6/9/17

Words, The Bible and the human heart! by Gary Rose







When I saw this chart again today, I thought how useful this "word wheel" would be in choosing just the right word when writing.  Sometimes, its very difficult to find the best way of saying something and this tool could be very helpful!

And the right words used in the right way, in the right sequence can make a powerful impact on our lives! And if our words can have a powerful impact, just imagine the power of human reasoning with that of The Word of God. Here is an example from the book of Acts...


Acts, Chapter 17 (WEB)
 1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue.  2 Paul, as was his custom, went in to them, and for three Sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures,  3 explaining and demonstrating that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” (emp. added vss. 2-3)

  4 Some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and not a few of the chief women.  5 But the unpersuaded Jews took along some wicked men from the marketplace, and gathering a crowd, set the city in an uproar. Assaulting the house of Jason, they sought to bring them out to the people. 6 When they didn’t find them, they dragged Jason and certain brothers before the rulers of the city, crying, “These who have turned the world upside down have come here also,  7 whom Jason has received. These all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus!”  8 The multitude and the rulers of the city were troubled when they heard these things.  9 When they had taken security from Jason and the rest, they let them go.  10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Beroea. When they arrived, they went into the Jewish synagogue. 

  11 Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.  12 Many of them therefore believed; also of the prominent Greek women, and not a few men. (emp. added vss. 10-12) 13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was proclaimed by Paul at Beroea also, they came there likewise, agitating the multitudes.


The Word of God, when believed, yields faith; disbelief often causes anger and hostility towards those sharing God's truth. Yet, how pleasant it is when some people do believe! 

I wonder, what is your attitude towards the Word of God? If The Bible plainly says something you don't like, do you change your ways to please God, or do you become angry? What you do will be a good indicator of where your heart is, and I hope you will be receptive, like the Beroeans!

Dispensations by T. Pierce Brown


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Brown/T/Pierce/1923/dispens1.html

Dispensations

If you ask the average person in the Lord's church what is meant by the term "dispensation" in the Bible, if he is a preacher or a person who has done personal evangelism, he will probably tell you that it refers to one of the three dispensations or time periods in the Bible, called the Patriarchal Age, the Mosaic Age and the Christian Age. That probably does very little damage, but is an indication of how most of us are accustomed to hear some idea that catches our fancy, and assume that we have learned some valuable Biblical truth.

Many of us have done this with such words as "atonement," "justification" and various other terms. It is said that the basic meaning of atonement is "at-one-ment" showing that we are now "at one" with God. Justification is said to mean, "just as if I had never sinned." Neither of these statements is accurate. It is true that the result of atonement is that we are "at one" with God. If a sinner is justified from his sins the result is that he is treated as if he had never sinned. But the word "justification" does no mean that, for one may "justify God." To justify simply means "to reckon righteous." These errors are not serious enough to accuse anyone of teaching false doctrine nor will they cause some soul to be lost. However, they are a symptom of a serious disease. That disease is a widespread satisfaction with mediocrity and partial truths that come from cursory or indifferent Bible study, or no study at all.

Today, let us examine the word "dispensation." It is found in the following scriptures:1 Cor. 9:17, "For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me." Eph. 1:10, "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him." Eph. 3:2, "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward." Col. 1:25, "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God." It is from the Greek word "oikonomia" which comes from "oikos," a house" and "nomos," a law," and its basic meaning was therefore "the law of the house." However, its derived meaning is seen in its usage where it is translated "stewardship" in Luke 16:2, 3 & 4, which starts, "And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward." The word "oikonomos" is translated by such words as "chamberlain," "governor" and "steward."

It can be seen, therefore, that the word has to do with the type of administration or method of dealing with an individual or group. Of course if one person deals with another in a certain way, he does it for a certain period of time, but the period of time has nothing to do with the meaning of the term.

It is appropriate for us to talk of the Patriarchal, Mosaic and Christian dispensations if we understand that we are talking in a broad general way of how God dealt with persons at certain times. However, if we assume that those divisions of history are the only way we can talk about how God dealt with mankind, we lose sight of some important truths.

