5/6/15

"A CLOSER WALK WITH GOD" Overcoming Sin




                        "A CLOSER WALK WITH GOD"
             
                             Overcoming Sin

INTRODUCTION

1. A wonderful blessing we receive when we become Christians is the
   forgiveness of sins through the blood of Jesus Christ
   a. At our BAPTISM, the blood of Christ cleanses us from all PAST sins
   b. Compare Ac 22:16 with Re 1:5

2. This does not mean that our problem with sin is over...
   a. We still sin at times - 1Jn 1:8,10
   b. Satan does his best to cause us to sin - 1Pe 5:8

3. If we are to maintain a close walk with God, and ultimately receive
   the riches of glory He has prepared for us, we must overcome the
   problem of sin in two ways:
   a. By sinning less and less - 1Jn 2:1a
   b. By knowing what to do when we do sin - 1Jn 2:1b-2

4. This lesson is concerned with helping us see how sin develops, and
   how to overcome sin with its terrible consequences

[To overcome sin, we need to understand how it develops.  The Bible
outlines the development of sin in Jm 1:12-15...]

I. HOW SIN DEVELOPS

   A. THE FIRST STAGE IS "TEMPTATION"...
      1. In Jm 1:14, we see that "temptation" includes two things:
         a. DESIRE (some translations say "lust", suggesting a strong
            desire for something)
         b. ENTICEMENT (an opportunity and encouragement to satisfy the desire)
      2. Putting it in the form of a simple equation:
                       TEMPTATION = DESIRE + OPPORTUNITY
      3. To illustrate:
         a. A small boy is TEMPTED to steal some cookies when he WANTS
            (desire) them and has an OCCASION (opportunity) to take them 
         b. The temptation becomes stronger if he wants them badly, and
            has a good chance of getting them without being seen
      4. PLEASE NOTE:  At this stage in the development of sin, actual
         sin has not yet been committed
         a. It is not a sin to be "tempted"
         b. For Jesus Himself was "tempted as we are, yet without sin"
            - He 4:15; 2:18

   B. THE SECOND STAGE IS "SIN" ITSELF...
      1. "When desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin" - Jm 1:15
      2. It becomes sin when we ACT and YIELD to the temptation
      3. Thus sin involves the added step of some sort of action on our part
      4. Again, in the form of a simple equation:
                     SIN = DESIRE + OPPORTUNITY + ACTION

   C. THE THIRD STAGE INVOLVES THE CONSEQUENCES OF UNREPENTED AND
      UNFORGIVEN SIN:  "DEATH"
      1. "And sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death" 
         - Jm 1:15
      2. The "death" spoken here refers to spiritual separation from God
         a. This separation occurs first in this life - cf. Is 59:2
         b. If we die physically in this state, then we will experience
            the "second death", which involves eternal punishment!
            - Re 21:8
      3. Putting all this into a final equation:
          DESIRE + OPPORTUNITY + ACTION + NO FORGIVENESS = DEATH

   D. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIN...
      1. Sin will have overcome us if we receive the "final punishment"
         of Re 21:8
      2. But we will have overcome sin if we can avoid this punishment
         and experience the glories God has prepared for His children!
      3. How can we be sure to overcome sin?  BY STOPPING ITS DEVELOP-
         MENT AT ANY ONE OF THE FOUR POINTS LEADING TO THE FINAL PUNISHMENT!

[Now let's examine how this may be done...]

II. HOW TO OVERCOME SIN

   A. CHANGE OUR "DESIRES"...
      1. Since this is where the process of sin begins, it is the best
         place for us to begin
      2. Bear in mind that it is a part of Christian growth to change
         our desires - Ro 12:1-2; Ga 5:24
      3. How do we change our desires?
         a. Notice that the WORD OF GOD has always been instrumental in
            helping people overcome sin - Ps 119:11; Mt 4:3-10
         b. To see how the Word of God can change our desires...
            1) As we read of God's love, longsuffering and mercy, we
               desire to serve Him - Ps 116:12-14
            2) As we read of sin and its damnable consequences, we come
               to hate it! - Ps 119:104
      4. So the more we study God's Word, the less likely we will have
         the DESIRE to sin, thereby beginning to overcome sin by
         "nipping it in the bud"!

   [But changing our desires takes time; while engaged in the process 
   of changing our desires, what else can we do?]

