3/15/21

Is Creation Science? by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=381

Is Creation Science?

by  Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

On June 22, 1633, Galileo confessed to the “heresy” of believing that the Earth orbits the Sun. With that statement in hand, the Holy Office of the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the aging scientist from discussing the Copernican view of the Solar System, and sentenced him to house arrest for the remainder of his life (Hummel, 1986, pp. 118,123).

And so began the long conflict between faith and science, at least according to the popular view. From that day forward, Galileo became a martyr for free thought, sacrificed at the altar of an ignorant, authoritarian church.

More than two hundred years later, the church and science faced off again, this time over the writings of a certain Charles Darwin. It took place on a balmy June day in 1860, at the annual meeting in Oxford of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. The protagonists were Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford, and Thomas Huxley, professor of natural history at the Royal School of Mines. Bishop Wilberforce mounted the floor first, giving a critique of Darwin’s new book, The Origin of Species. Apparently he ended his speech by inquiring of Huxley whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed his descent from a monkey. Huxley got up to defend Darwin’s views, adding that if the choice was between an ape for a grandfather, or a man who ridiculed science, his preference was the ape (Blackmore and Page, 1989, pp. 102-103).

No one knows exactly what was said at that meeting, but in later years the exchange achieved powerful legendary status. The scientist had beaten the bishop publicly, and in his own diocese. Again, the popular picture has reason triumphing over blind faith as it pushed the church aside in its unrelenting pursuit of scientific progress.

This view gained momentum in the remaining decades of the nineteenth century. In 1874, John William Draper wrote a book titled History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science. Then in 1896, Andrew Dickson White published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Both books received wide distribution, and helped sustain the tension into the modern era (Russell, 1985, p. 193).

THE CONTROVERSY

Many historians of science now reject this simple view of conflict (Lindberg and Numbers, 1986, p. 6). To be sure, great minds clashed through the centuries, but what they were saying about science and religion often reflected only the currents of social change swirling around them. Yet the origins issue remains a topic of intense debate. Few people speak of the creation/evolution “discussion” or “dialogue.” Even after making a case for a kinder, gentler consideration of the issues, Numbers lapses into military language in his analysis of creationists. He talks about the fundamentalist “crusade” against evolution (1986, p. 394), and the “battle” to get scientific creationism into public schools (1986, p. 413).

Part of the problem is that there are no ground rules for a reasonable discussion of origins. Creationists would like an opportunity to give scientific reasons for why they believe what they believe. However, many evolutionists fear that creationists must necessarily abuse science to use science. Creationism, they claim, is a religious dogma, and therefore closed to the usual rigors of scientific investigation. Hence Stephen Jay Gould has labeled “scientific creationism” an oxymoron—a contradiction in terms (1987, 8[1]:64). Also, many evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact, while admitting that they do not understand the mechanism and details completely. This elevated view of evolution prompts creationists to hurl the accusations of “religious dogma” back on the evolutionists’ side.

To complicate matters, some Bible believers are uncomfortable with the idea of defending creation on the field of science. A few have retreated, seeing science as a threat to their faith. Some fears may stem from the conflict described previously; scientists are seen only as adversaries. It also may come from the perception that science has been the source of many evils: atomic weapons, death-camp experiments, ethically questionable medical practices, and so on. Still others object outright, claiming that science and religion are on two different planes separated by a distance equal to a “leap of faith.” In other words, they believe it is impossible, or improper, to present any rational proof or evidence that would lead anyone to a belief in the Creator (Sproul, et al., 1984, p. 34).

The results can be unfortunate. In a world of ever-increasing technological complexity, where scientism often reigns supreme, retreat only serves to alienate the Gospel from people seeking genuine reasons to believe, or continue believing, in God. And placing science and religion into separate compartments, with scientists determining truth in one area, and theologians determining truth in the other, can lead ultimately to the compromise of theistic evolution (Moreland, 1989, pp. 12,217).

THE GROUND RULES

There is a need to step back from this debate and look for a better way to present the wealth of evidence in favor of creation. Opponents still may not agree with the conclusions, but it should allow creationists to present a consistent, scientific case. Perhaps the best approach is to put creation and evolution on an equal footing. This is not an attempt to dodge the issue by saying both ideas are true. Rather, it is an effort to set up a reasonable framework for discussing the origins issue. The first place to begin, however, is among those who profess a belief in God.

