A Stomach That Can’t Digest Evolution by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2044

A Stomach That Can’t Digest Evolution

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

It cost the British government about 1.8 million dollars. British scientists call it the first artificial stomach ever made. Commercial food companies are looking to it for help. Dr. Marin Wickham holds the patent on this amazing contraption. This new machine is about the size of a five gallon bucket. It is designed to mimic human digestion. Its advanced plastics and metals can withstand the corrosive qualities of the acids and enzymes used in digestion. Once food is placed in the receiving funnel, computer software determines how long the food stays in one place. The model attempts to copy real muscle contractions in the stomach that help humans digest their food. The machine is a technological wonder (see “Scientists Build....,” 2006).
One very important point needs to be noted about this artificial stomach: it is complex, expensive, and took hundreds or thousands of hours to design and build. But it still cannot accomplish all the processes of a real human stomach. Yet we are to believe that the human stomach evolved over millions of years by random, chance processes with no intelligent agent responsible for any of its construction.
Notice how descriptions of the artificial stomach demand the presence of intelligence. The model has computer software that regulates when the food moves. Such computer programs can be designed and implemented only by intelligent beings. Wickham also noted that “our knowledge of what actually happens in the gut is still very rudimentary but we hope that this model can help fill in some of the blanks” (“Scientists Build....,” emp. added). This technologically savvy stomach was created in an attempt to learn more about what actually happens in the stomach, since our most advanced research has only rendered a “rudimentary” knowledge of gut activity. Dr. Stephen Bloom, “head of metabolic medicine at Imperial College in London,” was quoted as saying: “The stomach is an extraordinarily complex organ, so you cannot create a model that will undertake all of these functions” (“Scientists Build....,” emp. added).

In summary, then, brilliant men and women designed a modern marvel which cost almost two million dollars that attempts to mimic human digestion. But the real human stomach it attempts to model is so complex that no machine humans can build will ever fill in all the blanks of our rudimentary knowledge of the human stomach. The only logical conclusion is that the human stomach must have been designed by an intelligence far superior to that of the humans who possess only a rudimentary knowledge of the stomach. It is no wonder that the psalmist poetically said that humans have been fearfully and wonderfully made (see Psalm 139:14).
The designers of the artificial stomach stated: “It’s so realistic that it can even vomit.” It is high time the thinking world followed suit and “vomited out” the illogical notion of evolution.

REFERENCES

“Scientists Build World’s First Artificial Stomach” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15655255/wid/11915773?GT1=8717.

As Goes the Home... by Brad Bromling, D.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=292

As Goes the Home...

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

“As goes the home, so goes the nation.” The truth of this maxim can be recognized by Christians and non-Christians alike. After decades of decline, the home is beginning to receive an immense amount of attention. Working without the objective standard of God’s Word, however, many people have been trying to rebuild the home according to novel and aberrant paradigms. But “the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23). God has not left humanity without direction. From the very beginning, while our parents were still in the paradise of Eden, God established the home as He wanted it.
Homes that please God begin with the joining together of one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4; Genesis 2:22). This plan excludes polygyny (a man with a plurality of wives), and polyandry (a woman with a plurality of husbands). God underscored this fact when He presented the woman to Adam and said: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Also excluded is the concept of homosexual marriage. The Creator did not present Adam with a choice between Eve and another male companion—He made only woman. Adam was not incomplete simply because he lacked human companionship; he lacked female human companionship. Further, the Word of God categorically condemns homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26ff.; 1 Corinthians 6:9, etc.).
Jesus based His teaching about the home upon the original pattern established by God. He said: “He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:4-6). Thus, sexual relations are authorized only within marriage (see Proverbs 5:15-21).
All deviations from this “one flesh” pattern are condemned: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4). The Bible affirms that God “hates divorce” (Malachi 2:16). Yet, if the sacredness of marital love is violated in any act of fornication (all forms of sexual immorality), the innocent spouse is allowed (though, not required) to obtain a divorce and may marry another person (Matthew 19:9). There is no other reason for divorce approved by God.
The home that follows the divine pattern is one that will strive to be in fellowship with God. Genesis 3:8 portrays the Creator as “walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” Precisely what this entailed we can only conjecture (see John 1:18), but it seems that Adam was not unaccustomed to this kind of communion (how else can we account for his impulse to hide?). When Eve was tempted by the serpent, she repeated God’s injunction regarding the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:3). When Cain was born, Eve credited God (Genesis 4:1). When Cain and Abel were of age, they approached God with offerings (Genesis 4:3). These facts imply that Adam and Eve had built into their home a reverence for—and fellowship with—God.
The home is humanity’s primary center for religious and moral instruction, hence the inspired dictate: “Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). It is a tragedy of mammoth proportions that modern families have abdicated this role to the school and church. Both these institutions have their functions to perform, but God never assigned to them the work of the home.
Moses set forth a wonderful example of the home’s spiritual environment when he said: “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart; you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:6-9). Logically, parents who practice this are more likely to see their children convert to Christ than are those who expect the church to be the sole source of spiritual training.
The state of the nation is a reflection of the state of its homes. The homes that are built according to the divine pattern will serve as the backbone of our nation. Because of weak and dysfunctional homes, the church is hindered in her task. But, from solidly built Christian homes, the church can draw a mighty army to overcome the forces of darkness and proclaim the Gospel of the triumphant Christ to the world. Therein lies hope for our nation.

