [On-line], URL: http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/morrisdebate.html.

Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part I] by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.




https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=233


Cloning--Scientific and Biblical Ramifications [Part I]

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

On April 25, 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick published a scientific paper describing for the first time the intricacies of the DNA molecule. For their attainment, they received the Nobel Prize—and initiated a biological revolution. The elucidation of the molecular biology of the gene clearly ranks among the greatest scientific achievements of all time. Because of this discovery, a new age has dawned—the Genetic Age.
In the opinion of many scientists, the last great revolution in science was the coming of the Nuclear Age. Nuclear technology tends to be viewed as either the most powerful industry for human benefit—or the most dangerous tool for human destruction—ever available for mankind’s use. With the development of genetic engineering, the potential for controversy is even greater because in their experiments scientists no longer are dealing with merely inanimate nature, but instead with human subjects—and the consequences are far-reaching indeed. Some have made comparisons between current advances and those that led, little more than a generation ago, to the dropping of the atomic bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Science fiction writers have created, in the true tradition of Dr. Frankenstein, modern-day monsters ranging from potentially killer microorganisms to duplicates of Adolf Hitler. Some among us see the immediate demise of the human race; others see, and tremble before, the prospect of a Huxlian Brave New World that promises the complete and utter dehumanization of mankind. What, then, is the truth of the matter?
Today the citizens of most civilized countries are better fed, better clothed, and healthier than they have ever been. Transportation, educational, medical, industrial, and even recreational facilities are vastly improved, compared to those of previous generations. Prospects for the future, then, should be brighter than ever. But are they?
While no one knows exactly what the future will hold, there are growing indications that much of it may not be for good. The fact is that mankind has become more smug as scientific knowledge has increased. Humanity has drifted farther and farther from God, and progressively attempts to cut itself loose from the moral and ethical standards found within God’s Word. It certainly is safe to say that the average person of our day knows far less about the Bible than the common man of a half-century ago. What will happen, then, as science accelerates, while man’s relationship with, and knowledge of, his Creator degenerates? The possibilities are staggering. And the frightening thing is that now we are confronting situations we thought only future generations would have to face.

GENETIC ENGINEERING—AN OVERVIEW

In the past, genetic engineering generally was looked upon as an area of science dealing with the substitution of new (“improved”) genes for old (damaged) ones. But to the man on the street today, it means far more than that—something like conjuring up DNA monsters, or cloning world-renowned figures such as Hitler, Churchill, or Stalin. In this article, the term will be used in its broadest sense to include any form of artificial reproduction or genetic manipulation. Among some of the questions to be considered are these: (a) how extensive is our current reproductive technology; (b) how is it being employed presently; (c) what are the scientific and biblical ramifications; and (d) what should be the Christian’s response to the use of this technology?
The motivation behind much genetic engineering research is commendable. Scientists are anxious to alleviate human suffering by the correction of genetic or behavioral defects, therapeutically control and rehabilitate those who are dangerous to society, and improve the general functioning and future potential of the human race. Few would argue with the goal of helping people function better. Even opponents of human genetic engineering would concede that most scientists are not attempting to be malicious or oligarchical elitists.
We must remember, however, that even scientists are not completely free of the desire for power. Further, some scientists work on underlying assumptions that suggest: (a) we can do better than nature (or as the Christian would say, better than God); (b) we are responsible to no higher Being than ourselves; (c) economic value is the final test in considering what should or should not be done; and (d) the end justifies the means. Clearly, the potential for a very real and very serious problem exists. Should this attitude become dominant, there may be no effective barrier against irresponsible uses of genetic engineering.
As we examine the concepts behind genetic engineering, we must distinguish between various types of genetic research. The first has to do with modification, which involves making minor changes in an existing structure by splicing in new genetic material, or by altering the material already present. Generally, this type of procedure has as its goal the improvement of an organism, or the prevention or cure of disease. Few would oppose such uses of genetic engineering, as long as scientists follow proper guidelines.
A second type of genetic research relating to both animals and humans centers on procreation. Currently, for example, technology that once was available only for use in animals now can be employed in humans, allowing people to reproduce when previously they were unable to do so.
A third, more controversial, type of genetic engineering centers on the creation of new life forms. Some scientists see the day approaching when we shall go beyond small-scale genetic modification to produce more novel living beings. This is a drastic departure from conferring a specific trait on an existing organism, or genetically modifying an organism so as to give it a healthier or longer life. One writer has referred to this as “engineering the engineer,” as opposed to “engineering his engine” (Kass, 1971, p. 779).

