"My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?" by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=622

"My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?"

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Imagine trying to live in a world where every person decided for himself or herself how long an inch should be. One person’s inch might be as long as a pencil, while another’s might be as short as a penny. Further imagine trying to buy lumber or carpet, or trying to calculate any kind of geometry. In truth, trying to measure things without a standard is impossible.

The same is true of religion and spiritual matters. If everyone made his or her own “measurements” about what is right and wrong, then mass confusion would rule the day—which is exactly why God gave us the Bible. It is the standard by which all of our actions are to be measured. Because the Bible claims to be the only true standard, most people insist upon evidence proving that it is from God. If a person has an open Bible and an honest heart, such evidence is available.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

On Tuesday, September 11, 2001, a horrible tragedy shocked the United States when terrorists attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Amidst the tragedy, a rumor circulated that Nostradamus, a supposed fortuneteller, had predicted the turn of events. Web sites with information on Nostradamus received thousands, even millions of hits. After all was said and done, the rumored prediction had been fabricated and misunderstood; Nostradamus had no more predicted the future than you or I. But it was obvious from the public’s response that anyone who can accurately predict the future is more than just a little special. The prophet Jeremiah wrote: “Who is he who speaks, and it comes to pass, when the Lord has not commanded it?” (Lamentations 3:37). The prophet’s point was clear: nobody accurately foretells the future unless God informs him of it. Therefore, when the Bible accurately predicts the future, we can know that it is from God.

“MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”

If you were a Jew standing in the crowd watching Jesus hang on the cross, you would have seen and heard many astonishing things. For one, you would have seen the only totally innocent man ever to live being tortured, mocked, and spit upon. In addition, you would have sat in complete darkness for three straight hours. But some of the most amazing things that happened on that day were the things Jesus said while He was on the cross.

As Jesus was nearing His death, He cried out, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?,” which being translated means “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34). Many of those around Jesus did not understand what He had said. But any Jew familiar with the Old Testament should have immediately recognized Jesus’ lament as a direct quote from the first line of Psalm 22. King David wrote that psalm about 1,000 years before the death of Jesus. Yet verses 16 through 18 describe in minute detail what was happening at the crucifixion: “They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.”

Could you imagine having the twenty-second Psalm in your hand (or mind), and watching the soldiers at Jesus’ feet actually casting lots for His clothing (Matthew 27:35)—exactly as the psalmist predicted? With one of Christ’s last breaths on the cross, He tried to get people to understand that He was the Messiah.

As we today look back upon the situation—almost 2000 years after the fact—we see that Jesus proved the Bible had accurately foretold the future, thereby verifying its inspiration. As Isaiah said: “Declare unto us what shall happen: declare ye the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or show us things to come” (41:22). The very thing the pagans could not do (41:22-24), God’s Word could (see Isaiah 42:8-9).

God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3726

God and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Probability

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

PROBABILITY AND SCIENCE

A typical misconception about science is that it can tell us what will definitely happen now or in the future given enough time, or what would certainly have happened in the past, given enough time. The truth is, science is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. Science observes the Universe, records evidence, and strives to draw conclusions about what has happened in the past, is happening now, and what will potentially happen in the future, given the current state of scientific knowledge—which is often times woefully incomplete, and even inaccurate. The late, prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson discussed the nature of science and probability several years ago in the classic textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, stating:

We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences. Alternatively, proof in a natural science, such as biology, must be defined as the attainment of a high degree of confidence(Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 16, emp. added).

In other words, science observes and attempts to answer for mankind such things as: what could have happened in the past; what most likely happened; what is probably happening now; what could happen in the future; or what will likely happen in the future. Science does not necessarily tell us what will certainly always be or has always been the case. Rather, it tells us what has always beenobserved to be the case and what will almost certainly always be the case, without exception, and which coincides with logic, intuition, and mathematics. When enough evidence is gathered and all that evidence points to some truth and therefore yields an extremely high level of confidence in that truth (i.e., the probability of the same truth always being the case is considered so high that it is beyond doubt), the truth is made a law. Such a step is not taken lightly. Extensive observation must be conducted before doing so. Therefore, the laws of science are highly respected and considered to be essentially beyond doubt. However, there is always the slightest potential that a law could be broken in the future by some unknown event. Thus, probability is intimately intertwined with science. Mark Kac, famous mathematician and professor at Cornell and Rockefeller Universities, said, “Probability is a cornerstone of all the sciences, and its daughter, the science of statistics, enters into all human activities” (as quoted in Smith, 1975, p. 111, emp. added).