Did Jesus Have the Same Physical Body After His Resurrection? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=673&b=Luke

Did Jesus Have the Same Physical Body After His Resurrection?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

A gentleman once contacted our offices at Apologetics Press, questioning whether Jesus had the same body after His resurrection as He did before being raised from the grave. According to this man, Jesus “appeared to people he knew but nobody recognized him…. It’s as though He had a different body”—and possibly one that was not physical.
At the outset, it is incorrect to assert that “nobody recognized Him,” because Matthew 28:9,17 clearly implies that at least some of Jesus’ disciples knew Who He was and worshipped Him. Moreover, that Jesus had essentially the same physical body after His resurrection that He had when He died on the cross, is evident from at least three different passages. In Luke 24:39 Jesus stated: “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” Jesus expected His disciples to observe His physical body. Later in the same chapter, we read that Jesus ate a meal with His disciples (24:42-43; cf. Acts 10:41). And then in John 20:25-29, which is the most often-used passage in defense of Christ’s having His same physical body, Thomas was asked to touch Jesus’ nail-scared hands and reach into His side that had been pierced with the Roman spear.
But what about those occasions when some of His disciples did not recognize Him? Do such verses as Luke 24:31,37 and John 20:10-16 represent a contradictory element in the resurrection story? First, just because the text says that the disciples thought they had seen a spirit when they actually saw Jesus (Luke 24:37), does not indicate that He looked different. Since they knew He had been killed, seeing His resurrected body caused them to think that He was in spirit form rather than physical. A similar thing happened to Peter when some thought his unexpected presence must be an indication that “it is his angel” (Acts 12:15).
Second, the reason the two disciples who were traveling on the road to Emmaus failed to recognize Jesus initially was not because Jesus had a different body, but because God had miraculously prevented them from recognizing Him. Luke 24:16 indicates that at the beginning of their conversation with Jesus “their eyes were restrained,” but then just before Jesus vanished from their sight, “their eyes were opened and they knew Him” (24:31). Thus, the disciples’ recognition ability failed, not because Jesus possessed a different body, but because their eyes were miraculously restrained.
A final person often mentioned as not having recognized the Savior (allegedly because Jesus had a different body) is Mary Magdalene. John 20:11-18 certainly testifies of her initial inability to identify Jesus. The question is: Was Mary’s failure to recognize Jesus, her fault or the result of Jesus having a different body? As with the above cases, there is no indication in John 20:11-18 that Jesus had anything other than His risen crucified body (cf. 20:25-29). There are at least four possibilities, however, as to why Mary failed to recognize Jesus right at first.