A BRIEF HISTORY OF GENETIC ENGINEERING

Historically, experiments intended to alter human life began in 1970 when Stanford Rogers, a physician and biochemist, attempted to introduce into his patients a gene for production of the enzyme arginase. The patients’ systems were incapable of manufacturing the enzyme—a factor that eventually would cause their deaths. Dr. Rogers injected his subjects with a virus that can produce the enzyme, in the hope that the virus would infect their DNA. Subsequently, the host’s immune system would destroy the virus, yet leave behind the gene for arginase production. The experiment failed, resulting in a swift outcry of criticism from the scientific community.
In July of 1980, a more extensive experiment was attempted by Martin Cline, then head of hematology and oncology at the University of California at Los Angeles. Working with him was a team of Israeli medical doctors, headed by Eliezer Rachmilewitz of the Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. Patients under the care of Dr. Rachmilewitz had a rare but fatal disease known as beta zero thalassemia. Dr. Cline injected their bone marrow with a new gene, in the hope that it would be able to correct the defect in the patients’ immune systems.
Such was not to be, however. This experiment failed as well, and cost Dr. Cline his job and research grants. Few in the scientific community, at this early stage in the history of genetic experiments, were willing to put their professional careers on the line. With human lives at stake, the risk was too great. Fewer scientists still were willing to forgive those who tried—and failed.
It appeared, then, that whatever benefits might accrue to humanity from biotechnology would come only indirectly. Indeed, early successes in the field of genetic engineering seemed to confirm that fact. By the early 1980s, business ventures had been formed for the specific purpose of advancing and investing in various kinds of genetic research, the offshoots of which certainly would benefit mankind. Compounds such as interferon, and even insulin intended for use in humans, soon were being produced by genetically altered bacteria. Eventually, human growth hormone was added to that list. People were benefiting, indirectly, from genetic engineering.
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, the benefits derived from genetic engineering no longer were indirect. Advances in the field were arriving at breakneck speed. Hardly a day passed that scientists from one corner of the globe or another did not announce yet another breakthrough that conferred additional genetic blessings on humanity. For example, an article on “Conquering Inherited Enemies” in Time magazine announced:
Genetic engineers at a handful of U.S. laboratories are getting ready to embark on the first trials of human gene therapy, a revolutionary approach to conquering inherited ailments. Employing the subtlest available techniques of recombinant DNA, the scientists will attempt to inject healthy copies of the affected gene into the bone marrow cells of a victim of a genetic disorder. If all goes well, the good genes will begin producing enough of the missing enzyme to cure the disease. That will be cheering news for the hundreds of thousands of patients who suffer from the 3,000 known genetic disorders (Angier, 1985, p. 59).
Just five years later, another article in Time reported the epochal events surrounding the treatment of a little 4-year-old girl.
Last week, on the 10th floor of the massive Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD, the still unidentified child assumed a historic role. In the first federally approved use of gene therapy, a team of doctors introduced into her bloodstream some 1 billion cells, each containing a copy of a foreign gene. If all goes well, these cells will begin producing ADA, the essential enzyme she requires, and her devastated immune system will slowly begin to recover (Jaroff, 1990, p. 74).
No longer, then, are the potential benefits to humanity from genetic engineering merely indirect in nature. We have moved past the point where people enjoy longer, healthier lives simply because they can take insulin or interferon produced by genetically altered bacteria. Now people themselves are part and parcel of intricate laboratory experiments—experiments that, we are told, will bode well for humanity in both the near and distant future.

THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY OVER CLONING

Genetic engineering (in animals or in humans) potentially can take place: (a) before conception; (b) at conception; (c) prenatally; and (d) postnatally. I have dealt with each of these in an in-depth fashion elsewhere (see Thompson, 1995). For the purposes of this article, however, I would like to restrict the discussion to genetic engineering that occurs at conception.
Discussions of reproductive technologies occurring at conception usually include: (1) cloning; (2) artificial insemination; and (3) in vitro fertilization (IVF). Of these, I will limit my comments here only to cloning.
The English word “clone” derives from the Greek klon, meaning a sprout or twig, and in science refers to an asexual process of reproduction resulting in an exact genetic duplicate of the original. Cloning is quite natural for many of Earth’s life forms. For example, when the amoeba reproduces by splitting into two parts, it is cloning itself. In essence, then, cloning is a way to grow many identical cells or organisms from a single ancestor. However, most plants and animals reproduce sexually—a process that requires a contribution of genes from both the male and female of the species. Therefore, any attempt to clone such organisms, including humans, must involve sophisticated technology. In the science fiction version of cloning, a body cell (also known as a somatic cell) is used to make a copy of an individual. But cloning of relatively complex creatures, such as mammals, for example, usually must begin with an egg, or perhaps even a fertilized egg. Only then can scientists make copies of one unique set of genes.
In one technique known as nuclear transfer, an unfertilized egg is taken from the female, and its nucleus is either destroyed (e.g., by radiation) or removed. The nucleus from a body cell then is placed in the egg, which, when implanted in the uterus, behaves as if it has been fertilized, except that all of its genetic information has been derived from a single individual rather than a pair of parents.
This type of cloning possesses potential benefits. Its greatest value, however, is not as an alternative means of reproduction, but as a powerful laboratory research tool, especially in developmental biology. Cloning can aid in the study of nuclear differentiation by helping scientists to better understand how an embryonic cell becomes a nerve cell, a blood cell, etc. It also can be very helpful in the study of immunology and organ rejection. Additionally, cloning can be used with great benefit in medical research. For example, it can be used in the study of cancer, and also can be used in the study of the aging process.
During the 1950s, F.C. Steward of Cornell University demonstrated how to clone certain plants, and produced carrots by the thousands through such a procedure (see Steward, 1970). In 1952, Robert Briggs and Thomas King of the Institute for Cancer Research in Philadelphia cloned a leopard frog (see Briggs and King, 1952). Since then, carrots, tomatoes, fruit flies, and even frogs have been cloned. The successes (and there were many) were the result of painstaking research carried out using embryonic or neonatal somatic cells (viz., non-adult cells). By the late 1970s, scientists lamented that, in spite of numerous attempts in laboratories around the world, “...no one has yet shown that it is possible to clone a mammal by using a body cell nucleus from an adult” (Lygre, 1979, p. 41). Something—no one quite knew what—seemed to make the somatic cell of the adult an unlikely candidate for cloning procedures. However, investigators did not abandon their efforts, and attempts to clone organisms using adult somatic cells continued at an unprecedented pace.
Clement Markert of Yale University perfected a method that allowed researchers to remove one set of chromosomes—either those from the sperm or those from the egg—just after fertilization. Through biochemical means, the remaining set could be made to double, producing an egg with a double set of the sperm’s (or egg’s) chromosomes. Since the same number of chromosomes as found in a fertilized egg then was present, embryonic development could begin. Peter Hope and Karl Illmensee at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine employed this technique in mice, and produced seven offspring, all females. While it is true that none of the seven was a clone of the genetic parents, if the same procedure were repeated on those seven mice (retaining the chromosomes of their eggs), their offspring would be clones.
The first clones of large animals were produced by S.M. Willadsen (1986), who transferred a single cell from an 8-cell sheep embryo to an unfertilized egg whose nucleus had been destroyed. Three of the four reconstituted embryos transferred to ewes’ oviducts developed into lambs that were genetically identical.
But what about attempts at human cloning? Landrum Shettles reported in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that he personally had cloned human embryos to the blastocyst stage (the point in early development where the whole embryo has the appearance of a hollow sphere; see Clark, 1979, p. 99). As one writer summarized the experiment:
According to the report, he had removed the genetic material from a human egg cell and replaced it with the nucleus of a human spermatogonium, the precursor of the sperm cell. Because the spermatogonium contains a double set of chromosomes, it is a complete blueprint for the individual. The egg was fertilized, cell division began, and three days later the embryo was at the morula stage, its cluster of cells ready for implantation. If the paper was true, then it meant that the first glimmering of a human being had already been cloned (Kahn, 1988, p. 164, emp. added).
The operative phrase here, of course, is “if the paper was true.” Most scientists working in this field did not believe that it was, and remained skeptical of Dr. Shettles’ experiment. Why? “Shettles never presented evidence that the egg was enucleated, ...nor did he use genetic markers that would have proved that the sole parent of the embryo was indeed the transplanted spermatogonium” (Kahn, 1988, p. 164).
In 1978, science writer David Rorvik authored, and the J.B. Lippincott Company of Philadelphia published, In His Image: The Cloning of a Man. The book reportedly told the story of a 67-year-old eccentric millionaire who had himself cloned successfully, and spawned a serious scientific controversy since it was published as nonfiction. Most scientists dispute claims such as those made by Rorvik and others in regard to the cloning of humans. In its publication, ASM News, the American Society for Microbiology stated:
Four eminent cell biologists have testified before congress that adult cloning of humans has not been and may never be achieved because of biological barriers. They also called David Rorvik’s book, In His Image: The Cloning of a Man, a fictional work replete with scientific errors (1978, p. 334).
One scientist suggested concerning Rorvik’s work: “His book sets new standards for the label ‘nonfiction’ ” (Lygre, 1979, p. 41). In 1981, U.S. District Court judge John Fullam ruled the book to be fiction (Fullam, 1981, p. 2-F) and, several years after its publication, Lippincott publicly acknowledged the book as a hoax.
To some, however, the idea of human clones is not beyond the realm of possibility. Several years ago, Kimball Atwood, professor of microbiology at the University of Illinois, stated that humans could be cloned “within a few years” (as quoted in Rorvik, 1969, p. 9). Nobel laureate James Watson later predicted:
...if the matter proceeds in its current nondirected fashion, a human being born of clonal reproduction most likely will appear on the earth within the next twenty to fifty years, and even sooner, if some nation should actively promote the venture (1971).
To date, there is no credible evidence that humans have been cloned, in the traditional sense of the word.
But who can know what the future may hold in this regard? For example, in October 1993, at a meeting of the American Fertility Society, two Americans, Jerry Hall and Robert Stillman, touched off an unexpected controversy when they presented a research paper on IVF procedures. At the time, Dr. Hall was the director of the in vitro laboratory at George Washington University; Dr. Stillman headed the University’s IVF program. Starting with 17 human embryos ranging from the two-cell to the eight-cell stage, Hall and Stillman used new technology to multiply the embryos from 17 to a total of 48. News magazines and major city newspapers heralded the landmark event with feature articles. The New York Times published a front-page article under a headline that screamed, “Scientist Clones Human Embryos, and Creates an Ethical Challenge.” Newsweek and Time both prepared cover stories on the Hall/Stillman experiments (see Adler, 1993; Elmer-Dewitt, 1993).
The controversy caused by the Hall/Stillman experiment was due, in large part, to the fact that human embryos were involved. However, it is important to note what the experiment did, and did not involve. First, the experiment did not involve the type of cloning of science fiction fame—in which genetic material from a mature individual is nurtured and grown into a replica of the original. Second, the experiment did not involve the cutting and splicing procedures by which DNA strands from cells are mixed and matched. In some instances, to mention just one example, molecular biologists have inserted human genes into the DNA of bacteria to produce insulin in large quantities. But the Hall/Stillman experiment did not involve this kind of genetic engineering.
Hall and Stillman were searching for a way to make IVF more successful. A woman in which only a single embryo is implanted has somewhere between a 10 and 20% chance of becoming pregnant, if all goes well. But if that single embryo could be cloned into three or four, the chances of a pregnancy would increase dramatically. These two researchers were not trying to produce cloned embryos that would be implanted into a potential mother. Instead, they were working with abnormal embryos resulting from fertilization of an egg by multiple sperm cells, and which therefore would not live more than a few days at best.
 Method by which Stillman and Hall produced twin embryos from a single embryo (after Kolberg, 1993)
The experiment involved allowing the single-cell embryos to divide into two cells, and then separating them. To do this, the outer coating around the cells (known as the zona pellucida) that is essential to the embryo’s proper development had to be removed. Once the cells had been separated, an artificial zona pellucida had to be created to take the place of the original one that had been destroyed. Hall and Stillman developed an artificial zona pellucida from a gel derived from seaweed. Once the artificial coating was replaced, the cells began to grow.
The experiment, so far as Hall and Stillman were concerned, had been a success, and was repeated numerous times, producing 48 clones in all. But none of the clones lived more than six days. A detailed description of the process used by Hall and Stillman was published in Science News (see Fackelmann, 1994a). While many praised the novel experiment, criticism from some in the academic and scientific communities was quite strong (see Fackelmann, 1994b). Unfortunately, the headlines in newspapers and magazines were not always representative of the actual facts. Humans had not been cloned. While we cannot condone the manner in which the Hall/Stillman research was carried out (i.e., accepting the inevitable death of living human embryos as the by-product of a scientific experiment), at the same time it is important that we understand exactly what the new technology allowed scientists to do, and that we not overstate the case regarding what was accomplished.
[to be continued]