   B. LIMIT OUR "OPPORTUNITIES"...
      1. Remember, we are tempted only when there is BOTH desire and opportunity
      2. So while we work on changing our desires, we should limit the
         opportunities to fulfill wrongful desires
      3. This can be done by ASKING FOR GOD'S PROVIDENTIAL HELP, as
         Jesus taught - Mt 6:13; 26:41
      4. We can cooperate with God by:
         a. Purposely avoiding situations that might excite wrongful desires
            1) Following the example of David - Ps 101:3-4
            2) And the example of Job - Job 31:1
         b. Avoiding those whose evil behavior encourages us to sin with them
            1) Again, David sets a good example - Ps 101:6-7
            2) Paul also adds his warning - 1Co 15:33

   [But we will unlikely remove EVERY desire and opportunity to sin in 
   this life, what then?]

   C. EXERCISE "SELF-CONTROL"...
      1. Remember, it becomes sin when we yield to ACTION in fulfilling
         our sinful desires
      2. If we can control ourselves so as to not yield, then we can
         overcome sin!
      3. How does the Christian exercise self-control?
         a. Self-control is but one aspect of the "fruit of the Spirit"
            - Ga 5:22-23
         b. When we become Christians, we receive the gift of the Holy
            Spirit in our lives - Ac 2:38; 5:32
         c. The Spirit is God's instrumental agent by which He imparts
            strength to us - Ep 3:16
         d. Strengthened by the Spirit, we are able to "put to death
            the deeds of the body" - Ro 8:12-13
         e. As Paul said:  "I can do all things through Him who
            strengthens me." - Php 4:13
      4. It is through faith in God's Word that the Christian believes
         that he has this divine help - Ep 3:20
         a. It is certainly proper to pray for it, as Paul did in
            behalf of the Ephesians - Ep 3:16
         b. But equally important, to act upon it, trusting that you
            are not alone as you try to do God's will - Php 2:12-13
         c. As an exercise commercial once said:  JUST DO IT!
      5. The Christian, then, has no excuse for yielding to a
         temptation - 1Co 10:13

   [But there may be times when we don't take advantage of the
   strength God provides through His Spirit, and we sin; what then?]

   D. OBTAIN "FORGIVENESS"...
      1. Remember that sin is victorious when it results in punishment
      2. But if we obtain forgiveness through the blood of Christ, we
         can avoid that punishment and thereby still overcome sin! 
         - 1Jn 2:1-2
      3. Yes, Christ is truly the "propitiation" for our sins!
         a. By His blood, we were forgiven of past sins when united
            with Him in BAPTISM - Ac 2:38; 22:16; Re 1:5
         b. By His blood, we can be forgiven of present sins when we
            REPENT, PRAY, and CONFESS our sins to God - Ac 8:22;
            1Jn 1:9
      4. At any time the Christian can overcome sins that were
         committed, by repenting and confessing them to God!
 
   E. SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT OVERCOMING SIN...
      1. If you noticed carefully, you should have seen that at each of
         the four points in the development of sin, God is able and
         willing to help us overcome sin!
         a. God helps us to "control our desires" by providing His WORD
            to renew our minds
         b. God helps us to "limit the opportunities" through His
            PROVIDENCE as we pray for such
         c. God helps us to "exercise self-control" over our actions
            through His SPIRIT strengthening the inner man
         d. God helps us to "obtain forgiveness" through the BLOOD OF
            HIS SON as we repent and pray
         -- Isn't the grace of God wonderful? - 2Th 3:3; 1Co 10:13
      2. In this discussion we have concentrated on "sins of commission"
         a. That is, sins we commit by overt action on our part
         b. There are also "sins of omission"
            1) Sins which come from failing to do what is right 
               - Jm 4:17
            2) Overcoming these sins is similar...
               a) Change our desires so we want to do what is right
               b) Exercise self-control so we act the way we should
                  when we have the opportunity
               c) When guilty of sins of omission, obtain forgiveness
                  in the same way
      3. In learning the four points at which we may overcome sin,
         don't think that we can simply wait until we reach the fourth
         point to act...
         a. That is, to just go ahead and sin, then ask God for forgiveness
         b. There are several reasons why we should not do this:
            1) In baptism, we were freed from the power of sin, and
               should now present ourselves to God as servants of
               righteousness - Ro 6:1-23
            2) Though we can receive forgiveness for sin, we might
               still suffer the "temporal" consequences of sins 
               - Ga 6:7-9
            3) If we allow sin to deceive us so as to become
               "hardened",we may get to the point of sinning
               "willfully" and lose our salvation! - He 3:12-14;
               10:26-31
         c. So don't take the grace of God lightly and attempt to abuse it!

