2/19/20

News! by Gary Rose


Today, I received my copy of the “Defending the Faith” Study Bible from Apologetics Press and I was impressed. It is the N.K.J.V. and as you might guess, its focus is Christian Apologetics. That is, to a make a defense for the faith that has been delivered to us (1 Peter 3:15). If this interests you, just go to ApologeticsPress.org and order one -you will be glad you did.

I have always admired the work that Apologetics Press does and post their articles on my blog on a regular basis. After spending an hour or so looking at the Bible, I put it down to do other things, but it was still in the back of my mind. Later, I thought of the Apostle Paul making his defense before king Agrippa (Acts 26) and especially the last part, where Agrippa realizes that he is being persuaded to become a Christian. And I thought, what if I made a copy of that old sermon of mine, called “News” and put it in the back of that Bible (it might prove very useful). After all, isn’t Apologetics really evangelism? So, read on to see the “News”…

News 
 
"He is my everything" ISA 40:3-11
I. INTRODUCTION

A. Remember the Gulf war.. CNN was there !! Real News! Really important!
B. Reality is.. we have the BEST NEWS (and we need to share it !)
C. Real good question... Given any thought to spiritual things...?
D. Real needs is the point of the question.
E. Real tough question... If you died today, what would happen to you??
F. Read the bible and know... look at Paul’s letter to the Romans.

II. BODY

A. THE GOOD NEWS ROM 1:16

B. THE BAD NEWS ROM 3:10-11
1. The problem 3:23
2. The penalty 5:12

C. THE GREAT NEWS
1. God's problem 2:5
2. God's payment 5:8

D. THE PERSONAL NEWS
1. You make it by... 6:16-17; 6:1-11
2. Your choice         6:23, 7:4
3. Your decision      16:25-26; 6:23, 8:28,10:1
4. Your chance        2:5-11, 13:11-12
5. Your witness       10:8-10... you say ... what?

III. CONCLUSION

A. THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING NEW FOR US TONIGHT, BUT NEWSWORTHY, NONETHELESS!

B. THERE IS STILL TIME TO DO WHAT WE CAN DO FOR THE CAUSE CHRIST.

C. THIS IS ONE OF MANY WAYS WE CAN SERVE, PRESS ON !!


I hope you enjoy this little sermon; its quick, easy and makes a great little evangelism tool. And yes, its dated to the gulf war era (circa 2001). Even though its old, God’s message is still GOOD NEWS and should be proclaimed anyway we can, even by news boys.

Keep Your Eyes On The Prize by B. Johnson


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Johnson/Edna/Elizabeth/1939/theprize.html


Keep Your Eyes On The Prize
When Dennis and I decided to make a commitment to God and to each other, we picked out wedding rings and had them engraved. The message inside said, “Together for HIM, 1-27-62.”
What did that all mean? It meant that we were committing our lives to each other and to God for His work. Dennis had long wanted to preach the gospel, and I had long wanted to be a preacher’s wife. We each had to make some adjustments to do the work we desired to do. We knew there would be hardships, but we were willing to face those together. We knew there would be criticism (we had no idea how much!), but we were willing to face that together. We knew we would live “in a glass house,” but the rewards we might reap would far outweigh the temporal sadness.
A recent article by Tom Moore brought some of these things to my mind. Tom wrote: In the art of marriage, it is the little things that become big things:
It’s never being too old to hold hands.
It’s remembering to say “I love you” at least once each day.
It’s never going to sleep angry.
It’s having a mutual sense of values and common objectives.
It is standing together, facing the world.
It is forming a circle of love that gathers in the whole family.
It is speaking words of appreciation and demonstrating gratitude in thoughtful ways.
It is having the capacity to forgive and forget.
It is giving each other an atmosphere in which each can grow.
It is a common search for the good and the beautiful.
It is not only marrying the right partner, but also being the right partner.
Marriage is the most important commitment besides our decision to become a child of God. The marriage of two Christians can be a force for God that no other force can overcome. However, there will be rocks in the road especially for the preacher and his wife.
Being constantly on display like preachers’ families are is one of the biggest hurdles any couple has to deal with. They, of all people, must keep their focus on God and the rest will fall into place. “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33).