Many evolutionists understand the significance of probability in science and yet go too far in their use of the laws of probability, presumptuously claiming that they can do more than they profess to do. These assert that anything—no matter how far-fetched—will inevitably happen, given enough time, as long as it does not have a probability of zero. Supposedly, objects will pop into existence, and eventually, those things will come to life and transform into humans. Many evolutionists have long cited the principles of probability in an effort to support such unscientific dogmas (e.g., Erwin, 2000). As far back as 1954, George Wald, writing in Scientific American concerning the origin of life on Earth, penned the words:

However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps it involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, once may be enough. Time is the hero of the plot…. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable becomes virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs miracles (Wald, p. 48, emp. added).

There are at least four problems with such assertions about the laws of probability.

GIVEN ENOUGH TIME

First of all, we are not “given enough time” for macroevolution to have occurred. We at Apologetics Press have documented this fact time and time again (cf. Jackson, 1983; Thompson, 2001). Years ago, in his article “The Young Earth,” Henry Morris listed 76 scientific dating techniques, based on standard evolutionary assumptions, which all indicate that the Earth is relatively young (Morris, 1974). Donald DeYoung documented extensive, compelling evidence for a young Earth as well, in the bookThousands…Not Billions (2005). This fact alone dispels the preposterous contention that we are the descendants of ape-like creatures.

THE SINGLE LAW OF CHANCE

The second problem with the assertion of evolutionary inevitability is implied by the work of the renowned French mathematician, Emile Borel, for whom the lunar crater, Borel, is named (O’Connor and Robertson, 2008). In 1962, Borel discussed in depth the law of probability known as the Single Law of Chance—a law that he said “is extremely simple and intuitively evident, though rationally undemonstrable” (1962, p. 2). This principle states that “events whose probability is extremely small never occur” (1965, p. 57). He further stated that we “at least…must act, in all circumstances, as if they were impossible” (1962, p. 3, italics in orig.). The law, he said, applies to

the sort of event, which, though its impossibility may not be rationally demonstrable, is, however, so unlikely that no sensible person will hesitate to declare it actually impossible. If someone affirmed having observed such an event we would be sure that he is deceivingus or has himself been the victim of a fraud (1962, p. 3, italics in orig., emp. added).

To clarify the meaning of “extremely small” probabilities, he defined different categories of events in which the probabilities are so small that they are “practically negligible,” including events from the human, terrestrial, and cosmic perspectives (1965, p. 57).

In his discussion on the probabilities of certain cosmic events, he argues convincingly from mathematical calculations and intuition that reasonable human beings consider probabilities of chance cosmic events that fall below one in 10⁴⁵ to be negligible (1965, p. 59). In other words, if the probability of a certain event happening in the Universe is less than one in 10⁴⁵ (i.e., a one with 45 zeros after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely that we consider it to be animpossible event.

Several years ago, evolutionist Harold Morowitz of Yale, and currently professor of biology and natural philosophy at George Mason University, estimated the probability of the formation of the smallest and simplest living organism to be one in 10^340,000,000 (1970, p. 99). A few years following Morowitz’s calculations, the late, renowned evolutionist Carl Sagan made his own estimation of the chance that life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 10^{2,000,000,000} (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course, so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses. The distinguished British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle once said regarding evolution, “the chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” (1981b, 294:105). He further stated:

At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 10⁵⁰ blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order (1981a, 92:527, emp. in orig.).

Borel’s Single Law of Chance certainly lays plain the impossibility and incredibility of the evolutionary proposition. However, Borel tried to distance himself from the implications of his findings and their application to the spontaneous emergence of life by noting that the laws of chance do “not seempossible to apply” to some evolutionary events (1963, p. 125, emp. added). He further stated:

[I]t is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance (1963, p. 125).

