Human Evolution [Part I] by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=275

Human Evolution [Part I]

by	Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

One of the most contentious claims of evolution is that humans are descended from an ape-like ancestor. Although Charles Darwin did not mention the subject specifically in his Origin of Species (1859), the book’s popularity added fuel to the smoldering hopes of some, and the fears of others, that naturalists would remove all barriers between man and beast. After all, if a single or few ancestral forms gave rise to every living thing, as Darwin was trying to prove, then we were no exception.
At least in the Middle Ages, people could admire the beautiful circles of Ptolemy’s astronomy, with the Earth at its very center, and assure themselves that they were the focus of God’s attention. But Copernicus, and centuries of empirical science, undermined the foundations of that comforting position. Still there was Genesis, with man so obviously the crowning glory of the creation week. Surely our art, technology, and language elevated us above the animal world. Yet Darwin allowed no separate, divine creation of man.
For all this effort to show our puny place in a thoughtless world, human evolution represents one of the most active, sensational research programs in science today. Even if our newspapers or popular magazines say nothing about a new subatomic particle, we can count on them to announce the latest tooth or bone fragment belonging to one of our alleged ancestors. Within the field itself, the issues are no less contentious. The subject of human evolution “contains more practitioners than objects for study,” quipped Stephen Jay Gould, “thus breeding a high level of aquisitiveness and territoriality” (1996, 105[7]:16).

ENTER THE ARGUMENT

Evolution, to prove its case, must show a continuity between humans and all other life on Earth. This much, at least, has not changed since Darwin’s day. Part of this process involves teasing out similarities between man and animals, although such observations are not unique to evolutionists (Tattersall, 1995, p. 4). In 1698, English anatomist Edward Tyson noted 47 points of resemblance between men and apes. A few years later, Carolus Linnaeus, the father of our binomial classification system, included both the chimpanzee and orangutan under the name Homo troglodytes, and gave us the name, Homo sapiens. [Today, the term “hominine” refers to members of the genus Homo; “hominid” includes hominines plus our alleged ape-like ancestors; and “hominoid” includes hominids plus gibbons and the great apes (see Figure 1).]

Thomas Henry Huxley led the charge for evolutionists by publishing scientific papers and presenting public lectures on apes and men, culminating in 1863 with his Man’s Place in Nature (see sidebar, “Where Did Owen Go Wrong?”). Darwin’s massive Descent of Man created hardly a stir when it appeared in 1871, such was the pace of change in public opinion and scientific debate. Yet privately, Darwin had been contemplating a common origin for man and animals for over thirty years (Bonner and May, 1981, p. x).

FROM SIMILARITY TO GENEALOGY?

