"THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES" The Preacher's Search For Meaning - I (1:4-18) INTRODUCTION 1. Why am I here? What am I to be doing? a. These are questions that nearly everyone asks at some point in their life b. They are questions the author of Ecclesiastes sought to address 2. In our introductory lesson we saw... a. The author identified - 1:1 1) The Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem 2) I.e., Solomon b. The theme stated - 1:2 1) All is vanity 2) I.e., life from an earthly perspective ("under the sun") is futile, meaningless - 1:14 c. The question raised - 1:3 1) What profit is there for a man from all his labor under the sun? 2) I.e., what benefit can one derive from all his efforts in this life? 3. In the first two chapters, Solomon demonstrates how he came to this conclusion a. From his observations regarding the cyclical nature of life and its apparent meaningless b. From his own experiences as he sought to find meaning through various avenues [As we continue to listen to the "Preacher", then, we find him describing...] I. THE FUTILITY OBSERVED IN THE CYCLES OF LIFE A. NOTHING SEEMS TO CHANGE - 1:4-7 1. The earth appears to abide forever, even as generations of men come and go 2. The sun is constant with its rising and setting 3. The winds continue their whirling cycle 4. The water cycle also, as rivers run into the seas, and then through evaporation and rain return to the rivers again -- Looking at nature, it seems nothing ever changes, it just goes in circles and remains the same! B. NOTHING SEEMS TO SATISFY - 1:8 1. Despite all our labors, man is never truly satisfied 2. What satisfaction one may think they have is only apparent and fleeting 3. Given time, they soon desire something else C. NOTHING IS NEW UNDER THE SUN - 1:9-11 1. What will be done is that which has been done 2. If thought to be new, it is only because we have forgotten what occurred before a. What about our modern technological advances? b. What about the technology that created the pyramids, Stonehedge, etc.? -- Given time, future civilizations will forget what we are doing today, and only "rediscover" what has been learned again and again! [Faced with what appeared to be such meaningless cycles in life, the "Preacher" sought to determine man's true purpose. He first shares with us his own experience with...] II. THE FUTILITY OF HUMAN WISDOM A. THE PREACHER PREFACES HIS SEARCH - 1:12-15 1. He was king over Israel in Jerusalem a. I.e., Solomon b. Who had been given wisdom from God - 1Ki 3:9-12; 4:29-34 2. He determined to use such wisdom to seek and search all that has been done "under heaven" a. A task that he understood God had given to all men b. A task for which he knew he had been especially equipped 3. He summarizes what he found, having seen all the works done "under the sun" a. He concludes they are vanity and grasping for wind b. For there is little one can do to make significant changes B. THE PREACHER APPLIED HIS GOD-GIVEN WISDOM - 1:16-17a 1. He acknowledged the greatness and wisdom he had attained a. In answer to prayer, Solomon had attained great wisdom 1) Again, cf. 1Ki 3:9-12 2) Compare this also to Jm 1:5 b. This is "God-given wisdom", to be contrasted with "human wisdom" 2. He therefore sought to apply it to wisdom, madness, and folly a. The "wisdom" here I believe is "human wisdom" (e.g., philosophy) b. For this is wisdom that he set his heart to know (learn) C. THE PREACHER CONCLUDES HUMAN WISDOM IS FUTILE - 1:17b-18 1. He perceived that such wisdom was like grasping for wind, it did not provide the answer to his problem 2. He also saw that such wisdom and knowledge provides much grief and sorrow a. As we might say today, it provides "information overload" b. One becomes burdened as they learn of many things in life 1) Things they have no control over 2) Yet things they often worry over CONCLUSION 1. In beginning his search for meaning, the wise Preacher naturally began with wisdom... a. Thus he set his heart to "know wisdom" b. But he found such wisdom to be "grasping for the wind" 2. I do not believe we are to take his words as an indictment against all wisdom... a. For there is a "God-given wisdom" for which one should seek - cf. Pr 2:1-9; Jm 1:5 b. This kind of wisdom can bless one's life - cf. Pr 3:13-18 3. But it is an indictment against "human wisdom"... a. A wisdom that seeks to understand life, but leaves God out of the picture b. A wisdom that can only leave one "grasping for the wind" In our next study, we shall continue with the Preacher's "search for meaning" and notice his observations regarding pleasure, madness, and folly. In the meantime, remember what Paul wrote in contrasting human wisdom with God's wisdom: But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God; and righteousness and sanctification and redemption; that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the LORD." (1Co 1:31) Have you accepted and obeyed the true wisdom from God, Jesus Christ, who gives meaning and purpose for life?
"THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES" Introduction And Prologue (1:1-3) INTRODUCTION 1. The book of Ecclesiastes has long fascinated many people... a. Many feel it is one of must puzzling books in the Old Testament b. It is considered by some the most melancholy book of the Bible c. It is often quoted by those who deny that man has a soul which continues after death 2. It is not a book Christians should ignore... a. In our materialistic society, there is a great need to understand its basic message b. In our youth-oriented society, it is of special value as its message appears directed to the young 3. As with all Old Testament scripture, it was written... a. For our learning - Ro 15:4 b. For our admonition - 1Co 10:11 c. For doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness - 2Ti 3:16-17 [With this lesson, therefore, we begin a series of studies based upon this book. We begin with...] I. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK A. TITLE... 1. In the Hebrew Bible, the book is called "Qoheleth" a. Which means "the words of the preacher" - cf. 1:1 b. The term suggests one who speaks to an assembly, an ecclesiastic or preacher 2. The translators of the Septuagint version called it "Ekklesiastes" a. Which also means "preacher" b. Derived from the word "ekklesia" (assembly) B. AUTHORSHIP... 1. Jewish and early Christian tradition attribute the book to Solomon 2. The author identifies himself only as "the son of David, king in Jerusalem" - 1:1 3. Internal references certainly point to Solomon: a. His wisdom - 1:16; cf. 1Ki 3:12 b. His building activities - 2:4-6; cf. 1Ki 7:1-12 c. His wealth - 2:7-9; cf. 2Ch 9:13-28 C. DATE... 1. Assuming that Solomon is indeed the author 2. That would place the date of the book around 945 B.C. D. MESSAGE... 1. The futility of life "under the sun" - cf. 1:2,14 a. A key word is "vanity" (occurs 35 times in 29 verses), which means "futility, uselessness, nothingness" b. A key phrase is "under the sun" (occurs 29 times in 27 verses), which suggests "from an earthly point of view" -- The book illustrates the vanity of life when looked at solely from an earthly perspective 2. The importance of serving God throughout life - cf. 11:9-12:1, 13-14 a. The meaning of life is not found in experiencing the things of this world b. The meaning of life is found in serving the Creator of this world! E. THE BOOK CONTAINS "GOADS" AND "NAILS" - 12:11 1. Words of the wise, designed to "goad" or "prod" our thinking 2. Words of the preachers (lit., masters of the assemblies), given to "nail" or "anchor" our lives -- In this book we will find statements that prod our thinking, and exhortations that provide stability and direction for living! [With this brief introduction, let's now consider....] II. THE PROLOGUE TO THE BOOK A. AUTHOR IDENTIFIED - 1:1 1. "the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem" 2. These are the words of Solomon... a. A dramatic autobiography of his experiences and observations b. Some of which, perhaps, while alienated from God! - cf. 1 Kings 11:1-13 c. Some of the preliminary conclusions expressed throughout the book may have been those drawn while he was still alienated and searching for meaning -- If written by Solomon, and penned toward the end of his life, this would be evidence that Solomon repented before his death B. THEME STATED - 1:2 1. "Vanity of vanities...vanity of vanities, all is vanity" 2. All is futile, useless, meaningless! 3. Of course, this vanity pertains to life "under the sun" - cf. 1:14 -- All the effort one makes in life, as far as "this life" is concerned, is like "grasping for the wind"! C. QUESTION RAISED - 1:3 1. "What profit has a man from all his labor in which he toils under the sun?" 2. This is the question the "Preacher" sought to answer a. Is there any value or profit for all the things we do on this earth? b. If our labor is meaningless as far as this life is concerned, what can we do? 3. In this book he will share... a. What he learned from personal experience b. What he learned from personal observations c. Wise counsel based upon the wisdom and inspiration God gave him CONCLUSION 1. Solomon begins to answer his own question in the next verse, which we will save for our next study 2. It has been said that the Bible answers life's most often asked questions; e.g... a. Who am I? b. Where did I come from? c. Why am I here? d. What am I to be doing? 3. The book of Ecclesiastes certainly addresses such questions; which is why... a. It is worthy of our careful study b. It is of value to all, especially the young -- I pray, therefore, that we will hear what the "Preacher" will have to say to us! There is another "Preacher", also "the son of David", who is "king in Jerusalem" as well as everywhere else. His name is Jesus... "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" - Col 2:3 Have you heeded the words of that Preacher (cf. Mt 7:21-23; Mk 16: 15-16)...?
The Quran vs. the New Testament: Conflicting Ethics
|by||Dave Miller, Ph.D.|
EDITORS’ NOTE: The following article is exerpted from Dave Miller’s newly released book The Quran Unveiled.Anyone who has read both the Quran and the New Testament cannot help but be struck by the glaring disparity that exists between the two in their respective treatments of ethical matters. Two such matters are addressed in this article: polygamy and armed conflict. [NOTE: The translations of passages from the Quran in this article are taken from Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall’s celebrated translation.]
To appreciate the full extent of the Quran’s endorsement of polygamy, as well as to preserve context, the reader is asked to exercise the necessary patience to read two lengthy passages. The first is a transparent sanction of Muhammad’s own polygamous practices:
O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father’s side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father’s side, and the daughters of thine uncles on the mother’s side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother’s side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage—a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers—We are aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and, those whom their right hands possess—that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Thou canst defer whom thou wilt of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieve and may all be pleased with what thou givest them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men) and Allah is Forgiving, Clement. It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee save those whom thy right hand possesseth. And Allah is Watcher over all things. O ye who believe!.... And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah’s sight would be an enormity (Surah 33:50-53, emp. added).These admonitions bear a remarkable resemblance to Mormon Joseph Smith’s own advocacy of plural marriages and the revelation allegedly received from God admonishing his own wife, Emma Smith, to be receptive to his polygamy:
Artist’s conception of Muhammad.
Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice. And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God. For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him. And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law. But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds. And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against Me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice (Doctrine and Covenants 132:51-56).One would fully expect uninspired men to manifest the same modus operandi and concern for the same issues—especially as they reflect upon their own human desires (i.e., lusts) and preferences.
The second Quranic passage that acquaints the reader with the extent to which polygamy is not only permitted or tolerated, but also advocated and encouraged, is one titled “Banning.” The Hadith offer three traditions that provide the background details that help to make sense of the surah. The one generally preferred by Muslim commentators speaks of Hafsah finding the Prophet in her room with Mariyah—the Coptic girl given to Muhammad by the ruler of Egypt, who became the mother of his only son, Ibrahim—on a day that, according to his customary rotation among his wives, was assigned to A’ishah. The distress that Hafsah manifested was so disturbing to the Prophet that he vowed with an oath that he would have no more to do with Mariyah, and requested that Hafsah say nothing to A’ishah. But Hafsah, who was not nearly as distressed as she made out, with devilish glee, promptly informed A’ishah, bragging about how easily she had achieved the ejection of Mariyah—an accomplishment that pleased the other wives as well (see Pickthall, n.d., pp. 404-405; Lings, 1983, pp. 276-279). With these background details in mind, the reader is invited to read the surah that was elicited by the situation:
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. O Prophet! Why bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee, seeking to please thy wives? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Allah hath made lawful for you (Muslims) absolution from your oaths (of such a kind), and Allah is your Protector. He is the Knower, the Wise. When the Prophet confided a fact unto one of his wives and when she afterward divulged it and Allah apprised him thereof, he made known (to her) part thereof and passed over part. And when he told it her she said: Who hath told thee? He said: The Knower, the Aware hath told me. If ye twain turn unto Allah repentant, (ye have cause to do so) for your hearts desired (the ban); and if ye aid one another against him (Muhammad) then lo! Allah, even He, is his protecting Friend, and Gabriel and the righteous among the believers; and furthermore the angels are his helpers. It may happen that his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your stead wives better than you, submissive (to Allah), believing, pious, penitent, inclined to fasting, widows and maids. O ye who believe! Ward off from yourselves and your families a Fire whereof the fuel is men and stones, over which are set angels strong, severe, who resist not Allah in that which He commandeth them, but do that which they are commanded. (Then it will be said): O ye who disbelieve! Make no excuses for yourselves this day. Ye are only being paid for what ye used to do. O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands: they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! Thou art Able to do all things. O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end. Allah citeth an example for those who disbelieve: the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot, who were under two of our righteous slaves yet betrayed them so that they (the husbands) availed them naught against Allah and it was said (unto them): Enter the Fire along with those who enter. And Allah citeth an example for those who believe: the wife of Pharaoh when she said: My Lord! Build for me a home with thee in the Garden, and deliver me from Pharaoh and his work, and deliver me from evildoing folk; And Mary, daughter of ‘Imran, whose body was chaste, therefore We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was of the obedient (Surah 66).Observe that the surah is complete with threats of the fire of hell, as well as the allusion to the wives of Noah and Lot as examples of disobedient wives who went to hell. Can there be any doubt that the Quran approves of and encourages polygamy?