CONCLUSION

1. How much better it would be to praise God for His grace, and use it
   to overcome sin in our lives!

2. May the promise found in Jm 1:12 help motivate us to do so:

   "Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been
   proved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has
   promised to those who love Him."

SOME QUESTIONS TO STIMULATE YOUR THINKING...

1. Are you engaged in a daily Bible study program which will help you
   develop the proper kind of desires?

2. Do you "watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation"?

3. Do you avoid circumstances and companions that you know would entice
   you to sin?

4. Do you pray that God will strengthen you "by His Spirit in the inner man"?

5. Do you ask God daily to forgive your sins, and to help you overcome
   sin in your life?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

Polygamy and the Quran by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=4029

Polygamy and the Quran

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Those people who have modeled their thinking after New Testament Christianity are, to say the least, a bit surprised (if not shocked and appalled) to learn that the religion of Islam countenances polygamy. But the Christian mind must realize that Muhammad’s Islam arose out of Arabia in the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. The Arab culture was well-known for the practice of polygamy, in which the men were allowed to have as many wives as they desired. The Quran addressed this social circumstance by placing a limitation on the number of wives a man could have. The wording of the pronouncement is in a surah titled “Women”: “And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess” (Surah 4:3).
Setting aside the issue of why Muhammad himself was exempt from this limitation (Surah 33:50—see Miller, “Muhammad’s Polygamy,” 2004), the divine origin of the Quran is discredited on the basis of its stance on polygamy. In the first place, for all practical purposes, the Quran authorizes a man to have as many wives as he chooses, since its teaching on divorce contradicts its teaching on marriage. Unlike the New Testament, which confines permission to divorce on the sole grounds of sexual unfaithfulness (Matthew 19:9), the Quran authorizes divorce for any reason (e.g., Surah 2:226-232,241; 33:4,49; 58:2-4; 65:1-7). If a man can divorce his wife for any reason, then the “command” that limits a man to four wives is effectively meaningless—merely restricting a man to four legal wives at a time. Theoretically, a man could have an unlimited number of wives—all with the approval of God!
In the second place, Jesus declared in no uncertain terms that “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9, emp. added). Jesus gave one, and only one, reason for divorce in God’s sight. In fact, even the Old Testament affirmed that God “hates divorce” (Malachi 2:16). The teaching of the Bible on divorce is a higher, stricter, nobler standard than the one advocated by the Quran. The two books, in fact, contradict each other on this point.
In the third place, why does the Quran stipulate the number “four”? Why not three or five wives? The number four would appear to be an arbitrary number with no significance—at least, none is given. Though the passage in question indicates the criterion of a man’s ability to do justice to those he marries, there is no reason to specify the number four, since men would vary a great deal in the number of women that they would have the ability to manage fairly.
The answer may be seen in the influence of the contemporaneous Jewish population of Arabia. Sixth century Arabia was a tribal oriented society that relied heavily on oral communication in social interactions. Muhammad would have been the recipient of considerable information conveyed orally by his Jewish, and even Christian, contemporaries. Many tales, fables, and rabbinical traditions undoubtedly circulated among the Jewish tribes of Arabia. The Jews themselves probably were lacking in book-learning, having been separated from the mainstream of Jewish thought and intellectual development in their migration to the Arabian peninsula. The evidence demonstrates that the author of the Quran borrowed extensively from Jewish and other sources. The ancient Talmudic record (Arbah Turim, Ev. Hazaer, 1) stated: “A man may marry many wives, for Rabba saith it is lawful to do so, if he can provide for them. Nevertheless, the wise men have given good advice, that a man should not marry more than four wives” (see Rodwell, 1950, p. 411; Tisdall, 1905, pp. 129-130). The similarity with the wording of the Quran is too striking to be coincidental. It can be argued quite convincingly that the magic number of four was drawn from currently circulating Jewish teaching.

REFERENCES

Miller, Dave (2004), “Muhammad’s Polygamy,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2219.
Rodwell, J.M., trans. (1950 reprint), The Koran (London: J.M. Dent and Sons).
Tisdall, W. St. Clair (1905), The Original Sources of the Quran (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge).