The events surrounding evolution’s rise to dominance highlight the need to address the central claim of human evolution: that there is a genealogical connection between ourselves and a creature, or creatures, with similar features. Any genealogist would appreciate the enormity of this task. Making connections among recent generations is difficult enough, without also having to find ancestors thousands of generations in the past. At least family researchers can compare similar names, although frequently these are unreliable. Even if pictorial evidence is available, physical appearance still would be a tenuous basis on which to claim inheritance in the fortunes of a suspected distant cousin. Documentary evidence, if it exists, must be studied and interpreted carefully before filling in another branch on the family tree. Evolutionists have no such documentation, although they do have access to scientific techniques that any genealogist would envy.
Imagine, for instance, being able to find similar physical features among the remains of potential relatives. This method has had some interesting applications in recent years, including an attempt to track down the final resting place of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. However, with the passing of years, it becomes increasingly difficult to assign relatedness on the basis of physical similarities.
Imagine, also, being able to compare the DNA of suspected relatives. This “DNA fingerprinting” method is very powerful because everyone has a unique sequence of DNA—except for identical twins, of course. This fact has proved very useful in all sorts of legal applications. In particular, it provides a powerful means of establishing paternity, because every child inherits half of his or her genetic code from the father.
The technique is on less-certain ground in the area of forensics. In this application, geneticists can analyze tiny samples of hair, blood, or other biological evidence left at the scene of a crime. For purely practical purposes, they analyze only small segments of DNA, and estimate the chance of finding all these sequences in an individual selected at random from a given population. Barring sloppy handling, this method can eliminate the innocent, and identify the guilty. As such, it is being used with great effect in rape cases, especially to prevent the indictment of an innocent man. As the well-publicized O.J. Simpson trial showed, however, juries can be reluctant to find a defendant guilty of murder on the basis of DNA evidence. By conservative estimates, the probability of a chance match in this case was one in a highly incriminating fifty-seven billion. Despite that mind-boggling figure, the jurors were able to find reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.
To take DNA fingerprinting any further is to skate on very thin ice indeed. Unfortunately, this means that our technology-hungry genealogist could not use DNA reliably beyond parent/offspring and full sibling relationships (Lewin, 1989). Only last year, a circuit court judge ruled against the exhumation of President Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth. A great-great-grand niece and a first cousin, twice removed, wanted to know whether the grave really contained Booth’s body. The judge based his refusal in small part on the inappropriate use of DNA fingerprinting to find a match between Booth and his living, but very distant, relatives.
Genealogy based on genetics is, it seems, as limited as genealogy based on physical features. Yet these are the very techniques used by evolutionists to support their claim of a shared ape/human family tree. In the legal example just mentioned, no one is doubting that the petitioners are related to Booth, but proving this forensically is another matter. Similarly, few people doubt that all humans are related to all other humans. After all, we know that there is only one human species; that is to say, we know of no biologically, reproductively isolated human population. We know, also, that there is a fundamental reproductive barrier between chimps and humans. This is not the only way to define a species, but the distinction here is obvious.

THAT ALL IMPORTANT ONE PERCENT

The only solution left for evolutionists is to present unambiguous evidence of shared parentage. High on their list of exhibits is a 99% similarity between human and chimp DNA. At first hearing, that does not sound very ambiguous. How did they arrive at this figure, and what does it mean?
Purely for the purposes of illustration, DNA often is shown as a twisted ladder (Figure 2). Each “rung” of the ladder consists of two complementary nucleotide bases linked together by a relatively weak hydrogen bond. There are a total of four bases—adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine—and they are complementary in that adenine always pairs with thymine, and guanine always pairs with cytosine. The DNA in each human cell has about three billion of these rungs or base pairs. If heated to a certain temperature, the bond between the pairs will break, separating the DNA into two complementary strands. If these are mixed, and allowed to cool, the strands will rejoin. However, if the same process is applied to strands taken from two different species, the match will be less than perfect. If the mixture is heated again, the hybrid DNA will split at a lower temperature. The lowest temperature at which the split can occur is used as a guide to the similarity of the two strands (Gribbin, 1985, p. 342). When applied to humans and chimps, the technique infers a match along almost 99% of the two DNA strands.

Figure 2. Idealized picture of DNA’s “twisted ladder.” The “rungs” consist of two pairs of complementary nucleotide bases (adenine/thymine, guanine/cytosine).