In other words, evolutionary processes are not considered a succession of random, chance events. Instead, it seems that they are considered intentional events that somehow occur without intention. However, since non-living matter has no mind of its own, the progression of events that would have to occur to lead to the optimal arrangement of that matter allegedly to bring about life would have to be just that—a succession of random, chance events. In making the assertion that the laws of chance do not apply to evolution, he tacitly acknowledges the fact that the evolutionary model would actually require multiple, successive random events taking place gradually over time in order to bring even the pre-living “organism” to a place in which life could allegedly burst into existence. And as if to further drive the tombstone into the grave, according to Borel, himself, “[i]t is repetition that creates improbability” (1962, p. 3). Such almost endless successive random events would actually create more of a problem for evolution. “[I]t is their [the successive repetition of improbable events leading towards significant complexity—JM] almost indefinite repetition that creates improbability and rightly seems to us impossible” (1962, pp. 3-4, emp. added). After all of these successive evolutionary events leading towards life, the final random, chance event in which all the circumstances happen to be “just right” to bring about the jump from non-life to life is so improbable, according to the evolutionists themselves, that the Single Law of Chance would consider the event impossible and not worthy of human attention. [NOTE: We are not suggesting that it is possible for life to be spontaneously created from non-life, no matter what the circumstances or arrangements of matter may be. We are only noting the implications of the evolutionists’ own arguments and their application to the laws of science.]

KOLMOGOROV'S FIRST AXIOM

There is yet another problem with the assertion that macroevolution will happen, given enough time, as long as it does not have a probability of zero. Several of the events that are necessary in order for the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be true, indeed, have a probability of zero, according to the scientific evidence. The whole question is not really even one of improbability, butimpossibility. How can one calculate the probability of something happening for which there is zero evidence that such a thing can even occur? Chance applies only to events or circumstances wherein possibility is present.

For instance, before the Big Bang was allegedly a small, condensed sphere comprised of all of the matter in the Universe [see May, et al., 2003]. Consider for a moment the spontaneous generation of that sphere of matter. Its appearance and subsequent organization, being a random, chance event, would fall under the guidelines of the Single Law of Chance as well. Unfortunately for evolutionists, since all scientific evidence indicates that matter cannot spontaneously generate (according to the First Law of Thermodynamics; see Miller, 2007), the probability of such an event would be much less than the “one in 10⁴⁵” barrier set by the Single Law of Chance, namely, zero.

Also, what proof is available that leads to the idea that life could spontaneously generate (i.e., abiogenesis)? What scientific evidence is available that would lead to the idea that abiogenesis has a probability of anything but zero? Speculation abounds concerning the sequence of events that could cause precisely the right conditions for it to occur. However, there is zero scientific evidence to support the idea that it could happen even if those improbable conditions were ever in effect. In actuality, the scientific evidence is not “neutral” on the matter, as though there is no evidence for or against abiogenesis. Rather, the scientific evidence is not only unsupportive of abiogenesis, but all experimental scientific results are contrary to it! The experiments of renowned 19^th-century scientist Louis Pasteur long ago killed the possibility of the spontaneous generation of life, and recognition of the well-respected law of science known as the Law of Biogenesis (i.e., life comes only from life and that of its kind) drove the nails into its coffin (cf. Thompson, 1989).

These truths alone create impenetrable barriers for evolutionists—non-traversable, gaping chasms that would have to be crossed in order for the theory of evolution to be plausible. According to the scientific evidence, there is a probability of zero that abiogenesis can occur. According to the laws of probability, specifically Kolmogorov’s first axiom, when the probability of an event is zero, the event is called an “impossible event” (Gubner, 2006, p. 22, emp. added). Since several events that are necessary in order for the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be true have a probability of zero, according to the laws of probability, these atheistic theories are impossible.

PROBABILITY AND CAUSAL POWER

Further, even if there were not a probability of zero when it comes to macroevolution, it is important to note as was discussed earlier that probabilities do not guarantee that an event will or will not happen, regardless of how much time is allotted. Sproul, Gerstner, and Lendsley correctly observed:

The fact is, however, we have a no-chance chance creation. We must erase the “1” which appears above the line of the “1” followed by a large number of zeroes. What are the real chances of a universe created by chance? Not a chance. Chance is incapable of creating a single molecule, let alone an entire universe. Why not? Chance is no thing. It is not an entity. It has no being, no power, no force. It can effect nothing for it has no causal power within it, it has no itness to be within. Chance…is a word which describes mathematical possibilities which, by a curious slip of the fallacy of ambiguity, slips into discussion as if it were a real entity with real power, indeed, supreme power, the power of creativity (1984, p. 118, emp. in orig.).

We certainly agree. There is only one causal Power capable of creating the Universe, and there is certainly nothing random about Him.