For example, in Matthew 10:5-10 Jesus sent His twelve disciples out to preach. He told them not to enter any Samaritan city, but to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and to preach that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. They were to heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils, and raise the dead. They were not to take any money with them. The fact that this took place under what we, in the Lord's church, commonly call "The Mosaic Dispensation" does not prove that the command was to everyone who lived in that era. It is certain that we cannot apply those commands to what we call "The Christian Dispensation." The truth is that there was what we commonly call "The Limited Commission" which was a special dispensation or way God dealt with certain people in that circumstance.

The effort of some leading men in the brotherhood to try to make the gospel records a part of the Mosaic dispensation so they can make certain passages inapplicable to Christians today is a misapplication of the truth. If they do not apply to Christians today it is not because they were spoken during the Mosaic dispensation, but because we can show that the thing spoken was limited to a certain person or group. To love the Lord with all the heart and soul is not a command that applied to one dispensation and not another. There are many principles that are eternal. However, the statement of Paul to Timothy to "bring the cloak and parchments" was made during the Christian dispensation, but was limited to that person.

This age is sometimes spoken of as a dispensation of grace, as if God did not act graciously toward people in Adam's day, or during the Mosaic period. God has always been a God of grace. The statement of Paul that "We are not under law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14) does not mean that we are under no law at all, for Paul says, "We are under law to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21). There are those who teach that when Jesus comes back to earth, He will set up His kingdom and reign for 1000 years in a dispensation of justice. The truth is that the whole plan of salvation is a result of the fact that God must always be a God of grace as well as justice. If God were merely gracious, then He would forgive everyone and save everyone. If He were merely just, He would be forced to condemn everyone. In His present kingdom, His grace is predominant, for as we think of our salvation, we should properly praise and magnify that grace. However, if we forget that He also has to be always just and condemn sin, we do disservice to His revelation and His nature. The fact that He is not now bringing all sin into judgment, and punishing it immediately is not strange. He never did under any broad dispensation. In Noah's day His grace was evident for hundreds of years. In the case of Israel, His grace was evident on thousands of occasions over thousands of years.

It would be correct for us to say that during the days when the Apostles were on the earth, and God was dealing with His people with signs, miracles and direct revelation from their mouths, rather than through the written word, that they lived under a different dispensation than we do. We may still classify it in broad terms as "The Christian Dispensation," but if we do not realize that God had a special way of dealing with individuals and groups then that was somewhat different from what He does now, we will be hopelessly confused.

We recognize that the so called tongue-speakers and miracle-workers of today do not understand that, but we have probably added to their confusion because we have sometimes insisted that there are three and only three dispensations. It is true that in a broad sense God's way of dealing with mankind in general was different in what we call "The Patriarchal dispensation," "The Mosaic Dispensation" and the "Christian Dispensation." However, in each of those broad divisions, there were special ways of dealing with special groups, and that way of dealing with a person or group could properly be called a dispensation. Each one of us is a steward of what God has given us, and in that context, the method of God's dealing with us will be the dispensation under which we live. Small children and mentally incompetent persons living today, though in what we may classify as a broad division of how God deals with mankind, are under a different "house law" than others, and in that sense are under a different dispensation.
T. Pierce Brown


Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

How Many Supervisors Did Solomon Have? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=741&b=1%20Kings

How Many Supervisors Did Solomon Have?

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

A helpful concept to remember when one is dealing with alleged discrepancies is the idea that a simple difference is not necessarily a contradiction. Just because two texts differ in the way they relate the facts does not necessarily mean that there exists no possible reconciliation of the texts. Let’s look at one example of texts that differ, yet do not contradict each other.
1 Kings 5:16: “Besides Solomon’s chief officers that were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, who bare rule over the people that wrought in the work.” 2 Chronicles 2:18: “And he set threescore and ten thousand of them to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand that were hewers in the mountains, and three thousand and six hundred overseers to set the people at work.”
These two verses frequently have been accused of contradicting one another because 1 Kings mentions 3,300 supervisors over the people, while 2 Chronicles mentions 3,600 overseers. To label these passages as contradictory represents a misunderstanding that could be based on several factors. One possible solution to this alleged contradiction is that the author of 2 Chronicles could be including a number of reserves who were standing ready to work should any of the “ regular” supervisors get sick or accidentally be killed. In their essay on alleged Bible contradictions, Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, et. al. wrote:
This is not too great a problem. The most likely solution is that the author of 2 Chronicles included the 300 men who were selected as reservists to take the place of any supervisors who would become ill or who had died, while the author of the 1 Kings 5:16 passage includes only the supervisory force. With the group as large as the 3,300, sickness and death certainly did occur, requiring reserves who would be called up as the need arose (n.d.).
The profoundly respected Old Testament commentators, Keil and Delitzsch, offered another solution. They pointed out the fact that 1 Kings 9:23 mentions 550 chief officers of Solomon, thus giving the total number of supervisors in 1 Kings 5:16 and 9:23 as 3,850. Also mentioned is the fact that 2 Chronicles 8:10 mentions 250 chief officers of Solomon, bringing the total number of officers in 2 Chronicles 2:18 and 8:10 to exactly 3,850—the same total as in 1 Kings. The difference does not lie within the numbers of the text; rather, the two authors simply classified the officers according to different standards. Whereas the chronicler might have been dividing the supervisors according to their nationality, the author of 1 Kings seems to have been dividing them by their authority (1982, 3:63-64).
So we see that any hint of contradiction can be cleared away quite easily, and it is once again evident that a simple difference is not necessarily a contradiction.
REFERENCES
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Smith, Jay, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, and James Schaeffer (no date), 101 Cleared-Up Contradictions in the Bible, [On-line], URL: http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm.