However, this method is very crude compared with the base-by-base approach of DNA sequencing (Mereson, 1988), which is not yet complete for humans, and has barely started for chimps. Hybridization simply reflects the strength at which two strands can hold together. Large-scale sequencing, however, will decode the entire length of DNA. This approach promises to reveal every gene (i.e., those sections of DNA that encode for proteins and RNA, which is itself involved in protein production). Various methods, including hybridization experiments with human DNA and RNA, have provided a crude estimate of approximately 100,000 genes. This figure could change as closer analysis unveils more genetic secrets (Rennie, 1993; see related articles on “Cracking the Human Genome” [Part I] and [Part II]). Amazingly, these genes occupy less than 5%, and possibly as little as 2%, of the DNA strand. The remainder may serve other purposes not related directly to protein production (e.g., the prevention of copy errors; Moyzis, 1991).
The important point here is to distinguish between DNA and genes. Human and chimp DNA may be 99% the same, but that does not make our genes 99% the same, and certainly it does not make humans and chimps 99% the same. That 1% difference between human and chimp DNA grows in significance when we compare it to the 2% of human DNA dedicated to protein manufacture. Although a gross simplification, we are our genes, not our DNA. It is the proteins that provide the scaffolding of our cells and body tissues, along with the necessary chemical agents needed for life (such as enzymes and hormones). Evolution must work primarily with the genes, not the entire sequence of DNA. Of course, that 1% difference also represents thirty million base pairs. We know that this mismatch weakens hybrid DNA, but it tells us nothing about the nature of those differences. In many cases, a single out-of-place base pair can alter or cripple a gene.
At this point the evolutionists step in to point out the incredible similarities between ape and human proteins, and the genes that code for those proteins. Again, they would argue that these similarities establish a close genealogical relationship. Of course, we would expect some similarities. For example, apes and humans have hair (along with all other mammals), but how many different DNA sequences do we need to assemble the proteins of which hair is made? It is quite a different matter to create a family tree from these similarities. In fact, as anthropologist Jonathan Marks (1994) has shown, the rules of molecular evolution allow the arbitrary insertion of gaps in a gene to produce a “match” in the DNA sequence of different species (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Comparison of human and ape DNA sequences (C = cytosine, G = guanine, A = adenine, T = thymine). Arrangement 1 shows more similarity between chimps and humans (consistent with evolutionary consensus). Arrangement 2 shows more similarity between chimps and gorillas than between chimps and humans. Both arrangements attempt to find the greatest number of matches by inserting artificial gaps. The gray-lettered bases show key points of agreement.

Marks also has highlighted problems in comparing proteins. Take, for example, the well-known A, B, AB, and O blood groups, each of which represents a type of antigen (a protein-sugar “tag”) on the surface of our red blood cells. These figure prominently in everyday medical situations because types A and B are incompatible. In each case, the body’s immune system sees the other type as an unwanted intruder. More significantly, for our purposes at least, geneticists have traced the rules of inheritance for these antigens. Long before the advent of DNA fingerprinting, blood typing was used to rule out paternity or parentage (most dramatically in those classic “switched at birth” cases). As we have seen with other methods, however, the ABO system loses its reliability beyond the closest of suspected relatives. When evolutionists attempt to expand the family tree beyond humans, the system breaks down entirely (Figure 4). Of the great apes, chimpanzees have no B, gorillas have B alone, and orangutans have no O. This haphazard distribution foils any attempt to create a family tree based on ABO antigens.

Figure 4. Distribution of ABO antigens among humans and great apes (brown text). White lines show evolutionary theory of descent, and black text shows the “random loss” of varieties. The evidence suggests four separate origins (brown boxes).

An evolutionist could argue that most of the 1% difference occurs, not in the genes, but in noncoding regions (e.g., Gribbin, 1985 p. 343). Of course, this claim must await a complete sequencing of chimp and human DNA. Even in these noncoding regions, however, evolutionists claim similarities. For example, some stretches of DNA resemble genes, but are not used in the production of protein (at least, as far as we know). Some of these “pseudogenes” are similar from species to species, leading evolutionists to propose that they lost their function, or were accidental copies of functional genes, but were carried as stowaways on the voyage of natural selection. However, as we observed in the case of blood groups, several pseudogenes frustrate any attempt to form a clear pattern among humans and African great apes (see Bible-Science News, 1994).
Evolutionists naturally point to other protein and DNA comparisons more consistent with their expectations. Their consensus opinion places chimpanzees closer to humans than to gorillas, but nothing “in their morphology—their form and structure—offers a decisive answer, and the molecular evidence points several ways” (Andrews and Stringer, 1993, p. 225). This disagreement among methods underscores the inherent difficulty in reasoning from similarity to genealogy. In the end, we have advanced no further than Tyson’s observation in 1698 that apes and humans share certain characteristics. Darwin’s chief aim of establishing a common ancestry remains unfulfilled.
[to be continued]