Setting aside the issue of why Muhammad was exempt from the limitation of four wives (Surah 33:50), the divine origin of the Quran is discredited on the basis of its stance on polygamy. In the first place, for all practical purposes the Quran authorizes a man to have as many wives as he chooses, since its teaching on divorce contradicts its teaching on marriage. Unlike the New Testament, which confines permission to divorce on the sole ground of sexual unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9), the Quran authorizes divorce for any reason (e.g., Surah 2:226-232,241; 33:4,49; 58:2-4; 65:1-7). If a man can divorce his wife for any reason, then the limitation that confines a man to four wives is effectively meaningless—merely restricting a man to four legal wives at a time. Theoretically, in his lifetime, a man could have an unlimited number of wives—all with the approval of God!
In the second place, Jesus declared in no uncertain terms: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9, emp. added). Jesus gave one, and only one, reason for divorce in God’s sight. In fact, even the Old Testament affirmed that God “hates divorce” (Malachi 2:16). The teaching of the Bible on divorce is a higher, stricter, nobler standard than the one advocated by the Quran. The two books, in fact, contradict each other on this point.
In the third place, why does the Quran stipulate the number “four”? Why not three or five wives? The number four would appear to be an arbitrary number with no significance—at least, none is given. Though the passage in question indicates the criterion of a man’s ability to do justice to those he marries, there is no reason to specify the number four, since men would vary a great deal in the number of women that they would have the ability to manage fairly.
The answer may be seen in the influence of the contemporaneous Jewish population of Arabia. Sixth-century Arabia was a tribal-oriented society that relied heavily on oral communication in social interactions. Muhammad would have been the recipient of considerable information conveyed orally by his Jewish, and even Christian, contemporaries. Many tales, fables, and rabbinical traditions undoubtedly circulated among the Jewish tribes of Arabia. The Jews themselves likely were lacking in much book-learning, having been separated from the mainstream of Jewish thought and intellectual development in their migration to the Arabian peninsula. The evidence demonstrates that the author of the Quran borrowed extensively from Jewish and other sources. The ancient Talmudic record (Arbah Turim, Ev. Hazaer, 1) stated: “A man may marry many wives, for Rabba saith it is lawful to do so, if he can provide for them. Nevertheless, the wise men have given good advice, that a man should not marry more than four wives” (as quoted in Rodwell, 1950, p. 411, emp. added; Tisdall, 1905, pp. 129-130). The similarity with the wording of the Quran is too striking to be coincidental. It can be argued quite convincingly that the magic number of four was drawn from currently circulating Jewish teaching.
In the fourth place, the polygamy countenanced by the Quran on Earth will be extended into the heavenly realm (Surah 13:23; 36:55; 40:8; 43:70). Of course, this viewpoint was explicitly contradicted by Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:30).
Islam and the Quran have a great many features that the Christian mind (i.e., one guided by the New Testament) finds ethically objectionable. Polygamy is simply one among many such ethical “difficulties.” The Bible and the Quran are in significant conflict on this subject.
ARMED CONFLICT, VIOLENCE, WAR, AND BLOODSHED
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).Muhammad was informed that warfare was prescribed for him! Though he may have hated warfare, it was actually good for him, and what he loved, i.e., non-warfare, was actually bad for him! And though under normal circumstances, fighting is not appropriate during sacred months, killing was warranted against those who sought to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion. Killing is better than being persecuted! A similar injunction states: “Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory” (Surah 22:39, emp. added). In fact, “Allah loveth those who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure” (Surah 61:4, emp. added).
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil) (Surah 2:190-194, emp. added).
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse that killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can (Surah 2:216-217, emp. added).
In a surah titled “Repentance” that issues stern measures to be taken against idolaters, the requirement to engage in carnal warfare is apparent:
Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty: Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His guidance). And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve. Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 9:1-5, emp. added).The ancient Muslim histories elaborate on the occasion of these admonitions: “[T]he idolaters were given four months’ respite to come and go as they pleased in safety, but after that God and His Messenger would be free from any obligation towards them. War was declared upon them, and they were to be slain or taken captive wherever they were found” (Lings, 1983, p. 323).
Later in the same surah, “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low” (Surah 9:29, emp. added). “Those who have been given the Scripture” is a reference to Jews and Christians. The surah advocates coercion against Jews and Christians in order to physically force them to pay the jizyah—a special religious tax imposed on religious minorities (see Nasr, 2002, p. 166). Pickthall explains the historical setting of this Quranic utterance: “It signified the end of idolatry in Arabia. The Christian Byzantine Empire had begun to move against the growing Muslim power, and this surah contains mention of a greater war to come, and instructions with regard to it” (p. 145). Indeed, the final verse of Surah 2 calls upon Allah to give Muslims “victory over the disbelieving folk” (vs. 286), rendered by Rodwell: “give us victory therefore over the infidel nations.” That this stance by the Quran was to be expected is evident from the formulation of the Second Pledge of Aqabah, in which the men pledged their loyalty and their commitment to protecting Muhammad from all opponents. This pledge included duties of war, and was taken only by the males. Consequently, the First Aqabah pact, which contained no mention of war, became known as the “pledge of the women” (Lings, p. 112).