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


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

Camels and the Composition of Genesis

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
A.P. Staff

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

REFERENCES

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


Are We “100% Sure” Goldilocks Planet has Life? by Kyle Butt, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3756

Are We “100% Sure” Goldilocks Planet has Life?

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein recently reported on a new planet that seems to be in what scientists call the “Goldilocks zone.” What is the “Goldilocks zone?” Very few places in our Universe maintain conditions that are suitable for life. One of those conditions is that liquid water must be present. The “Goldilocks zone” is a specific distance from any star that is “not too hot, not too cold. Juuuust right,”—a situation that allows water to remain in its liquid form (Borenstein, 2010). According to atheistic, evolutionary ideas about the origin of the Universe, in theory, there should be hundreds, thousands, or even millions of planets in our Universe that maintain conducive conditions for life to “begin.” In fact, we are incessantly informed by the media and the scientific community that it is just a matter of time before we discover other planets where life has evolved from non-living chemicals. One would think, according to the propaganda about life arising in other places, that a little liquid water and a few amino acids thrown together will inevitably produce life.

Thus, we have a report of the first Earth-like planet that could possibly “support life.” The planet, labeled Gliese 581g, is the sixth planet from a dwarf star named Gliese 581. Borenstein described the planet in the following way:
It is about three times the mass of Earth, slightly larger in width and much closer to its star—14 million miles away versus 93 million. It’s so close to its version of the sun that it orbits every 37 days. And it doesn’t rotate much, so one side is almost always bright, the other dark. Temperatures can be as hot as 160 degrees or as frigid as 25 degrees below zero, but in between—in the land of constant sunrise—it would be “shirt-sleeve weather,” said co-discoverer Steven Vogt (Borenstein, 2010).
Gliese 581g is of interest, then, because there is a chance that it could have liquid water on its surface. Of course, as Borenstein noted: “It’s unknown whether water actually exists on the planet.” What, then, is so important about liquid water, as opposed to any other constraints that are necessary for life to survive? Vogt said that “chances for life on this planet are 100 percent” since “there always seems to be life on Earth where there is water.” Wow! Look at that reasoning. This new planet might have some water, so we are 100% sure there is life on the planet. We are not even 100% sure it has water. How in the world could we be sure it has life?

The false idea that finding liquid water is the equivalent of finding biological life is easy to debunk. Take some water, kill all the microscopic organisms in it so that no life exists. Add any amino acids or “building blocks” of life that you want, then shock the mixture, blow it up, heat it, cool it, or whatever else you want to do, and see if you get life. News flash—you don’t get life! Louis Pasteur proved that almost 150 years ago (Butt, 2002). Yet Vogt boldly stated: “It’s pretty hard to stop life once you give it the right conditions” (as quoted in Borenstein). And what, pray tell, are the right conditions? Vogt can’t tell you, and neither can any other human alive. Water is certainly not “the right conditions” for life, because we can supply water to any mixture of non-living chemicals all day long for the next 20 billion years and not get life.

What, in reality, are the “right conditions” for life to begin? There is really only one: an intelligent Creator must superintend the process. “In the beginning was water,” will not produce life. But “in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth,” will supply the necessary condition for life on Earth or any other planet—God. Beware of the false assumptions that fill the media and “scientific” discussions of other planets and life in outer space.

REFERENCES


Borentstein, Seth (2010), “Could ‘Goldilocks’ Planet Be Just Right for Life?”, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_sc/us_sci_new_earths.

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Biogenesis—The Long Arm of the Law,”http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1769.

Genealogies and the Virgin Birth of Christ by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=862