REFERENCES

Adler, Jerry (1993), “Clone Hype,” Newsweek, pp. 60-62, November 8.
Angier, Natalie (1985), “Conquering Inherited Enemies,” Time, pp. 59-60, October 21.
ASM News (1978), (Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology), p. 334, July.
Briggs, Robert and Thomas J. King (1952), “Transplantation of Living Nuclei from Blastula Cells into Enucleated Frog Eggs,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 38:455-463.
Clark, Matt (1979), “Clones Again,” Newsweek, February 12.
Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (1993), “Cloning: Where Do We Draw the Line?,” Time, pp. 65-70, November 8.
Fackelmann, Kathy A. (1994a), “Cloning Human Embryos,” Science News, 145[6]:92-93,95, February 5.
Fackelmann, Kathy A. (1994b), “University Probe Faults ‘Cloning’ Research,” Science News, 146[25]:406, December 17.
Fullam, John (1981), as quoted in “Clone Deemed a Hoax,” Dallas Times Herald, p. F-2, March 22.
Jaroff, Leon (1990), “Giant Step for Gene Therapy,” Time, pp. 74-76, September 24.
Kahn, Carol (1988), “Double Takes,” Omni, 11[1]:58-65,164, October.
Kass, Leon (1971), “The New Biology: What Price Relieving Man’s Estate?,” Science, 174:779-788.
Kolberg, Rebecca (1993), “Human Embryo Cloning Reported,” Science, 262:652-653, October 29.
Lygre, David (1979), Life Manipulation (New York: Walker).
Rorvik, David (1969), “Cloning: Asexual Human Reproduction,” Science Digest, pp. 7-9, November.
Rorvik, David (1978), In His Image: The Cloning of a Man (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott).
Steward, F.C. (1970), “From Cultured Cells to Whole Plants: The Introduction and Control of Their Growth and Differentiation,” Proceedings of the Royal Society [B], 175:1-30.
Thompson, Bert (1995), The Christian and Medical Ethics (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Watson, James (1971), “Moving Toward the Clonal Man: Is This What We Want?,” Atlantic, 227:50-53.
Willadsen, S.M. (1986), “Nuclear Transplantation in Sheep Embryos,” Nature, 320:63-65.