Beth Johnson

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The King James Version.
Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

MULTIPLE CHOICE? BY STEVE FINNELL

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/multiple-choice-by-steve-finnell.html


MULTIPLE CHOICE?   BY STEVE FINNELL

The following are multiple choice interpretations of Scripture.

Matthew 3:16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water;  and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him,

Choices:
1. After being immersed, Jesus came up immediately from the water...
2. After being sprinkled, Jesus came up immediately from the water...
3. After having water poured on Him, Jesus came up immediately from the water....

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Choices of Interpretations:
1. Peter said to them, "Repent for the forgiveness of sins and be baptized as a testimony of your faith to the community; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
2. Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins have already been forgiven; and you have already received the gift of the Holy Spirit, the minute you believed."
3. Peter said said to them, "You were saved the minute you believed, now be baptized so you can join the denomination of your choice"
4. Peter said to them, "Your sins were forgiven the minute you believed; now be baptized as an act of obedience.
5. Peter said to them, "You have had your sins forgiven by faith only, water baptism is nothing but works that you have to do in order to become a member of the Baptist church."
6. Peter said to them, "Do be concerned about repentance and water baptism for the forgiveness of sins; because in the original Greek, for means, because of, and remember God is not smart enough to give mankind a trustworthy translation of His word.

Romans 6:4-6 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so that we too might walk in newness of life.

Choices of Interpretations.
1.Therefore we have been buried with Him through sprinkling...
2. Therefore we have been buried with Him through pouring...
3. Therefore we have been walking in newness of life before we were buried in baptism, because we were saved the minute we believed.
 4. Therefore we have not been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. We had faith only and walked in the newness of life. Baptism had nothing to do with our walk. Water baptism is nothing but a work of the Law of Moses or perhaps just a good deed.


Men have a choice, they can believe the Scriptures, as written or pick an interpretation invented by denominational church leaders. WE ALL HAVE A CHOICE!

(All Scripture from: NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE)

Are Songs and Prayers Sometimes One and the Same? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3765

Are Songs and Prayers Sometimes One and the Same?

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

Are songs and prayers sometimes one and the same?

A.

Ask any five year old if there is a difference between singing and praying and you will likely receive the “you’ve-got-to-be-kidding-me” look. “Everyone knows there is a difference between singing and praying.” A song is composed of words and music. Its words are “uttered in musical tones and with musical inflections and modulations” (“Sing,” 2010). A prayer is “an address (as a petition) to God…in word or thought” (“Prayer,” 2010; cf. 1 Samuel 1:12-13). Prayers are without musical tones and inflections, right?

Although praying and singing are often two distinct acts of worship (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:15), sometimes they are one and the same. That is, occasionally (or perhaps oftentimes) petitions to God are sung to Him. The Greek word most frequently translated “prayer” in the New Testament is proseuche. It is defined simply as a “petition addressed to deity, prayer” (Danker, 2000, p. 878, emp. in orig.). In the Old Testament, the English word “prayer” is derived most frequently from the Hebrew word te pillâ. This word is found 76 times in the Old Testament. Interestingly, this word for prayer occurs most often (32 times) in the book of Psalms. Psalms are songs that were (and are) sung (cf. Psalm 105:2; 1 Chronicles 16:9; Colossians 3:16; James 5:13). The Israelites titled this collection of inspired poems tehillim, meaning “songs of praise or hymns” (“Psalms,” 1988).

Admittedly, simply because a song contains the word “prayer” (or “pray,” “praying,” etc.) does not make the song a type of prayer. However, as Harris, Archer, and Waltke observed in their Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, “five Psalms are specifically called ‘prayers’ in their superscription (Ps 17, 86, 90, 102, 142)” (1980, p. 726). Bible publishers often add headings to each of the psalms in an attempt to help the reader easily recognize the subject matter. Thomas Nelson Publishers added the word “prayer” to the subject headings of some 25 psalms in their New King James translation of the book of Psalms. They also used prayer terminology (e.g., “a plea” or “an appeal”) to label several other psalms. Obviously, both the ancients (who gave us Psalms’ superscriptions) and certain modern-day Bible publishing companies have seen many of the psalms for what they are: prayers.