"Be Not Unequally Yoked" by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=431

"Be Not Unequally Yoked"

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Paul admonished the Corinthian Christians, “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14). This statement often has been applied to the question of marriage, with the subsequent conclusion that Christians are commanded not to marry non-Christians. However, this interpretation creates several problems.
First, marriage is not under discussion in the context. Great care must be taken to avoid misapplying the principles taught in a given passage. The application of a passage must be accurate. For example, to apply the injunction “taste not” (Colossians 2:21) to eating chocolate would be a misapplication on two counts. First, it assumes that chocolate is included in the category of substances being forbidden in the context. Second, it fails to perceive the fact that “taste not” was what the opponents of Paul were enjoining. They were wrong in their making of a law that God had not made. Likewise, the prohibition of not being unequally yoked would have to be demonstrated to apply to marriage.
Second, if forming a marriage between a Christian and non-Christian is being forbidden, the only way to repent of such an action would be to sever the marriage. The only way to repent of an illicit relationship is to terminate the relationship (cf. Ezra 10:11; Mark 6:18; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Paul explicitly stated in the context to “come out from among them, and be ye separate” (2 Corinthians 6:17). But this inevitable conclusion would contradict Matthew 19:9, where Jesus stated that there is one and only one grounds for divorce, i.e., fornication—not marriage to a non-Christian.
Third, if marriage to a non-Christian is forbidden, then non-Christians sin when they marry each other. The non-Christian who marries another non-Christian is guilty of not marrying a Christian.
Fourth, if the Christian sins when he marries a non-Christian, what about that non-Christian whom the Christian marries? That non-Christian would not be sinning since he/she is marrying a Christian. Hence, the very action that is sin for one (the Christian) is righteous and proper for the other (non-Christian)!
Fifth, such an interpretation of 2 Corinthians 6:14 implies that marriage is a “Christian” institution. Yet the marriage relationship was formed by God at Creation thousands of years before Christianity was introduced onto the planet (Genesis 2:24). God’s marriage laws apply equally to all people in all periods of Bible history. No one prior to the cross of Christ married a Christian! Yet marriages contracted prior to Christianity were valid if contracted in harmony with God’s marriage laws (i.e., in accordance with Genesis 1:27, 2:24, Matthew 19:3-12, Romans 7:1-3, and 1 Corinthians 7:1-40).
All persons who choose to be married are required by God to “marry in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39). That is, one must marry in harmony with God’s laws, even as children are to obey their parents “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1), i.e., compliant with parental instructions that are in harmony the will of Christ. Marriage of a Christian to a non-Christian may well be fraught with peril. It may be at times inexpedient, unwise, or extremely dangerous spiritually. However, the Bible does not teach that it is sinful.
So what does this passage mean? It means that Christians should not contract any social arrangement (e.g., business) with another that would require the Christian to violate God's law. For example, suppose you form a business partnership with a non-Christian by opening a restaurant. Afterwards, you learn that your partner intends to serve alcohol and sell cigarettes to customers. Or perhaps you find that he is cheating customers by overcharging them. Or you discover that he is not reporting profits to the IRS. In each of these cases, you as a Christian would find yourself in an "unequal yoke," i.e., a relationship that would necessarily involve you in wrong doing. What should the Christian do in such a case? "Come out from among them," i.e., sever the business partnership.