From Jim McGuiggan... Caving in and other such things

Caving in and other such things

"It's not working!" I think we're foolish not to recognize when this is the case. To settle for the realizable best rather than pursue the unattainable ideal is sometimes a wise and even loving move. I know that's true from how God worked in scripture.
Let me illustrate. In Deuteronomy 24:1-5 God gives legislation about divorce that Jesus said was a concession to the hard-hearted men who were abusing their wives (see Matthew 19:3-9). The same God who wrote Deuteronomy 24 wrote Genesis 2:18-24. One was going for the realisable best (to protect the oppressed women) and the other was God's permanent heart's desire. To waltz around Genesis 2 and build a life's practice on Deuteronomy 24 not only missed God's heart it said volumes about the wickedness of our own.
Though he approved of the legislation he gave in Deuteronomy 24 God didn't approve of the situation that led to him giving it and nor did he ever jettison his Genesis 2 desire for one husband and one wife for life. Still, in this instance the wise God settled for the realizable best rather than the unattainable ideal. (Of course he could have crippled or destroyed all the transgressors but that raises other questions about his overarching purpose. At this point he settled for legislation that was less than what he desired.)
But it would be a serious blunder to think that that's all God did about the hard hearts he was dealing with ("Make laws and sanctions to act as deterrents"). His own character and faithfulness expressed in the entire Torah and structure of the nation and its worship--these were protests against such hard-heartedness and they were a shaping process that was to keep the heart soft. This and more he was doing even while he wrote Deuteronomy 24:1-5
I judge that most Christians would admit that the biblical call to remain sexually pure is one tough call to live up to (especially when we're thinking about the young and unmarried), but they'd also insist that it's being difficult is no excuse to ignore or pretend it doesn't really matter. When non-believers are very angry with us (and sometimes their anger is warranted) they often think we're being self-righteous or blind to the realities of life or both. This may be truer than I think or want to admit but I don't think it's the whole story.
Sometimes we look the facts right in the eye and defy them. Even when we as Christians fall short of our aim we feel (or should feel) a healthy shame and we call our falling short "sin". But, you see, we think God has invested sexual activity with a lovely mystique and intimacy and with a profoundly rich theology. The Christian's view of sexual behavior can only be truly seen within the overall Story the Christian tells about God, creation, redemption and Christ and the church.
So I'd encourage non-believers to listen to us at our best rather than our worst.
Maybe Elton John or Madonna isn't the best model. Maybe the television series Friends or Happily Divorced or Sex & The City are more than a pleasant passing of the time. It might be they're positively injurious! Maybe child pregnancies and venereal disease are on the rise not because we aren't handing out enough free condoms and maybe "cheap sex" isn't the worst of it. It might be that cheapening sex destroys relationships and buries qualities like loyalty and patience and forgiveness and purity. Maybe at a level more subtle than we're aware of, sexual promiscuity cheapens the life that comes by way of sexual intimacy without loving commitment. Maybe promoting "sexual freedom" hurts more than a lot of individuals; maybe it infects an entire world.
Do you really think that the ease with which millions of us around the world abort developing humans, even late in pregnancy, has no connection (none?) with the way we view sexual intercourse? As they head for the bars and pubs,"Let's go get laid!" Or, "Maybe we'll 'get lucky'."
And the usual societal response? "Well, that's how kids see things these days and we might as well accept it. So hand out the condoms, pass round the pills, spend some money advertising 'safe sex' and move on."
Whatever! But God forbid that we should mount a sustained public programme to encourage relational faithfulness or a serious study about the effect of popular TV shows on the moral fibre of a nation.
A waste of money and time? Maybe, but it could hardly be a greater waste of time and money than the nonsense that's being advocated and funded by the think tanks and experts and governments.  Maybe one day when the whole story's told we'll discover the profoundly sinister and calamitous effects of settling for less than sex within a loving marriage union; maybe then we'll recognize the awful blunder of a nation not trying to cultivate a climate for warm loving marriages.
Maybe one of these days churches and church leaders will stop allowing society to lead them around by the nose and take a stand instead of caving in to the demands of a society that wants them to more "tolerant" and "understanding".
But what can the Church do? What should it do? The Church must confess that any legitimate power it has is the power God exercises in and through it. The Church must confess that that "power" is not coercive and that it never was. The Church must acknowledge that God's saving "power" is invested in the Gospel and imbedded in the Church itself which is the embodiment of the Gospel. The Church's business in the world is to be the Church and to tell its Story. We have nothing else! No other power! God has given us no other power!
I'm aware how idiotic that sounds but someone light years ahead of me knew it sounded idiotic and spoke of our Story as a foolish preached message and he spoke of those who told it as fools [1 Corinthians 1:18-23 and 4:9-10]. The Church's business is not to show itself profoundly wise by elaborate means and sophisticated reforms--though it doesn't deny that God has gifted others with wisdom and talent.
With free hearts, tied to no form of government that will silence it, the Church preaches Jesus as wisdom, Jesus as righteousness, Jesus as the exemplification of true "power". The Church and its individual members will not adopt a holier-than-thou attitude! Being peopled by sinners it will admit its own failures but it will proclaim the purpose of God that climaxes in the blessed Lord Jesus and gather into itself sinners {sexual sins included] who are tired of their sinning, tired of the shallow lives they've been living; sinners who want better and, who by God's inspiring and drawing power, will not settle for less.
They'll be sinners who won't cave in and allow the current of society's dirty river to carry them wherever it flows. And if or when they fall, and many of us have and will, they won't continue to lie there and whimper. They'll get back up and continue the honorable fight as long as it takes.
I've known such people and greatly admire them and am strengthened by them! That IS power.