1. The sun may not have risen all the way yet, thus making it difficult to see (cf. 20:1).
2. Mary was engaged in deep weeping that likely obscured her vision (20:11,13). In fact, the first words Jesus said to Mary were, “Woman, why are you weeping?” (vs. 15).
3. Considering Jesus’ clothes were taken from Him when He was crucified (John 19:23-24), and that the linen cloths which were used in His burial were lying in the tomb (John 20:6-7), Jesus likely was wearing clothes that made His exact identity less conspicuous at first glance. Perhaps His post-resurrection attire was similar to what a gardener or watchman would wear (cf. John 20:15).
4. It also is possible that Mary’s eyes were restrained miraculously, as were the disciples with whom Jesus conversed on the road to Emmaus.

Once all of the Scriptures are taken in to account, one can see clearly that Jesus physically rose from the grave in essentially the same body that was crucified on the cross. The fact that some of Jesus’ disciples did not immediately recognize Him, in no way contradicts His physical resurrection.

Psallo and the Instrumental Music Controversy by Wayne Jackson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Jackson/Boyd/Wayne/1937/psallo.html
 

Psallo and the Instrumental Music Controversy

For more than a century the advocates of the use of instrumental music in Christian worship have contended that one of the stronger arguments in defense of that practice is to be found in the Greek word psallo. This term, found only five times in the New Testament, is rendered by the English terms “sing” (Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Jas. 5:13), and “make melody” (Eph. 5:19).
It has been alleged, however, that psallo embraces the use of a mechanical instrument. In classical Greek the word meant “to strike,” as, for instance, “striking” the strings of a harp. And so, it is claimed, this concept is transferred into the New Testament.

The History of Psallo

Words have histories, and linguistic history often reveals that terms are altered in their meanings as they pass through the centuries. So it was with psallo.
The history of the Greek language extends back about fifteen centuries before Christ. The era called the “classical” period was from around 900 B.C. (the time of Homer) to the conquests of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.). During this time psallo carried the basic sense of “to touch sharply, to move by touching, to pull, twitch” (Liddell, p. 1841).
Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.), the Greek playwright, used the word of “plucking hair” (Persae, p. 1062). Euripides (480-460 B.C.?), another Greek writer, spoke of “twanging” the bowstring (Bacchae, p. 784). Psallo was used of “twitching” the carpenter’s line so as to leave a mark (Anthologia Palatine, 6.103). Finally, in Plutarch the verb also could convey the sense of “plucking” the strings of an instrument (Pericles 1.6).
Surely it is obvious that in these various passages the object of what is “touched” was supplied by the context.
Scholars are aware, however, that languages change with time. In 1952, F.F. Bruce wrote: “Words are not static things. They change their meaning with the passage of time” (Vine, 1997, p. vi). This concept must be understood if one is to arrive at the meaning of psallo as used in the New Testament.
The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that dates from the 3rd century B.C. In this production, psallo is used to represent three different Hebrew words. The term may be used to denote simply the playing of an instrument (1 Sam. 16:16). It may bear the sense of singing, accompanied by an instrument (as certain contexts reveal – cf. Psa. 27:6; 98:5 – Eng. versions). Or, the word may refer to vocal music alone (cf. Psa. 135:3; 138:1; 146:2).
After a detailed consideration of the use of psallo in the Greek OT, Ferguson affirms that “what is clear is that an instrument did not inhere in the word psallo in the Septuagint” (p. 7 – emp. orig.). He contends, in fact, that the “preponderance of occurrences” of psallo in the LXX refer simply to “vocal music.”
In a study of the transitional uses of psallo across the years, one thing becomes apparent. The task of the conscientious Bible student must be to determine how the verb is used in the New Testament. This is the only relevant issue.
Incidentally, if one is going to quote the classical usage of psallo, or that conveyed in the LXX (as defenders of instrumental music commonly do), then he could well argue for the playing of instruments as a pure act of worship – with no singing at all – because that sense is clearly employed at times in those bodies of literature.