Genealogies and the Virgin Birth of Christ

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Rarely (if ever) have I read the words “genealogy” and “exciting” in the same sentence. It seems most people consider the genealogies of Christ as some of the Bible’s dullest reading. They frequently are described as boring, dry, and monotonous—full of “begets” that many would just as soon “forget.” In reality, however, exciting pearls of truth often are overlooked. One of these truths that escapes the reader who simply skims (or skips) the genealogies is the virgin birth of Christ.
In Matthew’s genealogy of Christ, it may be that one fails to see how the verb “begot” is used 39 times between Abraham and Joseph (verses 2-16a). And yet, instead of claiming that Joseph begot Jesus, Matthew wrote: “…and Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (1:16, emp. added). This wording stands in stark contrast to the format in the preceding verses (“Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, etc.”). Joseph did not beget Jesus; rather, he is referred to as “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus.” The Holy Spirit was emphasizing the fact that Jesus was not conceived as the result of anything Joseph did. Rather, Mary “was found with child of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18, emp. added). An angel even informed Joseph that he was not the father of Jesus, rather that which was conceived [literally, “begotten”] in her was “of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20).
Matthew gave us a second “hint” of the virgin birth of Christ when he wrote: “…and Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (1:16, emp. added). One might assume that the “whom” in this verse refers to Joseph as Jesus’ father. Others may think it is talking about both Joseph and Mary as His parents. An English teacher likely would point out that we cannot tell to whom the word “whom” belongs in this verse, because when the English word “whom” is used in a sentence it can refer to either men or women; or, it can refer to both. Though usually we can tell the meaning by the context in which the word is found, such is not the case in Matthew 1:16. Our English translations simply do not reveal the marvelous truth concealed in this verse. In order to unveil this “Gospel gem,” one must consult the language in which the New Testament was written originally—Greek. The English phrase “of whom was born Jesus” is translated from the Greek relative feminine pronoun (hes). In this verse, the feminine gender can refer only to Mary. Biblical genealogies regularly emphasize the fathers who sire a child, but here Matthew indicates that Jesus received His humanity only from His mother. Thus, Joseph is excluded from any involvement in the birth of Christ, the Son of God.
While Matthew’s genealogy clearly establishes Christ as the legal heir to the throne by tracing His ancestry down through the royal line of the kings of Israel all the way to Joseph the carpenter (and to Jesus), he still emphasizes Mary as the biological parent “of whom” Jesus was born. What accuracy! What precision! What a wonderful truth found within a genealogy so often overlooked.

“The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!” by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3704

“The Laws of Thermodynamics Don't Apply to the Universe!”

by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Many in the atheistic community have realized various problems with their theories in light of what we know about the laws of thermodynamics. In order for atheism to be a plausible explanation for the origin of the Universe, matter must either be eternal or have the capability of creating itself (i.e., spontaneous generation). Yet the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the first option is impossible, and the First Law implies that the second option is impossible (see Miller, 2007 for a more in depth discussion of the laws of thermodynamics and their application to the origin of the Universe). Upon grudgingly coming to this conclusion, but being unwilling to yield to the obvious alternative (i.e., Someone outside of the Universe put matter here), some have tried to find loopholes in the laws that will allow for their flawed atheistic ideologies to survive.

A common assertion being raised today by some is that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to the Universe as a whole, and therefore cannot be used to prove that God played a role in the origin of the Universe. More specifically, some question whether our Universe can be considered an “isolated system” (i.e., a system in which mass and energy are not allowed to cross the system boundary; Cengel and Boles, 2002, p. 9). In their well-known thermodynamics textbook, Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, Van Wylen and Sonntag note concerning the Second Law of Thermodynamics: “[W]e of course do not know if the universe can be considered as an isolated system” (1985, p. 233). Dr. Robert Alberty, author of Thermodynamics of Biochemical Reactions, is quoted as saying, “I do not agree that the universe is an isolated system in the thermodynamic sense” (as quoted in Holloway, 2010).

What if the Universe is not an isolated system? How would that fact impact the creation/evolution controversy? First of all, the creationist has always argued that the Universe is not an isolated system, or at least has not always been one. According to the creationist, in the beginning, God created the Universe’s system barrier, then crossed it and placed energy and matter within the system—thus making the Universe non-isolated. So, recognizing that the Universe is, in fact, not an isolated system would really mean that some evolutionists are starting to move in the right direction in their understanding of the Universe! Acquiescence of this truth by atheists in no way disproves the existence of God. In fact, quite the contrary is true. Admission that the Universe is not isolated does not help the case for atheism, but rather tacitly acknowledges a creator of sorts. [More on this point later.]

What this admission would do, however, is make some of the creationists’ arguments against atheism less applicable to the discussion about the existence of God—specifically some of the uses of the laws of thermodynamics and their application to the Universe as a whole. For instance, if the Universe is not an isolated system, it means that something or someone outside of the Universe can open the proverbial box that encloses the Universe and put matter and energy into it. Therefore, the Universe could be eternal, as long as something/someone is putting more usable energy into the box to compensate for the energy loss and counter entropy. Thus, the argument against the eternality of matter by way of the Second Law of Thermodynamics could potentially be null and void. Also, with a non-isolated system, it could be argued that the original, imaginary pre-Big Bang ball (which never actually existed—since the Big Bang is flawed [see May, et al., 2003) was not eternal in its existence. Further, it could be contended that it did not have to spontaneously generate in order to explain its existence. Rather, energy and matter could have been put here from a source outside of this Universe other than God.