©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

From Gary... Bible Reading July 15


Bible Reading  

July 15

The World English Bible


July 15
1 Chronicles 7-9

1Ch 7:1 Of the sons of Issachar: Tola, and Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, four.
1Ch 7:2 The sons of Tola: Uzzi, and Rephaiah, and Jeriel, and Jahmai, and Ibsam, and Shemuel, heads of their fathers' houses, to wit, of Tola; mighty men of valor in their generations: their number in the days of David was twenty-two thousand six hundred.
1Ch 7:3 The sons of Uzzi: Izrahiah. The sons of Izrahiah: Michael, and Obadiah, and Joel, Isshiah, five; all of them chief men.
1Ch 7:4 With them, by their generations, after their fathers' houses, were bands of the army for war, thirty-six thousand; for they had many wives and sons.
1Ch 7:5 Their brothers among all the families of Issachar, mighty men of valor, reckoned in all by genealogy, were eighty-seven thousand.
1Ch 7:6 The sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Becher, and Jediael, three.
1Ch 7:7 The sons of Bela: Ezbon, and Uzzi, and Uzziel, and Jerimoth, and Iri, five; heads of fathers' houses, mighty men of valor; and they were reckoned by genealogy twenty-two thousand thirty-four.
1Ch 7:8 The sons of Becher: Zemirah, and Joash, and Eliezer, and Elioenai, and Omri, and Jeremoth, and Abijah, and Anathoth, and Alemeth. All these were the sons of Becher.
1Ch 7:9 They were reckoned by genealogy, after their generations, heads of their fathers' houses, mighty men of valor, twenty thousand two hundred.
1Ch 7:10 The sons of Jediael: Bilhan. The sons of Bilhan: Jeush, and Benjamin, and Ehud, and Chenaanah, and Zethan, and Tarshish, and Ahishahar.
1Ch 7:11 All these were sons of Jediael, according to the heads of their fathers' houses, mighty men of valor, seventeen thousand and two hundred, who were able to go forth in the army for war.
1Ch 7:12 Shuppim also, and Huppim, the sons of Ir, Hushim, the sons of Aher.
1Ch 7:13 The sons of Naphtali: Jahziel, and Guni, and Jezer, and Shallum, the sons of Bilhah.
1Ch 7:14 The sons of Manasseh: Asriel, whom his concubine the Aramitess bore: she bore Machir the father of Gilead:
1Ch 7:15 and Machir took a wife of Huppim and Shuppim, whose sister's name was Maacah; and the name of the second was Zelophehad: and Zelophehad had daughters.
1Ch 7:16 Maacah the wife of Machir bore a son, and she named him Peresh; and the name of his brother was Sheresh; and his sons were Ulam and Rakem.
1Ch 7:17 The sons of Ulam: Bedan. These were the sons of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh.
1Ch 7:18 His sister Hammolecheth bore Ishhod, and Abiezer, and Mahlah.
1Ch 7:19 The sons of Shemida were Ahian, and Shechem, and Likhi, and Aniam.
1Ch 7:20 The sons of Ephraim: Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and Tahath his son, and Eleadah his son, and Tahath his son,
1Ch 7:21 and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Ezer, and Elead, whom the men of Gath who were born in the land killed, because they came down to take away their livestock.
1Ch 7:22 Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brothers came to comfort him.
1Ch 7:23 He went in to his wife, and she conceived, and bore a son, and he named him Beriah, because it went evil with his house.
1Ch 7:24 His daughter was Sheerah, who built Beth Horon the lower and the upper, and Uzzen Sheerah.
1Ch 7:25 Rephah was his son, and Resheph, and Telah his son, and Tahan his son,
1Ch 7:26 Ladan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son,
1Ch 7:27 Nun his son, Joshua his son.
1Ch 7:28 Their possessions and habitations were Bethel and its towns, and eastward Naaran, and westward Gezer, with its towns; Shechem also and its towns, to Azzah and its towns;
1Ch 7:29 and by the borders of the children of Manasseh, Beth Shean and its towns, Taanach and its towns, Megiddo and its towns, Dor and its towns. In these lived the children of Joseph the son of Israel.
1Ch 7:30 The sons of Asher: Imnah, and Ishvah, and Ishvi, and Beriah, and Serah their sister.
1Ch 7:31 The sons of Beriah: Heber, and Malchiel, who was the father of Birzaith.
1Ch 7:32 Heber became the father of Japhlet, and Shomer, and Hotham, and Shua their sister.
1Ch 7:33 The sons of Japhlet: Pasach, and Bimhal, and Ashvath. These are the children of Japhlet.
1Ch 7:34 The sons of Shemer: Ahi, and Rohgah, Jehubbah, and Aram.
1Ch 7:35 The sons of Helem his brother: Zophah, and Imna, and Shelesh, and Amal.
1Ch 7:36 The sons of Zophah: Suah, and Harnepher, and Shual, and Beri, and Imrah,
1Ch 7:37 Bezer, and Hod, and Shamma, and Shilshah, and Ithran, and Beera.
1Ch 7:38 The sons of Jether: Jephunneh, and Pispa, and Ara.
1Ch 7:39 The sons of Ulla: Arah, and Hanniel, and Rizia.
1Ch 7:40 All these were the children of Asher, heads of the fathers' houses, choice and mighty men of valor, chief of the princes. The number of them reckoned by genealogy for service in war was twenty-six thousand men.
1Ch 8:1 Benjamin became the father of Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, and Aharah the third,
1Ch 8:2 Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.
1Ch 8:3 Bela had sons: Addar, and Gera, and Abihud,
1Ch 8:4 and Abishua, and Naaman, and Ahoah,
1Ch 8:5 and Gera, and Shephuphan, and Huram.
1Ch 8:6 These are the sons of Ehud: these are the heads of fathers' houses of the inhabitants of Geba, and they carried them captive to Manahath:
1Ch 8:7 and Naaman, and Ahijah, and Gera, he carried them captive: and he became the father of Uzza and Ahihud.
1Ch 8:8 Shaharaim became the father of children in the field of Moab, after he had sent them away; Hushim and Baara were his wives.
1Ch 8:9 He became the father of Hodesh his wife, Jobab, and Zibia, and Mesha, and Malcam,
1Ch 8:10 and Jeuz, and Shachia, and Mirmah. These were his sons, heads of fathers' houses.
1Ch 8:11 Of Hushim he became the father of Abitub and Elpaal.
1Ch 8:12 The sons of Elpaal: Eber, and Misham, and Shemed, who built Ono and Lod, with its towns;
1Ch 8:13 and Beriah, and Shema, who were heads of fathers' houses of the inhabitants of Aijalon, who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath;
1Ch 8:14 and Ahio, Shashak, and Jeremoth,
1Ch 8:15 and Zebadiah, and Arad, and Eder,
1Ch 8:16 and Michael, and Ishpah, and Joha, the sons of Beriah,
1Ch 8:17 and Zebadiah, and Meshullam, and Hizki, and Heber,
1Ch 8:18 and Ishmerai, and Izliah, and Jobab, the sons of Elpaal,
1Ch 8:19 and Jakim, and Zichri, and Zabdi,
1Ch 8:20 and Elienai, and Zillethai, and Eliel,
1Ch 8:21 and Adaiah, and Beraiah, and Shimrath, the sons of Shimei,
1Ch 8:22 and Ishpan, and Eber, and Eliel,
1Ch 8:23 and Abdon, and Zichri, and Hanan,
1Ch 8:24 and Hananiah, and Elam, and Anthothijah,
1Ch 8:25 and Iphdeiah, and Penuel, the sons of Shashak,
1Ch 8:26 and Shamsherai, and Shehariah, and Athaliah,
1Ch 8:27 and Jaareshiah, and Elijah, and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham.
1Ch 8:28 These were heads of fathers' houses throughout their generations, chief men: these lived in Jerusalem.