No Wonder I Was So Scared of Chickens by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2120

No Wonder I Was So Scared of Chickens

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

What happened to me as a small child in west Tennessee in the late 1970s constitutes one of my earliest childhood memories. I was only three or four years old and had tagged along with my dad to visit some friends. While he went inside the friends’ house, I was allowed to stay outside to play in the yard. Looking for something to do, I spotted a few small, free-roaming chicks. Just as any child would do when he saw a soft, fluffy, baby animal, I walked over to the chicks with the intention of giving them a good petting. Unfortunately, about the time I reached to pick one up, a large, terrifying, squawking mother hen charged directly at me. I, of course, ran and screamed hysterically.
Hearing my dad recount what happened on that day in the midst of friends and family members occasionally has made me feel less than valiant. However, if evolutionists are correct, I may have a respectable reason for my retreat from the mother hen: “It was like being chased by a Tyrannosaurus rex.”
According to a recent report, “T. Rex Thigh Reveals Chicken Family Ties” (2007). Because proteins have been extracted from an alleged 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex bone, which scientists say have certain “similarities to those of chickens” (“Tyrannosaurus Rex...,” 2007), some think it is safe to say that chickens evolved from dinosaurs. Prominent dinosaur-fossil hunter, Jack Horner, went so far as to say that this new information “changes the idea that birds and dinosaurs are related from a hypothesis to a theory” (“Protein Extracted...,” 2007). Another evolutionist, Matt Lamanna, who works as curator of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, commented on this news, saying it was “another piece in the puzzle that shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs are related to birds” (“Protein Extracted...”).
As much as I might like to justify my trepidation of mother hens, the truth is, similarities between the collagen of T. rexes and chickens do not prove ancestry anymore than similarities between human and ape DNA prove common ancestry. [Apologetics Press has addressed this issue thoroughly in the past; see Harrub, 2005a; see also Harrub and Thompson, 2002.] Creationists have long recognized similarities between animals and humans. In fact, such similarities (even on a cellular level) should be expected among creatures that drink the same water, eat the same food, breathe the same air, live on the same terrain, etc. But, similarities are just that—similarities. Evolutionists interpret these similarities to mean we all share common ancestors, yet they cannot prove it. It might make for a nice story, but it does not, as evolutionist Matt Lamanna proposed, show “beyond the shadow of a doubt that dinosaurs are related to birds” (“Protein Extracted...”).
Unfortunately, one remarkable element of this story continues to fly under the radar: flexible, fibrous, resilient, non-fossilized collagen was discovered in a dinosaur bone that purportedly is 68 million years old. What is collagen doing in an alleged 68-million-year-old bone? Are we supposed to believe the bone simply sat around for 68 million years (or 24.82 billion days) without completely fossilizing or decomposing? Indeed, as one writer commented, were such aged collagen still on Earth, it must have been “miraculously preserved” (Gebel, 2007). Creationists believe that a better, more logical, and less biased answer is that the T. rex bone is not 68 million years old, but only a few thousand years old.
[For more information on the soft tissue from this dinosaur and others, see Harrub, 2005b.]

REFERENCES

Gebel, Erika (2007), “A Rex in the Roost,” Baltimore Sun, April 13, [On-line], URL: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-hs.rex13apr13,0,2935275. story.
Harrub, Brad (2005a), “Initial Sequence of Chimp Genome Reported,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/353.
Harrub, Brad (2005b), “Soft Tissue from a Dinosaur?” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/304.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2002), “Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070.
“Protein Extracted from T. Rex Bone Similar to Chicken” (2007), Fox News, April 13, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265687,00.html.
“T. Rex Thigh Reveals Chicken Family Ties” (2007), CNN, April 12, [On-line], URL: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/12/dinosaur.reut/.
“Tyrannosaurus Rex and Mastodon Protein Fragments Discovered, Sequenced” (2007), Science Daily, April 12, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070412140942.htm.

