"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS"
Wisdom Regarding Riddles
INTRODUCTION
1. In the prologue of Proverbs, among the purposes of the book stated is
this one...
a. "To understand a proverb and an enigma,"
b. "The words of the wise and their riddles." - Pr 1:6
2. According to the Preacher's Commentary...
a. "Proverbs that begin with clusters of questions may be classified
as riddles or their offspring (see Pr 23:29-30; 30:4)"
b. "As may be some of the numerical sayings in chapters 6 and 30."
3. Among the more picturesque riddles are the numerical sayings of King
Agur...
a. Containing observations of common things in groups of four or more
- Pr 30:1,11-31
b. Shedding light on human behavior and conveying moral truth - Roy
Harbison
[In this study, we shall consider the numerical sayings of King Agur,
first posing them in the form of actual riddles. For example...]
I. WHAT ARE FOUR CLASSES OF EVIL DOERS?
A. THOSE THAT DESPISE THEIR PARENTS...
1. Who curse their fathers and do not bless their mothers - Pro
30:11
2. Whose end is graphically depicted later in this chapter - Pro
30:17; cf. also 20:20
B. THOSE THAT ARE BLIND TO THEIR FAULTS...
1. Who are clean to their own eyes, but not washed of their filth
- Pr 30:12
2. Who may justify themselves, but will be judged by the Lord
- Pr 21:2
C. THOSE WHO ARE ARROGANT...
1. With lofty eyes, who lift their eyelids high - Pr 30:13
2. Clearly condemned elsewhere in Proverbs - Pr 6:17; 21:4
D. THOSE WHO CONSUME THE POOR...
1. With teeth like swords, and fangs like knives - Pr 30:14
2. Who will themselves come to poverty - Pr 22:16
[Such conduct is indicative of an evil generation, and evidenced by some
living in the "last days" (2Ti 3:1-5). Continuing with the numerical
sayings, we ask in the form of a riddle...]
II. WHAT THINGS ARE NEVER SATISFIED?
A. THE LEECH...
1. Who has two daughters: Give and Give! - Pr 30:15
2. The leech depicts those filled with insatiable greed, they are
never satisfied - cf. Ec 5:10
B. THE GRAVE...
1. The grave (Sheol, the Hebrew word for the dead) can never be
filled - Pr 30:16
2. And so covetousness is insatiable like Hell (Sheol) and
Destruction - cf. Pr 27:20
C. THE BARREN WOMB...
1. The woman who desperately wants to conceive and give birth
- Pr 30:16
2. Like Rachel said to Jacob, "Give me children, or else I die!"
- cf. Gen 30:1
D. THE EARTH...
1. The dry earth that absorbs rain, soon wanting more - Pr 30:16
2. Another illustration of insatiable greed
E. THE FIRE...
1. Which consumes as long as combustible matter is available - Pro
30:16
2. The final example of things never satisfied
[These five images appear designed to illustrate covetousness and greed.
Now for another "riddle"...]
III. WHAT THINGS ARE A WONDER TO BEHOLD?
A. THE WAY OF AN EAGLE IN THE AIR...
1. The grace and speed of an eagle in flight - Pr 30:18-19
2. Soaring high in the sky, but then leaving no evidence behind
B. THE WAY OF A SERPENT ON A ROCK...
1. The slithering of a serpent - Pr 30:19
2. Who leaves tracks on the sand, but not on a rock
C. THE WAY OF A SHIP IN THE SEA...
1. The sailing ship, tacking back and forth - Pr 30:19
2. Progressing forward, but whose waves soon dissipate
D. THE WAY OF A MAN WITH A VIRGIN...
1. The mystery of courtship - Pr 30:19
2. The exchange of affection and attraction between them
E. THE WAY OF AN ADULTEROUS WOMAN...
1. How she can commit adultery, and then claim innocence - Pro
30:20
2. Note: "This is the way..." - tying this verse with the
proceeding verses
3. Thus she maneuvers, toying with affection and attraction like a
man and a virgin, but like the eagle, serpent, and ship,
believing she leaves nothing of substance behind
[These five images illustrate the ultimate wonder of adultery that
claims innocence. The next "riddle" might be expressed in this way...]
IV. WHAT THINGS CAUSE TURMOIL?
A. A SERVANT WHEN HE REIGNS...
1. It normally is not fitting - Pr 30:21-22; cf. 19:10
2. He becomes arrogant and overbearing, drunk with his new
position - Believer's Bible Commentary (BBC)
3. Like Jeroboam, such is the rule - Joseph was the exception
B. A FOOL WHEN HE IS FILLED WITH FOOD...
1. Having all that he desires to eat - Pr 30:22
2. His prosperity causes him to be more insolent than ever - BBC
C. A HATEFUL WOMAN WHEN SHE IS MARRIED...
1. Who finally succeeds in getting married - Pr 30:23; cf. 21:9,
19
2. Her wretched disposition would normally have kept her single,
but by some fluke, she lands a husband. Then she becomes
imperious and haughty, taunting those who are still unmarried.
- BBC
D. A MAID SERVANT WHO SUCCEEDS HER MISTRESS...
1. Who now rules over those who were once her equals - Pr 30:23
2. She doesn't know how to act with refinement and grace, but is
coarse, rude, and vulgar - BBC
[These scenarios contribute to social chaos. Our next "riddle" reveals
examples of wise behavior...]
V. WHAT THINGS ARE LITTLE BUT WISE?
A. THE ANTS...
1. They are not strong, but they prepare their food in the summer
- Pr 30:24-25
2. A lesson for all, especially the sluggard - Pr 6:6-8
3. The lesson: plan ahead
B. THE ROCK BADGERS...
1. They are feeble, but they make their homes in the crags
(cliffs) - Pr 30:26
2. Where they are able to escape animals of prey or human hunters
- Ps 104:18
3. The lesson: make wise choices
C. THE LOCUSTS...
1. They have no king, yet all advance in ranks - Pr 30:27
2. Like a well-drilled army - cf. Joel 2:7-11,25
3. The lesson: work in unison with others
D. THE SPIDER (LIZARD)...
1. Skillfully grasps with its hands, and is in kings' palaces
- Pr 30:28
2. Newer translations have "lizard"; probably like a gecko
3. The lesson: skillfully persevere
[Much wisdom can be gleaned from observing God's creation, even its
smallest creatures. Finally, we ask again in the form of a riddle...]
VI. WHAT THINGS ARE MAJESTIC?
A. A LION...
1. Mighty among beasts, turning away from none - Pr 30:29-30
2. Majestic and unruffled as it walks - BBC
B. A GREYHOUND (STRUTTING ROOSTER)...
1. The Hebrew is uncertain (lit., "girded at the loins") - Pro
30:31
2. Whether greyhound or strutting rooster, both are stately in
their walk
C. A MALE GOAT...
1. "a picture of noble bearing as it strides at the head of a
flock" - BBC
2. "which marches in the head of the flock in grave and stately
manner, conducting them with great courage and resolution, and
being ready to fight for them, either with beasts or men that
oppose him" - Poole
D. A KING WITH HIS TROOPS...
1. "against whom there is no rising up" (KJV) - Pr 30:31
2. How foolish then, to lift up oneself, to think evil, or to be
angry (against such a king?) - cf. Pr 30:32-33
CONCLUSION
1. These "riddles" that we've considered are not always easy to
understand...
a. The Hebrew word actually means "dark saying, hard question" - cf.