REFERENCES

Andrews, Peter and Christopher Stringer (1993), “The Primates’ Progress,” The Book of Life, ed. Stephen Jay Gould (New York: W.W. Norton).
Bible-Science News (1994), “Do ‘Pseudogenes’ Prove a Close Human-Chimp Evolutionary Relationship?,” 32[4]:12-13.
Bonner, John Tyler, and Robert M. May (1981), “Introduction,” The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Avenel Books, 1979 reprint of the 1968 Penguin edition).
Darwin, Charles (1871), The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981 reprint of the 1871 edition by J. Murray, London).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1996), “Up Against a Wall,” Natural History, 105[7]:16-18,22,70-73, July.
Gribbin, John (1985), In Search of the Double Helix (New York: Bantam Books, 1987 reprint of McGraw-Hill edition).
Huxley, Thomas H. (1864), Man’s Place in Nature (New York: D. Appleton, 1896 edition).
Lewin, Roger (1989), “Limits to DNA Fingerprinting,” Science, 243:1549-1551, March 24.
Marks, Jonathan (1994), “Blood Will Tell (Won’t It?): A Century of Molecular Discourse in Anthropological Systematics,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology. As quoted in Bible-Science News (1994), 32[8]:12-13.
Mereson, Amy (1988), “Monkeying Around With the Relatives,” Discover, 9[3]:26-27, March.
Moyzis, Robert K. (1991), “The Human Telomere,” Scientific American, 265(2):48-55, August.
Rennie, John (1993), “How Many Genes and Y,” Scientific American, 268(1):16-20, January.
Tattersall, Ian (1995), The Fossil Trail (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

The Cycle of Unbelief by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2495