1Ch 8:29 In Gibeon there lived the father of Gibeon, Jeiel, whose wife's name was Maacah;
1Ch 8:30 and his firstborn son Abdon, and Zur, and Kish, and Baal, and Nadab,
1Ch 8:31 and Gedor, and Ahio, and Zecher.
1Ch 8:32 Mikloth became the father of Shimeah. They also lived with their brothers in Jerusalem, over against their brothers.
1Ch 8:33 Ner became the father of Kish; and Kish became the father of Saul; and Saul became the father of Jonathan, and Malchishua, and Abinadab, and Eshbaal.
1Ch 8:34 The son of Jonathan was Merib Baal; and Merib Baal became the father of Micah.
1Ch 8:35 The sons of Micah: Pithon, and Melech, and Tarea, and Ahaz.
1Ch 8:36 Ahaz became the father of Jehoaddah; and Jehoaddah became the father of Alemeth, and Azmaveth, and Zimri; and Zimri became the father of Moza.
1Ch 8:37 Moza became the father of Binea; Raphah was his son, Eleasah his son, Azel his son.
1Ch 8:38 Azel had six sons, whose names are these: Azrikam, Bocheru, and Ishmael, and Sheariah, and Obadiah, and Hanan. All these were the sons of Azel.
1Ch 8:39 The sons of Eshek his brother: Ulam his firstborn, Jeush the second, and Eliphelet the third.
1Ch 8:40 The sons of Ulam were mighty men of valor, archers, and had many sons, and sons' sons, one hundred fifty. All these were of the sons of Benjamin.
1Ch 9:1 So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel: and Judah was carried away captive to Babylon for their disobedience.
1Ch 9:2 Now the first inhabitants who lived in their possessions in their cities were Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Nethinim.
1Ch 9:3 In Jerusalem lived of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh:
1Ch 9:4 Uthai the son of Ammihud, the son of Omri, the son of Imri, the son of Bani, of the children of Perez the son of Judah.
1Ch 9:5 Of the Shilonites: Asaiah the firstborn, and his sons.
1Ch 9:6 Of the sons of Zerah: Jeuel, and their brothers, six hundred ninety.
1Ch 9:7 Of the sons of Benjamin: Sallu the son of Meshullam, the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah,
1Ch 9:8 and Ibneiah the son of Jeroham, and Elah the son of Uzzi, the son of Michri, and Meshullam the son of Shephatiah, the son of Reuel, the son of Ibnijah;
1Ch 9:9 and their brothers, according to their generations, nine hundred fifty-six. All these men were heads of fathers' houses by their fathers' houses.
1Ch 9:10 Of the priests: Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib, Jachin,
1Ch 9:11 and Azariah the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, the ruler of the house of God;
1Ch 9:12 and Adaiah the son of Jeroham, the son of Pashhur, the son of Malchijah, and Maasai the son of Adiel, the son of Jahzerah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Meshillemith, the son of Immer;
1Ch 9:13 and their brothers, heads of their fathers' houses, one thousand seven hundred sixty; very able men for the work of the service of the house of God.
1Ch 9:14 Of the Levites: Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of Azrikam, the son of Hashabiah, of the sons of Merari;
1Ch 9:15 and Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal, and Mattaniah the son of Mica, the son of Zichri, the son of Asaph,
1Ch 9:16 and Obadiah the son of Shemaiah, the son of Galal, the son of Jeduthun, and Berechiah the son of Asa, the son of Elkanah, who lived in the villages of the Netophathites.
1Ch 9:17 The porters: Shallum, and Akkub, and Talmon, and Ahiman, and their brothers (Shallum was the chief),
1Ch 9:18 who hitherto waited in the king's gate eastward: they were the porters for the camp of the children of Levi.
1Ch 9:19 Shallum the son of Kore, the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah, and his brothers, of his father's house, the Korahites, were over the work of the service, keepers of the thresholds of the tent: and their fathers had been over the camp of Yahweh, keepers of the entry.
1Ch 9:20 Phinehas the son of Eleazar was ruler over them in time past, and Yahweh was with him.
1Ch 9:21 Zechariah the son of Meshelemiah was porter of the door of the Tent of Meeting.
1Ch 9:22 All these who were chosen to be porters in the thresholds were two hundred and twelve. These were reckoned by genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their office of trust.
1Ch 9:23 So they and their children had the oversight of the gates of the house of Yahweh, even the house of the tent, by wards.
1Ch 9:24 On the four sides were the porters, toward the east, west, north, and south.
1Ch 9:25 Their brothers, in their villages, were to come in every seven days from time to time to be with them:
1Ch 9:26 for the four chief porters, who were Levites, were in an office of trust, and were over the chambers and over the treasuries in the house of God.
1Ch 9:27 They lodged around the house of God, because that duty was on them; and to them pertained its opening morning by morning.
1Ch 9:28 Certain of them were in charge of the vessels of service; for by count were these brought in and by count were these taken out.
1Ch 9:29 Some of them also were appointed over the furniture, and over all the vessels of the sanctuary, and over the fine flour, and the wine, and the oil, and the frankincense, and the spices.
1Ch 9:30 Some of the sons of the priests prepared the confection of the spices.
1Ch 9:31 Mattithiah, one of the Levites, who was the firstborn of Shallum the Korahite, had the office of trust over the things that were baked in pans.
1Ch 9:32 Some of their brothers, of the sons of the Kohathites, were over the show bread, to prepare it every Sabbath.
1Ch 9:33 These are the singers, heads of fathers' houses of the Levites, who lived in the chambers and were free from other service; for they were employed in their work day and night.
1Ch 9:34 These were heads of fathers' houses of the Levites, throughout their generations, chief men: these lived at Jerusalem.
1Ch 9:35 In Gibeon there lived the father of Gibeon, Jeiel, whose wife's name was Maacah:
1Ch 9:36 and his firstborn son Abdon, and Zur, and Kish, and Baal, and Ner, and Nadab,
1Ch 9:37 and Gedor, and Ahio, and Zechariah, and Mikloth.
1Ch 9:38 Mikloth became the father of Shimeam. They also lived with their brothers in Jerusalem, over against their brothers.
1Ch 9:39 Ner became the father of Kish; and Kish became the father of Saul; and Saul became the father of Jonathan, and Malchishua, and Abinadab, and Eshbaal.
1Ch 9:40 The son of Jonathan was Merib Baal; and Merib Baal became the father of Micah.
1Ch 9:41 The sons of Micah: Pithon, and Melech, and Tahrea, and Ahaz.
1Ch 9:42 Ahaz became the father of Jarah; and Jarah became the father of Alemeth, and Azmaveth, and Zimri; and Zimri became the father of Moza;
1Ch 9:43 and Moza became the father of Binea; and Rephaiah his son, Eleasah his son, Azel his son.
1Ch 9:44 Azel had six sons, whose names are these: Azrikam, Bocheru, and Ishmael, and Sheariah, and Obadiah, and Hanan: these were the sons of Azel.
 