CONCLUSION

Recall what Borel said of events prohibited under the Single Law of Chance—that sensible humans “must act, in all circumstances, as if they were impossible” (1962, p. 3, italics in orig.). Unfortunately, so many scientists today do not act sensibly. They do not follow this simple and intuitive truth when it comes to the matter of origins. Rather, they hold to the impossible, pouring thousands of hours and billions of dollars into researching it, writing on it, speaking on it, thrusting it into the minds of people of all ages, and attacking anyone who contradicts them. They, themselves, admit that the spontaneous generation of life from non-life has never been observed and that the odds are shockingly against it, and yet, since they start with the presumptuous assumption that there is no God, they believe the existence of life is proof enough that spontaneous generation occurred. But if the scientific evidence is so strongly against it, how can it be considered scientific? Even if there was a 0.0000…1% chance that macroevolution could happen, why would a scientist stake his/her name and entire career on such astronomical, outrageous odds when, if biased assumptions are dropped, there is a much more plausible explanation for the origin of this Universe? Prominent evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, himself admitted, “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer” (1982, p. 130, emp. added). We certainly agree, and sadly, the implication of that alternative is the very reason so many people irrationally hold onto impossibilities—the intelligent Designer has expectations to which this rebellious generation refuses to submit.

Nevertheless, in the words of Emile Borel:

When we calculated the probability of reproducing by mere chance a work of literature, in one or more volumes, we certainly observed that, if this work was printed, it must originally have emanated from a human brain. Now the complexity of that brain must therefore have been evenricher than the particular work to which it gave birth (1963, p. 125, emp. added).

And if we might add another line to Borel’s statement: “And further, the complexity of the Mind that gave birth to that brain must be truly incomprehensible!”

REFERENCES

Borel, Emile (1962), Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover).

Borel, Emile (1963), Probability and Certainty (New York: Walker & Company).       

Borel, Emile (1965), Elements of the Theory of Probability (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Dawkins, Richard (1982), “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, 94:130-132, April 15.

Deweese, Joe (2010), “Has Life Been Made From Scratch?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240389.

DeYoung, Donald (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Erwin, Douglas (2000), “Macroevolution is More Than Repeated Rounds of Microevolution,” Evolution and Development, 2[2]:78-84.

Gubner, J.A. (2006), Probability and Random Processes for Electrical and Computer Engineers(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Hoyle, Fred (1981a), “The Big Bang in Astronomy,” New Scientist, 92:521-527, November 19.

Hoyle, Fred (1981b), “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, 294:105,148, November 12.

Jackson, Wayne (1983), “Our Earth—Young or Old?,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/yng-old.pdf.

May, Branyon, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique,” Reason & Revelation, 23[5]:32-34,36-47, May, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635.

Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,”Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.

Morowitz, Harold J. (1970), Entropy for Biologists (New York: Academic Press).

Morris, H. (1974), “The Young Earth,” Acts & Facts, 3[8], http://www.icr.org/article/young-earth.

O’Connor, John J. and Edmund F. Robertson (2008), “Felix Edouard Justin Emile Borel,” The MacTutor History of Mathematics Archive, http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Borel.html.

Sagan, Carl, ed. (1973), Communications with Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (Boston, MA: MIT Press).

Simpson, George G. and William S. Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World).

Smith, Anthony (1975), The Human Pedigree (Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippencott).

Sproul, R.C., John Gerstner, and Arthur Lendsley (1984), Classical Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 9[6]:21-24, June, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/330.

Thompson, Bert (2001), “The Young Earth,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1991.

Wald, George (1954), “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191:45-53, August.

Save the Planet...Abort a Child!? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2392

Save the Planet...Abort a Child!?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Just when you thought that rabid environmentalists could not get any more fanatical, another jaw-dropping story hit newsstands. Actually, this report was so nauseating that it appears relatively few major news outlets were willing to run it. (Those bold enough to show the dark side of over-the-top, irrational environmentalism included Fox News, the Chicago Tribune, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.) The Daily Mail of the United Kingdom was first to break the story: a woman (Toni Vernelli) “terminated her pregnancy [the politically correct way of saying “murdered her baby”—EL] in the firm belief she was helping save the planet” (all quotations from Courtenay-Smith and Turner, 2007). According to Vernelli,

Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet.... Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.

Vernelli wants to “save the planet—not produce a new life which would only add to the problem.” Vernelli went on to describe procreation as “something negative” and claimed that there were many other people with similar planet-saving ideas. Daily Mail reporters Natasha Courtenay-Smith and Morag Turner concurred, saying, “Toni is far from alone.”