The Cycle of Unbelief

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Societies throughout human history have tended to cycle through the same patterns: acknowledging God, denying God, embracing moral depravity, receiving punishment and destruction from God, repenting, and then recycling again. The Israelites of the Old Testament repeated this cycle several times as recorded in the book of Judges. The pattern starts with human eyes looking upward, worshipping God. As time goes by, we tend to lower our eyes from God, gaze at ourselves, and proclaim that we are more wise and intelligent than God. Many decide that He’s unnecessary and pretend that He does not exist. Humans are then idolized—Caesars, popes, Hollywood stars, American idols. This phase of the cycle commenced in America in the last half century and is illustrated in the world around us in a myriad of ways.
Society claims to be wiser than God in saying that spanking your children is bad because it teaches them to be violent and hurts their self-esteem. Yet God, through Solomon, said that “he who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly” (Proverbs 13:24). Society has arrogantly elevated itself above God. Many in society say that capital punishment is cruel and unusual, yet God required the Israelites to inflict capital punishment for over 15 different crimes, and stoning someone to death was a typical form of capital punishment (Miller, 2002). By deluded human thinking, God is guilty of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Society says that God and government should be separate, but God says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalms 33:12). Society says that homosexuality and other forms of sodomy are acceptable lifestyles that should be endorsed, even encouraged. But God listed homosexuality as a crime worthy of death in the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:13), and said that homosexuals and sodomites will not “inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Society has elevated human beings to the status of gods capable of deciding what is morally right and wrong. Humans do not have to bow down to each other literally, to be guilty of self-worship. Elevating ourselves to the status of gods by disregarding the true God is sufficient. We are arrogant when we dismiss God’s directives, as if we need to understand the reasons behind everything that God tells us to do or not do in His Word. He says, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:9). We are expected to trust Him (Hebrews 11:6).
As the cycle toward spiritual depravity progresses, humans move their focus still further downward--away from God--to elevate the animal to a status higher than humans (who already are considered higher than God). The reverence bestowed on animals by the animal rights movement of the last few years, illustrates to the world that America has reached this phase of the cycle, too. Think about it—in the last few decades, activists have splashed paint on women who wear furs, devoted themselves to saving the whales, encouraged using human embryos for testing to promote human welfare while seeking to outlaw the use of animals for research purposes, advocated going vegetarian, etc. It is a crime to break a bald eagle egg before the eagle has hatched, but killing a human baby before it has left its mother’s womb is acceptable to society (“Bald Eagle,” 2002). “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25). God’s approach works. However, the end result of elevating animals is seen in many of the impoverished, primitive Hindu societies of the world, where people lay starving in the streets while healthy cows roam about freely because of their elevated status. Clearly, humans are incapable of making spiritual decisions effectively on their own. “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself. It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23).
Often, within this repeated pattern of spiritual decay, human eyes move down even further from God, and the Earth itself becomes elevated to the status of god. America is there, too. Enter the environmentalists. “Mother Earth” must be protected at all costs. “Save the planet.” “Go green.” “No carbon footprints.” Some advocate killing off certain humans that they deem as less useful to society in order to save the planet and its resources (cf. Harrub, 2006). The cultures of the past, those that Christian peoples have always regarded as pagan, are now being extolled for their worship of animals and the Earth. The theory of evolution says that the Earth is responsible for our existence and development—i.e., the Earth is our god. We must save it to survive, and we have the omnipotent power to control its destiny. Society says that we should not arrogantly “lord over” nature, since they are our ancestors and have as much value as we have. We humans have just happened to accidentally evolve further than them. (Consider Hollywood’s message to us about its view of nature and the sin of trying to control and have dominion over it in the movie Instinct). In stark contrast, God says that humans are to have dominion “over all the earth” (Genesis 1:26).
Should we be good stewards of God’s creation? Certainly. However, the Earth should never be elevated to the level of respect that it is being given today. Humans should never think so highly of themselves that they presume to control the destiny of the Earth. Contrary to the teachings of global warming advocates, it is not the almighty human who will destroy the Earth in the end. It is Almighty God (2 Peter 3:10-12). It is not murder in God’s sight to kill a plant, no matter how or under what circumstances it is done. God did not command capital punishment to be implemented on those who cut down a tree. Plants are not on the same value level as humans, regardless of whether a committee of morally confused humans decides such (cf. Willemsen, 2008)
On a positive note, if the typical pattern is repeating itself again, then the cycle may be nearing completion and may return to a sane, sensible appraisal of spiritual reality—returning us to the one true God, the Creator. America’s worship of itself, the animal kingdom, and the Earth has been going on for several decades, while worship of God is expelled as primitive. Unfortunately, divine punishment and destruction always occur before the cycle restarts. Although written 2,000 years ago, Paul’s words still hold true:

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:22-25, emp. added).

REFERENCES

“Bald Eagle,” (2002), [On-line], URL: http://midwest.fws.gov/eagle/protect/laws.html.
Harrub, Brad (2006), "Eliminate 90% of the Human Race?," http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1821.
Miller, Dave (2002), “Capital Punishment and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974.
Willemsen, Ariane, ed. (2008), “The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants—Moral Consideration of Plants for their Own Sake,” Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology (Berne: Swiss Confederation), April.

Who Wrote on the Second Pair of Tablets? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=754&b=Exodus

Who Wrote on the Second Pair of Tablets?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

After Moses broke the first tablets of stone that the Lord gave him on Mount Sinai, God commanded him to cut out two tablets of stone (like the first ones) and present himself to Him at the top of Mount Sinai—again (Exodus 34:1-2). Skeptics claim the Bible teaches in Exodus 34 that Moses wrote on this second pair of tablets, whereas in Deuteronomy 10 it says that God is the One Who wrote on these tablets. Based upon this “difference,” they allege that a blatant contradiction exists. A closer examination of these passages, however, reveals that they are not contradictory, but rather complimentary and consistent with each other.
We readily admit that Deuteronomy 10 teaches that God was the One Who wrote on the second pair of tablets. Verses 1-4 of that chapter say:

At that time the Lord said to me (Moses), “Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to Me on the mountain and make yourself an ark of wood. And I [God] will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke; and you shall put them in the ark.” So I [Moses] made an ark of acacia wood, hewed two tablets of stone like the first, and went up the mountain, having the two tablets in my hand. And He (God) wrote on the tablets according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments, which the Lord had spoken to you in the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them to me (Deuteronomy 10:1-4, emp. and parenthetical items added).