July 14, 15
Acts 10

Act 10:1 Now there was a certain man in Caesarea, Cornelius by name, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment,
Act 10:2 a devout man, and one who feared God with all his house, who gave gifts for the needy generously to the people, and always prayed to God.
Act 10:3 At about the ninth hour of the day, he clearly saw in a vision an angel of God coming to him, and saying to him, "Cornelius!"
Act 10:4 He, fastening his eyes on him, and being frightened, said, "What is it, Lord?" He said to him, "Your prayers and your gifts to the needy have gone up for a memorial before God.
Act 10:5 Now send men to Joppa, and get Simon, who is surnamed Peter.
Act 10:6 He lodges with one Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the seaside."
Act 10:7 When the angel who spoke to him had departed, Cornelius called two of his household servants and a devout soldier of those who waited on him continually.
Act 10:8 Having explained everything to them, he sent them to Joppa.
Act 10:9 Now on the next day as they were on their journey, and got close to the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray at about noon.
Act 10:10 He became hungry and desired to eat, but while they were preparing, he fell into a trance.
Act 10:11 He saw heaven opened and a certain container descending to him, like a great sheet let down by four corners on the earth,
Act 10:12 in which were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and birds of the sky.
Act 10:13 A voice came to him, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat!"
Act 10:14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean."
Act 10:15 A voice came to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call unclean."
Act 10:16 This was done three times, and immediately the vessel was received up into heaven.
Act 10:17 Now while Peter was very perplexed in himself what the vision which he had seen might mean, behold, the men who were sent by Cornelius, having made inquiry for Simon's house, stood before the gate,
Act 10:18 and called and asked whether Simon, who was surnamed Peter, was lodging there.
Act 10:19 While Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men seek you.
Act 10:20 But arise, get down, and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."
Act 10:21 Peter went down to the men, and said, "Behold, I am he whom you seek. Why have you come?"
Act 10:22 They said, "Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous man and one who fears God, and well spoken of by all the nation of the Jews, was directed by a holy angel to invite you to his house, and to listen to what you say."
Act 10:23 So he called them in and lodged them. On the next day Peter arose and went out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa accompanied him.
Act 10:24 On the next day they entered into Caesarea. Cornelius was waiting for them, having called together his relatives and his near friends.
Act 10:25 When it happened that Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell down at his feet, and worshiped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter raised him up, saying, "Stand up! I myself am also a man."
Act 10:27 As he talked with him, he went in and found many gathered together.
Act 10:28 He said to them, "You yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man who is a Jew to join himself or come to one of another nation, but God has shown me that I shouldn't call any man unholy or unclean.
Act 10:29 Therefore also I came without complaint when I was sent for. I ask therefore, why did you send for me?"
Act 10:30 Cornelius said, "Four days ago, I was fasting until this hour, and at the ninth hour, I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
Act 10:31 and said, 'Cornelius, your prayer is heard, and your gifts to the needy are remembered in the sight of God.
Act 10:32 Send therefore to Joppa, and summon Simon, who is surnamed Peter. He lodges in the house of Simon a tanner, by the seaside. When he comes, he will speak to you.'
Act 10:33 Therefore I sent to you at once, and it was good of you to come. Now therefore we are all here present in the sight of God to hear all things that have been commanded you by God."
Act 10:34 Peter opened his mouth and said, "Truly I perceive that God doesn't show favoritism;
Act 10:35 but in every nation he who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.
Act 10:36 The word which he sent to the children of Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ-he is Lord of all-
Act 10:37 that spoken word you yourselves know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
Act 10:38 even Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
Act 10:39 We are witnesses of everything he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they also killed, hanging him on a tree.
Act 10:40 God raised him up the third day, and gave him to be revealed,
Act 10:41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen before by God, to us, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
Act 10:42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that this is he who is appointed by God as the Judge of the living and the dead.
Act 10:43 All the prophets testify about him, that through his name everyone who believes in him will receive remission of sins."
Act 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who heard the word.
Act 10:45 They of the circumcision who believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was also poured out on the Gentiles.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speaking in other languages and magnifying God. Then Peter answered,
Act 10:47 "Can any man forbid the water, that these who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we should not be baptized?"
Act 10:48 He commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay some days.