Additional allusions to warfare in the Quran are seen in the surah, “The Spoils,” dated in the second year of the Hijrah (A.D. 623), within a month after the Battle of Badr:
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.... If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them.... And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not.... O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty stedfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred stedfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.... It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Had it not been for an ordinance of Allah which had gone before, an awful doom had come upon you on account of what ye took. Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 8:39,57,59-60,65,67-69, emp. added; cf. 33:26).Muslim scholar Pickthall readily concedes the context of these verses:
vv. 67-69 were revealed when the Prophet had decided to spare the lives of the prisoners taken at Badr and hold them to ransom, against the wish of Omar, who would have executed them for their past crimes. The Prophet took the verses as a reproof, and they are generally understood to mean that no quarter ought to have been given in that first battle (p. 144).So the Quran indicates that at the Battle of Badr, no captives should have been taken. The enemy should have been completely slaughtered, with no quarter given. This very fate awaited the Jewish Bani Qurayzah, when some 700 men were beheaded by the Muslims with Muhammad’s approval (Lings, p. 232). Likewise, members of a clan of the Bani Nadir were executed in Khaybar for concealing their treasure rather than forfeiting it to the Muslims (Lings, p. 267).
Another surah describes how allowances respecting the daily prayers were to be made for Muhammad’s Muslim warriors when engaged in military action:
And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you. And when thou (O Muhammad) art among them and arrangest (their) worship for them, let only a party of them stand with thee (to worship) and let them take their arms. Then when they have performed their prostrations let them fall to the rear and let another party come that hath not worshipped and let them worship with thee, and let them take their precaution and their arms. Those who disbelieve long for you to neglect your arms and your baggage that they may attack you once for all. It is no sin for you to lay aside your arms, if rain impedeth you or ye are sick. But take your precaution. Lo! Allah prepareth for the disbelievers shameful punishment. When ye have performed the act of worship, remember Allah, standing, sitting and reclining. And when ye are in safety, observe proper worship. Worship at fixed hours hath been enjoined on the believers. Relent not in pursuit of the enemy (Surah 4:101-104, emp. added; cf. 73:20).These verses show that the Quran implicitly endorses armed conflict and war to advance Islam.
Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns (cf. Lings, pp. 86,111). Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight” (n.d., p. xxvi).
What a contrast with Jesus—Who never once took up the sword or encouraged anyone else to do so! The one time that one of His close followers took it upon himself to do so, the disciple was soundly reprimanded and ordered to put the sword away, with the added warning: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Indeed, when Pilate quizzed Jesus regarding His intentions, He responded: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36, emp. added)—the very opposite of the Aqabah pact. And whereas the Quran boldly declares, “And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (Surah 2:194; cf. 22:60), Jesus counters, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:39,44). The New Testament record presents a far higher, more noble and godly ethic on the matter of violence and armed conflict. In fact, the following verses demonstrate how irrevocably deep the chasm is between the Quran and the New Testament on this point:
[L]ove your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? (Matthew 5:44-46).What an amazing contrast! The New Testament says to love, bless, do good to, and pray for those who persecute you. The Quran says “persecution is worse than killing” (Surah 2:217)—i.e., it is better to kill your persecutors than to endure their persecutions!
But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful (Luke 6:27-36, emp. added).
The standard Muslim attempt to justify the Quran’s endorsement of violence is that such violence was undertaken in self-defense (e.g., Surah 42:41). Consider the following Muslim explanation:
At the time when this surah (Surah 2—DM) was revealed at Al-Madinah, the Prophet’s own tribe, the pagan Qureysh at Mecca, were preparing to attack the Muslims in their place of refuge. Cruel persecution was the lot of Muslims who had stayed in Meccan territory or who journeyed thither, and Muslims were being prevented from performing the pilgrimage. The possible necessity of fighting had been foreseen in the terms of the oath, taken at Al-Aqabah by the Muslims of Yathrib before the Flight, to defend the Prophet as they would their own wives and children, and the first commandment to fight was revealed to the Prophet before his flight from Mecca; but there was no actual fighting by the Muslims until the battle of Badr. Many of them were reluctant, having before been subject to a rule of strict non-violence. It was with difficulty that they could accept the idea of fighting even in self-defence [sic].... (Pickthall, p. 33, emp. added).Apart from the fact that the claim that Muhammad’s advocacy of fighting was justifiable on the ground of self-defense is contrary to the historical facts (since the wars waged by Muhammad and the territorial expansion of Islam achieved by his subsequent followers cannot all be dismissed as defensive), this explanation fails to come to grips with the propriety of shedding of blood and inflicting violence—regardless of the reason. Muslim scholar Seyyed Nasr seems unconscious of the inherent self-contradiction apparent in his own remark:
The spread of Islam occurred in waves. In less than a century after the establishment of the first Islamic society in Medina by the Prophet, Arab armies had conquered a land stretching from the Indus River to France and brought with them Islam, which, contrary to popular Western conceptions, was not, however, forced on the people by the sword (2003, p. 17, emp. added).In other words, Muslim armies physically conquered—by military force and bloodshed—various nations, forcing the population to submit to Muslim rule, but did not require them to become Muslims! One suspects that, at the time, the technical distinction escaped the citizens of those conquered countries, even as it surely does the reader.
The Quran appears to have been somewhat influenced by the law of Moses in this regard. For example, the Quran states: “If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted” (Surah 16:126). Similarly, “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.... And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)” (Surah 2:178-179). One is reminded of the lex talionis [literally “law as (or of) retaliation”] of the law of Moses. However, whereas the Quran appears to enjoin retaliation, the lex talionis were not intended to promote retaliation. Enjoining retaliation would be in direct conflict with the nature of God. God is never vindictive. The New Testament law does not differ with the Old Testament in the areas of proper values, ethics, mercy, and justice. The “eye for an eye” injunctions of the Old Testament were designed to be prohibitive in their thrust, i.e., they humanely limited and restricted legal punishment to a degree in keeping with the crime. That is, they prevented dispensers of justice from punishing too harshly or too much. They were intended to inculcate into Israelite society the principle of confining retribution to appropriate parameters.
The fact that the author of the Quran failed to grasp this feature of God’s laws is evident in various Quranic injunctions: “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Surah 5:38, emp. added).