Consider a few of the psalms in which David and others prayed.
  • “Hear me when I call, O God of my righteousness! You have relieved me in my distress; have mercy on me, and hear my prayer. How long, O you sons of men, will you turn my glory to shame? How long will you love worthlessness and seek falsehood? Selah” (4:1-2). [NOTE: “Selah” is found 71 times in the book of Psalms. Although its precise import is unknown, “it is generally agreed that Selah must be a musical or liturgical sign” (Wiseman, 1996, p. 1074).]
  • “Hear a just cause, O LORD, attend to my cry; give ear to my prayer which is not from deceitful lips” (17:1).
  • “And now, Lord, what do I wait for? My hope is in You...Selah. Hear my prayer, O Lord, and give ear to my cry” (39:7,11-12).
  • “Save me, O God, by Your name, and vindicate me by Your strength. Hear my prayer, O God; give ear to the words of my mouth...Selah (54:1-3).
  • “Give ear to my prayer, O God, and do not hide Yourself from my supplication. Attend to me, and hear me” (55:1-2).
  • “Hear my cry, O God; attend to my prayer.... I will sing praise to your name forever” (61:1,8).
  • “O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer; give ear, O God of Jacob! Selah” (84:8).
  • “Bow down Your ear, O LORD, hear me.... Give ear, O LORD, to my prayer” (86:1,6).
  • “Hear my prayer, O LORD, and let my cry come to You…. Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands” (102:1,25). [NOTE: According to Hebrews 1:8-12, the psalmist was actually speaking (i.e., praying) to Jesus, “the Son”.]
Consider also Habakkuk three. The prophet begins the chapter with these words: “A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet, on Shigionoth” (emp. added). It is evident, however, that Habakkuk’s prayer is also a type of song. First, the musical/liturgical term Selah is repeated three times (vss. 3,9,13). Second, when the prayer was repeated it was to be accompanied with “stringed instruments” (vs. 19). What’s more, though the exact meaning of “Shigionoth” in verse one is unknown, commentators are confident that it has some connection to music. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown believe it is “a musical phrase ‘after the manner of elegies,’ or mournful odes” (1997). Barnes concludes that the term probably “means a psalm with music expressive of strong emotion, ‘erratic’ or ‘dithyrambi’ ” (1997).

Generally speaking, songs and prayers are distinguished by songs being uttered with musical tones and inflections, and prayers being worded without musical accompaniment. However, one lesson learned from the inspired book of Psalms, the ancient hymnbook of the Jews, as well as from Habakkuk three, is that prayers may also be sung. That is, a song that petitions our Heavenly Father and Savior is both a song and a prayer.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Danker, Frederick William, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer, Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

“Prayer” (2010), Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prayer.

“Psalms” (1988), The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

“Sing” (2010), Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sing?show=0&t=1284488817.

Wiseman, D.J. (1996), “Selah,” New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), third edition.

Are Children Born With Sin? by Moisés Pinedo


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2697

Are Children Born With Sin?