On Science and Religion

Faith need not exclude science. Yes, faith involves an emotional or heart-felt response to God, but it also involves an intellectual response. Abraham, Moses, and the other children of God listed in Hebrews 11 were faithful, with no help from modern science. Noah’s building of the ark, for example, was not based on his personal study of marine engineering or hydrology, but rather a decision to obey God’s command. However, surely some of Noah’s faith came from the knowledge that God could and would work in nature to achieve His ends, including sending a worldwide Flood and preserving Noah and his family on the ark.

Throughout the Old Testament, God invited His people to compare His miracles and prophecies with the claims of pagan religions (e.g., Isaiah 41:21-22). Then in the New Testament, Christ and the apostles sought a spiritual response from a reasonable consideration of what people had seen and heard (John 5:36; Acts 2:14-41; 17:16-34). Peter gave Christians explicit instructions to defend the reason for their hope of eternal salvation (1 Peter 3:15).

Further, God appealed to the creation as a demonstration of His existence and power (e.g., Job 38-39; Isaiah 40:26; 45:12). That God’s revelation of His will to Moses began with the account of creation is no coincidence, for it established His unique nature and role in the faith of Israel. The apostle Paul told Christians in Rome that unbelievers always have had the opportunity to recognize the existence of a Creator by studying the creation (1:20). Of course, it is not possible to come to a saving knowledge without special revelation (Romans 10:17), but it is possible to understand the need to seek out the Creator by looking at His natural or general revelation. Although salvation by grace is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8), it does not follow that faith is irrational—that it has no tangible ground in “right reason,” as Warfield put it (1977, 1:236-237). This “right reason” may include an investigation of natural revelation using the tools of modern science.

Christians need not fear science. Nature and Scripture have a common Author, which means that the facts of nature will complement the statements the Bible makes about the physical world. It is not a matter of making one the servant of the other, but of interpreting both correctly. Scientists may disagree with theologians, but true science and true religion never should be in conflict (see Thompson, 1984, 1:17). Finally, Christians should understand that science itself is not evil. Rather, the application of science or technology for immoral purposes is evil, although this improper use is not always perpetrated by the original researcher or inventor.

Thus, science interacts with religion not only through a study of natural revelation, but also through a consideration of broad issues such as philosophy and ethics. This does not mean to say that the relationship always will be harmonious. To say otherwise is to suggest that someone has answered all the questions. What it does mean is that faith and science can interact in useful ways.

On True Science

Creationists appeal to a supernatural cause to explain a unique event: the origin of the Universe, the Earth, and all life. For many evolutionists, that explanation is just plain unscientific. The late Judge William Overton expressed his agreement by striking down the Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act that required the teaching of both creation and evolution in the State’s public schools. In his 38-page decision, Overton dismissed creation theories because they do not conform to what scientists think and do. His opinion is worth examining in greater detail, not because he is a scientist or philosopher of science, but because he based his criteria on the testimony of people in these fields. Judge Overton concluded that a theory is truly scientific when:

(1) it is guided by natural law; (2) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) it is testable against the empirical world; (4) its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and (5) it is falsifiable (as quoted in Geisler, 1982, p. 176).

While the decision disappointed creationists, Overton’s definition left some philosophers of science aghast. Chief among them was Larry Laudan, who found fault with all five criteria. “The victory in the Arkansas case was hollow,” he complained, “for it was achieved only at the expense of perpetuating and canonizing a false stereotype of what science is and how it works” (1988, p. 355). Nonetheless, most anticreationist publications refer positively to Overton’s ruling, and others certainly share his characterization of science (Futuyma, 1983, pp. 168-174; National Academy of Sciences, 1984, pp. 8-11). Grouping the first two criteria under one heading, the problems with Overton’s criteria are as follows.

Science Does not Have to Have Natural Explanations

As Blackmore and Page noted: “In a previous age the essence of science was to discover God’s ways of working. Miraculous interventions were perhaps rare, but certainly permissible. They would have found Overton’s dismissal of miracles presumptuous” (1989, p. 161). A century or more ago, many scientists had no problems seeking natural causes, while recognizing that supernatural causes may be necessary in some cases (Moreland, 1989, p. 226). In today’s controversy, evolutionists have limited themselves to purely natural causes; creationists have not. Neither choice makes one more or less scientific than the other.