KJV, ASV
b. Scholars vary quite a bit in their interpretation and application
of these riddles
2. But for the most part, the riddles offer illustrations and lessons
providing wisdom...
a. On human behavior
b. On moral truths
Such is the nature of the book of Proverbs. Like the Old Testament as a
whole, it was written for our learning and admonition (cf. Ro 15:4; 1Co
10:11). I hope this study has increased your appreciate for Proverbs,
which like all Scripture...
"...is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that
the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good
work." - 2Ti 3:16-17
10/4/16
"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS" Wisdom Regarding Riddles by Mark Copeland
"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS" Wisdom Regarding Money by Mark Copeland
"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS"
Wisdom Regarding Money
INTRODUCTION
1. People often have conflicting ideas about money...
a. Some say that it is sinful to be rich; others, that it is a virtue
to be poor
b. Many think that money provides the ultimate security
2. The Bible says a great deal about money...
a. It speaks about earning and spending, saving and giving
b. It even warns about wasting our money
3. The Book of Proverbs in particular discusses issues related to
money...
a. Such as wealth and poverty
b. Such as generosity and greed
[What wisdom can be gleaned from Proverbs concerning money? Let's first
consider what is said regarding...]
I. WEALTH AND POVERTY
A. REGARDING WEALTH...
1. Wealth does have its advantages
a. A degree of security - Pr 10:15; 18:11; e.g., 13:8
b. Companionship of 'friends' - Pr 14:20; 19:4,6-7
c. Power or influence - Pr 22:7
d. The ability to speak more freely - Pr 18:23
2. But wealth does not provide everything
a. It does not deliver us from death - Pr 10:2; 11:4
b. Those who trust in their riches will fall - Pr 11:28
3. The acquisition of wealth
a. Must be gained honestly, such as through labor - Pr 13:11
b. Best if by labor, not inherited - Pr 20:21
c. Best if gained gradually, not with haste - Pr 28:20,22
d. Wealth acquired unscrupulously is temporary and bitter - Pro
20:17; 21:5-6; 28:8
4. Keeping wealth in perspective
a. Do not overwork to be rich - Pr 23:4
b. Riches easily disappear - Pr 23:5
-- Wealth can be blessing, but it can easily become a curse;
wisdom makes the difference!
B. REGARDING POVERTY...
1. Some are poor because of circumstances beyond their control
a. The greed of others - Pr 30:14
b. Usury and extortion - Pr 28:8
2. Others are poor because of their own sinful conduct
a. Laziness - Pr 6:6-11; 10:4; 14:23; 20:13; 24:30-34
b. Refusing to heed correction - Pr 13:18
c. Pleasure seeking - Pr 21:17
d. Drunkenness, gluttony - Pr 23:21
e. Wasting time on frivolous things - Pr 12:11; 28:19
-- Poverty is not always self-inflicted, but in many cases it is!
[Poverty also comes from other causes (natural disasters, God's
chastisement, persecution, even voluntary choice). But as most
Christians today are blessed with relative wealth, let's now consider
what wisdom can be gleaned from Proverbs regarding the use of our
money...]
II. GENEROSITY AND GREED
A. REGARDING GENEROSITY...
1. The expression of generosity
a. Toward the needy (giving to the poor) - Pr 28:27
b. Toward the Lord (honoring Him with our first fruits) - Pro
3:9
2. The benefits of generosity
a. Natural benefits (the inherent joy of giving) - Pr 11:17;
14:21
b. Divine benefits (the blessing of the Lord) - Pr 3:10; 11:
24-25; 19:17
-- For true happiness, with the Lord as our Benefactor, we must be
generous
B. REGARDING GREED...
1. The qualities of greed
a. Insatiable desires (like a leech) - Pr 30:15-16
b. Laziness - Pr 21:25-26
c. Hypocrisy - Pr 23:6-8
2. The danger of greed
a. Troubles one's self - Pr 1:19
b. Troubles one's family - Pr 15:27
-- To avoid misery, for ourselves and others, we must not be greedy
CONCLUSION
1. With the aid of the Book of Proverbs, we can have wisdom regarding...
a. Wealth and poverty
b. Generosity and greed
2. With the blessing of the Lord, we can experience both...
a. Wealth that comes from honest labor
b. Generosity that springs from a merciful heart
Certainly there is no place for arrogance and abuse when we have been
materially blessed:
The rich and the poor have this in common, The LORD is the maker
of them all. - Pr 22:2
He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, But he who honors
Him has mercy on the needy. - Pr 14:31
May the Lord give us the wisdom and grace to use our wealth properly...!
"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS" Wisdom Regarding Authority by Mark Copeland
"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS"
Wisdom Regarding Authority
INTRODUCTION
1. Throughout life, we must deal with the matter of authority...
a. Sometimes we find ourselves in positions of authority (boss,
parent, elder, president)
b. Most of the time we find ourselves having to submit to authority
(employee, child, citizen)
2. Wisdom regarding authority is a virtue often lacking...
a. People with authority frequently do poorly, even abusing their
authority
b. People under authority don't always handle it gracefully, making
their situation worse
3. In Proverbs, we find wisdom regarding authority...
a. Mostly spoken in terms pertaining to the rule of a king or prince
b. Which can easily be applied to other areas involving authority
(work, family, church)
[In this study, we shall seek to summarize what is said in Proverbs
about the subject of authority, beginning with some...]
I. WISDOM FOR THOSE IN AUTHORITY
A. THEIR DUTIES...
1. To make judgments - Pr 16:10; 25:2
a. Those in authority are often called upon to make decisions
b. Decisions that affect those under their authority
2. To administer justice - Pr 20:8,26; 29:4a,14
a. Such is the responsibility of those in authority
b. Not for their personal benefit, but for those under their
authority
-- Whether one is a king, a company CEO or manager, an elder, or a
parent, God expects them to exercise authority with justice
B. THEIR QUALITIES...
1. They must be righteous - Pr 16:10,12
a. Necessary to administer justice
b. To judge righteously and fairly
2. Free of evil influence - Pr 25:4-5
a. Such as covetousness, the love of material things - Pr 28:
15-16
b. Such as bribery, the tool of many 'lobbyists' - Pr 29:4
c. Such as women and alcohol, bane of many politicians and
businessmen - Pr 31:1-5
3. They must be fair and merciful - Pr 31:8-9
a. For those unable to speak for themselves
b. For those who are poor and needy
-- Those in authority need the qualities that will ensure
righteous and merciful judgment
[In other words, the same sort of judgment they would want if they
themselves were not in positions of authority! Now for some...]
II. WISDOM FOR THOSE UNDER AUTHORITY
A. THEIR DUTIES...
1. To honor those in authority - Pr 24:21-22
a. To fear (reverence, respect) them like we do the Lord
b. Avoid those given to 'revolution', who often bring calamity
on themselves
2. To gain their favor, when possible and appropriate - Pr 16:15;
19:12; 20:2
a. For such favor can be a blessing
b. And their wrath can be a curse
-- Those in authority deserve our respect - for the position if
not the occupant
B. THEIR QUALITIES...
1. Wise conduct, not shameful - Pr 14:35
2. Righteous speech - Pr 16:13
3. Purity of heart and graceful lips - Pr 22:11
4. Excellence in one's work - Pr 22:29
5. Self-control of one's passions and appetites - Pr 23:1-3
6. Humility - Pr 25:6-7
7. Patience and gentleness - Pr 25:15
-- Such are the qualities that gain the favor of those in
authority
CONCLUSION
1. If such wisdom regarding authority were commonplace...
a. In nations
b. In businesses
c. In churches
d. In families
2. Where those in authority...
a. Fulfilled their duties with justice
b. Were men and women of righteous conduct
3. Where those under authority...
a. Respected those over them
b. Gained the respect of those over them through their own conduct
Then how wonderful it would be! With the aid of such wisdom as that
found in Proverbs, it can happen...