by  Moisés Pinedo

Have you ever seen the face of a newborn child, touched the soft skin of his rose-colored cheeks, and sensed his innocence when looking into his beautiful eyes? In stark contrast, Catholic teaching alleges that “small infants are sinful!” The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:
Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called (1994, 1250, emp. added).
The Bible teaches that children do not bear the sin of their parents (Exodus 32:32-33; Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Jeremiah 31:30; Ezekiel 18:20). However, Catholics are quick to point out that David declared: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,and in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). To understand this passage, we must keep in mind that the subject of Psalm 51 is David’s sin, not original sin. Consider the nouns and possessives David used to indicate that the sin which he was talking about was the sin he committed: “Blot out my transgression” (vs. 1); “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin” (vs. 2); “I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is always before me” (vs. 3); “Against You, You only, have I sinned” (vs. 4); etc. There is not even the slightest allusion to some kind of original sin in the psalmist’s supplication. In fact, it was from his own sin and transgression that the psalmist desired to be freed.
But, why did he refer to the moment in which he was formed in the womb of his mother? The psalmist could have been using hyperbole (cf. Psalm 58:3; Colley, 2004), or emphasizing the condition in which his mother conceived him. In the latter case, although he was born without sin, he was born into a world that was covered, plagued, and influenced by sin.
Consider also that the psalmist made these pleas for forgiveness as an adult. He used present-tense verbs to plead for forgiveness: “Have mercy upon me...blot out my transgressions” (vs. 1); “Wash me thoroughly...cleanse me from my sin (vs. 2); “I acknowledge my transgressions” (vs. 3); “Purge me with hyssop...wash me” (vs. 7); “Make me hear joy and gladness” (vs. 8); “Hide Your face from my sins...blot out all my iniquities” (vs. 9); “Create in me a clean heart...renew a steadfast spirit within me” (vs. 10).
David’s pleas for forgiveness were due to a sin (or sins) that he committed long after his birth. The psalmist himself made this fact clear in a parallel passage, where he prayed: “Do not remember the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions” (Psalm 25:7, emp. added). If Psalm 51 is a plea to be freed from original sin, how do Catholics explain that God anointed, blessed, and used David while he bore the sin of the first man?
Additionally, the psalmist declared that he was “shapen” and “conceived” in iniquity (51:5, KJV). This is not a reference to birth (as Catholicism claims), but to conception. To be consistent with the Catholic idea that Psalm 51 supports the dogma of original sin, we must conclude that original sin is transmitted at the moment of conception. If that is the case, the Catholic Church will have to rework its theology concerning baptism to include a way to “baptize” children before birth to save them from “the power of darkness” (Cathecism..., 1994, 1250).
To arrive at a correct interpretation of Psalm 51, we also must consider other biblical passages where similar expressions are used. For example, Isaiah declared: “The Lord has called me from the womb; from the matrix of my mother He has made mention of my name” (49:1). In Jeremiah 1:5, God told His prophet: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you.” If by the expression, “I was brought forth in iniquity” (Psalm 51:5), David alluded to the original sin he bore, how do Catholics explain Isaiah and Jeremiah’s declarations of sanctity from the womb? Were these two prophets born without the contamination of original sin? According to Catholicism, only Jesus and Mary were born in a completely holy condition. These passages cannot be reconciled with the Catholic dogma of original sin (see Colley, 2004).
But, what about Romans 5:12, where the apostle Paul wrote that “through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned”? Does this verse teach that we bear Adam’s sin? No. As we observed in another article (cf. Pinedo, 2009), this verse teaches that death—the consequence of sin—spread to all men, not because Adam sinned, but “because all sinned” (5:12; cf. Romans 3:23). Of course, this “all” cannot refer only to Adam. Nothing in the Bible teaches, indicates, or implies that children are born with sin.
Paul indicated that where there is no law, there is no sin (Romans 3:20; cf. John 15:22). And the apostle John declared that “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). If infants cannot know the Law of God or understand it, they cannot commit lawlessness.
Jesus Himself said: “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14, emp. added). Paul declared that none who are unclean can enter into the kingdom of heaven (Ephesians 5:5). Jesus added: “[U]nless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3, emp. added). If children come to the world with a “fallen human nature and tainted by original sin” (to use the words of the Catechism), why would men have to become as little children, who are also “contaminated” with sin? The Bible is clear: sin is not inherited. No baby has ever been born bearing the guilt of Adam’s sin. No one bears the responsibility for Adam’s sin but Adam himself.

REFERENCES

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press).
Colley, Caleb (2004), “Did David Authorize Infant Baptism?,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2626.
Pinedo, Moisés (2009), “Was Mary Sinless?,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/240062.

Are the Genealogies of the Bible Useful Chronologies? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1143

Are the Genealogies of the Bible Useful Chronologies?

by  Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Q.

I have heard it said that biblical genealogies are so filled with gaps that they are “useless” in matters of chronology. Is this true, or do the genealogies provide accurate chronological information as well? Can these genealogies be trusted in matters of chronology?

A.