"Jesus Was a Vegetarian" by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=5095

"Jesus Was a Vegetarian"

by  Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Recently I read the statement, “Jesus was a vegetarian.” Supposedly, since Jesus did not eat meat, neither should we. There are several problems with this line of reasoning.
First, people often use the “Jesus did x, y, or z” to demand that we should do the same things. But the truth is, just because Jesus did or did not do something does not necessarily have any bearing on what we should or should not do. Jesus did many things that we are under no moral obligation to imitate. For instance, could we say, “Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem and so should you?” Or what about, “Jesus never rode in a car, and neither should we?” Would we be correct to demand, “Jesus never had electric lights, so cut off your power?” Or “Jesus never sent a text message, so stop texting?” You can quickly see the problem here. While it is the case that Jesus is the perfect example of how all humans should live, it is not the case that every aspect of His life is something that we should copy. Paul explained it well in Philippians 2:5 when he said, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” Notice it is the “mind” of Christ, or His attitude, that we are to imitate. That means that while Jesus was seeking the lost He may have gone up on a mountain to preach, but we may need to use a microphone or a YouTube video. Or whereas Jesus walked from village to village, we may need to drive, fly, or ride a bus. Just because Jesus wore sandals that does not mean hiking boots are off limits for His followers.
The second reason the “Jesus was a vegetarian” statement was so strange to me is because it is patently false. He certainly was not a vegetarian. He often ate meat. In Luke 24:42-43 the text says: “So they gave Him [Jesus] a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.” The passage could not be more straightforward about Jesus consuming fish. In addition, since Jesus was  a Jew who faithfully followed the Old Law, He was commanded to eat the Passover Lamb every year. In Exodus 12:5-8, we read that all the Jews were to take a Passover lamb, kill it on the  14th day of the first month and “eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs.” In the New Testament, we see Jesus arranging this very procedure with His apostles. Luke 22:7-8 states, “Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed. And He [Jesus] sent Peter and John, saying, ‘Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat.’” This was just one of the many animal sacrifices that Jewish people ate on a regular basis.
Third, the New Testament makes it clear that killing and eating animals is perfectly acceptable to God. In 1 Timothy 4:1-4 the Holy Spirit foretold that some were going to depart from teaching the truth and were going to command people to “abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” Notice that in this passage, the sense in which God calls animals “good” is the fact that they are good for food. The idea that God, Jesus, or the Bible somehow morally obligate people to be vegetarians simply is incorrect.

Revelation and the Old Testament by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=886

Revelation and the Old Testament

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Can you imagine what life without the Old Testament would be like for a Christian? Although the commands in the New Testament still could be obeyed without the Old Testament, our knowledge would be incomplete. We would be unable to appreciate fully the passages in the New Testament that speak of men and women such as Adam, Eve, Abraham, and Sarah, as well as events such as the Flood and the Exodus from Egypt. Our understanding of Jesus as the prophesied Messiah and the Great High Priest would be limited in the absence of books like Psalms, Isaiah, and Leviticus. The simple fact is, although we are under the new law today (Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 8:7-13), God still expects us to be educated in the Old Testament Scriptures. The apostle Paul wrote, “Whatever things were written before were written for our learning that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (Romans 15:4). One of the main reasons we need to read and study the Old Testament is so we might have a better knowledge of the New. This especially is true when studying one of the most misunderstood books in the world—the book of Revelation.
Of the 404 verses in the book of Revelation, seemingly 278 of them make some allusion to the Old Testament. That is 68.8% of the verses! And some of these verses contain two, or even three, allusions to the Old Testament. The book of Revelation does not tell whence these allusions came. However, by a careful study of the Bible, we can understand that most of them come from the prophetic books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah. Thus, it would be good to have some knowledge of the Old Testament before studying the book of Revelation. For example, before reading the apostle John’s vision of the seven golden lampstands in Revelation 1, a student should realize that such language had been used when Zechariah had a similar vision in chapter 4 of the book that bears his name. Prior to reading John’s vision of a “new heaven” and “new earth” (Revelation 21:1), a person might want to read Isaiah 65 and 66 to understand that such language had been used long before Revelation ever was written.
The reason there are so many allusions to various Old Testament books is because, like Revelation, they were written in a time of oppression and cruel, foreign domination. Whereas Revelation was written while the Christians were oppressed by the Romans, the prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel wrote while the Jews where under Babylonian domination.
There are many similarities between Revelation and the Old Testament. In fact, of the 39 Old Testament books, one writer has found that Revelation alludes to 24 of them. Certainly then, by having a good knowledge of the Old Testament, and especially such books as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah, one likely will have an easier time understanding the book of Revelation.