Language Authorities

J. H. Thayer (1828-1901) was Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at the Divinity School of Harvard University. He also served on the revision committee that produced the American Standard Version of the New Testament.
In 1885 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament was published, which reflected Thayer’s translation, revision, and enlargement of an earlier work involving the labors of C.G. Wilke and C.L.W. Grimm. In its day, Thayer’s work was the finest lexicon available, and still is of considerable value.
In discussing psallo, after commenting upon the word’s use in classical Greek, and in the Septuagint, he notes that “in the N.T. [psallo signifies] to sing a hymn, to celebrate the praises of God in song” (p. 675).
The first edition of W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was issued in 1940 in four volumes. In 1952 a one-volume edition was published. F.F. Bruce, Head of the Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield, wrote the Foreword for that production. Therein, Prof. Bruce praised Vine’s work. He stated that the “Greek scholarship was wide, accurate and up-to-date.” He noted that the author had a “thorough mastery of the classical idiom,” a “close acquaintance with the Hellenistic vernacular,” and an awareness of the influence of the Septuagint upon the New Testament.
In his popular work, Vine, in commenting upon psallo (under “Melody”), notes the classical sense, the Septuagint usage, and then says: “in the N.T., to sing a hymn, sing praise” (1997, p. 730).
In another book, Vine explained the matter more fully.

“The word psallo originally meant to play a stringed instrument with the fingers, or to sing with the accompaniment of a harp. Later, however, and in the New Testament, it came to signify simply to praise without the accompaniment of an instrument” (1951, p. 191 – emp. added).

In 1964. the prestigious Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (edited by Kittel, Friedrich, and Bromiley) issued from the press. The article which dealt with psallo was written by Gerhard Delling. Relative to Ephesians 5:19, Delling contended that the literal use of psallo, as “found in the LXX, is now employed figuratively” (Kittel, et al., p. 499).
In an abridgement of this work, published in 1985, Bromiley expressed it this way: “psallontes does not now denote literally playing on a stringed instrument” (p. 1226).
In the revised edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, David Howard of Bethel Theological Seminary, commented upon psallo.

“Psallo originally meant to play a stringed instrument; in the LXX it generally translates zimmer and ngn. In the New Testament it refers to singing God’s praises (not necessarily accompanied by strings)” (p. 314).

In the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Balz and Schneider write: “In the NT psallo always refers to a song of praise to God” (p. 495).
In his popular work, Word Meanings in the New Testament, Ralph Earle comments on psallo in Ephesians 5:19.

“‘Making melody’ is one word in Greek, psallontes. The verb psallo meant first to strike the strings of a harp or lyre. Then it meant to ‘strike up a tune.’ Finally it was used in the sense ‘to sing’” (p. 333).

It is important to remember that these men were affiliated with denominational groups that employ instrumental music in their worship. They have no motive for misrepresenting the facts of this issue. Their testimony, therefore, is compelling indeed.
On the other hand, we must acknowledge that a few scholars have set aside the historical evidence, being swayed by their own theological prejudices. They assert that psallo in the New Testament embodies the idea of “playing” a musical instrument. Liddell & Scott, as well as Edward Robinson, in their respective works, listed the term “play” as the significance of psallo in Ephesians 5:19.
The best example of unwarranted lexical liberty in recent times is the Baur-Arndt-Gingrich production. In the first edition (1957), William Arndt and F.W. Gingrich defined psallo as follows: “in our literature, in accordance with OT usage, sing (to the accompaniment of a harp), sing praise … Rom. 15:9… Eph. 5:19”
What most did not realize at the time, however, was that the phrase “to the accompaniment of a harp” was not in Baur’s original work. It was added by the subsequent editors. Following the death of Arndt, Frederick Danker joined with Gingrich for yet another revision (2nd Ed.). At the time, Danker apparently was unaware of the “tampering” by Arndt & Gingrich. When he learned of it, he admitted that the earlier editors had made a “mistake” in their rendition. He promised to try to remedy the error in a future revision.
Gingrich later acknowledged that the added phrase was only his interpretation. In the 2nd edition (1979), the phrase was deleted. However, this comment was added — obviously to placate someone.