Thirty-one-year-old Sarah Irving seems to be in complete agreement with Vernelli. “[A] baby,” she said, “would pollute the planet.... [N]ever having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do.” Sarah and her fiancé Mark Hudson told the Daily Mail, “In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child.” Mark added: “It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth” (emp. added).

It is a sad day when having children is described as “something negative” and “morally wrong,” whilemurdering unborn children is hailed as “helping save the planet.” The Word of God says: “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward.... Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them” (Psalm 127:3,5). Conversely, “[h]ands that shed innocent blood” (e.g., unborn babies) are an abomination to the Lord (Proverbs 6:16-17; cf. Isaiah 5:20).

Finally, while faithful Christians oppose all murder (Romans 1:29) including suicide, one wonders why fanatical environmentalists like Vernelli, Irving, and Hudson refuse to be consistent and simply take their bizarre beliefs to their logical conclusion. If having fewer people on Earth will help save the planet, environmentalists should kill themselves. After all, just like every baby, every “selfish” environmentalist “uses more food, more water, more land, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gasses, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

REFERENCES

Courtenay-Smith, Natasha and Morag Turner (2007), “Meet the Women Who Won’t Have Babies—Because They’re Not Eco Friendly,” Daily Mail, November 21, [On-line], URL:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_ id=495495&in_page_id=1879.

Israelite Plundering and a Missing Donkey by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=649&b=Exodus

Israelite Plundering and a Missing Donkey

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Numerous passages of Scripture teach—either explicitly or implicitly—about the sinfulness of thievery. One of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Israel was: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). In the book of Leviticus, one can read where “the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them… You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another…. You shall not cheat your neighbor, nor rob him’ ” (19:1-2,11,13). If a thief was found breaking into a house and was struck so that he died, the old law stated that there would be “no guilt for his bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2). Under the new covenant, the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus, saying, “Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need” (4:28). And to the Christians at Corinth, Paul wrote that thieves “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Thus, God obviously considers stealing to be a transgression of His law.

Skeptics, however, question the consistency of the above Bible verses when compared to other passages of Scripture, which they feel often are overlooked in a discussion on the biblical view of thievery. One of these alleged inconsistencies is found in the book of Exodus, and centers on how the Israelites “plundered” the Egyptians during the exodus. When God spoke to Moses at the burning bush about the exodus from Egypt, He said: “It shall be, when you go, that you shall not go empty-handed. But every woman shall ask of her neighbor, namely, of her who dwells near her house, articles of silver, articles of gold, and clothing; and you shall put them on your sons and on your daughters. So you shall plunder the Egyptians” (Exodus 3:21-22, emp. added). Then, as the exodus became a reality, the Bible tells how “the children of Israel had done according to the word of Moses…andplundered the Egyptians” (Exodus 12:35-36, emp. added). According to skeptic Steve Wells, “God tells the Hebrew women to break the eighth commandment…and encourages the Israelites to steal from the Egyptians” (2001).

A second Bible story frequently used by skeptics in defense of their belief in the errancy of Scripture is that of Jesus’ disciples allegedly “stealing” a donkey and a colt. According to the gospel of Matthew, before entering Jerusalem during the final week of His life, Jesus instructed His disciples, saying, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them” (Matthew 21:1-3). Luke added: “So those who were sent went their way and found it just as He had said to them. But as they were loosing the colt, the owners of it said to them, ‘Why are you loosing the colt?’ And they said, ‘The Lord has need of him.’ Then they brought him to Jesus” (Luke 19:32-35). Regarding this story, Dennis McKinsey asked: “Are we to believe this isn’t theft? Imagine seeing a stranger driving your car away while claiming the lord needed it” (1985, p. 1). Another infidel by the name of Dan Barker commented on this passage in his book, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, saying, “I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing” (1992, p. 166). Did Jesus really encourage His disciples to steal a donkey and a colt? And what about the Israelites plundering the Egyptians? Can these passages be explained logically in light of the numerous statements throughout Scripture that clearly condemn thievery?

A PROPER PLUNDERING, OR AN UNHOLY HEIST?

Concerning the Israelites’ plundering of the Egyptians, the Bible student first needs to recognize that Exodus 3:22 is a reconfirmation of a prophecy made centuries earlier when God spoke to Abraham, saying, “Your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. And also the nation [Egypt—EL] whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions” (Genesis 15:13-14, emp. added).