Science is not Always Empirical

People can observe or experience the same phenomena, but come to quite different conclusions. For example, the Ptolemaic idea that Earth is at the center of the Universe directly contradicts the Copernican idea that the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun. Unfortunately for Galileo, more convincing evidence for Copernicus’ view would have to wait for the superior observations and analyses of scientists like Brahe, Kepler, and Newton. In the meantime, empirical science could not judge one theory better than the other. Both models fit the data available at the time, and made fairly accurate astronomic predictions.

Also, empirical science cannot test the central claims of creation and evolution directly (e.g., the creation of man, or the Big Bang). However, it still is useful in two ways. First, as the next section will show, empirical science can provide analogies on which to test these central claims. Second, origin theories make other peripheral claims that empirical science can test directly. For example, creationists suggest that most seemingly vestigial organs have genuine functions. This claim is based on the belief that God created all major animal types, the organs of which should show evidence of purpose, not degeneration from a completely different ancestral form. Empirical science can discover whether a given vestigial organ is functional. Laudan suggests that evolutionists disprove such empirical claims, rather than pretending that creationism makes no such claims at all (1988, p. 352).

Science is not Always Tentative

At any one time in history, scientists hold to core beliefs—ideas that need to be true if they are going to function in their work. Such dogmatism can be useful, although there is a fine line between consensus and censorship.

The reasoning behind this criterion goes back to the idea that creationists cannot practice true science because they base their beliefs on a doctrinal statement. In other words, it unfairly accuses creationists of intellectual dishonesty. This is nothing more than an attack on creationists themselves, which is not the same as defining science (Moreland, 1989, p. 230).

Science is not Always Falsifiable

As a criterion of science, falsification is the idea that scientists have to disprove alternative, related ideas before they can call their theory truly scientific. Unfortunately for evolutionists, this nullifies all scientific arguments against special creation because, they say, creation cannot be falsified (Numbers, 1992, p. 248-250). The obvious contradiction (that creationism is both false and unfalsifiable) reveals the limitations of such a test.

In summary, all these practices have a place in science, but ultimately they are not reliable in distinguishing science from nonscience.

ORIGIN SCIENCE

Laudan grants that creationism satisfies the last three of Overton’s requirements (1988, p. 354). He even takes the first two criteria to task, arguing that not all scientific ideas can be explained by natural laws. For example, Galileo and Newton described gravity before anyone explained it. And Darwin discovered the phenomenon of natural selection before anyone understood the laws of heredity on which it depended. By Overton’s rules, “we should have to say that Newton and Darwin were unscientific” (1988, p. 354). Yet the issue still remains: can science seek non-natural causes? Were great scientists of the past justified, or merely naive, in their willingness to allow divine intervention in nature?

Creationists have realized that the only way to resolve this issue is to find the common ground between evolution and creation. This may seem a fruitless task at first, seeing that they represent two quite different world views. But they share this fundamental belief: that the Universe and life are the products of one or more unique events. In particular, evolutionists speak of the Big Bang, and the origin of life from nonlife. Neither event is occurring today. Life is not arising spontaneously from nutrient-rich environments and, fortunately for humankind, Big Bangs are not rending space asunder on a regular basis. Similarly, creationists believe that the Universe and life are the products of a divine creative act, and further, that a worldwide Flood shaped the present world. These events also are unique. God finished His creation on the seventh day (Genesis 2:1), and promised that He never again would destroy mankind with a Flood (Genesis 9:15).

What people imagine as “science,” including Overton’s caricature, cannot begin to deal with these claims, but they still are open to scientific scrutiny. While the answers may not lie directly under the lens of a microscope, or in a test tube, they may come by testing the claims against knowledge gained by empirical science. In an effort to refine this distinction, Charles Thaxton and his colleagues suggested separating operation science from origin science. The first deals with the recurring phenomena of nature, such as eclipses, volcanoes, reproduction, etc., while the second deals with singular events, such as the Big Bang, creation, etc. (1984, pp. 203-204).