“Although the NT does not voice opposition to instrumental music, in view of Christian resistance to mystery cults, as well as Pharisaic aversion to musical instruments in worship … it is likely that some such sense as make melody is best here [Eph. 5:19]” (p 891; see McCord, pp. 390-96).

One might have hoped for something better in the 3rd edition, over which Danker had control. But such was not to be. The editor initiated a “departure” from earlier formats by offering an “expanded definition” of words. And so the “sing, sing praise” of the 2nd editon becomes “to sing songs of praise, with or without instrumental accompaniment” in this latest edition.
However, both 2nd and 3rd editions suggest that those who render psallo by the word “play” in Ephesians 5:19 “may be relying too much on the earliest meaning of psallo [i.e., the classical meaning].” And yet, this is precisely what Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker have done. They imported the classical sense into the New Testament, when their lexicon was supposed to define words according to the “New Testament and other early Christian literature” usage.
People need to realize that Greek lexicons are not inspired of God; they can be flawed at times. J.H. Thayer summed-up the issue rather candidly.

“The nature and use of the New Testament writings require that the lexicographer should not be hampered by a too rigid adherence to the rules of scientific lexicography. A student often wants to know not so much the inherent meaning of a word as the particular sense it bears in a given context or discussion … [T]he lexicographer often cannot assign a particular New Testament reference to one or another of the acknowledged significations of a word without indicating his exposition of the passage in which the reference occurs. In such a case he is compelled to assume, at least to some extent, the functions of the exegete” (p. VII).

Some scholars have clearly set aside the true significance of certain words and allowed their theological bias to flavor their definitions. This has happened with baptizo (immerse), when some suggest that “sprinkling” is encompassed in the verb’s meaning. Some theologians manipulate the meaning of the preposition eis (for, unto, in order to obtain) in Acts 2:38 in an effort to avoid the conclusion that immersion in water is essential to salvation. This is a sad but tragic reality within the theological community.

Translations

It must be a matter of some consternation, to those who argue that psallo necessarily includes the instrument, that virtually no standard (committee) translation of the English language (e.g., KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV) provides a hint of instrumental music in any of the five texts where the verb is found in the New Testament. This should be dramatic testimony to the fact that the cream of the world’s scholarship has not subscribed to the notion that psallo inheres a mechanical instrument of music.

Post-Apostolic Testimony

In a thorough discussion of the topic, Prof. Everett Ferguson has shown dramatically that the writers of the first several centuries of the post-apostolic period employed psallo simply to denote the idea of “singing,” or else they used the term in its classical sense only metaphorically, e.g., in Ephesians 5:19, plucking the strings of one’s heart in praise to God (pp. 18-27). (Note: In his translation, Hugo McCord rendered this passage as “plucking the strings of your heart,” thus giving the “plucking” a figurative thrust.)
At this point we must add this testimony from McClintock & Strong’s celebrated Cyclopedia:

“The Greeks as well as the Jews were wont to use instruments as accompaniments in their sacred songs. The converts to Christianity accordingly must have been familiar with this mode of singing; yet it is generally believed that the primitive Christians failed to adopt the use of instrumental music in their religious worship. The word psallein, which the apostle uses in Eph. 5:19, has been taken by some critics to indicate that they sang with such accompaniments … But if this be the correct inference, it is strange indeed that neither Ambrose … nor … Basil … nor Chrysostom … in the noble encomiums which they severally pronounce upon music, make any mention of instrumental music. Basil, indeed, expressly condemns it as ministering only to the depraved passions of men … and [he] must have been led to this condemnation because some had gone astray and borrowed this practice from the heathen … The general introduction of instrumental music can certainly not be assigned to a date earlier than the 5th or 6th centuries” (p. 759).