The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.... And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony—They indeed are evildoers (Surah 24:2,4, emp. added).These latter verses conflict with Mosaic injunction on two significant points. First, on the one hand, it doubles the more reasonable and appropriate forty stripes (Deuteronomy 25:3)—a number that the Jews were so concerned not to exceed that they counted thirty-nine and stopped to allow for accidental miscount (2 Corinthians 11:24). On the other hand, this eighty increases to one hundred for adultery. Second, the requirement of four witnesses is an unreasonable number. The two or three witnesses of the Bible (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) strikes a logical medium between the precariousness of only a single witness on the one hand, and the excessive and unlikely availability of the four witnesses required by the Quran.
It is true that the God of the Bible enjoined violent, armed conflict for the Israelites in the Old Testament. He did so in order to eliminate the morally corrupt Canaanite civilizations that lived in Palestine prior to the Israelite occupation of the land (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-12; Leviticus 18:24-25,27-28). There simply was no viable solution to their condition except extermination. Their moral depravity was “full” (Genesis 15:16). They had slumped to such an immoral, depraved state, with no hope of recovery, that their existence on this Earth had to be ended—just like in Noah’s day when God waited while Noah preached for years but was unable to turn the world’s population from its wickedness (Genesis 6:3,5-7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5-9).
Additionally, since the nation of Israel was also a civil entity in its own right, the government was also charged with implementing civil retribution upon lawbreakers. However, with the arrival of New Testament Christianity—an international religion intended for all persons without regard to ethnicity or nationality—God has assigned to civil government (not the church or the individual) the responsibility of regulating secular behavior. God’s people who live posterior to the cross of Christ (i.e., Christians) are not charged by God with the responsibility of inflicting physical punishment on the evildoer. Rather, civil government is charged with the responsibility of maintaining order and punishing lawbreakers (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Observe Paul’s explanation of this dichotomy:
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1-7, emp. added).One translation (NIV) renders the boldface type in the above quote “an agent of wrath to bring punishment.” But this assignment of judicial and penal retribution to the government is a contrast in Paul’s discussion with what he wrote in the three verses prior to this quotation:
Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:19-21, emp. added).Notice that the very responsibility that is enjoined on the government, i.e., “an avenger to execute wrath” by use of the sword in 13:4, is strictly forbidden to the individual Christian in 12:19, i.e., “do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath.” To “give place to wrath” means to allow God’s wrath to show itself in His own appointed way that, according to the next few verses, is by means of the civil government.
True Christianity (i.e., that which is based strictly on the New Testament) dictates peace and non-retaliatory promotion of itself. The “absolute imperative” (Rahman, 1979, p. 22) of Islam is the submission/conversion of the whole world. In stark contrast, the absolute imperative of New Testament Christianity is the evangelism of the whole world, i.e., the dissemination of the message of salvation—whether people embrace it or not (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47). Absolutely no coercion is admissible from the Christian (i.e., New Testament) viewpoint. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and all other violent activities undertaken in the name of Christ and Christianity have been in complete conflict with the teaching of the New Testament. The perpetrators acted without the authority and sanction of Christ.
Islam seeks to bring the entire world into submission to Allah and the Quran—even using jihad, coercion, and force; Christianity seeks to go into all the world and to announce the “good news” that God loves every individual, that Jesus Christ died for the sins of everyone, and that He offers salvation, forgiveness, and reconciliation. But, each person has free choice to accept or reject without any retaliation by Christians against those who choose to reject. Jesus taught His disciples, when faced with opposition and resistance, simply to walk away: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet” (Matthew 10:14). In fact, on one occasion when a Samaritan village was particularly non-receptive, some of Jesus’ disciples wished to command fire to come down from heaven to consume them! But Jesus rebuked them and said, “‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.’ And they went to another village” (Luke 9:55). Muhammad and the Quran stand in diametrical opposition to Jesus and the New Testament.
If the majority of Muslims were violent, that would not prove that Islam is a religion of violence. The vast majority of those who claim to be “Christian” are practicing a corrupted form of the Christian Faith. So the validity of any religion is determined ultimately not by the imperfect, inaccurate practice of the religion by even a majority of its adherents, but by the official authority or standard upon which it is based, i.e., its Scriptures. The present discussion in the world regarding whether or not jihad includes physical force in the advancement of Islam is ultimately irrelevant (cf. Nasr, 2002, pp. 256-266). The Quran unquestionably endorses violence, war, and armed conflict. No wonder a substantial number of Muslims manifest a maniacal, reckless abandon in their willingness to die by sacrificing their lives in order to kill as many “infidels” (especially Israelis and Americans) as possible. They have read the following:
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks.... And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden [Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).O ye who believe! Be not as those who disbelieved and said of their brethren who went abroad in the land or were fighting in the field: If they had been (here) with us they would not have died or been killed.... And what though ye be slain in Allah’s way or die therein? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass. What though ye be slain or die, when unto Allah ye are gathered?.... So those who...fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow—a reward from Allah (Surah 3:156-158,195, emp. added).
Even if the vast majority of Muslims in the world reject violence and refrain from terrorist activity (which would appear to be the case), it is still a fact that the Quran (as well as the example of Muhammad himself) endorses the advancement of Islam through physical force. While Muslim apologist Seyyed Hossein Nasr insists that “the traditional norms based on peace and openness to others” characterize true Islam and the majority of Muslims, in contradistinction, he freely admits that at times Islam “has been forced to take recourse to physical action in the form of defense” (Nasr, 2002, pp. 112,110). This concession cannot be successfully denied in view of the Quran’s own declarations. Hence, the Muslim is forced to maintain the self-contradictory position that, yes, there have been times that Islam has been properly violent and, yes, the Quran does endorse violence, but, no, most Muslims are not violent, and then only in self-defense. As reprehensible and cowardly as Islamic terrorists have shown themselves to be in recent years, an honest reading of the Quran leads one to believe that they, at least, are more consistent with, and true to, their own Scriptures.
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great (Surah 4:34; cf. 4:11; 2:223,228,282; 38:45; 16:58-59; see also Brooks, 1995; Trifkovic, 2002, pp. 153-167).The conflicting ethics advocated in the Quran are proof of the Quran’s human origin.
Doctrine and Covenants (1981 reprint), (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Lings, Martin (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International).
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2002), The Heart of Islam (New York: HarperCollins).