Next, the honest Bible reader must concede that the Israelites’ “plundering” was not comparable to the forceful plundering that a mighty army might undertake. The kind of plundering done by the Israelites is described within the text. God told Moses, “I will give this people [the Israelites—EL] favor in the sight of the Egyptians…. But every woman shall ask of her neighbor, namely, of her who dwells near her house, articles of silver, articles of gold, and clothing; and you shall put them on your sons and on your daughters” (Exodus 3:21-22, emp. added). When it finally came time for the exodus, the texts states:

Now the children of Israel had done according to the word of Moses, and they had asked from the Egyptians articles of silver, articles of gold, and clothing. And the Lord had given the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they granted them what they requested. Thus they plundered the Egyptians (Exodus 12:35-36, emp. added).

Who but a biased skeptic would call this stealing? The actual circumstances were such that the Israelites merely requestedvarious articles, which were then granted by the Egyptians. The “plundering” described in the book of Exodus was nothing more than receiving that for which the Israelites asked. [NOTE: The word “plundered” in these two passages is not the normal Hebrew term used for what soldiers do to the enemy at the conclusion of a battle. In Exodus, the word “plundered” (from the Hebrew wordnatsal) is used figuratively to mean that the Israelites accomplished the same thing as if they had taken them in battle—due to the extenuating circumstances of the plagues motivating the Egyptians to fear the Israelites and their God (see Archer, 1982, p. 110).]

But suppose for a moment that the Israelites had “plundered” the Egyptians (at the Lord’s command), in the sense that they took various possessions by force. Would this have been unjust? Surely not, since Jehovah recognized that the Israelites had provided slave labor for the Egyptians for many years. [NOTE: The descendants of Jacob (Israel) had been in Egypt for more than 200 years, see Bass, Thompson and Butt, 2002] During this time, the Egyptians afflicted them “with burdens” and made them “serve with rigor” (Exodus 1:11,13). Pharaoh “made their lives bitter with hard bondage” (1:14), and, upon seeing the tremendous growth of the Israelites, even commanded that every son born of the Israelites be killed (1:22). In reality, the “plundering” that took place at the end of Israel’s stay in Egypt (even had it been by force at the command of God), was a rather small compensation for the many years of agonizing slave labor they provided for the Egyptians.

WERE JESUS’ DISCIPLES COLT CROOKS?

Even if the skeptic is somewhat pacified by the above explanation of the Israelites’ plundering, he likely will still want to know about the case in the New Testament of Jesus instructing two of His disciples to go into a village, locate a donkey and a colt, and to bring them back to Him. “Are we to believe this isn’t theft?” asked Dennis McKinsey (1985, p. 1). Allegedly, “Jesus told people to take a colt…without the owners’ permission.” And that, says McKinsey, is “commonly known as stealing” (2000, p. 236).

Question: If I e-mailed my wife and asked her to walk to a neighbor’s house and pick up his truck so that I could use it to haul an old furnace to the junkyard, would someone who read this same e-mail (perhaps finding a hard copy of it crumpled up in the trash) be justified in concluding that I asked my wife to steal the truck? Certainly not. Since the e-mail had no other information in it than the request to my wife concerning a neighbor’s truck, a person reading the note would have to have to have access to additional information in order to come to the conclusion that my wife and I were guilty of theft. This person may be ignorant of the fact that I had prearranged such a pick-up with my neighbor the previous day. Or, perhaps my neighbor had told me at some earlier time that I could use his truck whenever I needed it.

What Mr. McKinsey and other skeptics never seem to take into consideration in their interpretation of Scripture is that the Bible does not record every single detail of every event it mentions (cf. John 21:25). The Bible was not intended to be a chronological timeline citing every detail about the lives of all of the men and women mentioned within it. The New Testament book of Acts covers a period of about 30 years, but it actually is only about some of the acts of some of the early Christians. There were many more things that Paul, Peter, Silas, Luke, and other first-century Christians did that are not recorded therein. For example, Paul spent three years in Arabia and Damascus after his conversion (Galatians 1:16-18), yet Luke did not mention this detail, nor the many things Paul accomplished during these three years.