An Ad Hominem Observation

An ad hominem (“to the man”) argument is designed to show the fallacy of an illogical position. It appeals to an erroneous proposition being defended, and demonstrates that, if followed to its logical conclusion, the idea manifests an unreasonable viewpoint. That this is a valid method of dealing with error is evidenced by the fact that Jesus himself occasionally employed it to expose false teaching (cf. Mt. 12:27). There is certainly a legitimate usage of this type of argument in the music controversy.
Several writers, who have argued the psallo position, have contended that an instrument of music is unavoidably inherent within the term. O.E. Payne alleged that if the Christian fails to employ the instrument in worship, he “cannot conform to the divine injunction to psallein” (p. 172). Others (e.g., Dwaine Dunning and Tom Burgess) have argued similarly (see Bales, pp. 97ff).
In view of this, let us consider Ephesians 5:19, where the inspired apostle commands the saints in Ephesus to practice “speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody psallontes with your heart to the Lord.”
If the participle psallontes retains a literal, classical sense (to pluck), and therefore inheres the instrument, then the following conclusions necessarily result.
This command cannot be obeyed without the employment of the instrument.
Since each Christian is under the obligation to psallo, each person must play an instrument.
The instrument must be one capable of being “plucked” (e.g., the harp), which would eliminate organs, pianos, trumpets, etc.
This writer has never encountered an advocate of the use of instruments in worship who will stay with the logical demands of his argument in defense of psallo. That speaks volumes.

Recent History

Perhaps the most telling thing of all in this controversy over instrumental worship is the fact that in the recent history of our exchanges with those of the Independent Christian Church (with whom we’ve had most of our discussions), the psallo argument has been virtually abandoned.
One of the last major debates on instrumental music was between Alan E. Highers (churches of Christ) and Given O. Blakely (Independent Christian Church) in April, 1988. During the course of that encounter, Blakely never attempted to introduce the psallo argument. In fact, he “broke new ground” in that he argued that “authority” for what one does in worship is not even needed; worship is a wholly unregulated activity — a position wholly absurd!
Instrumental music in Christian worship is indefensible.

Interesting Quotations

“Although Josephus tells of the wonderful effects produced in the Temple by the use of instruments of music, the first Christians were of too spiritual a fibre to substitute lifeless instruments for or to use them to accompany the human voice” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 651).
“There is no record in the NT of the use of instruments in the musical worship of the Christian church” (Pfeiffer, p. 1163).
“Whatever evidence is forthcoming, is to the effect that the early Christians did not use musical instruments” (Smith, p. 1365).
“The foregoing argument [of this book] has proceeded principally by two steps. The first is: Whatsoever, in connection with the public worship of the church, is not commanded by Christ, either expressly or by good and necessary consequence, in his Word is forbidden. The second is: Instrumental music, in connection with the public worship of the church is not so commanded by Christ. The conclusion is: Instrumental music, in connection with the public worship of the church, is forbidden” (John J. Girardeau, Professor, Columbia Theological Seminary (Presbyterian), p. 200).

Sources/Footnotes

• Bales, James D. 1987. Instrumental Music and New Testament Worship. Resource Publications: Searcy, AR.
• Balz, Horst & Schneider, Gerhard. 1993. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 3. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
• Baur, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. 1979. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. University of Chicago: Chicago, IL.
• Bromiley, G.W., Ed. 1985. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament — Abridged. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
• The Catholic Encyclopedia. 1913. The Encyclopedia Press: New York, NY.
• Earle, Ralph. 2000. Word Meanings in the New Testament. Hendrickson: Peabody, MA.
• Ferguson, Everett. 1972. A Cappella Music. Biblical Research Press: Abilene, TX.
• Girardeau, John J. 1888. Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church. Whittet and Shepperson: Richmond, VA.
• Howard, David. 1986. “Melody,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia – Revised. Vol. 3. G. W. Bromiley, Ed. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
• Kittel, Gerhard, et al., Eds. 1964. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. VIII. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI.
• Liddell, Henry and Scott, Robert. 1869. A Greek-English Lexicon. Clarendon: Oxford, England.
• McClintock, John & Strong, James Baker: 1969 Reprint. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. VI. Grand Rapids, MI.
• McCord, Hugo. n.d. Fifty Years of Lectures. Vol. 2. Church of Christ: Atwood, TN.
• Payne, O. E. 1920. Instrumental Music Is Scriptural. Standard: Cincinnati, OH.
• Pfeiffer, C. F., Vos, Howard and Rea, John. 1998. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary. Hendrickson: Peabody, MA.
• Smith, William and Cheetham, Samuel. 1880. A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities. Vol. II. John Murray: London, England.
• Thayer, J. H. 1958. Greek-English Lexicon. T. and T. Clark: Edinburgh, Scotland.
• Vine, W. E. 1951. First Corinthians. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI..
• Vine, W. E. 1997 ed. Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nelson: Nashville, TN.