Origin science may be a new term, but it works by the standard principles of causality and uniformity, which always have been a part of doing science. The principle of causality says that every effect must have a prior, sufficient, necessary cause. The principle of uniformity (or analogy) says that similar effects have similar causes.

Still, evolutionists may argue that creationists have done themselves no service by making a separate science out of singularities. Defining a nonempirical science is one thing; proposing supernatural causes is quite another. For this reason, they always will view creationism as unscientific. But the idea that history consists of an unbroken stream of natural causes and effects is merely a presumption on their part. Perhaps they fear a new generation of doctoral students invoking God when they cannot explain something in their research projects. Yet this fear is unfounded. As stated earlier, most scientists of the past had no problem with divine intervention. Indeed, one of the driving forces of early Western science was the idea that the Universe, as God’s creation, was open to rational investigation. In doing good operation science, these scientists would seek natural causes for regularly occurring events. Many of them recognized, however, that unique events may require a cause beyond nature. Only analogy with the present can determine whether the cause is miraculous or naturalistic (Geisler and Anderson, 1987, p. 16).

WAS PALEY’S WATCHMAKER STILLBORN?

In 1802, William Paley applied analogy in full force through his book, Natural Theology. Paley tells a story of a man who finds a stone. From the natural appearance of the stone, and its lack of purpose, the man assumes it is the product of nature. Later he finds a watch, and because of its inherent purpose, he assumes it is the product of a watchmaker. What is the difference between the rock and the watch? “Wherever we see marks of contrivance,” Paley wrote, “we are led for its cause to an intelligent author” (1802, p. 232, emp. in orig.). Paley concluded that design in nature demands a cause that exists beyond and before the natural world. That cause he identified as God—Designer and Creator.

Yet many skeptics believe that Paley’s work was defunct before he ever put pen to paper. More than fifty years earlier, David Hume had argued that miracles cannot be true because the world normally operates using natural causes. For example, if a man says he witnessed someone being raised from the dead, which of the following is most likely: that a man can deceive or be deceived, or that a person can be raised from the dead? Hume would take the first option, because (for him at least) it is easier to believe than the second (1748, p. 657).

Belief, Hume argued, derives from the guiding principles of uniformity and causality. Are these not the same guiding principles of origin science? Then how is it that Paley could allow miracles, while Hume could not? In part, Hume was reacting to a popular idea of his day that God not only designed the Universe, but also operated the Universe like a machine. God was every cause, not just the first cause: He maintained the Moon in its orbit of the Earth, and made the apple fall to the ground. Hume found this idea totally unpalatable and, as often happens, swung to the opposite extreme in response. God never could cause any effect, because that would violate all reasonable human experience about the way nature normally operates. If God could intervene at any time, then experience is useless, and science has no value. Hume’s uniformity gave rise to uniformitarianism, and thence to the contempt for miracles among so many scientists of the modern era.

The problem with this view is that miracles are supernatural, not antinatural; they are beyond nature, not against nature. Further, they explain certain unique events, not all regular events. Paley appealed to a divine Creator because no known natural cause was sufficient to explain the design he saw in the living world. Ironically, Paley said he founded his conclusions on “uniform experience”—precisely the same phrase coined by his skeptical predecessor (see Geisler and Anderson, 1987, p. 145).

CONCLUSION

Yes, creation is science. Judge Overton’s answer was to redefine science, with dire consequences for science itself. In fact, there is nothing about science that prevents a Bible believer from practicing good science, or even investigating the existence of God.

However, miracles remain the sticking point. Some scientists feel very uncomfortable with the idea that an effect might have a supernatural cause. Note that this is only a feeling, a presumption, on their part. Creationists have no interest in making God a capricious, meddlesome Agent Who works to achieve every natural effect. Rather, He is the Cause of unique events that cannot be explained by recourse to purely natural explanations. Origin science provides a consistent way to test this claim, along with the central claims of evolution—claims that are not amenable to testing under empirical or operation science. Yes, there is more than one way to do science.

When people belittle the scientific status of creationism, they attack its believers, not its claims. Prejudice, not truth, sustains the idea that faith and science must be in conflict. Christians can use science to defend their belief in the Genesis account of creation, and should not be intimidated into thinking otherwise.

REFERENCES

Blackmore, Vernon and Andrew Page (1989), Evolution: The Great Debate (Oxford, England: Lion).