The Quran and Throwing Stars by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=299
The Quran and Throwing Stars
by | Dave Miller, Ph.D. |
In order for a book to demonstrate a divine origin, it must possess the attributes that accompany such a claim. For example, it must refrain from making statements that are outlandish and indicative of an author who was a simply a product of his times, and who shared in the common superstitions, mythology, and misconceptions that afflict humans unaided by supernatural agency.
With this in mind, examine the the Quran of the Muslim religion. The Quran makes several statements regarding heavenly “lamps” and their relationship to “devils.”
The reader is given the distinct impression that Allah uses shooting stars, or meteors, as missiles to drive evil spirits or demons away from heaven (to prevent them from listening to heavenly conversations) and to torment them. Such language cannot be dismissed as merely figurative, poetic, or phenonmenal. Of course, Muslim apologists recognize the absurdity of the idea of physical objects being hurled at spiritual beings, so they offer an alternative explanation. They claim the verses in question refer to soothsayers and astrologers who seek signs from the stars, but who become frightened by meteorological phenomena (see Pickthall, n.d., pp. 408,417). We leave the reader to judge whether this interpretation accounts adequately for the wording of the quranic text.And verily in the heaven We have set mansions of the stars, and We have beautified it for beholders. And We have guarded it from every outcast devil, save him who stealeth the hearing, and them doth a clear flame pursue (Surah 15:16-18, emp. added).Lo! We have adorned the lowest heaven with an ornament, the planets; with security from every forward devil. They cannot listen to the Highest Chiefs for they are pelted from every side, outcast, and theirs is a perpetual torment; save him who snatcheth a fragment, and there pursueth him a piercing flame (Surah 37:6-10, emp. added).And (the Jinn who had listened to the Quran said): We had sought the heaven but had found it filled with strong warders and meteors. And we used to sit on places (high) therein to listen. But he who listened now findeth a flame in wait for him (Surah 72:8-9, emp. added).And verily We have beautified the world’s heaven with lamps, and We have made them missiles for the devils, and for them We have prepared the doom of flame (Surah 67:5, emp. added).
REFERENCES
Pickthall, Mohammed M. (n.d.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).
Did the Patriarchs Know Jehovah by Name? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1051
Did the Patriarchs Know Jehovah by Name?
by | Eric Lyons, M.Min. |
Can you imagine if a friend whom you have known for years told someone else that you did not know him? Or, what if this friend, whose family name your family has known for generations, and whose first name you personally have known for at least two decades, indicated that you were not aware of his name? Such would likely make you wonder whether this “friend” was a liar or a lunatic. Similarly, some Bible students (and skeptics) have questioned why the Bible says that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know God by His name Jehovah when the book of Genesis indicates that they did.
After Moses first visited Pharaoh regarding the release of the Israelites from bondage, God assured Moses that the Israelites would be liberated. He then added: “I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them” (Exodus 6:2-3, emp. added; NOTE: All Scripture citations in this article are taken from the American Standard Version). The difficulty that Bible students have with this statement is that the name “Jehovah” (Hebrew Yahweh; translated LORD in most modern versions) appears approximately 160 times in the book of Genesis. Furthermore, “Jehovah” is used between Genesis chapters 12-50 (which deal mainly with the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) more than 100 times.
After God provided a ram for Abraham to sacrifice (instead of his son, Isaac) on Mount Moriah, Genesis 22:14 says, “Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh. As it is said to this day, in the mount of Jehovah it shall be provided” (emp. added). Years later, Isaac asked his son Jacob (who was deceiving his father in hopes of receiving a blessing), “How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, because Jehovah thy God sent me good speed” (Genesis 27:20, emp. added). How could God tell Moses that “by my name Jehovah I was not known to them” (Exodus 6:3), if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were well aware of the name Jehovah, and even used it in their conversations? Is God a liar? Does the Bible contradict itself on this point? What reasonable answer can be given?
There is no denying the fact that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were aware of God’s name, Jehovah (Yahweh) [cf. Genesis 15:7; 22:14; 24:35,40,42,48,50,51,56; 26:22; 27:20; 49:18; etc.]. As John J. Davis wrote: “[I]n the book of Genesis...the name of Yahweh is introduced in a way which utterly precludes the supposition that it is used proleptically, or that it is anything but a correct account of the incident and the actual term employed” (Davis, 1963, 4[1]:34). Based upon the number of times the word (Yahweh) appears before Exodus 6:3, and the various ways in which it was used, including being a part of compound names that have specific meanings (e.g., Jehovah-jireh, meaning “Jehovah will provide”), it is unwise to argue that the patriarchs in Genesis were unaware of the name Jehovah. So what is the answer to this alleged problem?
Although Bible critics and unbelievers may scoff at any attempt to explain this difficult passage, which they believe is irresolvable, the fact is, a logical explanation exists. The expressions “to know the name of Jehovah” or simply “to know Jehovah” frequently mean more than a mere awareness of His name and existence. Rather, “to know” (from the Hebrew word yada) often means to learn by experience. When Samuel was a boy, the Bible reveals that he “ministered before/unto Jehovah” (1 Samuel 2:18; 3:1), and “increased in favor both with Jehovah, and also with men” (2:26). Later, however, we learn that “Samuel did not yet know Jehovah, neither was the word of Jehovah yet revealed unto him” (1 Samuel 3:7, emp. added). In one sense, Samuel “knew” Jehovah early on, but beginning in 1 Samuel 3:7 his relationship with God changed. From this point forward he began receiving direct revelations from God (cf. 1 Samuel 3:11-14; 8:7-10,22; 9:15-17; 16:1-3; etc.). Comparing this new relationship with God to his previous relationship and knowledge of Him, the author of 1 Samuel could reasonably say that beforehand “Samuel did not yet know Jehovah” (3:7).
According to Gleason Archer, the phrase “to know that I am Jehovah” (or “to know the name of Jehovah”) appears in the Old Testament at least 26 times, and “in every instance it signifies to learn by actual experience that God is Yahweh...” (1982, pp. 66-67). In the book of Exodus alone, the expression “to know” (yada) appears five times in relation to Jehovah, and “[i]n every case it suggests an experiential knowledge of both the person and power of Yahweh. In every case the knowledge of Yahweh is connected with some deed or act of Yahweh which in some way reveals both His person and power” (Davis, 4[1]:39). For example, in the very passage that has drawn so much criticism, God stated: “I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians” (Exodus 6:7, emp. added). Later, after God already had sent ten plagues upon the Egyptians (Exodus 7:14-12:30), parted the Red Sea (Exodus 14), and miraculously made bitter water sweet (Exodus 15:22-25), He said to Moses, “I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread: and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God”(Exodus 16:11-12, emp. added). After several more weeks, God said to Moses on Mount Sinai: “And they shall know that I am Jehovah their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them: I am Jehovah their God” (Exodus 29:46, emp. added). Did the Israelites not know Who Jehovah was by this time? Without question, they did. “They had already learned of Him as deliverer; now they would know Him as their provider” (Davis, 4[1]:39).
Notice also what Isaiah prophesied centuries after the time of Moses.