The case of Jesus telling His disciples to go locate the donkey and colt does not prove thievery, any more than Jesus’ disciples inquiring about and occupying an “upper room” makes them trespassers (cf. Mark 14:13-15). When sending His two disciples to get the requested animals, Jesus told them exactly where to go and what to say, as if He already knew the circumstances under which the donkey and colt were available. Jesus may very well have prearranged for the use of the donkeys. Neither Mr. McKinsey nor any other skeptic can prove otherwise. Similar to how I am not obligated to go home from work every night and rehearse to my wife everything I did each hour at work, the Bible is not obligated to fill in every detail of every event, including the one regarding the attainment of two donkeys. No contradiction or charge of wrong is legitimate if circumstantial details may be postulated that account for explicit information that is given.

Furthermore, the innocence of Jesus and His disciples is reinforced by the fact that the disciples were able to leave with the donkeys. Had the disciples really been stealing the animals, one would think that the owners would not have allowed such to happen. Also, nothing is said in the text about what happened to the animals after Jesus road them into Jerusalem. For all we know, Jesus’ disciples could have immediately taken the animals back to their owners.

CONCLUSION

Skeptics who charge that the Bible contains contradictory teachings concerning the act of stealing have no firm ground on which to stand. The Israelites did not “steal” the Egyptians’ clothing and jewels; they “asked” for them, and the Egyptians “granted them what they requested” (Exodus 12:35-36). And until it can be proven that Jesus’ disciples took the donkeys by force (and without prior permission), justice demands that the accusations of guilt must be withdrawn. There is no justifiable contradiction here. Case closed!

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Bass, Thompson, and Butt (2002), “How Long Was the Israelites’ Egyptian Sojourn”, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/610.

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.).

McKinsey, C. Dennis (1985), “Commentary,” Biblical Errancy, pp. 1-2, January.

McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

From Sandi Rog... It Is Written

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Rog/Sandi/Gwen/1971/itiswritten.html

It Is Written

I didn't grow up in the church, and oftentimes I found myself in complete confusion about what God wanted and what I needed to do for Him. My parents were divorced and they each had their own answers to my questions. None of the answers were the same. So, when I got confused, I'd go elsewhere (usually to a school counselor or someone like that).

I remember "running all over the place" in search of answers and everyone always had an "opinion." Of course, all these different people had their own unique answers to my questions (again, none were the same), and that's when I thought: “How do they know they're right when they're just as human as me and my parents? What makes their answers the right ones?" I can remember thinking, they never actually "met God," no more than I had, so ... how can I really know that what they're saying is true? That's when I gave up asking everyone for answers. It became overwhelming. All the answers were different. How could I know what was true?

That was the beginning of my battle, and I wasn't even a Christian yet.

I'm sure many of us are familiar with the following verses in Ephesians 6:10-13.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.
How in the world do we defend ourselves against such unearthly beings?

During my time of confusion, I must have been surrounded by a spiritual army shooting their arrows to confuse me and keep me from the truth. Finally, by the time I was sixteen, I learned that if “the answers” aren't in the Bible (the authority of our faith), I didn't have to listen to them. Our “armor” and the answers to all our questions are in the scriptures.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Hmm ... every good work doesn't leave much out now does it?

Remember when Satan tried to tempt Jesus? Look at how Jesus responded to Satan every time: Matthew 4:4 - It is written ... In Matthew 4:7 - ... it is written ... and Matthew 4:10 - ... it is written ... . Jesus fought against Satan with the word of God. Of course, they didn't have the New Testament at that time, but they had the Old Testament scriptures, and that's what Jesus referred to each time Satan put a temptation before Him.

But what about those who also use scripture to prove their point? When Satan tried to tempt Jesus he quoted scripture to convince Him to go his way. How do we handle that?

Matthew 4:6 says (all caps are quotes from the OT), And [Satan] said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.'"
If you ask me, that's a pretty convincing scripture. After all, Jesus is standing on the pinnacle of the temple. Why not use this opportunity to prove to Satan that Jesus is the Son of God?

However, this was Jesus' response: Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"
This goes to show how important it is that we know and understand the scriptures. We must study and develop an understanding that isn't contrary to God's teaching. Anyone can read the Bible and make it say whatever they want, twisting it to suit their own desires.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 - For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. Galatians 1:6-9 - I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
It's important that we set aside what “we think we know” and “our own will,” and simply read each passage and let God's word do the talking, not add to it or take away from it.

Let's go back to Ephesians and take a closer look at this battle we're in. After all, Ephesians is giving us instructions on armor and weaponry.

Ephesians 6:14-18 says, Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints.
Okay, so here's our armor:

TRUTH
RIGHTEOUSNESS
THE GOSPEL
FAITH
SALVATION
SWORD OF THE SPIRIT
CONSTANT PRAYER

Now the question is, how does the Bible (God's word) define this armor? We want the correct definition so we're using the Bible and not our own opinions and ideas.