Copyright © 2013 Christian Courier. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

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

Far away or right nearby? by Gary Rose

Are there emotions that stem from other, more deep seated emotions? Also, I wonder what emotion would be at the very center of the chart?  Additionally, could this chart be divided up in an alternative way?

Three questions, and at least one possible answer for all three. First though, read the Psalm below...

Psalm 139 (WEB)

¹ Yahweh, you have searched me, 
and you know me. 
  ² You know my sitting down and my rising up. 
You perceive my thoughts from afar. 

  ³ You search out my path and my lying down, 
and are acquainted with all my ways. 

  ⁴ For there is not a word on my tongue, 
but, behold, Yahweh, you know it altogether. 

  ⁵ You hem me in behind and before. 
You laid your hand on me. 

  ⁶ This knowledge is beyond me. 
It’s lofty. 
I can’t attain it. 

  ⁷ Where could I go from your Spirit? 
Or where could I flee from your presence? 

  ⁸ If I ascend up into heaven, you are there. 
If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, you are there! 

  ⁹ If I take the wings of the dawn, 
and settle in the uttermost parts of the sea, 

  ¹⁰ even there your hand will lead me, 
and your right hand will hold me. 

  ¹¹ If I say, “Surely the darkness will overwhelm me. 
The light around me will be night,” 

  ¹² even the darkness doesn’t hide from you, 
but the night shines as the day. 
The darkness is like light to you. 

  ¹³ For you formed my inmost being. 
You knit me together in my mother’s womb. 

  ¹⁴ I will give thanks to you, 
for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. 
Your works are wonderful. My soul knows that very well. 

  ¹⁵ My frame wasn’t hidden from you, 
when I was made in secret, 
woven together in the depths of the earth. 

  ¹⁶ Your eyes saw my body. 
In your book they were all written, 
the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there were none of them. 

  ¹⁷ How precious to me are your thoughts, God! 
How vast is their sum! 

  ¹⁸ If I would count them, they are more in number than the sand. 
When I wake up, I am still with you. 

  ¹⁹ If only you, God, would kill the wicked. 
Get away from me, you bloodthirsty men! 

  ²⁰ For they speak against you wickedly. 
Your enemies take your name in vain. 

  ²¹ Yahweh, don’t I hate those who hate you? 
Am I not grieved with those who rise up against you? 

  ²² I hate them with perfect hatred. 
They have become my enemies. 

  ²³ Search me, God, and know my heart. 
Try me, and know my thoughts. 

  ²⁴ See if there is any wicked way in me, 
and lead me in the everlasting way.

God created us and it therefore follows that HE would be at the center of our very existence (and this would include emotions).  If HE is at the center of our being, then our emotions could possibly be a reaction to HIS existence in our lives in the intermix with our physical reality. In other words, above an arbitrary horizontal line in the chart would be a negative reaction and below it a positive one. 

The answer to my all my questions is found in yet another question: Is God far away or right near by? 

The prophet has said...

Jeremiah, Chapter 29 (WEB)

¹¹ For I know the thoughts that I think toward you,” says Yahweh, “thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you hope and a future.  ¹² You shall call on me, and you shall go and pray to me, and I will listen to you.  ¹³ You shall seek me, and find me, when you search for me with all your heart.

All that remains to be said is this- Where is your heart, Gary?