Now therefore, what do I here, saith Jehovah, seeing that my people is taken away for nought? They that rule over them do howl, saith Jehovah, and my name continually all the day is blasphemed. Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore (they shall know) in that day that I am he that doth speak; behold, it is I (Isaiah 52:5-6, emp. added).More than 100 years later, following Judah’s entrance into Babylonian captivity, God foretold of their return to Judea and spoke to them through the prophet Jeremiah. He said: “Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know, this once will I cause them to know my hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah” (Jeremiah 16:21, emp. added). Are we to gather from these statements that Israel and Judah were not aware of God’s name (Jehovah) before this time in their history? Certainly not. Obviously, something else is meant by the expression “to know (or not know) the name of Jehovah.” In truth, it is a Hebrew idiom that “generally signifies knowledge of some particular act or attribute of Yahweh as it is revealed in His dealing with men” (Davis, 4[1]:40).
Even in modern times it is possible for someone to know a person’s name or office without really “knowing” the person (or understanding his/her office). Imagine a group of foreigners who had never heard of Michael “Air” Jordan before meeting him at a particular convention a few years after his retirement from the NBA. They might come to know his name in one sense, but it could also be said that by his name “Air Jordan,” they really did not know him. Only after going to a gym and watching him dunk a basketball by jumping (or “flying” in the air) from the free throw line, and seeing him in his original “Air Jordan” shoes, would the group begin to understand the name “Air Jordan.”
Admittedly, at first glance Exodus 6:3 may seem to contradict what the book of Genesis teaches about the patriarchs’ knowledge of Jehovah. However, when one realizes that the Hebrew idiom “to know” (and specifically “to know” a name) frequently means more than a mere awareness of a person, then the difficulty disappears. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew God as Creator and sovereign Ruler of the Universe. But it would not be until centuries later, when God fulfilled the promises made to these patriarchs by delivering the nation of Israel from Egyptian bondage, that the full import of the name Jehovah would become known.
REFERENCES
Davis, John J. (1963), “The Patriarchs’ Knowledge of Jehovah: A Critical Monograph on Exodus 6:3,” Grace Theological Journal, 4[1]:29-43, Winter.
Clearing-Up "Contradictions" about Jehovah in Genesis by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4497
Clearing-Up "Contradictions" about Jehovah in Genesis
by | Eric Lyons, M.Min. |
The infinite attributes and actions of God are no small matter to consider. In truth, man could never meditate on anything greater. We marvel, as did the apostle Paul, at “the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!” (Romans 11:33). We are awestruck by His eternality. We tremble at the thought of His omnipotence. We humbly bow before Him Who knows our every thought. As David recognized, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me” (Psalm 139:6). Experientially speaking, as finite beings, we will never be able to fully grasp the wonders of God. As Jehovah Himself said, “My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways…. For as the heavens are higher than the Earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9). Yet, how thankful we are that God chose to reveal certain things to us about Himself (cf. Deuteronomy 29:29; 1 Corinthians 2:10-16), which, as much as is humanly possible, we can come to know. He is love (1 John 4:8). He is logical (1 Corinthians 14:33). He is just (Acts 10:34-35). He is worthy of all praise, honor, and obedience (Psalm 18:3; Matthew 10:34-39). He is everything that His inspired Word reveals that He is.
Oftentimes, however, passages of Scripture are cited by Bible critics as “proof” of the Book’s errancy and of the contradictory portrait that the inspired writers allegedly painted of God. In his 2009 debate with Kyle Butt on the existence of God, atheist Dan Barker spent nearly two-thirds of his opening 15-minute speech listing 14 alleged “inconsistencies” among Bible verses that allude to various characteristics and actions of God. Four of those 14 “contradictions” were from the book of Genesis (Butt and Barker, 2009). Dennis McKinsey, in his book titled Biblical Errancy, spent 44 pages listing numerous charges against God and the Bible’s statements about Him. Sixteen of those 44 pages referred a total of 37 times to alleged problematic passages in the book of Genesis (McKinsey, 2000, pp. 133-177). On his Web site attempting to expose the Bible and the God of the Bible as frauds, R. Paul Buchman listed 83 “contradictions” involving “God’s Nature” and 142 about “God’s Laws” (2011). Fifty-one times he referred to Genesis.
Legion are those who claim that the Bible paints an inexplicable, paradoxical portrait of God. When the Scriptures are honestly and carefully examined, however, all such criticisms of the Creator and His Word are shown to be either mere misunderstandings or artificially contrived contradictions. Consider some of the most frequently cited allegations against Jehovah in Genesis.
DOES JEHOVAH REALLY KNOW EVERYTHING?
Numerous passages of Scripture clearly teach that God is omniscient. The Bible declares that the Lord “knows the secrets of the heart” (Psalm 44:21), that His eyes “are in every place” (Proverbs 15:3), and that “His understanding is infinite” (Psalm 147:5). Of Jehovah, the psalmist also wrote:O Lord, You have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; You understand my thought afar off. You comprehend my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O Lord, You know it altogether…. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it. Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there (139:1-4,6-8).The New Testament reemphasizes this truth, saying, “God is greater than our heart, and knows all things” (1 John 3:20, emp. added). “[T]here is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13). Not only does He know the past and the present, but the future as well (Acts 15:18; cf. Isaiah 46:10). There is nothing outside of the awareness of God.
If God knows (and sees) everything, some have questioned why certain statements exist in Scripture that seem to indicate otherwise. Why was it that God questioned Cain regarding the whereabouts of his brother Abel if He already knew where he was (Genesis 4:6)? Why did the Lord and two of His angels ask Abraham about the location of his wife if He is omniscient (Genesis 18:9)? And, if God knows all and sees all, why did He say to Abraham concerning Sodom and Gomorrah: “I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know” (Genesis 18:21, emp. added; cf. Genesis 22:12)? If God is omniscient, why would He need to “go” somewhere to “see whether” people were wicked or not? Does God really know everything?
First, when critics claim that the questions God asked Cain or Sarah (or Satan—cf. Job 1:7; 2:2) suggest that God’s knowledge is limited, they are assuming that all questions are asked solely for the purpose of obtaining information. Common sense should tell us, however, that questions often are asked for other reasons. Are we to assume that God was ignorant of Adam’s whereabouts when He asked him, “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9). At the beginning of God’s first speech to Job, God asked the patriarch, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?” (38:4). Are we to believe that God did not know where Job was when He created the world? Certainly not! What father, having seen his son dent a car door, has not asked him, “Who did that?” Obviously, the father did not ask the question to obtain information, but rather to see if the son would admit to something the father knew all along. When a dog owner, who comes home from work and sees the arm of his couch chewed to pieces, points to the couch and asks his puppy, “Did you do that?” are we to think that the owner really is asking the question for his own benefit?
On occasion, Jesus used questions for the same purpose. When He questioned the Pharisees’ disciples and the Herodians regarding whose inscription was on a particular coin, it clearly was not because He did not know (Matthew 22:15-22). Likewise, when Jesus asked the multitude that thronged Him, “Who touched Me?” (Luke 8:45), it was not because the woman who touched Him was hidden from Him (Luke 8:47). Jesus knew the woman was made well by touching His garment before she ever confessed to touching Him (Mark 5:32). Thus, His question was intended to bring attention to her great faith and His great power (Mark 5:34). Truly, in no way are the questions God asks mankind an indication of His being less than divine.