The Omniscience of God by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1394

The Omniscience of God

by  Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

God is the only One Who possesses limitless knowledge. The Illustrated Oxford Dictionary defines “omniscience” as “knowing everything,” and the Bible certainly ascribes omniscience to God (Psalm 139:1-4; cf. Woods, 1988, p. 34). Consider a sample of what the Bible reveals about God’s omniscience: “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3). “Can anyone teach God knowledge, since He judges those on high?” (Job 21:22, emp. added). Consider a few of the implications of God’s omniscience.
God knows every past action. At times, humans struggle to interpret history because we often lack complete historical information. The eternal God, Who had no beginning, has no problems seeing clearly through the mists of time, for history is ever before Him (Isaiah 57:15). God emphasized this when He told Moses in Exodus 3:14, “I Am Who I Am.” John 8:58 reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am.’ ” In the Day of Judgment, we will be judged based on God’s complete knowledge of our history (see Revelation 20:12). God cannot be taught anything about the past (Isaiah 40:14).
God knows every present action. Psalm 33:13-15 reads: “The Lord looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.” Despite the uniqueness of each person, God understands everyone individually, and knows everyone personally (see Matthew 10:29-30). God even knows everything that is done privately (Matthew 6:4), so no one can hide from God (see Kizer, 2001, p. 7). God cannot be taught anything about the present (Matthew 28:20; 1 Corinthians 4:5).
God knows every future action. The fact that God gave prophets the capability to predict accurately very specific events in the distant future is one of the great evidences for the inspiration of the Bible (Thompson, 1999, p. 19). God has emphasized repeatedly that He knows the future, perhaps never more emphatically than when Jesus Himself prophesied (see Matthew 24:1-51; Mark 8:31; John 2:19-22). The fact that God knows the future does not imply that humans somehow lose freedom of choice. Just because God knows that something will happen, does not mean that He causes it (see Bales, 1974, p. 49). God cannot be taught anything about the future (Acts 17:31; John 14:3).
God knows every human thought. King David addressed his son: “As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a loyal heart and with a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will cast you off forever” (1 Chronicles 28:9). Psalm 94:9-10 reads: “He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? He who instructs the nations, shall He not correct, He who teaches man knowledge?” God cannot be taught anything about the content of human intellect (Acts 15:8).
God knows what humans need. Ecclesiastes 2:26 reads: “For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight….” Noah of old would have perished in the Flood had God not given him a way of escape. The Israelites could not have conquered Canaan without divine guidance and protection. God has promised that He will provide for the physical needs of those who serve Him (Matthew 6:24-34). Most important, God has identified the problem of sin and death and provided the only possible solution—the blood of His Son (1 Peter 1:18-19).
God knows what is right and wrong, because He defines morality and truth—His Word is the standard for righteous judgment. Hannah wanted desperately to have a child, but she was unable to do so. In her fervent request for God’s intervention, she prayed: “…the Lord is the God of knowledge; and by Him actions are weighed” (1 Samuel 2:3). God has revealed what to do in order to please Him, and He knows of our obedience and disobedience (Proverbs 15:3).
What is the proper response to God’s omniscience? The inspired apostle Paul provided a fitting answer in Colossians 3:24: “And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ.” Those who refuse to serve the Lord should be frightened by God’s omniscience, because God knows of every sin. And unforgiven sin will be punished (Psalm 90:8; Romans 6:23). For God’s children, however, the implications of God’s knowledge are sources of peace and strength (2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 3:22; Romans 11:33). Ultimately, the God Who knows everything will judge humans based on how we use the knowledge that has been revealed to us. We must act based on our knowledge to prepare for eternity.

REFERENCES

Bales, James D. (1974), The Biblical Doctrine of God (Shreveport, LA: Lambert).
Kizer, Drew (2001), “Omniscience,” Words of Truth, 38[11]:6-7, November.
Thompson, Bert (1999), In Defense of the Bible’s Inspiration (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Woods, Guy N. (1988), “What is Meant by ‘God’s Omniscience and Omnipresence’?,” Gospel Advocate, 130[2]:34, February.