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2003), Islam (New York: HarperCollins).
Pickthall, Mohammed M. (n.d.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).
Rahman, Fazlur (1979), Islam (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition.
Rodwell, J.M., trans. (1950 reprint), The Koran (London: J.M. Dent and Sons).
Tisdall, W. St. Clair (1905), The Original Sources of the Quran (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge).
Trifkovic, Serge (2002), The Sword of the Prophet (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox Press).
Do Babies Go to Hell When They Die?
|by||Kyle Butt, M.Div.|
One of the most often-used weapons in the skeptic’s arsenal is to seize statements from religious people that make God look like a cruel despot waiting to cast any and everyone into a torturous lake of eternal fire. However, this frequently lands the skeptic in a less-than-defensible position when the actual text of the Bible is consulted. Consider the following paragraph from Ronald Defenbaugh, a self-avowed atheist:
One evening, a friend about the same age as us rode home with us from one of our children’s sporting events. This was the first time I realized I may have a real problem with believing. She was a good friend of my spouse’s, a member of our Church and very religious. I don’t remember how the subject came up but salvation was our subject of conversation. She stated that even though my father had been an honest, caring person who did nothing but good, he would not receive salvation. He could only go to Heaven if he accepted Christ as his Savior. I remember thinking that I wanted no part of a deity that sent my father to Hell under those circumstances. Why would a baby, or my father, or even me be sent to Hell just because we didn’t accept Christ as our Savior? What about the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists? Again, what about me? This started me thinking that I probably was without belief. Or at least I didn’t understand it. It didn’t fit my logic (2003, emp. added).After hearing from his religious friend that his father would not be in heaven because of his failure to obey Jesus’ teachings, Mr. Defenbaugh quickly constructed a straw man by insinuating that the God of the Bible would have no problem sending babies to hell along with disobedient, reasonable adults.
Does the Bible teach that babies go to hell when they die? In order to answer this question, we must find a biblical example in which an infant died, and in which his or her eternal destination is recorded. To do such is not difficult. In 2 Samuel 12, King David’s newborn son fell terminally ill. After seven days, the child died. In verses 22 and 23, the Bible records that David said: “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” It is clear that David’s dead infant son would never return to this Earth, but David also said that one day, he would go to be with his son. Through inspiration, David documented that his own eternal destination was going to be “in the house of the Lord” (Psalm 23:6). Therefore, we can conclude that “the house of the Lord” would be the eternal destination of his infant son to whom David would one day go. King David was looking forward to the day when he would be able to meet his son in heaven. Absolutely nothing in this context gives any hint that the dead infant son’s soul would go to hell.
Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 18:3-5:
Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me.And in Luke 18:16-17, Jesus remarked: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”
Therefore, we have been given a specific example in the Old Testament of an infant who died and would live forever in heaven. And Jesus Christ Himself, in the New Testament, stated that little children retain the qualities that make a person eligible to inherit the kingdom of God. We see, then, that infants and small children that die are in a safe state, and will live eternally in heaven.
With such clear statements from the Bible about the eternal destiny of dead infants and small children, why have religious people mistakenly taught that babies go to hell when they die? Due to the influential nature of John Calvin and his teachings, many people have taught that sin is “passed” from one generation to the next. It is believed by many religious people that children “inherit” the sins of their parents. Yet, the Bible pointedly and explicitly teaches that such is not the case. In Ezekiel 18:20, the Bible says: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son.” Also, in Exodus 32, Moses pleaded with God to forgive the sins of the Israelites when he said: “Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written. And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book’ ” (Exodus 32:32-33). The Bible is plain in its teaching that babies do not inherit the sins of their parents. [One commonly misapplied scripture used to teach that infants inherit sin is Psalm 51:5-6, which has been dealt with in detail by Wayne Jackson (2000).]
The Bible nowhere teaches that babies go to hell if they die in infancy. Neither does it teach that babies inherit the sins of their parents. Although many skeptics have tried to portray God as an evil tyrant Who condemns innocent children to eternal destruction, their arguments are without merit or any semblance of biblical credence. In the words of Jesus Christ, “Let the little children come to me.”
REFERENCESDefenbaugh, Ronald (2003), “Why I Couldn’t Deconvert,” [On-line], URL: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=263. Jackson, Wayne (2000), “ ‘Original Sin’ and a Misapplied Passage,” [On-line], URL: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/originalSin.htm
Comical Contentions on the Ear by Evolutionists
|by||Dave Miller, Ph.D.|
Humans are proficient masters of self-deception. Many tend to believe what they want to believe, and see what they want to see. Especially when it comes to our own actions, we generally believe and defend those ideas that enable us to behave the way we choose. “I desire to engage in same-sex relations—so homosexuality is genetic;” “I don’t want a child—so a ‘fetus’ is not a human and abortion is okay;” “I want another woman—so God will accept my divorce.”
The essential contention of evolution is that the God of the Bible does not exist and, therefore, the Universe and all life forms came about gradually by blind, non-intelligent, non-purposive, mechanistic forces over millions and billions of years. Hence, all value—including moral value—is merely and strictly the product of subjective human inclination. Right and wrong are purely relative. Such thinking is attractive and convenient to some, since it allows man to think and act as he pleases, without any interference from a higher Power.
Yet, with all their intellectual prowess, academic attainment, and sophisticated scientific jargon, the evolutionists frequently express themselves in such a way that the honest person of average intelligence can see the foolishness of their theory. Indeed, the theory of evolution is downright laughable. Take, for instance, the explanation advanced for the evolution of the human ear. Renowned evolutionist Richard Dawkins is typical of the comical contention of evolutionists that the human ear evolved over millions of years by means of the chance, mindless, naturalistic forces of evolution: “If you think about the evolution of a really complex adaptation like an eye or an ear, then precisely because it cannot have come about as a single chance step it had to have come about as a gradual improvement” (see Brown, 2004, emp. added). It could not have just happened on its own—“a single chance step.” So with what options are we left? An all-powerful, transcendent God? Absolutely not—not even an option! So it just had to have come about gradually by multiple chance steps. A single chance step? Impossible. But multiple chance steps? Certainly! Rational, or comical gobbledygook?