What about Jehovah’s statement to Abraham recorded in Genesis 18:21? Did He not know the state of Sodom and Gomorrah prior to His messengers’ visit (Genesis 18:22; 19:1-29)? Did He have to “learn” whether the inhabitants of these two cities were as evil as some had said? Certainly not. Moses and the other Bible writer’s usage of phrases such as “I will know” (Genesis 18:21) or “now I know” (Genesis 22:12) in reference to God, actually are for the benefit of man. Throughout the Bible, human actions (such as learning) frequently are attributed to God for the purpose of helping finite beings better understand Him. This kind of accommodative language is called anthropomorphic (meaning “man form”). When Jehovah “came down to see the city and the tower” built at Babel (Genesis 11:5), it was not for the purpose of gaining knowledge. Anthropomorphic expressions such as these are not meant to suggest that God is not fully aware of everything. Rather, as in the case of Babel, such wording was used to show that He was “officially and judicially taking the situation under direct observation and consideration, it having become so flagrant that there was danger (as in the days of Noah) that the truth of God’s revelation might be completely obliterated if it were allowed to continue” (Morris, 1976, p. 272). Almighty God visited Sodom and Gomorrah likely “for appearance’ sake, that men might know directly that God had actually seen the full situation before He acted in judgment” (Morris, p. 342). As Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown noted in their commentary on Genesis: “These cities were to be made ensamples to all future ages of God’s severity, and therefore ample proof given that the judgment was neither rash nor excessive (Ezek 18:23; Jer 18:7)” (1997).
Similar to how God instructs man to pray and make “known” to Him our petitions for our benefit (Philippians 4:6), even though He actually already knows our prayers and needs before they are voiced (Matthew 6:8), for our profit the all-knowing God sometimes is spoken of in accommodative language as acquiring knowledge.
WAS GOD'S NAME "JEHOVAH" MADE KNOWN TO THE PATRIARCHS?
Skeptics not only criticize the Bible’s teaching about God’s knowledge; they are also critical of what Scripture says man has known (via revelation from God) in the past. You would find it odd if someone you had known very well for years said, “you did not know him.” You might think this friend had become a liar or a lunatic if he indicated that you were not aware of his name, even though you had known his first and last name for many years. Skeptics claim we should be equally bothered by what the Bible says, because it indicates that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know God by His name, Jehovah, even though the book of Genesis indicates that they did.After Moses first visited Pharaoh regarding the release of the Israelites from bondage, God assured Moses that the Israelites would be liberated. He then added: “I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them” (Exodus 6:2-3, emp. added; NOTE: All Scripture citations in this section are taken from the American Standard Version). The difficulty that Bible students have with this statement is that the name “Jehovah” (Hebrew Yahweh; translated LORD in most modern versions) appears approximately 160 times in the book of Genesis. Furthermore, “Jehovah” is used between Genesis chapters 12-50 (which deal mainly with the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) more than 100 times.
After God provided a ram for Abraham to sacrifice (instead of his son, Isaac) on Mount Moriah, Genesis 22:14 says, “Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh. As it is said to this day, in the mount of Jehovah it shall be provided” (emp. added). Years later, Isaac asked his son Jacob (who was deceiving his father in hopes of receiving a blessing), “How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, because Jehovah thy God sent me good speed” (Genesis 27:20, emp. added). How could God tell Moses that “by my name Jehovah I was not known to them” (Exodus 6:3), if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were well aware of the name Jehovah, and even used it in their conversations? Is God a liar? Does the Bible contradict itself on this point? What reasonable answer can be given?
There is no denying the fact that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were aware of God’s name, Jehovah (Yahweh) [cf. Genesis 15:7; 22:14,24-35,40,42,48,56; 24:50,51; 26:22; 27:20; 49:18; etc.]. As John J. Davis wrote: “[I]n the book of Genesis…the name of Yahweh is introduced in a way which utterly precludes the supposition that it is used proleptically, or that it is anything but a correct account of the incident and the actual term employed” (Davis, 1963, 4[1]:34). Based upon the number of times the word (Yahweh) appears in Genesis, and the various ways in which it was used, including being a part of compound names that have specific meanings (e.g., Jehovah-jireh, meaning “Jehovah will provide”), it is unwise to argue that the patriarchs in Genesis were unaware of the name Jehovah. So what is the answer to this alleged problem?
Although Bible critics and unbelievers may scoff at any attempt to explain Moses’ statement, which they believe is irresolvable, the fact is, a logical explanation exists. The expressions “to know the name of Jehovah” or simply “to know Jehovah” frequently mean more than a mere awareness of His name and existence. Rather, “to know” (from the Hebrew word yada) often means to learn by experience. When Samuel was a boy, the Bible reveals that he “ministered before/unto Jehovah” (1 Samuel 2:18; 3:1), and “increased in favor both with Jehovah, and also with men” (2:26). Later, however, we learn that “Samuel did not yet know Jehovah, neither was the word of Jehovah yet revealed unto him” (1 Samuel 3:7, emp. added). In one sense, Samuel “knew” Jehovah early on, but beginning in 1 Samuel 3:7 his relationship with God changed. From this point forward he began receiving direct revelations from God (cf. 1 Samuel 3:11-14; 8:7-10,22; 9:15-17; 16:1-3; etc.). Comparing this new relationship with God to his previous relationship and knowledge of Him, the author of 1 Samuel could reasonably say that beforehand “Samuel did not yet know Jehovah” (3:7).
According to Gleason Archer, the phrase “to know that I am Jehovah” (or “to know the name of Jehovah”) appears in the Old Testament at least 26 times, and “in every instance it signifies to learn by actual experience that God is Yahweh” (1982, pp. 66-67). In the book of Exodus alone, the expression “to know” (yada) appears five times in relation to Jehovah, and “[i]n every case it suggests an experiential knowledge of both the person and power of Yahweh. In every case the knowledge of Yahweh is connected with some deed or act of Yahweh which in some way reveals both His person and power” (Davis, 4[1]:39). For example, in one of the passages that has drawn so much criticism, God stated: “I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God, who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians” (Exodus 6:7, emp. added). Later, after God already had sent ten plagues upon the Egyptians (Exodus 7:14-12:30), parted the Red Sea (Exodus 14), and miraculously made bitter water sweet (Exodus 15:22-25), He said to Moses, “I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread: and ye shall know that I am Jehovah your God”(Exodus 16:11-12, emp. added). After several more weeks, God said to Moses on Mount Sinai: “And they shall know that I am Jehovah their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I might dwell among them: I am Jehovah their God” (Exodus 29:46, emp. added). Did the Israelites not know Who Jehovah was by this time? Without question, they did. “They had already learned of Him as deliverer; now they would know Him as their provider” (Davis, 4[1]:39).
Notice also what Isaiah prophesied centuries after the time of Moses.
Now therefore, what do I here, saith Jehovah, seeing that my people is taken away for nought? They that rule over them do howl, saith Jehovah, and my name continually all the day is blasphemed. Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore (they shall know) in that day that I am he that doth speak; behold, it is I (Isaiah 52:5-6, emp. added).More than 100 years later, following Judah’s entrance into Babylonian captivity, God foretold of their return to Judea and spoke to them through the prophet Jeremiah. He said: “Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know, this once will I cause them to know my hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah” (Jeremiah 16:21, emp. added). Are we to gather from these statements that Israel and Judah were not aware of God’s name (Jehovah) before this time in their history? Certainly not. Obviously, something else is meant by the expression “to know (or not know) the name of Jehovah.” In truth, it is a Hebrew idiom that “generally signifies knowledge of some particular act or attribute of Yahweh as it is revealed in His dealing with men” (Davis, 4[1]:40; see also Bullinger, 1898, p. 554).