This passage teaches that Moses hewed the tablets out of rock, but that God was the One Who wrote on them. Skeptics agree.
The controversial passage found in Exodus 34 states: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘ Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.’ So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments” (34:27-28). Based upon this passage, critics of the Bible’s inerrancy suggest that Moses, not God, wrote on the second pair of tablets. Thus they conclude that Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 10 contradict one another.
Admittedly, at first glance it seems these verses teach: (1) that Moses was commanded to write the words on the second pair of tablets; and (2) the recorded fact that after he was commanded to do so, he (Moses) actually “wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant.” But what may seem to be the correct interpretation of a passage is sometimes not the case, especially when the context of the passage is ignored. The words that God instructed Moses to write were “ these words,” which He spoke in the preceding verses (i.e., 34:10-26—the ceremonial and judicial injunctions, not the ten “words” of Exodus 20:2-17). The rewriting of the Ten Commandments on the newly prepared slabs was done by God’s own hand. God specifically stated in the first verse of Exodus 34 that He (not Moses) would write the same words that had been written on the first tablets of stone that Moses broke. In verse 28 of that chapter, we have it on record that God did what He said He would do in verse one (cf. Deuteronomy 10:2-4). The only thing verse 27 teaches is that Moses wrote the list of regulations given in verses 10-26. That these regulations were not the Ten Commandments is obvious in that there are not even ten of them listed (Coffman, 1985, p. 474).
Contrary to what skeptics allege, Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 10 are not contradictory. Moses was not acting under divine direction to physically write the Decalogue on the second pair of tablets. Rather, as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown recognized in their commentary on Deuteronomy, “God Himself...made the inscription a second time with His own hand, to testify the importance He attached to the Ten Commandments” (1997).

REFERENCES

Coffman, James Burton (1985), Commentary on Exodus (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Listen to the Silence by Richard Mansel

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/silence.html

Listen to the Silence

Silence.
In the minds of many, the word conjures up images of loneliness and abandonment. Men fear the drumbeats of silence and will go to great lengths to protect themselves from it. Department stores, doctor's offices and the like pipe in soft music to ensure that their patrons are not awash in silence. Likewise, homes are often so filled with sounds emanating from the radio or the television that the voice of silence cannot be heard.
In this busy world of noise and chaos men have seemingly lost the ability to sit still and be quiet. Men have lost interest in the teeming sounds of the forest and the rustle of tall grass. Have you listened to the wind or the bushes lately? In their feeble voices they speak of God and His wonderful works. In their song is the praise of the Creator (Psalm 19:1).
Christians who wish to find peace in their lives can begin by discovering the power of silence. Thomas Carlyle said, "Speech is great, but silence is greater." For it is in the latter that we find the recipe for reverence.
Psalm 46:10 says, "Be still and know that I am God." Perceptively, Don Henley writes, "We are like sheep without a shepherd and we don't know how to be alone so we wander 'round this desert and end up following the wrong gods home."
Prayer is the foundation for a life of reverence. Bowing our hearts and minds to God is how we can come humbly before His throne (James 4:10). Prayer is the avenue men can use to speak to the Father. But do we ever hear what He has to say? Do we pray and then rush off to other activities? Or, do we follow our "amen" with a period of thoughtful meditation on the word of God? How can we hear the voice of God unless we take the time to listen? His majesty is everywhere, to be seen by those perceptive enough to recognize the evidence of His power.
"Commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still" (Psalm 4:4).
Richard Mansel

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

Be afraid, very afraid!!! by Gary Rose

This picture was taken on Maverick drive in Southfork. The thing is- Maverick drive is only about 20 or so feet away from where I walk my dog every day. My guess is that this beast is about 5 foot long and could probably eat my 20 pound dog Pal without any difficulty at all.