Consider the claim by two evolutionists at Uppsala University in Sweden: “The structure that became the sound-conducting middle ear of land animals began as a tube that permitted ancient shallow-water fish to take an occasional breath of air out of the top of their heads” (Brown, 2006). Sounds reasonable—the nose became the ear. Why not? Given enough time, maybe your nose will do the same.
Then we have an article, appearing in a Turkish newspaper, by evolutionist Veysel Atayman claiming that “[o]ur hearing organ, the ear, emerged as a result of the evolution of the endoderm and exoderm layers, which we call the skin. One proof of this is that we feel low sounds in the skin of our stomachs” (1999, emp. added). The BBC televised a special on “The Human Body” advancing the notion that the common evolutionary ancestry of man and fish is seen in the evolution of the human ear from the bones associated with the gills of fish (“Evolutionary Tell...,” 2002).
And we mustn’t omit the shrewd observation by Michael Benton who holds the Chair in Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Bristol, England: “At a certain point, in the Late Triassic, the reptilian jaw joint had shifted function. We can still detect the legacy of this astonishing transition: when you chew a hamburger, you can hear your jaw movements deep inside your ears” (2001, emp. added). Did you catch that? You hear yourself chewing because parts of your hearing structure evolved from reptilian jawbones.
Let’s recap: the human ear evolved from a breathing tube. No, it was from skin layers connected to the stomach. No, it was from fish gills. Wait a minute, actually your ear came from a jaw. It all makes perfect sense—if you’ve been educated beyond your intelligence. Observe that evolutionists not only disagree among themselves on such matters as the evolution of the ear, the sheer speculation they advance consists of very specific scenarios in which they describe imaginary events as if they really happened. Even then, often their conjuring is laced with very telling admissions that concede their lack of substantive evidence. For example, consider the admissions that riddle an article titled, “The Evolution of the Human Ear,” by the “Senior House Officer” at the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton, England: “Much of the story of the evolution of the human ear is controversial” (Bhutta, 2004, 13:50, emp. added); “These early steps are conjecture” (13:50, emp. added); “Evolution is a poor method of design” (13:50, emp. added); “We actually know little of the early amphibian ear” (13:51, emp. added); “Why this change occurred...is a matter of debate” (13:51, emp. added). Observe: the evolution of the ear is controversial, conjecture, and a matter of debate. Yet we are supposed to be assured that it nevertheless happened.
This is self-delusion—not science. The explanation of the Bible is sensible and rational: “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” (Proverbs 20:12).
Benton, Michael (2001), “Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions,” American Institute of Biological Sciences, [On-line], URL: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html.
Bhutta, Mahmood (2004), ENT News, 13:50-52, November/December.
Brown, David (2006), “Evolution of Ear is Noted in Fossil,” Washington Post, A03, Thursday, January 19, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/ AR2006011802159.html.
Brown, Doug (2004), “Richard Dawkins: The Biologist’s Tale,” Author Interviews, [On-line], URL: http://www.powells.com/authors/dawkins.html.
“Evolutionary Tell Tales from BBC (2)” (2002), September 25, [On-line], URL: http://www.darwinism-watch.com/bbc_evolutionarytales_02.php.
Christ at the Door of Your Heart?
|by||Dave Miller, Ph.D.|
One of the most familiar expressions uttered within Christendom is: “Christ stands at the door of your heart.” Many have been the preachers who have urged their hearers to “invite Jesus into their hearts” in order to be forgiven of sin and made a Christian. Someone said if you repeat a statement enough times, people will come to accept it on the basis of sheer repetition and familiarity. The admonition that “Christ stands at the door of your heart” has been repeated so frequently that, for many, to question it is unthinkable. One would think that since this approach to salvation is so widespread, and the expression is so predominant, that surely the statement can be found in Scripture—even if only in so many words. How disturbing to realize that the statement is not found in Scripture and that the Bible simply does not teach this doctrine!
The phraseology is reminiscent of Revelation 3:20—the passage usually quoted to support the idea of Christ standing at the door of one’s heart. But observe the context. Revelation chapters two and three consist of seven specific mini-letters directed to the seven churches of Christ in Asia Minor near the end of the first century. At the outset, one must recognize that Revelation 3:20 is addressed to Christians—not non-Christians on the verge of conversion.
Second, the verse is found among Christ’s remarks to the church in Laodicea. Jesus made clear that the church had moved into an unfaithful condition. They were lost. They were unacceptable to God since they were “lukewarm” (3:16). They had become unsaved since their spiritual condition was “wretched and miserable and poor” (3:17). Thus, in a very real sense, Jesus had abandoned them by removing His presence from their midst. Now He was on the outside looking in. He still wanted to be among them, but the decision was up to them. They had to recognize His absence, hear Him knocking for admission, and open the door—all of which is figurative language to say that they must repent (3:19). They would have to return to the obedient lifestyle so essential to receiving God’s favor (John 14:21,23).
This means that Revelation 3:20 in no way supports the idea that non-Christians merely have to “open the door of their heart” and “invite Jesus in” with the assurance that the moment they mentally/verbally do so, Jesus will come into their heart and they will be simultaneously saved from all past sin and counted as Christians! The context of Revelation 3:20 shows that Jesus was seeking readmission into an apostate church.
“But doesn’t the Bible teach that Christ does come into a person’s heart?” Yes. But not the way the religious world suggests. Ephesians 3:17 states that Christ dwells in the heart through faith. Faith can be acquired only by hearing biblical truth (Romans 10:17). When that biblical truth is obeyed, the individual is “saved by faith” (Hebrews 5:9; James 2:22; 1 Peter 1:22; et al.). So Christ enters our lives when we “draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience [i.e., when we repent of our sins] and our bodies washed with pure water [i.e., when we are baptized in water]” (Hebrews 10:22). Here is the New Testament (i.e., non-denominational) way to accept Christ.
The Benevolent, "Leavening" Influence of Christianity
|by||Wayne Jackson, M.A.|
In one of his delightfully instructive parables, Jesus set forth the following concept regarding his approaching reign:
The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till it was all leavened (Matthew 13:33).It is agreed among Bible expositors that the “leaven” of this parable signifies the pervasive and benevolent influence of the kingdom of Christ, as this leaven would make its presence felt from the first century onward. In his classic work on the parables, Trench noted that Christianity, “[w]orking from the centre to the circumference, by degrees...made itself felt, till at length the whole Roman world was, more or less, leavened by it” (1877, p. 121). In his important treatise on the parables, Taylor affirmed that the leaven represents “the good, wholesome, aggressive influence which Christ introduced into the world when he came to earth, and lived and died, and rose again, as the Savior of sinners” (1928, p. 60).