Even in modern times it is possible for someone to know a person’s name or office without really “knowing” the person (or understanding his/her office). Imagine a group of foreigners who had never heard of Michael “Air” Jordan before meeting him at a particular convention a few years after his retirement from the NBA. They might come to know his name in one sense, but it could also be said that by his name “Air Jordan” they really did not know him. Only after going to a gym and watching him dunk a basketball by jumping (or “flying” in the air) from the free throw line, and seeing him in his original “Air Jordan” shoes, would the group begin to understand the name “Air Jordan.”
Admittedly, at first glance, the many references to “Jehovah” in the book of Genesis may seem to contradict Exodus 6:3. However, when one realizes that the Hebrew idiom “to know” (and specifically “to know” a name) frequently means more than a mere awareness of a person, then the difficulty disappears. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew God as Creator and sovereign Ruler of the Universe. But it would not be until centuries later, when God fulfilled the promises made to these patriarchs by delivering the nation of Israel from Egyptian bondage, that the full import of the name Jehovah would become known.
DID GOD TEMPT ABRAHAM?
One of the most criticized passages throughout the centuries in the book of Genesis has been chapter 22. In recent years, relentless Bible critic Dan Barker has alleged that he “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence.” One of the scriptures that Barker frequently cites as proof of the Bible’s alleged inconsistent portrait of God is verse one of Genesis 22 (Barker, 1992, p. 169; Barker, 2008, p. 230; Butt and Barker, 2009). According to the King James translation of this passage, Genesis 22:1 affirms that “God did tempt Abraham” (KJV) to sacrifice his son Isaac. However, since James 1:13 says: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (KJV, emp. added), Barker has insisted that God is like a married bachelor or a square circle—He cannot logically exist, if He both tempts and does not tempt.If Genesis 22:1 actually taught that God really tempted Abraham to commit evil and sin, then the God of the Bible might be a “square circle,” i.e., a logical contradiction. But, the fact of the matter is, God did not tempt Abraham to commit evil. Barker and others have formulated this argument based upon the King James Version and only one meaning of the Hebrew word (nissâ) that is used in Genesis 22:1. Although the word can mean “to tempt,” the first two meanings that Brown, Driver, and Briggs give for nissâ in their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament is “to test, to try” (1993). Likewise, the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (1997) defines the word simply “to test” (Jenni and Westermann, 1997, 2:741-742). The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament agrees that nissâ is best translated, whether in secular or theological contexts, as “testing” (Botterweck, et al., 1998, 9:443-455). For this reason, virtually all major translations in recent times, including the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, and RSV, translate Genesis 22:1 using the term “tested,” not tempted.
When David put on the armor of King Saul prior to battling Goliath, the shepherd realized: “I cannot walk with these, for I have not tested (nissâ) them” (1 Samuel 17:39, emp. added). Obviously, this testing had nothing to do with David “tempting” his armor; he simply had not tested or tried on Saul’s armor previously. God led Israel during 40 years of desert wanderings “to humble…and test” them (Deuteronomy 8:2, emp. added), not to tempt them to sin. Notice also the contrast in Exodus 20:20 between (1) God testing man and (2) trying to cause man to sin. After giving Israel the Ten Commandments, Moses said: “Do not fear; for God has come to test (nissâ) you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin” (Exodus 20:20, emp. added). If one were to use Barker’s reasoning that nissâ must mean “to tempt,” regardless of the context, then he would have to interpret Exodus 20:20 to mean that God tempted Israel to sin, so that they would not sin—which would be an absurd interpretation.
When a person interprets the Bible, or any other book, without recognizing that words have a variety of meanings and can be used in various senses, a rational interpretation is impossible. Many alleged Bible contradictions are easily explained simply by acknowledging that words are used in a variety of ways (as they are today). Is a word to be taken literally or figuratively? Must the term in one place mean the exact same thing when in another context, or may it have different meanings? If English-speaking Americans can intelligibly converse about running to the store in the 21st century by driving a car, or if we can easily communicate about parking on driveways, and driving on parkways, why do some people have such a difficult time understanding the various ways in which words were used in Bible times? Could it be that some Bible critics like Barker are simply predisposed to interpret Scripture unfairly? The evidence reveals that is exactly what is happening.
Rather then contradicting James 1:13, Genesis 22:1 actually corresponds perfectly with what James wrote near the beginning of his epistle: “My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing” (1:2-4, emp. added). By instructing Abraham to sacrifice his promised son (cf. Hebrews 11:17), God gave Abraham another opportunity to prove his loyalty to Him, while Abraham simultaneously used this trial to continue developing a more complete, mature faith.
SEEING JEHOVAH "FACE TO FACE"
Another attack that skeptics have levied against God, Genesis, and the inspired writers, involves the theophanies of God. Throughout the book of Genesis, Moses recorded where Jehovah “appeared” to man several times. He appeared to Abraham at about the age of 75 (12:7). He appeared to him again about a quarter of a century later (17:1). Prior to His destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God appeared to Abraham in Mamre (18:1). The Lord also appeared to Isaac and Jacob (26:2; 26:24; 35:9). In Genesis 32:30, after wrestling with God, Jacob even exclaimed, “I have seen God face to face” (emp. added). Such appearances of Jehovah in Genesis have caused some to question the reliability of the Bible, and in particular the book of Genesis (Wells, 2012). How could God have appeared to man, and spoken to him “face to face,” when other biblical passages clearly teach that God’s face cannot be seen (Exodus 33:20-23; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12)?Although in modern times words are regularly used in many different senses (e.g., hot and cold, good and bad), Bible critics have dismissed the possibility that the terms in the aforementioned passages were used in various ways. Throughout Scripture, however, words are often used in different ways. In James 2:5, the term “poor” refers to material wealth, whereas the term “rich” has to do with a person’s spiritual well-being (cf. Lyons, 2006). In Philippians 3:12,15, Paul used the term “perfect” (NASB) in different senses. Although Paul had attained spiritual maturity (“perfection”) in Christ (vs. 15), he had not yet attained the perfect “final thing, the victor’s prize of the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus” (Schippers, 1971, 2:62; cf. Philippians 3:9-11). Similarly, in one sense, man has seen God, but in another sense he has not.
Consider the first chapter of John where we learn that in the beginning Jesus was with God and “was God” (1:1; cf. 14,17). Though John wrote that Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14), he indicated only four sentences later that “no one has seen God at any time” (1:18; 1 John 4:12). Was Jesus God? Yes. Did man see Jesus? Yes. So in what sense has man not seen God? No human has ever seen Jesus in His true image (i.e., as a spirit Being [John 4:24] in all of His fullness, glory, and splendor). When God, the Word, appeared on Earth 2,000 years ago, He came in a veiled form. In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul mentioned that Christ—Who had existed in heaven “in the form of God”—“made Himself of no reputation,” and took on the “likeness of men” (2:6-7). Mankind saw an embodiment of deity as Jesus dwelt on Earth in the form of a man. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” Likewise, when Jacob “struggled with God” (Genesis 32:28), He saw only a form of God, not the spiritual, invisible, omnipresent God Who fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24).
But what about those statements which indicate that man saw or spoke to God “face to face”? Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30). Gideon proclaimed: “I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face” (Judges 6:22). Exodus 33:11 affirms that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” First, although these men witnessed great and awesome things, they still only saw manifestations of God and a part of His glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-23). Second, the words “face” and “face to face” are used in different senses in Scripture. Though Exodus 33:11 reveals that God spoke to Moses “face to face,” only nine verses later God told Moses, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live” (33:20). Are we to believe that the author of Exodus was so misguided and careless that he wrote contradictory statements within only nine verses of each other? Surely not. What then does the Bible mean when it says that God “knew” (Deuteronomy 34:10), “spoke to” (Exodus 33:11), and “saw” man “face to face” (Genesis 32:30)?