From a purely scientific perspective, one of the problems with claiming that the Universe is not isolated is that such an assertion presupposes the existence of physical sources outside of this Universe (e.g., multiple universes outside of our own). And yet, how can such a claim be made scientifically, since there is no verifiable evidence to support such a contention? Stephen Hawking has advanced such an idea, but he, himself, recognizes the idea to be merely theoretical (Shukman, 2010). Speculation, conjecture, assertion—not evidence. As Gregory Benford wrote: “This ‘multiverse’ view represents the failure of our grand agenda and seems to me contrary to the prescribed simplicity of Occam’s Razor, solving our lack of understanding by multiplying unseen entities into infinity” (Benford, 2006, p. 226). Belief in the multiverse model is like proclaiming the existence of fairies just because you can imagine one. But such speculation is hardly scientific evidence—and that is the problem.

What does the scientific evidence actually convey today? We live in the only known Universe, and it had to come from somewhere. That is a fact. If the Big Bang occurred, and all matter and energy in the Universe—everything that exists—was initially in that little imaginary sphere the size of the period at the end of this sentence (or much smaller, depending on which “expert” cosmologist you ask), by implication, the evolutionist admits that the Universe is of a finite size. That is a fact. A finite Universe is an isolated system. Since the Universe as a whole is the only true isolated system, the laws of thermodynamics apply perfectly. That is why some reputable scientists examine the evidence, draw reasonable conclusions, and articulate statements in reputable textbooks like the following:
  • “Isolated system: It is the system which exchange [sic] neither matter nor energy with the surroundings. For such a system, the matter and energy remain constant. There is no such perfectly isolated system, but our universe can be considered as an isolated system since by definition it does not have any surroundings” (Senapati, 2006, p. 64, emp. added).
  • A spontaneous process in an isolated system increases the system’s entropy. Because the universe—our entire surroundings—is in contact with no other system, we say that irreversible processes increase the entropy of the universe” (Fishbane, et.al., 1996, p. 551, italics in original).
The truth is, if one is unwilling to accept the existence of God, yet desires to accept the laws of science, one must conjure up other options for how the Universal box could have been legally opened and its contents altered. Envision several atheists sitting around a table speculating options, no matter how wild, in order to avoid conceding the existence of God, and you will have a clear picture of how many in the scientific community operate today. “Okay, people. How did we get here? Think!” “Other universes?” “Maybe.” “Nothing put us here?” “Not bad.” “Aliens?” “Why not?” “The God of the Bible?” “Shut your mouth. You are unscientific. Leave the room.” How can evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking safely postulate the existence of alien creators without being laughed out of the spotlight, while creationists get expelled from the scientific community for recognizing the reasonableanswer to the matter of origins (Stein and Miller, 2008; BBC News, 2010)?

Ironically, when the atheistic community asserts alleged creative agents outside the Universe, they tacitly acknowledge a creator of some sort. What is the difference between these concessions and the true Creator? Why not accept the God of the Bible? The answer is obvious. Their brand of designer comes packaged without the demands and expectations that come with belief in God. Very convenient—but sad and most certainly unscientific.

Note also that accepting the possibility of alternative creative causes leaves atheists with the same problem with which they started. They claim to use the laws of physics to arrive at the multiverse conclusion (Shukman, 2010). But if the laws of physics apply to their conclusion about multiple universes, why would the laws of physics not apply to those universes? If the laws of science apply to those hypothetical universes (and it would be reasonable to conclude that they would since, according to atheists, the universes interact), then the matter of origins has merely shifted to those other universes. How did they come into being? There are still only three options—they always existed (in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics); they created themselves (in violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or they were created. The laws of thermodynamics still echo the truth from the remotest parts of the created order: “You cannot explain it all without God in the equation!”