Through the years, religionists who have become enamored with (and who have ardently defended) pseudoscientific attempts to date the Earth in evolutionary terms of billions of years, have stated that the biblical genealogies must not be used for chronological purposes because they allegedly contain “huge gaps” that render them ineffective for that purpose. In so commenting, most writers reference the classic work of William H. Green (1890) in this area. The work of Green on Old Testament genealogies usually is highly acclaimed, and accepted uncritically, by those who wish to place “gaps” (of whatever size) in the biblical genealogies. The argument usually goes something like this (to quote one writer): “Unfortunately for those who wish to attach a precise date on some historical events by using genealogies, their attempts are thwarted.” Thus, we are asked to believe that the genealogies are relatively useless in matters of chronology.
However, these same writers usually evince a complete omission of more recent work in this area—work which has shown that much of what Green had to say is at best incomplete, and at worst, irrelevant. When one discusses the genealogies, he does his audience (or reader) a disservice if he omits a discussion of Luke’s genealogy. Some are quick to talk about Genesis 5 and 11, but rarely do you see a discussion of Luke’s material (often it is conspicuously missing from any such discussions on genealogical materials). One performs a further disservice if he does not point out two very important points that come to bear on this whole discussion. First, to use the words of Arthur C. Custance:
We are told again and again that some of these genealogies contain gaps: but what is never pointed out by those who lay the emphasis on these gaps, is that they only know of the existence of these gaps because the Bible elsewhere fills them in. How otherwise could one know of them? But if they are filled in, they are not gaps at all! Thus, in the final analysis the argument is completely without foundation (1967, p 3).
If anyone should want to find “gaps” in the genealogies, it certainly would be a man like Custance, who spent his life desperately searching for ways to allow the Bible to contain an “old Earth” scenario. Yet even he admitted that the argument that the genealogies contain sizable gaps is ill-founded.
Second, and this point cannot be overemphasized, even if there were gaps in the genealogies, there would not necessarily be gaps in the chronologies therein recorded. The question of chronology is not the same as that of genealogy! This is a major point overlooked by those who accuse the genealogies of being “useless” in matters of chronology. The “more recent work” alluded to above, which sheds additional light on the accuracy of the genealogies, comes from James B. Jordan’s timely articles (1979, 1980). Jordan has done an extensive review of the work of Green, and has shown Green’s arguments to be untrustworthy in several important respects. To quote Jordan:
Gaps in genealogies, however, do not prove gaps in chronologies. The known gaps all occur in non-chronological genealogies. Moreover, even if there were gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, this would not affect the chronological information therein recorded, for even if Enosh were the great-grandson of Seth, it would still be the case that Seth was 105 years old when Enosh was born, according to a simple reading of the text. Thus, genealogy and chronology are distinct problems with distinct characteristics. They ought not to be confused (p. 12).
Much recent material has confused these two issues. For example, one writer stated: “Obviously, abridgment of the genealogies has taken place and these genealogies cannot be chronologies,” when exactly the opposite is true, as Jordan’s work accurately documents. Matthew, for example, was at liberty to arrange his genealogy of Christ in three groups of 14 (making some “omissions”) because his genealogy was derived from complete lists found in the Old Testament. In the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, remember also that the inclusion of the father’s age at the time of his son’s birth is wholly without meaning unless chronology is intended! Else why would the Holy Spirit provide such “irrelevant” information?
There can be little doubt that some have painted a distorted picture for audiences and readers when suggesting to them that substantial “gaps” occur in the biblical genealogies. Such distortion occurs, for example, when it is suggested that genealogy and chronology are one and the same, for they most certainly are not.
In addition, there are other major points that should be made available on these topics. Observe the following information in chart form. Speaking in round figures, from the present to Jesus is 2,000 years—a matter of historical record that no one doubts. From Jesus to Abraham is 2,000 years; that, too, is a matter of historical record which is well known. Each of those figures is extractable from secular history.
Present to Jesus 2,000 years
Jesus to Abraham 2,000 years
Abraham to Adam ? years
The only figure now lacking is that representing the date from Abraham to Adam. Since we know that Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45), and since we know that man has been on the Earth “from the beginning of the creation” (Mark 10:6, the Lord speaking; Romans 1:20-21, Paul speaking), if it were possible to obtain the figures showing how long it has been from Abraham to Adam, we would have chronological information giving us the relative age of the Earth (since we know that the Earth is only five days older than man—Exodus 20:11; 31:17; Genesis 1-2).
The figure for the time span between Abraham and Adam, of course, is not obtainable from secular history, since those records were destroyed in the Great Flood. Fortunately, however, we are not dependent on the records of secular history for such information; the biblical record provides that material for us. Note the following (and this is why Luke’s genealogy is so critically important in this discussion). In Luke’s genealogy, he listed 55 generations between Jesus and Abraham. We know from secular history (as documented by archaeology—see Kitchen and Douglas, 1982, p. 189) that this time frame covered only about 2,000 years. Between Abraham and Adam, Luke listed only twenty generations. And no one doubts that from the present to Jesus has been about 2,000 years. So, our chart now looks like this:
Present to Jesus 2,000 years
Jesus to Abraham 2,000 years (55 generations)
Abraham to Adam ? years (20 generations)
From this chronological information it is an easy matter to use the 20 generations from Abraham to Adam to determine the approximate number of years contained therein. In round numbers, the figure is 2,000. That completes the chart, which then appears as follows:
Present to Jesus 2,000 years
Jesus to Abraham 2,000 years (55 generations)
Abraham to Adam 2,000 years (20 generations)
Of course, some have argued that there are “gaps” in the genealogies. But where, exactly, would those gaps be placed, and how would they help? Observe the following: No one can put any usable gaps between the present and the Lord’s birth; secular history records that age-information for us. No one can put any usable gaps between the Lord and Abraham; secular history also records that age-information for us. The only place one could try to place any “usable” gaps (viz., usable in regard to extending the age of the Earth) would be in the 20 generations represented between Abraham and Adam. Yet note that actually there are not 20 generations available for inserting “gaps,” because Jude (14) noted that “Enoch was the seventh from Adam.” Examining the Old Testament genealogies establishes exactly that. Enoch was the seventh, beginning from Adam, which then provides us divinely inspired testimony (from Jude) on the accuracy of the first seven of the names. That leaves only 13 generations remaining into which any “gaps” could be placed. Wayne Jackson has observed that in order to get the Earth back only to the time of the evolutionary age of man (approximately 3.6 million years as suggested by the late Mary Leakey and her present-day colleagues), one would have to place 291,125 years in between each of the remaining 13 generations (1978). It does not take an overdose of either biblical knowledge or common sense to see that this quickly becomes ludicrous to the extreme for two reasons. First, who could believe (knowing anything about proper exegesis and hermeneutics) that the first seven of these generations could be so exact, and the last thirteen be so inexact? Second, what good would all of this time do anyone? All it would accomplish is the establishment of a 3.6-million-year-old Earth; evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, and progressive creationists need a 4.6-billion-year-old Earth. So, in effect, all of this inserting of “gaps” into the biblical text is much ado about nothing!
And therein lies the point. While it may be true on the one hand to say that a precise age of the Earth is unobtainable from the genealogies, at the same time let us hasten to point out that using the best information available to us from Scripture, the genealogies hardly can be extended (via “gaps”) to anything much beyond 6,000 to 7,000 years. For someone to leave the impression (even if inadvertently) that the genealogies do not contain legitimate chronological information, or that the genealogies are full of “gaps” that render them impotent, is to misrepresent the case and distort the facts.