A logical answer can be found in Numbers 12. Aaron and Miriam had spoken against Moses and arrogantly asked: “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:2). God then appeared to Aaron and Miriam, saying: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord” (Numbers 12:6-8, emp. added). Notice the contrast: God spoke to the prophets of Israel through visions and dreams, but to Moses He spoke, “not in dark sayings,” but “plainly.” In other words, God, Who never showed His face to Moses (Deuteronomy 33:20), nevertheless allowed Moses to see “some unmistakable evidence of His glorious presence” (Jamieson, et al., 1997), and spoke to him “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (33:11), i.e., He spoke to Moses plainly and directly.
CONCLUSION
Neither the book of Genesis nor the Bible as a whole reveals “mutually incompatible characteristics of God” as modern-day skeptics have alleged. In actuality, many comments by the enemies of God reveal their devious, dishonest handling of Truth (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:2; 2 Timothy 2:15). Think about it: If skeptics can work “side by side” with a colleague without literally working inches from him (Barker, 2008, p. 335), or if he can see “eye to eye” with a fellow atheist without ever literally looking into the atheist’s eyes, then can they not understand that, for example, God could speak “face to face” with the patriarchs and prophets of old without literally revealing to them His full, glorious “face”? Indeed, it is the inconsistent allegations of the critic that should be under scrutiny. He readily accepts the understandable, non-discrepant differences in many modern-day writings, yet loudly protests against similar logical, explainable differences in Scripture.Skeptics’ assertions in no way prove that the God of the Bible does not exist or that the Bible is unreliable. In fact, the opposite is true. The more that skeptics test the Scriptures, trying to find flaws of all kinds, the more evidence comes to light that it is actually of Divine origin (see Butt, 2007).
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).
REFERENCES
Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith in Faith (Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation).
Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (1998), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles B. Briggs (1993), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Buchman, R. Paul (2011), “1001 Contradictions and Discrepancies in the Christian Bibles,” http://www.1001biblecontradic-tions.com/index.html.
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), The Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Davis, John J. (1963), “The Patriarchs’ Knowledge of Jehovah: A Critical Monograph on Exodus 6:3,” Grace Theological Journal, 4[1]:29-43, Winter.
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westerman (1997), Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Lyons, Eric (2006), “Answering the Allegations,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=539.
McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books).
Morris, Henry M. (1976), The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Schippers, R. (1971), Telos, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Wells, Steve (2012), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html.
Christ and the Gadarene Demoniac: A Criticism Answered by Wayne Jackson, M.A.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=122
Christ and the Gadarene Demoniac: A Criticism Answered
by | Wayne Jackson, M.A. |
On the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, Jesus once encountered a man who was possessed of demons. When the Lord commanded the unclean spirits to leave the gentleman, they requested permission to enter a herd of swine feeding nearby. Christ granted that request. The demons entered the hogs, who, in turn, rushed down an embankment into the sea and drowned. Bible critics have charged Jesus with destroying the property of others. It is alleged that His conduct was reprehensible in connection with this event. There are several things that may be said in response to this baseless accusation.
First, no charge can be made against the Lord unless the event actually happened. Those who criticize Christ must concede, first, that this account represents a factual incident; otherwise, their allegation is baseless. Are they willing to admit that Jesus actually cast out demons? If so, exactly what did that circumstance prove?
Second, if Christ is a Divine Being, then He is sovereign over the entire creation and, in reality, everything belongs to Him (cf. Colossians 1:16). God said: “For every beast of the forest is mine, And the cattle upon a thousand hills” (Psalm 50:10). Hogs, too! Thus, in the interest of a higher good, the Lord had every right to allow this incident to occur.
Third, swine were unclean according to Old Testament regulations (Leviticus 11). It is entirely possible that the owners of these pigs were Jews, engaged in an unlawful enterprise. If such was the case, the Savior’s economic rebuke certainly would have been warranted.
Fourth, as the scholarly R.C. Foster once observed, Christ “permitted the destruction of the swine knowing that it would awaken the Gergesenes from their indifference and ultimately assist in the salvation of a multitude in the community.” There are things that transcend the material, and hardship can have a benevolent result in the final ordering of one’s affairs.
In view of these factors, no legitimate indictment can be leveled against the Son of God in connection with this episode.
Take Your Pick by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=559
Take Your Pick
by | Eric Lyons, M.Min. |
Nearly all credible historians will concede that a man by the name of Jesus lived and died in the land of Palestine about 2,000 years ago. Even most atheists accept the historicity of Jesus the Nazarene. There simply is overwhelming evidence that points to a man named Jesus who lived and died in the first century. In fact, just by acknowledging the “first century,” one is describing a time based upon the birth of Jesus. Our whole dating method is based upon this man called Christ [“B.C.” meaning “before Christ,” and “A.D.” (standing for Anno Domini) meaning “in the year of the Lord”]. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and infidels (for the most part) all accept that Jesus was an actual human being.
However, even though most people who know some world history admit that Jesus was a real person, relatively few believe He was God in the flesh (as the Bible repeatedly emphasizes). They might say He was a good man, or that He was a noted philosopher or great moral teacher, but the fact is, the majority of the people in the world do not believe He was (as Peter claimed nearly 2,000 years ago) “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).
Have you ever thought about what people actually are saying who deny the deity of Christ, yet believe He was a good man? They are saying that Jesus was not Who He claimed to be—the Son of God. They are advocating that even though Jesus accepted such claims of deity from men (cf. John 1:29,41,49; 20:28) and claimed deity Himself time and again (Mark 14:62; John 9:36-38; 10:30; et al.), what he said was not true. Yet they still hold to the assumption that Christ was a “good man.”
Realistically, there are only three explanations that one can give as to who Christ was: (1) He was the greatest liar, con man, and phony the world has ever known; (2) He was a lunatic who simply labored under the delusion that he was God; or (3) He was who He claimed to be—God. Logically speaking, no other choices exist. The view that Christ was a raving madman has rarely been entertained by anyone who is aware of Christ’s life and teachings. No lunatic could answer questions with such profound wisdom and authority (cf. Matthew 7:28-29). What madman would teach that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us? The insane do not teach that we should “turn the other cheek,” and then set an example of exactly how to do that—even unto death. Lunacy does not produce such genius. For that reason, relatively few ever have been so foolish as to call Christ a lunatic.
Furthermore, not even the most celebrated infidels have been willing to characterize Christ as a con man or charlatan. Renowned infidel Henri Rousseau once wrote: “Yes, if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God” (Emile, 1.4). French humanist and staunch enemy of Christianity, Joseph Renan, called Jesus a “sublime person” and declared that in Him “is condensed all that is good and lofty in our nature” (Life of Jesus, chapters 1,28). The fact is, very few people throughout history ever have claimed that Christ was a liar or a lunatic.
But, if Jesus was not a liar or a lunatic, then logically He must have been who He claimed to be—the Son of God. One cannot profess sensibly that Christ was a good man, yet not the Son of God. Either He was both—or He was neither. Either Christ was a lunatic, or a liar, or the Lord. Take your pick, but choose wisely, for your eternal destiny is at stake.