Fact is, the world has become increasingly more dangerous. ISIS, radicals, terrorists of all sorts and then of course that crazy leader of North Korea.  We have every reason to be concerned (some might say afraid), but there are more important things to be fearful about.

Consider...

Matthew, Chapter 10 (World English Bible)

  ²⁸  Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

God. Because HE and HE ALONE will judge every one of us. Any if we have not submitted to Jesus' Gospel and not lived the faithful Christian life, we are in big trouble. BIG TROUBLE- HELL FIRE kind of trouble!!! 

Now, Christians have Jesus to intercede for them, so- not to worry!! Without Jesus- HELL FIRE!!  

The choice seems easy, but for many people they just don't think that far ahead. Don't put it off; none of us knows how long we have on this earth. In fact, decide what you will do about YOUR SITUATION NOW!!!

ANY QUESTIONS- CONTACT ME, I WILL HELP!!!

ps. Stay off Maverick drive- especially at night!!!

The Heart of the New Testament Author Unknown

http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/oct/page9.shtml#heart

The Heart of the New Testament

Author Unknown

• In Matthew He is the King of the Jews (Matthew 2:2).
• In Mark He is the servant of God (Mark 10:44-45).
• In Luke He is the perfect Son of Man (Luke 9:56).
• In John He is the exalted Son of God (John 20:30-31).
• In Acts He is the ascended Lord (Acts 1:9-11).
• In Romans He our righteousness (Romans 3:21-25).
• In 1 Corinthians He is the firstfruits from the dead (1 Corinthians15:20).
• In 2 Corinthians He is the One made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21).
• In Galatians He is the One who set us free (Galatians 2:20-21).
• In Ephesians He is the One who blesses (Ephesians 1:3).
• In Philippians He is the joy bringer (Philippians 3:1, 3; 4:4).
• In Colossians He is the pre-eminent One (Colossians 1:18).
• In 1 Thessalonians He is the returning Lord (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
• In 2 Thessalonians He is the world's judge (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9).
• In 1 Timothy He is our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5).
• In 2 Timothy He is the bestower of crowns (2 Timothy 4:8).
• In Titus He is our great God and Savior (Titus 1:3-4).
• In Philemon He is the Equalizer (Philemon 16).
• In Hebrews He is the rest of faith (Hebrews 4:8-11).
• In James He is the Lord of Sabaoth [hosts] (James 5:4).
• In 1 Peter He is the theme of Old Testament prophecy (1 Peter 1:19-21).
• In 2 Peter He is the longsuffering Savior (2 Peter 2:21).
• In 1 John He is the Word of life (1 John 1:1).
• In 2 John He is the target of the anti-Christ (2 John 7).
• In 3 John He is the personification of truth (3 John 1-4).
• In Jude He is the believer's hope (Jude 24).
• In Revelation He is the victorious Lamb (Revelation 5:6).

"THE BOOK OF ACTS" Lessons From Antioch (11:19-30) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                   Lessons From Antioch (11:19-30)

INTRODUCTION

1. A wonderful example in New Testament times was the church in Antioch of Syria...
   b. Begun by disciples who had been in Jerusalem - Ac 11:19-21
   c. Where disciples of Christ were first called "Christians" - Ac 11:26

2. The church in Antioch of Syria would later...
   a. Serve as Paul's starting point for his three missionary journeys - Ac 13:1-3
   b. Send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to resolve the issue of
      circumcision - Ac 15:1-2

[In our text for this lesson (Ac 11:19-30), we can glean from the church
in Antioch of Syria several things that are worthy of emulation.  Let's start with...]