REFERENCES

Custance, Arthur (1967), The Genealogies of the Bible, (Ottawa, Canada: Doorway papers #24).
Green, William H. (1890), “Primeval Chronology,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 47:294-295, April. Reprinted in Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1972).
Jackson, Wayne (1978), “The Antiquity of Human History,” Words of Truth, 14[18]:1, April 14.
Jordan, James B. (1979) Creation Social Sciences & Humanities Quarterly, 2[2]:9-15.
Jordan, James B. (1980) Creation Social Sciences & Humanities Quarterly, 2[3]:17-26.
Kitchen, K.A. and J.D. Douglas, eds. (1982) The New Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale), second edition.


"STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS" Amos - The Country Prophet (3:1-6:14) by Mark Copeland

                    "STUDIES IN THE MINOR PROPHETS"

                 Amos - The Country Prophet (3:1-6:14)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous study we began our survey of the book of Amos
   a. A prophet of God, who was...
      1) A country shepherd and gatherer of sycamore fruit - Am 7:14-15
      2) Called to proclaim God's judgments on the nations, especially Israel
   b. Whose book is divided into three sections, in which we find...
      1) "Oracles" concerning sin and judgment of eight nations (ch. 1-2)
      2) "Sermons" concerning the sin and judgment of Israel (ch. 3-6)
      3) "Visions" regarding the sin and judgment of Israel (ch. 7-9)
   c. In his "oracles", we saw that God pronounced judgment upon...
      1) Heathen nations, such as Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, 
         and Moab
      2) The people of God, both Judah and Israel
      -- With emphasis placed upon the sins and judgment of the 
         northern kingdom of Israel