Camels and the Composition of Genesis by Eric Lyons, M.Min. A.P. Staff


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=858

Camels and the Composition of Genesis

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.
A.P. Staff

Arguably, the most widely alleged anachronisms used in support of the idea that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible (a theory known as the Documentary Hypothesis) are the accounts of the early patriarchs possessing camels. The word “camel(s)” appears 23 times in 21 verses in the book of Genesis. The first book of the Bible declares that camels existed in Egypt during the time of Abraham (12:14-17), in Palestine in the days Isaac (24:63), in Padan Aram while Jacob was working for Laban (30:43), and were owned by the Midianites during the time Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery (37:25,36). Make no mistake about it, the book of beginnings clearly teaches that camels were domesticated since at least the time of Abraham.
According to skeptics (and a growing number of liberal scholars), however, the idea that camels were domesticated in the time of Abraham directly contradicts archaeological evidence. Over one hundred years ago, T.K. Cheyne wrote: “The assertion that the ancient Egyptians knew of the camel is unfounded” (1899, 1:634). In his oft’-quoted book on the various animals of the Bible, George Cansdale stated:
The Bible first mentions the camel in Gen. 12:16, where the presents are listed which the pharaoh gave to Abram. This is generally reckoned to be a later scribe’s addition, for it seems unlikely that there were any camels in Egypt then (1970, p. 66, emp. added).
More recently, Finkelstein and Silberman confidently asserted:
We now know through archaeological research that camels were not domesticated as beasts of burden earlier than the late second millennium and were not widely used in that capacity in the ancient Near East until well after 1000 BCE (2001, p. 37, emp. added).
By way of summary, what the Bible believer has been told is: “[T]ame camels were simply unknown during Abraham’s time” (Tobin, 2000).
While these claims have been made repeatedly over the last century, the truth of the matter is that skeptics and liberal theologians are unable to cite a single piece of solid archaeological evidence in support of their claims. As Randall Younker of Andrews University stated in March 2000 while delivering a speech in the Dominican Republic: “Clearly, scholars who have denied the presence of domesticated camels in the 2nd millennium B.C. have been committing the fallacy of arguing from silence. This approach should not be allowed to cast doubt upon the veracity of any historical document, let alone Scripture” (2000). The burden of proof actually should be upon skeptics to show that camels were not domesticated until after the time of the patriarchs. Instead, they assure their listeners of the camel’s absence in Abraham’s day—without one shred of archaeological evidence. [Remember, for many years they also argued that writing was unknown during the time of Moses—a conclusion based entirely on “silence.” Now, however, they have recanted that idea, because evidence has been found to the contrary. One might think that such “scholars” would learn not to speak with such assurance when arguing from silence.]
What makes their claims even more disturbing is that several pieces of evidence do exist (and have existed for some time) that prove camels were domesticated during (and even before) the time of Abraham (roughly 2,000 B.C.). In an article that appeared in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies a half-century ago, professor Joseph Free listed several instances of Egyptian archaeological finds supporting the domestication of camels [NOTE: The dates given for the Egyptian dynasties are from Clayton, 2001, pp.14-68]. The earliest evidence comes from a pottery camel’s head and a terra cotta tablet with men riding on and leading camels. According to Free, these are both from predynastic Egypt (1944, pp. 189-190), which according to Clayton is roughly before 3150 B.C. Free also listed three clay camel heads and a limestone vessel in the form of camel lying down—all dated at the First Dynasty of Egypt (3050-2890 B.C.). He then mentioned several models of camels from the Fourth Dynasty (2613-2498 B.C.), and a petroglyph depicting a camel and a man dated at the Sixth Dynasty (2345-2184 B.C.). Such evidence has led one respected Egyptologist to conclude that “the extant evidence clearly indicates that the domestic camel was known [in Egypt—EL] by 3,000 B.C.”—long before Abraham’s time (Kitchen, 1980, 1:228).
Perhaps the most convincing find in support of the early domestication of camels in Egypt is a rope made of camel’s hair found in the Fayum (an oasis area southwest of modern-day Cairo). The two-strand twist of hair, measuring a little over three feet long, was found in the late 1920s, and was sent to the Natural History Museum where it was analyzed and compared to the hair of several different animals. After considerable testing, it was determined to be camel hair, dated (by analyzing the layer in which it was found) to the Third or Fourth Egyptian Dynasty (2686-2498 B.C.). In his article, Free also listed several other discoveries from around 2,000 B.C. and later, which showed camels as domestic animals (pp. 189-190).