The truth is, the scientific evidence leads unbiased truth-seekers to the conclusion that there simply must be a Creator. How do we know that the laws of thermodynamics are true on Earth? No one has ever been able to document an exception to them (except when divine miracles have occurred). Theyalways hold true. Why does the same principle not hold when observing the rest of the Universe? As Borgnakke and Sonntag articulate in Fundamentals of Thermodynamics concerning the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics:
The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved.... [W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 116-220, emp. added).
There has been no verifiable evidence that the laws of thermodynamics have been violated throughout the Universe. Sure, there has been speculation, conjecture, and theory that it “could” happen. Yet, through it all, the laws still stand unscathed. Granted, atheists may cloud the air when they blow forth their unreasonable, unproven, jargon-filled, imaginary fairy-dust theories, but when the fairy-dust settles, the laws of thermodynamics still declare the truth to all who will listen (Psalm 19:1). The scientific evidence shows that there is unmistakable order and design in the Universe. Design implies a Designer. The God of the Bible. Now that’s scientific.

REFERENCES

BBC News (2010), “Hawking Warns Over Alien Beings,” April 25, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/8642558.stm.

Benford, Gregory (2006), What We Believe But Cannot Prove, ed. John Brockman (New York: Harper Perennial).

Borgnakke, Claus and Richard E. Sonntag (2009), Fundamentals of Thermodynamics (Asia: John Wiley and Sons), seventh edition.

Cengel, Yunus A. and Michael A. Boles (2002), Thermodynamics: An Engineering Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill), fourth edition.

Fishbane, Paul M., Stephen Gasiorowicz, and Stephen T. Thornton (1996), Physics for Scientists and Engineers (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), second edition.

Holloway, Robert (2010), “Experts on Thermodynamics Refute Creationist Claims,” http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm.

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.

Senapati, M.R. (2006), Advanced Engineering Chemistry (New Delhi: Laxmi Publications), second edition.

Shukman, David (2010), “Professor Stephen Hawking Says No God Created Universe,” BBC News, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11172158.

Stein, Ben and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media).

Van Wylen, Gordon J. and Richard Sonntag (1985), Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics(New York: John Wiley and Sons), third edition.

After This, the Judgment by Kyle Butt, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=554

After This, the Judgment

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Life is not fair. Every day, in hundreds of ways, this fact makes itself abundantly clear to us. September 11, 2001 marked a day when the unfairness of this physical life became especially apparent. The entire world stood with mouth agape as it watched four hijacked United States commercial planes used as weapons against our unsuspecting nation. Within minutes, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were rocked by the impact of these planes. Fires burned, smoke billowed, and the loss of innocent human life shocked us all. Through the carnage and terror, one primary feeling emerged from the collective mind of the United States—we will find and punish whoever did this.
When this type of tragedy occurs and the heinousness of criminal activity comes into full focus, the question always arises: Is it right in God’s eyes for humans to demand that the perpetrators be brought to justice and punished for their dastardly act of vicious cowardice? And if so, who has the authority to administer such punishment. Fortunately, the Bible provides clear answers to such questions. In Romans 13, the inspired apostle Paul explained that each citizen has an obligation to be obedient to the governing authorities because “the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” Furthermore, the government “does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:1-4).
The Bible plainly teaches that the government has the God-given authority to execute wrath on those who do evil. What does the statement “does not bear the sword in vain” mean in this context? Without a doubt, the sword in the first century (as well as in previous and subsequent centuries) was looked upon as a weapon of death. The Old Testament is replete with references to the sword being just such an instrument. Hosea 11:6 records: “And the sword shall slash in his cities, devour his districts, and consume them.” Again in Jeremiah 15:3 it is written: “ ‘And I will appoint over them four forms of destruction,’ says the Lord: ‘the sword to slay, the dogs to drag, the birds of the heavens and the beasts of the earth to devour and destroy.’ ” New Testament references support the idea as well. Revelation 6:8 states: “So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him. And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth” (emp. added). When Paul stated that the government does not bear the sword in vain, he explicitly advocated the idea that the government reserves the right to administer capital punishment.
One reason God has given this right to the government can be found in Ecclesiastes 8:11: “Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” If proper punishment is not meted out to the perpetrators of crimes, then more and more people embolden themselves to commit crimes against the government and their fellow human beings.
Along with this authority, the government has been given a tremendous responsibility to administer justice properly and without partiality. The Proverbs writer commented: “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice, but when a wicked man rules, the people groan” (29:2). It is true that many unrighteous rulers have taken power and misused the authority of the government. Consider Herod, for instance, who “killed the brother of John with the sword” (Acts 12:2). Or bring to mind the evil Roman Emperor Nero who captured Christians and tortured them via heinous acts of persecution. And no list of evil rulers would be complete without the infamous Hitler, who murdered over six million Jews. But even though these rulers have abused the office and authority that God gave the governing powers, the authority given to the government by God has not been lessened because of their abuse. The government “does not bear the sword in vain.”
Unfortunately, certain unalterable limitations make it impossible for the government to catch and punish every person who has committed criminal acts. Some villains inevitably slip through the cracks of the justice system and never are punished in this life. Each year thousands of parents abuse their own children physically and sexually and receive none of their just deserts. Each year hundreds of murder cases are filed away stamped “UNSOLVED,” and will stay that way. Each day thieves loot and plunder, making themselves fat and rich off of the toil and labor of their victims, yet they get away scot-free.
Because of the injustice that goes unpunished, many wonder if there is a righteous God Who sees and acts on behalf of the victims. They need wonder no more, because God “has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness” (Acts 17:31). The wicked have been warned that “God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Galatians 6:8). And: “ ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:30-31). While it is the case that God’s retributive justice is not meted out to its full extent in this present age, it is not the case that it will remain muted so forever. Paul had this to say to those who persisted in wickedness: “But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who ‘will render to each one according to his deeds’: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil” (Romans 2:5-9). Some may escape the sword of the state, but they will not escape the sword of their God.