2. In this lesson, we shall direct our attention to the "sermons" in
   chapters 3-6
   a. There are three sermons, each beginning with "Hear this word..."
      - 3:1; 4:1; 5:1
   b. The focus of these sermons is Israel, the kingdom in the north

[From an outline by Ryrie, the first "sermon" could be entitled...]

I. THE DOOM OF ISRAEL (3:1-15)

   A. AMOS DEFENDS HIS RIGHT TO PROPHESY...
      1. The Lord has spoken against Israel - Am 3:1-2
         a. With whom He has had a special relationship
         b. Whom He now will punish for their sins
      2. Seven questions with obvious answers - Am 3:3-6
         a. The purpose and meaning of these questions have been 
            variously interpreted
         b. But their intent appears to enforce the logic of what 
            follows in the next two verses
      3. Can a prophet remain silent when God speaks? - Am 3:7-8
         a. The Lord does nothing unless He reveals it by one of His prophets
         b. Like a lion that has roared (cf. Am 1:2), God has spoken 
            and Amos must prophesy!

   B. ISRAEL'S DOOM...
      1. Ashdod and Egypt are called to witness Israel's wickedness - Am 3:9-10
      2. Israel will be plundered by an adversary - Am 3:11-15
         a. Though never identified by Amos, Isaiah declared that it 
            would be Assyria
         b. Concerning Israel's coming punishment:
            1) Only a remnant will survive of those who dwell in 
               luxury, like a piece of lamb left over after being 
               ravaged by a lion
            2) Destruction will come upon the altars of Bethel (cf. 
               Jeroboam's idolatry)
            3) Destruction will befall their luxurious homes

[With this first "sermon", destruction is pronounced upon Israel.  The
sin of some of the men was mentioned earlier (Am 2:6-8), with the next
"sermon" we see the wickedness of the women...]

II. THE DEPRAVITY OF THE WOMEN OF ISRAEL (4:1-13)

   A. THE "COWS OF BASHAN", THEY ARE INSATIABLE...
      1. Living in Samaria (Israel) they were:
         a. Oppressing the poor and needy - Am 4:1
         b. Crying out for wine - Am 4:2
      2. For which they will suffer painful deportation to a foreign land - Am 4:3

   B. A SARCASTIC CALL TO WORSHIP...
      1. To worship their false gods at Bethel and Gilgal - Am 4:4-5
      2. Designed to show how far they have departed from God

   C. THEY HAD REJECTED GOD'S CHATISEMENTS...
      1. They had failed to respond to God's efforts to get them to 
         repent
         a. Famine - Am 4:6
         b. Drought - Am 4:7-8
         c. Pestilence - Am 4:9
         d. Plague and war - Am 4:10
         e. Earthquake, or perhaps volcanic eruptions - Am 4:11
      2. Therefore they must prepare to meet their God!
         a. Who is bringing such judgments upon them - Am 4:12
         b. Whose name is "The LORD God of hosts" - Am 4:13

[In light of such a judgment to befall Israel, it is not surprising to
see that the third "sermon" is in the form of a lamentation...]

III. A DIRGE OVER ISRAEL (5:1-6:14)

   A. A LAMENTATION FOR THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL...
      1. In view of her coming fall - Am 5:1-2
      2. In which only a remnant will be left - Am 5:3

   B. A CALL TO REPENTANCE, FOR THERE IS STILL HOPE...
      1. Seek the Lord and live, lest He come with fiery judgment! - Am 5:4-7
      2. Seek Him who is all powerful! - Am 5:8-9
      3. For He knows your manifold sins! - Am 5:10-13
      4. Seek that which is good, not evil; perhaps God will gracious!- Am 5:14-15