Futuyma, Douglas J. (1983), Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon).

Geisler, Norman L. (1982), The Creator in the Courtroom: “Scopes II” (Milford, MI: Mott Media).

Geisler, Norman L. and J. Kerby Anderson (1987), Origin Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Gould, Stephen Jay (1987), “Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory,” Discover, 8[1]:64-65,68-70, January.

Hume, David (1748), “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” The English Philosophers from Bacon to Mill, ed. Edwin A. Burtt (New York: Random House, Modern Library edition, 1939), pp. 585-689.

Hummel, Charles E. (1986), The Galileo Connection (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).

Laudan, Larry (1988), “Science at the Bar—Causes for Concern,” But Is It Science?, ed. Michael Ruse (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus).

Lindberg, David C. and Ronald L. Numbers (1986), God & Nature (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Moreland, J.P. (1989), Christianity and the Nature of Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

National Academy of Sciences (1984), Science and Creationism (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press).

Numbers, Ronald L. (1986), “The Creationists,” God & Nature, ed. D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Numbers, Ronald L. (1992), The Creationists (New York: Alfred A. Knopf).

Paley, William (1802), Natural Theology, ed. John Ware (Boston: MA: Gould, Kendall & Lincoln, 1850 edition).

Russell, Colin A. (1985), Cross-Currents (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

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

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen (1984), The Mystery of Life’s Origin (New York: Philosophical Library).

Thompson, Bert (1984), “How Does Science Work?,” Essays in Apologetics, ed. Bert Thompson and Wayne Jackson (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), 1:11-17.

Warfield, Benjamin B. (1977), “Apologetics,” The New Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, reprint), 1:232-238.

Intelligent Design: The Scientific Choice by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3530

Intelligent Design: The Scientific Choice

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Some incorrectly assert that science and religion are incompatible—that religion is based on feeling, and science is based on reason and evidence. Sadly, the contention that religion is based on feeling and not evidence does, in fact, characterize the bulk of the religious world. However, true religion—biblical Christianity—is in perfect harmony with reason and true science. After all, God, Himself, instituted the field of science and commanded His followers to draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence (1 Thessalonians 5:21; cf. Miller, 2012a). The Universe contains countless features that exhibit purpose, intent, and planning—characteristics which imply the necessity of an intelligent Designer, not random chance, which characterizes evolutionary theories. Thus, science supports intelligent design and stands against atheistic origin proposals.

The scientific evidence indicates, without exception, according to the work of Spallanzani, Redi, and Pasteur, that in nature, life comes only from life (see Miller, 2012b). That evidence poses a dilemma for the naturalistic scientist. The naturalist must be able to propose a theory for the natural origin of life from non-life (i.e., abiogenesis) in order to be consistent with naturalism, and yet science indicates that life cannot arise from non-life. So, the naturalist cannot be a naturalist and still be a legitimate scientist! There is no scientific evidence which supports abiogenesis. However, the intelligent design model contends that since life comes only from life in nature, in order to be in keeping with science, there must be a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. The supernaturalist can easily be a scientist without contradicting himself.

Similarly, science reveals that nothing can last forever, since everything is deteriorating and all energy is transforming into less usable forms according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Science reveals that nothing could spontaneously pop into or out of existence according to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (see Miller, 2007). Those truths come from the scientific investigation of nature, and yet naturalistic models must contend that the matter and energy of the Universe either always existed or initially popped into existence (before the alleged “Big Bang”). Once again, this proposal is against the scientific evidence. Since science indicates that in nature, matter cannot spontaneously generate or exist forever, unprejudiced reasoning leads to the conclusion that a supernatural source is required to explain the origin of the Universe—an intelligent Designer. Why not argue for the re-instatement of true science into the school system where you are? Intelligent Design is the model in keeping with the scientific evidence.