From Gary... Common sense


This is a "math" problem. A simple problem, something that any 2nd grader (or perhaps earlier than that) could handle. However, as a human being, I see this as more than JUST a math problem- it is a matter of common sense. Sit yourself in the cat's seat for a moment. It doesn't care about chalk, chalkboards, or computational reasoning. It knows what it needs and therefore looks at the "fish" for what they are F-I-S-H!!! And that means L-U-N-C-H!!!! And how about us, how do we reason- with common sense?  The following is a common sense test...

 Acts, Chapter 2 (WEB)

  14  But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke out to them, “You men of Judea, and all you who dwell at Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen to my words.  15 For these aren’t drunken, as you suppose, seeing it is only the third hour of the day.  16 But this is what has been spoken through the prophet Joel: 
  17 ‘It will be in the last days, says God,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh.
Your sons and your daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions.
Your old men will dream dreams.
  18 Yes, and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days,
I will pour out my Spirit, and they will prophesy.
  19 I will show wonders in the sky above,
and signs on the earth beneath;
blood, and fire, and billows of smoke.
  20 The sun will be turned into darkness,
and the moon into blood,
before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.
  21 It will be, that whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

  22  “Men of Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God to you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in your midst, even as you yourselves know,  23 him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed; 24 whom God raised up, having freed him from the agony of death, because it was not possible that he should be held by it.  25 For David says concerning him, 
‘I saw the Lord always before my face,
For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved.
  26 Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced.
Moreover my flesh also will dwell in hope;
  27 because you will not leave my soul in Hades,
neither will you allow your Holy One to see decay.
  28 You made known to me the ways of life.
You will make me full of gladness with your presence.’

  29  “Brothers, I may tell you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, he would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,  31 he foreseeing this spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was his soul left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay.  32 This Jesus God raised up, to which we all are witnesses.  33 Being therefore exalted by the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this, which you now see and hear. 34 For David didn’t ascend into the heavens, but he says himself, 
‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit by my right hand,
  35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’

  36  “Let all the house of Israel therefore know certainly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” 

  37  Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 

  38  Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  39 For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off, even as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.”  40 With many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation!” 


41  Then those who gladly received his word were baptized. There were added that day about three thousand souls.  42 They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and prayer.  43 Fear came on every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.  44 All who believed were together, and had all things in common.  45 They sold their possessions and goods, and distributed them to all, according as anyone had need.  46 Day by day, continuing steadfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart,  47 praising God, and having favor with all the people. The Lord added to the assembly day by day those who were being saved

Peter preaches the first Gospel sermon. The Jews get it. They ask what to do. Peter says to repent, be baptized and you will receive the Holy Spirit.  They did it. Why, to obey God, receive the promise of God and be saved. Doubt it, then look at the last part of verse 47. The Lord did the adding and the saving. Please notice- there was no altar call, no one recited a "sinner's prayer" and absolutely no one put there hands on a TV set!!!!  The Jews didn't view their situation as something to be analyzed like a math equation, they saw their spiritual condition and the way out. Do what they did and don't listen to someone twisting the Bible to make it say something other than what it plainly says.