   C. THE COMING DAY OF THE LORD...
      1. The Lord is coming, and there shall be wailing in the streets
         and fields - Am 5:16-17
      2. The day of the Lord is not to be desired by sinful men
         a. For it will be a day of darkness - Am 5:18-20
         b. For God is repelled by their show of religion, when there 
            should be righteousness and justice - Am 5:21-24
         c. For they have never really served God, even in the 
            wilderness - Am 5:25-26
      3. Therefore they will be taken "beyond Damascus" (Assyria!)- Am 5:25-27

   D. A WARNING EVEN TO THOSE IN ZION...
      1. Woe to those who are at ease, trusting in Samaria (i.e., the 
         northern kingdom of Israel) - Am 6:1-2
         a. Perhaps to defend them?
         b. Consider what happened to kingdoms far greater!
      2. Woe to those who say the day of the Lord is far off - Am 6:3-6
         a. Who bask in their luxury
         b. While their brethren are afflicted
      3. They shall be among the first to go into captivity - Am 6:7

   E. THE EXTENT OF THE COMING DESTRUCTION...
      1. Coming because God hates their pride - Am 6:8
      2. A destruction where men will be scarce, and their houses destroyed - Am 6:9-11
      3. Why?  Because they perverted justice and righteousness, 
         priding themselves in their own strength - Am 6:12-13
      4. But God will raise up a nation (Assyria) against them, who 
         will afflict them from the north ("the entrance of Hamath")
         to the south ("the Valley of the Arabah") - Am 6:14

[So ends the third of these three "sermons" of Amos. Before we conclude
our study, let me share some...]

IV. OBSERVATIONS FROM THE "SERMONS" OF AMOS

   A. THE RECURRING THEMES OF JUSTICE AND RIGHTEOUSNESS...
      1. Several times we find references to justice and righteousness 
         - Am 5:7,15,24; 6:12
      2. Their opposites are also mentioned:  oppression and evil 
         - Am 3:10; 4:1; 5:10-12
      3. Lacking justice and righteousness, all their religion, wealth,
         and power were in vain!
      -- Is there not a lesson for us to learn here? - cf. Mt 5:23-24

   B. ISRAEL'S FAILURE TO HEED GOD'S CHASTISEMENTS...
      1. That God used natural calamity to get their attention is 
         evident - Am 4:6-11
      2. Why did they not heed God's efforts?
         a. Perhaps they did not make the connection
         b. Perhaps they assumed is was just a coincidence
      3. One would be amiss to always attribute natural calamities to 
         God's working; yet...
         a. Should we not be open to the possibility that God may be 
            saying something?
         b. Should we not at least use such occasions to reflect on our
            relationship with God?

   C. REGARDING THE DAY OF THE LORD...
      1. The "day of the Lord" is a day of judgment, and a day of 
         darkness - Am 5:18
         a. In Amos it has reference to God's judgment upon Israel, 
            which came when Assyria took them into captivity
         b. But such judgment prefigures the Final Judgment, the "day of the Lord"
            1) In which Christ will come to judge the world - Ac 17:30-31
            2) It too will be a day of "darkness" - cf. 2Pe 3:7,10-12
      2. While we might not desire that "day" per se, we do look 
         forward to what is to follow - cf. 2Pe 3:13-14

   D. GOD'S GRACIOUS OFFER OF REPENTANCE...
      1. Even with the pronouncement of judgment, there is an offer to
         have life if one repents - Am 5:4-6,14-15
      2. As we saw with Joel and Jonah, God was willing to relent for
         those who repented
      3. Even today, while the gospel proclaims judgment to come, it
         also offers salvation! - cf. 2Co 6:1-2
 
CONCLUSION

1. Unfortunately, not many heeded the warnings of Amos - cf. 2Ki 17:13-23
   a. Within thirty years (722 B.C.), Israel was taken into captivity
   b. Under the cruel hand of the Assyrians, they experienced the
      righteous judgment of God

2. What about us, will we heed the warnings of Christ and His apostles?
   a. Their message is really not that different ("seek the Lord and
      live", "seek good and not evil")
   b. They too call upon us to repent and seek the Lord through faith 
      and obedience, though it is obedience to the gospel of Christ and
      not the Law of Moses

Remember that the book of Amos, along with the rest of the Old Testament, was:

   "...written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages 
   have come." (1Co 10:11)

Are we willing to learn from its admonition, such as those found in 
the prophecies of Amos?