TRUTH: John 17:17 says, Thy Word is truth. Pretty simple definition, huh?

RIGHTEOUSNESS: There are several verses that define righteousness, but these two sum them all up quite nicely. Ezekiel 18:9 - if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully - he is righteous and will surely live," declares the Lord GOD.
Romans 5:19 - For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

So, “righteousness” is the state that results in doing right and being made right in Christ. How do we know what's “right”? We learn right and wrong by studying God's word.

THE GOSPEL: 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, which says, Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

FAITH: Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
SALVATION: Acts 2:38 says, 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. There are several examples in Acts of people being saved: Acts 8:4-13, 35-39; 10:44- 48; 16:14-15, 25-33; 18:8; 19:1-5; and 22:1-16.

SWORD OF THE SPIRIT: Ephesians 6:17: ... sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. Didn't have to go far for that one.

PRAY AT ALL TIMES: Prayer is our communication with God and can't be emphasized enough. Prayer is best illustrated through Romans 8:26 in that man does not know how to pray to (speak, address) God, but we need the Holy Spirit to intercede for us (i.e. properly addressing God and explaining our thoughts). Interesting that the intercession is described with “groanings,” implying that we are “complaining, lamenting, begging” maybe? Perhaps that is why prayer is often discussed in connection with “supplication.”

Notice how the "word of God" is mentioned twice in this list of armor ... twice, under TRUTH and THE SWORD OF THE SPIRIT, and you can even find it implied in the definition of RIGHTEOUSNESS. That means it's pretty important.

All these answers were found in the word of God. In the Scriptures. Therefore, "It is written ..." should be our response.

Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 

Sandi RogPreviously published in the Rocky Mountain Christian.

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

From Gary... Hi!

Today is Monday, the first day of the "work week" and as I sat down to write, the question naturally came to me - Well, what do I write about today?  Do I write something philosophical to encourage critical thinking, or perhaps something global, to get us to think of humanity as a whole? Maybe something political- no, wait; I am sick of politics! And then my dog looked up at me and I knew what to write- something that reflects his nature. And the picture just seemed to fit!!!!  But, what about the Bible... That wasn't hard at all, for if you look at the introductions in the New Testament, you will find things like the following...

Romans, Chapter 1 (WEB)

8  First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, that your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world.  9 For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the Good News of his Son, how unceasingly I make mention of you always in my prayers,  10 requesting, if by any means now at last I may be prospered by the will of God to come to you.

1 Corinthians, Chapter 1 (WEB)

4  I always thank my God concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus; 

2 Corinthians, Chapter 1 (WEB)

 3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort;  4 who comforts us in all our affliction, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, through the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.

Philippians, Chapter 1 (WEB)

1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ; 

To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers  and servants:  2 Grace to you, and peace from God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.  3 I thank my God whenever I remember you,  4 always in every request of mine on behalf of you all making my requests with joy,

James, Chapter 1 (WEB)

 1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are in the Dispersion: Greetings.  2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you fall into various temptations,  3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.  4 Let endurance have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

1 Peter, Chapter 1 (WEB)

 1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen ones who are living as foreigners in the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,  2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with his blood: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy became our father again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,  4 to an incorruptible and undefiled inheritance that doesn’t fade away, reserved in Heaven for you,  5 who by the power of God are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.  6 Wherein you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been put to grief in various trials,  7 that the proof of your faith, which is more precious than gold that perishes even though it is tested by fire, may be found to result in praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ—  8 whom not having known you love; in whom, though now you don’t see him, yet believing, you rejoice greatly with joy unspeakable and full of glory—  9 receiving the result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

1 John, Chapter 1 (WEB)

 1 That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life  2 (and the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us); 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ.  4 And we write these things to you, that our joy may be fulfilled. 

Jude (WEB)

  1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:  2 Mercy to you and peace and love be multiplied. 

  3  Beloved, while I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I was constrained to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Good wishes, found in various forms are the reflection of a love that God instills in his followers. And the introductions of the letters by the New Testament proclaim this loudly. Christians, love one another, care for one another, for the days ahead are going to be filled with difficulty and persecution. 

If I could do but one good deed today, my intent would be just to make your day a little bit better; because God has made mine better by HIS sacrifice for ME!!!!

Your friend,

Gary