There is, perhaps, no more graphic portrait of the vileness of the Mediterranean world than that which is painted by Paul in the opening chapter of his epistle to the Romans. It is dismal indeed. William Barclay observed:
When we read Romans 1:26-32 it might seem that this passage is the work of some almost hysterical moralist who was exaggerating the contemporary situation and painting it in colours of rhetorical hyperbole. It describes a situation of degeneracy of morals almost without parallel in human history. But there is nothing that Paul said that the Greek and Roman writers of the age did not themselves say (1957, p. 23).The Scottish scholar then proceeded to document his depiction with ample citations from ancient historians who commented upon this period of depraved history. It was into this hostile environment that the religion of Jesus was inaugurated, gradually but surely changing—much for the better—the moral climate of that world. If one is inclined to think that this appraisal is biased, perhaps we may appeal to the testimony of a writer who never could be accused of entertaining sympathy for Christianity.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), an agnostic, has been characterized as the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century. In 1950, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature. He was a militant opponent of the religion of Jesus Christ, even producing a popular essay titled, “Why I am not a Christian.” I mention this to argue that whatever testimony we elicit from him certainly will not arise from a heart that is disposed toward the Teacher from Nazareth. Be that as it may, Russell, oddly enough, became an unwitting witness to the truth of the “leavening” activity of the Christian system in the Roman world.
First, the philosopher commented concerning the barbarous practice of infanticide (i.e., the destruction of newborn infants)—a practice so common in the Roman world.
Infanticide, which might seem contrary to human nature, was almost universal before the rise of Christianity, and is recommended by Plato to prevent over-population (1950, p. 92; emp. added).Second, Russell gave a nodding tribute to the influence of Christianity relative to the status of women in the Roman world.
In antiquity, when male supremacy was unquestioned and Christian ethics were still unknown, women were harmless but rather silly, and a man who took them seriously was somewhat despised (p. 101; emp. added).Third, there is this comment regarding Christian benevolence in general.
Christianity, as soon as it conquered the state, put an end to gladiatorial shows, not because they were cruel, but because they were idolatrous. The result, however, was to diminish the widespread education in cruelty by which the populace of Roman towns were degraded. Christianity also did much to soften the lot of slaves. It established charity on a large scale, and inaugurated hospitals (p. 137; emp. added).Our world may be thankful indeed for the lingering influence of Jesus’ life and teaching upon this Earth.
Russell, Bertrand (1950), Unpopular Essays (New York: Simon & Schuster).
Taylor, William (1928), The Parables of Our Savior (New York: Doubleday).
Trench, R.C. (1877), Notes on the Parables (London: Macmillan).
Affecting the Next Generation Science Standards for the Lord (Update)
|by||Jeff Miller, Ph.D.|
Are you frustrated with where science has gone in the last few decades in its promotion of naturalism—evolution and the Big Bang Theory? Are you tired of standing on the side-line as the evolution machine steamrolls over the minds of millions of kids, destroying their faith in God? Do you want to take a stand and do something about it? It so happens that right now—at this very moment—you can take a few minutes that could have a lasting impact in this debate. You could effect a change, and if not, you can atleast make a public statement and be counted among those who tried to make a difference. You can play a significant role in shaping the science curriculum that will be taught throughout the majority of these United States for the next several years.
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is currently developing the science standard for some 26 states. Now is the time to take action and speak out against the indoctrination of young minds with the bad science of evolutionary theory. If the science standards pass as they are written now, Darwinian evolution will be a required topic in your child’s science education, if you live in one of the states that adopts this standard. The NGSS is currently accepting input from the public over the next few days (until January 29, 2013) on the second draft of their proposed science standards in the form of a survey on their Web site (www.nextgenscience.org). We strongly recommend that you take five minutes and speak out for God and the biblical view of origins. Now may be the only time for many years (or ever) to let your voice be heard in a direct, effective way on this matter.
The Villa Rica church of Christ in Georgia is taking a lead in this effort, and has developed a Web site to help you in this process. If you need help getting straight to the critical issues in the science standard, click here (http://www.unity-in-christ.org/Articles/christians4science_is_an_apologe.html). At the top of that Web page are two red rectangular links that will be helpful to you in sifting through the information on the NGSS Web site.
Please let your voice be heard. There is absolutely no doubt that the promulgation of evolutionary theory in America’s school system is one of the most effective ways that Satan has “taken advantage of us” (2 Corinthians 2:11) over the last 50 years, turning Americans and the world away from the God of the Bible. But we are not “ignorant of his devices” (2 Corinthians 2:11). Remember the famous words of exhortation credited to Edmund Burke, a British statesman from the 1700s: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Take up the sword of truth, and fight with us.
Ben Carson and Islam
|by||Dave Miller, Ph.D.|
|"Ben Carson at CPAC 2015" by Gage Skidmore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Commons-Wikimedia 2015|
Yet, the Quran is forthright and unmistakable in its declarations concerning the violent nature of Islam as well as the inferior status of women—two things the left absolutely detest. The reader is urged to secure a reputable English translation of the Quran, and read the verses identified in the following articles on the A.P. Web site:
“Does ISIS Represent True Islam? http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=5116&topic=47What’s more, the Founders of the United States of America were very plain about their recognition of the threat that Islam poses to freedom and the principles on which they established the Republic. Please read the following historical documentation:
“Violence and the Quran” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1491&topic=47
“Husband and Wife in the Quran” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=4993&topic=47
“Polygamy and the Quran” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=4029&topic=47
“Islam and Early America” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1485&topic=33
“Were the Founding Fathers ‘Tolerant’ of Islam? [Part I]” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4622&topic=33
“Were the Founding Fathers ‘Tolerant’ of Islam? [Part II]” http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1117&article=2138
“Founding Father Elias Boudinot on Islam” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4586&topic=44
“John Quincy Adams on Islam” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1142&topic=44
“The Treaty of Tripoli and America’s Founders” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=4520&topic=44
“What Good Things Can You Say About Islam?” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5143&topic=44