I. HOW TO START A CHURCH

   A. CHURCHES CAN BEGIN IN VARIOUS WAYS...
      1. Paul started many churches through his missionary journeys -e.g., Ac 14:21
      2. Others start when a person or family moves to an area where 
         there is no church
      3. Sadly, today many churches begin as a result of division

   B. CHURCHES START BEST WHEN CHRISTIANS "SWARM"...
      1. Like bees swarming from one hive to begin another
      2. The church in Antioch began when disciples came from Jerusalem - Ac 11:19-20
      3. Today, "church plantings" most often succeed when several
         families begin a new work

[What is often needed to for more churches are not just more preachers,
but more families willing to be the nucleus of a new work, whether
locally or abroad.  From the church at Antioch, we can also learn...]

II. HOW TO BE A STRONG CHURCH

   A. MANY CHURCHES HAVE MEMBERS WHO PROFESS FAITH...
      1. They may love to assemble and express their faith in praise
      2. They may even confess their faith to friends and neighbors
      3. But sometimes their faith is not accompanied with true repentance

   B. ANTIOCH WAS COMPOSED OF PENITENT BELIEVERS...
      1. They "believed and turned to the Lord" - Ac 11:21 
      2. They turned from sin, and turned to the Lord (an indication of true repentance)
      3. More than mere confessors, they were true converts - e.g., 2Co 7:10-11

[A church made up of penitent believers who became such through "godly
sorrow" will be a strong, vibrant church.  From the church at Antioch, we can learn...]

III. HOW TO BE A GROWING CHURCH

   A. BY PREACHING THE LORD JESUS...
      1. They were "preaching the Lord Jesus" - Ac 11:20
      2. Today, some preach the "church", almost to the exclusion of preaching "Christ"!
         a. Consider much of the evangelistic tools we sometimes use:
            1) Which stress "undenominational Christianity"
            2) Or focus on the "NT pattern for the church"
         b. What can be the result of such preaching?
            1) People may be converted to the idea of the church, rather
               than to the Lord Jesus!
            2) Extent of faithfulness may be limited to church related 
               activities (e.g., attendance)
      3. We need to be sure that we preach the Lord Jesus!
         a. In other words, proclaiming that Jesus is Lord 

              - cf. Mt 28:18; Ac 2:36; 10:36
         b. The result of preaching Jesus as Lord?
            1) They will be faithful disciples in all things that Jesus taught - Mt 28:19-20
            2) People will then be converted to Christ, as well as to His church!

   B. WITH THE HAND OF THE LORD...
      1. At Antioch, "the hand of the Lord was with them" - Ac 11:21
      2. Without Divine help, we can never have the right kind of growth
         a. It is God who opens doors of opportunity - Col 4:3
         b. It is God who gives the increase - 1Co 3:5-7
      3. With God's help, we should expect growth
         a. That is the nature of the kingdom - Mt 13:31-33
         b. Where there is little or no growth, something is amiss!

   C. WITH THE AID OF TEACHERS...
      1. Like Barnabas, who encouraged them by word and example - Ac 11:22-24
      2. Like Saul, who together with Barnabas taught a great many people - Ac 11:25-26

[Preach Jesus as Lord, pray for God's helping hand, utilize those able
to teach, and a church will grow!  Finally, we learn from the church at
Antioch, when faced with an impending crisis...]

IV. HOW TO BE A GENEROUS CHURCH

   A. ACCORDING TO ABILITY...
      1. The prophet Agabus foretold of a famine to come upon the world- Ac 11:27-28
      2. The disciples gave according to their ability - Ac 11:29
      3. Which is all that God asks of any congregation - 1Co 16:2; 2Co 8:12-14

   B. WITH DETERMINATION... 
      1. To send relief to the brethren in Judea - Ac 11:29
      2. To send via trusted messengers (Barnabas and Saul) - Ac 11:30;
         cf. 1Co 16:3

CONCLUSION

1. The church at Antioch was where disciples of Christ were first called
   Christians - Ac 11:26; cf. Ac 26:28; 1Pe 4:16

2. For reasons we have considered, they are certainly worthy of our
   imitation! - cf. Php 3:17

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012