Affecting the "Next Generation Science Standards" for the Lord by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1614
Affecting the "Next Generation Science Standards" for the Lord
by | Jeff Miller, Ph.D. |
Perhaps you, like many others, have thought, “The nation’s school system is rapidly digressing. The faith of this nation’s children is being demolished by the teaching of Darwinian evolution in science. Immorality is being encouraged by teaching young people that their ancestors were ape-like creatures, and that they are, therefore, merely a less-hairy ape, controlled wholly by instinct and genetics, with no propensity for self-control. And yet, there’s nothing I can do! The establishment is too big to fight. I’m insignificant. I wouldn’t even know where to start to fight this!” It so happens that with the help of thousands of others like you, you can, in fact, have a major impact in this debate—right now. You can play a significant role in shaping the science curriculum that will be taught throughout the majority of these United States for the next several years.
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is currently developing the science standard for some 26 states. Now is the time to take action and speak out against the indoctrination of young minds with the bad science of evolutionary theory. If the science standards pass as they are written now, Darwinian evolution will be a required topic in your child’s science education if you live in one of the states that adopts this standard. The NGSS is currently accepting input from the public over the next few days (until June 1) on their proposed science standards in the form of a survey on their Web site (www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards). We strongly recommend that you take five minutes and speak out for God and the biblical view of origins. Now may be the only time for many years (or ever) to let your voice be heard in an effective way on this matter.
The Villa Rica church of Christ in Georgia is taking a lead in this effort, and have developed a Web site to help you in this process. If you need help getting straight to the critical issues in the science standard, click here (http://www.unity-in-christ.org/Articles/christians4science_is_an_apologe.html). At the top of that Web page are two red rectangle links that will be helpful to you in sifting through the information on the NGSS Web site.
Please let your voice be heard. There is absolutely no doubt that the promulgation of evolutionary theory in America’s school system is one of the most effective ways that Satan has “taken advantage of us” (2 Corinthians 2:11) over the last 50 years, turning Americans and the world away from the God of the Bible. But we are not “ignorant of his devices” (2 Corinthians 2:11). Remember the famous words of exhortation credited to Edmund Burke, a British statesman from the 1700s: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Take up the sword of truth, and fight with us.
Baby Dolls, Beauty Pageants, and the Sexualization of Children by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1610
Baby Dolls, Beauty Pageants, and the Sexualization of Children
by | Eric Lyons, M.Min. |
There is a right way to rear children, and there is a wrong way. Abraham chose the right way. He commanded his children to “keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19, emp. added). Some 2,000 years later, the inspired apostle Paul made sure to tell the Ephesians to bring their children up “in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4, emp. added). The Lord’s way is the right way (Psalm 119:75). The right way includes diligently teaching young people to be (among other things) sensible, modest, discreet, and chaste (Titus 2:4-8; 1 Peter 3:1-5). It also includes warning today’s youth of the dangerous works of the flesh, including the impure, lewd, sensual things that tend to stir up ungodly passions (Galatians 5:19-21; Romans 13:13).
Sadly, the instruction of children in the ways “of the Lord” has diminished significantly in America, and yes, even in the Lord’s Church. Consequently, as the ways of the Lord are forgotten, many are promoting and partaking in the heartbreaking sexualization of children. Though many adults in this country will condemn (and rightly so) pedophilia, child pornography, etc., many of these same individuals have contributed to the sexualizing of children. It may start very young when parents purchase their four-year-old daughters baby dolls that look more like the seductress harlot described in Proverbs 7 than an innocent little bundle of joy. Some of the Bratz Babyz manufactured by MGA Entertainment, for example, sell dolls wearing midriff tops, mini skirts, tiny bikinis, and sparkly panties. The dolls are painted to look more like a seductive, grown woman—with large, glossy lips, and long, painted eyelashes. One manufacturing company a few years ago went so far as to make a “Pole Dance” doll. So outrageous was this product that even The Huffington Post ran a story titled “The 7 Most Inappropriate Products for Children” (2010). Number one on the list was the “Pole Dance” doll, which had on it’s box keywords such as “Flash,” and “Up and Down”—words that The Huffington Post said “sound like they were written by the happiest pedophile in playland.”
What seems to be contributing even more to the sexualization of children in America are the clothes that retail stores are selling—that parents are purchasing. Livescience.com published a story in 2011 about a study regarding children’s clothing (toddlers to pre-teen children) from 15 national retail stores. The researchers found that of the 5,666 items of clothing that were reviewed, “31 percent had sexualizing features” (i.e., “they revealed or emphasized a sexualized body part such as the chest or buttocks and…had sexy characteristics such as slinky material;” Pappas, 2011, emp. added). Add to this the skin-tight, short shorts that retailers sell and that parents buy, and the problem is compounded. Parents, you might be contributing to the sexualizing of your own children (1) if your daughter’s shirts are longer than her shorts, (2) if your daughter’s shorts are tighter and shorter than a pair of boxer briefs, or (3) if the pockets of your daughter’s shorts hang lower than the shorts themselves.
Some parents have even taken this a step further, by entering their young, innocent daughters (some as young as three years old) into beauty pageants that reward young girls for dressing and acting like anything but the modest and discreet girls the Lord desires parents to rear (Titus 2:4-8; 1 Peter 3:1-5). Some mothers and fathers accessorize their five- and six-year-old daughters with spray tans, hair extensions, and fake eyelashes and fingernails. Some even remove the hair from their prepubescent bodies, followed by a layer of make-up that might give Dolly Parton a run for her money. It is as if the parents are trying to turn their daughters into the previously mentioned, sexualized Bratz Babyz dolls. Promoting this behavior is the exact opposite of teaching the important value to young ladies that “charm is deceitful and beauty is passing, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30).
These little girls, who in many ways are made to look more like grown women, are then paraded in front of an audience like eye candy. They are asked to sing and dance and take people’s breath away. I recently saw a clip of a talk show where one woman was critical of the pageants, saying, “You said it’s not sexualizing the kids…and there is nothing mature about the performance. Yet one of the little ones is shaking her backside, shaking her booty, and she said so.” One mother’s sad defense: “What does that have to do [with anything]? That’s having fun” (emp. added). Another defensive mother added: “If people are looking at a child in a sexy way, then there’s something wrong with them” (“Toddlers…,” 2011). Perhaps, but when a mother intentionally makes her five-year-old look, act, talk, flirt, and dance like a harlot, we should not be surprised that some men will find this satisfying to their sexual senses. In fact, one woman responded to the show on-line, saying, “When you dress a child up like a [prostitute], have her act like one, shaking her [bottom], etc., you are just asking for trouble. Every pedophile out there is watching getting their [thrills] at your child’s expense” (“Toddlers…,” 2011).
Only the naïve or the immoral will not admit to the obvious sexualization of children in America. It is so obvious that even liberal organizations such as The Huffington Post and Livescience.com recognize it. Question: Are you submitting to the Lord’s will to rear sensible, humble, modest, and discreet children who are letting their “Christian lights” shine? Are you teaching about the sinfulness and danger of impure, lewd, sensual things that tend to stir up ungodly passions? Or, are you working hand in hand with Satan in the sexualizing of children by what you purchase and allow your own kids to wear?
REFERENCES
Pappas, Stephanie (2011), “30% of Girls Clothing is Sexualized in Major Sales Trent,” Livescience.com, May 20, http://www.livescience.com/14249-girls-clothing-sexualized.html.“The 7 Most Inappropriate Products for Children” (2010), March 12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/the-7-most-inappropriate_n_286223.html.
“Toddlers & Tiaras’ Moms Defend Child Beauty Pageants” (2011), Anderson Live, October 19, http://www.andersoncooper.com/2011/10/18/toddlers-and-tiaras-tlc-moms-defend-child-beauty-pageants/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)