While prolific in Egypt, finds relating to the domestication of camels are not isolated to the African continent. In his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament, professor Kenneth Kitchen (retired) of the University of Liverpool reported several discoveries made outside of Egypt proving ancient camel domestication around 2,000 B.C. Lexical lists from Mesopotamia have been uncovered that show a knowledge of domesticated camels as far back as this time. Camel bones have been found in household ruins at Mari in present-day Syria that fossilologists believe are also at least 4,000 years old. Furthermore, a Sumerian text from the time of Abraham has been discovered in the ancient city of Nippur (located in what is now southeastern Iraq) that clearly implies the domestication of camels by its allusions to camels’ milk (Kitchen, 1966, p. 79).
All of these documented finds support the domestication of camels in Egypt many years before the time of Abraham. Yet, as Younker rightly observed, skeptics refuse to acknowledge any of this evidence.
It is interesting to note how, once an idea gets into the literature, it can become entrenched in conventional scholarly thinking. I remember doing research on the ancient site of Hama in Syria. As I was reading through the excavation reports (published in French), I came across a reference to a figurine from the 2nd millennium which the excavator thought must be a horse, but the strange hump in the middle of its back made one think of a camel. I looked at the photograph and the figurine was obviously that of a camel! The scholar was so influenced by the idea that camels were not used until the 1st millennium, that when he found a figurine of one in the second millennium, he felt compelled to call it a horse! This is a classic example of circular reasoning (2000, parenthetical comment in orig.).
Finds relating to the domestication of camels are not as prevalent in the second millennium B.C. as they are in the first millennium. This does not make the skeptics’ case any stronger, however. Just because camels were not as widely used during Abraham’s time as they were later, does not mean that they were entirely undomesticated. As Free commented:
Many who have rejected this reference to Abraham’s camels seem to have assumed something which the text does not state. It should be carefully noted that the biblical reference does not necessarily indicate that the camel was common in Egypt at that time, nor does it evidence that the Egyptians had made any great progress in the breeding and domestication of camels. It merely says that Abraham had camels (1944, p. 191, emp. added).
Similarly, Younker noted:
This is not to say that domesticated camels were abundant and widely used everywhere in the ancient Near East in the early second millennium. However, the patriarchal narratives do not necessarily require large numbers of camels…. The smaller amount of evidence for domestic camels in the late third and early second millennium B.C., especially in Palestine, is in accordance with this more restricted use (1997, 42:52).
Even without the above-mentioned archaeological finds (which to the unbiased examiner prove that camels were domesticated in the time of Abraham), it only seems reasonable to conclude that since wild camels have been known since the Creation, “there is no credible reason why such an indispensable animal in desert and semi-arid lands should not have been sporadically domesticated in patriarchal times and even earlier” (“Animal Kingdom,” 1988). The truth is, all of the available evidence points to one conclusion—the limited use of domesticated camels during and before the time of Abraham did occur. The supposed “anachronism” of domesticated camels during the time of the patriarchs is, in fact, an actual historical reference to the use of these animals at that time. Those who reject this conclusion cannot give one piece of solid archaeological evidence on their behalf. They simply argue from the “silence” of archaeology…which is silent no more!

REFERENCES

“Animal Kingdom” (1988), The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Cansdale, George (1970), All the Animals of the Bible Lands (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Cheyne, T.K. (1899), Encyclopedia Biblica (London: A. & C. Black).
Clayton, Peter A. (2001), Chronicle of the Pharaohs (London: Thames & Hudson).
Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001), The Bible Unearthed (New York: Free Press).
Free, Joseph P. (1944), “Abraham’s Camels,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 3:187-193, July.
Kitchen, K.A. (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Kitchen, K.A. (1980), The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale).
Tobin, Paul N. (2000), “Mythological Element in the Story of Abraham and the Patriachal Narratives,” The Refection of Pascal’s Wager [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abraham.html.
Younker, Randall W. (1997), “Late Bronze Age Camel Petroglyphs in the Wadi Nasib, Sinai,” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin, 42:47-54.
Younker, Randall W. (2000), “The Bible and Archaeology,” The Symposium on the Bible and Adventist Scholarship [On-line], URL: http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_26B/26Bcc_457-477.htm.