REFERENCES

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

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “Science: Instituted by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[4]:46, April (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1026&article=1760.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Inevitable--Given Enough Time? by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

 

https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3729

Inevitable--Given Enough Time?

by  Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Macroevolutionists often point the proverbial finger at the laws of probability in a pointless attempt to traverse the gaping chasms which exist in the theory of evolution and Big Bang Theory and thereby substantiate them. However, the gaps that exist, such as the origin of matter (cf. Miller, 2013), the origin of life (cf. Miller, 2012), and macroevolution (cf. Brooks and Deweese, 2009), are many and cannot be traversed without violation of recognized scientific laws. In spite of this dilemma, many evolutionists have long cited the principles of probability in an effort to support their dogma, noting that as long as the required events do not have a probability of zero, they are inevitable, given enough time (cf. Erwin, 2000). As far back as 1954, George Wald, writing in Scientific American concerning the origin of life on Earth, penned the words:

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

There are at least two problems with this assertion. First, several of the events that are necessary in order for the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be true, indeed, have a probability of zero. So, the question is not really one of improbability, but impossibility. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the contention that, for instance, matter could spontaneously generate or life could come about from non-life (i.e., abiogenesis). In fact, quite the opposite is true. The experimental results of renowned scientist Louis Pasteur forever killed the possibility of the spontaneous generation of life back in the 19th century, and the Law of Biogenesis drove the nails into its coffin (cf. Miller, 2012). This truth creates an impenetrable barrier for evolutionists—a gaping chasm that must be crossed in order for the theory of evolution to be plausible. So, according to the scientific evidence, there is a probability of zero that abiogenesis can occur. According to the laws of probability, specifically Kolmogorov’s first axiom, when the probability of an event is zero, the event is called an “impossible event (Gubner, 2006, p. 22, emp. added). Since several events that are necessary in order for the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory to be true have a probability of zero, according to the laws of probability, these atheistic theories are impossible.

The second problem with this contention is that we are not “given enough time” for macroevolution to have occurred. We at Apologetics Press have documented this fact time and time again (cf. Jackson, 1983; Thompson, 2001). Years ago, in his article “The Young Earth,” Henry Morris listed 76 dating techniques, based on standard evolutionary assumptions, which all indicate that the Earth is relatively young (Morris, 1974). Donald DeYoung documented extensive, compelling evidence for a young Earth as well, in the book Thousands...Not Billions (2005). Of course, such information is not broadcasted widely due to its implications. If atheistic evolutionists were sincerely interested in the truth—if they were interested in giving all options a fair shake—they would hear the silent but forceful cry of the evidence: “Macroevolution is impossible! There is a God!”

REFERENCES

Brooks, Will and Joe Deweese (2009), “A Response to the 21st Century Science Coalition Standards of Science Education,” Reason & Revelation, 29[6]:41-43, June, http://apologeticspress.org/articles/240161.

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

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

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

Jackson, Wayne (1983), “Our Earth—Young or Old?” [On-line], URL: /rr/reprints/yng-old.pdf.

Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2786.

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

Thompson, Bert (2001), “The Young Earth,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/1991.

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

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Jesus Predicts His Passion And Resurrection (10:32-34) by Mark Copeland

 







"THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

Jesus Predicts His Passion And Resurrection (10:32-34)

 
INTRODUCTION

1. On three separate occasions, Jesus predicted His passion and resurrection...
   a. In the region of Caesarea Philippi, He emphasized the necessity - Mk 8:31
   b. While traveling through Galilee, He stressed the certainty - Mk 9:31
   c. Now on the road to Jerusalem, He describes it in greater detail - Mk 10:32-34

2. If you have ever faced an impending ordeal...
   a. You know the anticipation itself adds to the trial
   b. The anxiety and stress of knowing what it is to come

[As we remember what Jesus did to save us, do not overlook the burden of
knowing in advance what He would suffer, and what helped Him to endure.
So let's look a closer look, beginning with...]

I. THE SETTING

   A. ON THE ROAD TO JERUSALEM...
      1. Making their way from beyond the Jordan via Jericho - Mk 10:1,46
      2. This was Jesus' last trip to Jerusalem

   B. THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WALKED...
      1. Jesus taking the lead - Mk 10:32
      2. The disciples following behind - Mk 10:32 (NLT)
      3. The people further behind - Mk 10:32 (NLT)

   C. THE ATTITUDES AS THEY WALKED...
      1. Jesus with steadfast determination - cf. Lk 9:51
      2. The disciples filled with awe, perhaps by Jesus' determination - Mk 10:32 (NLT)
      3. The people overwhelmed with fear, perhaps knowing the danger
         Jesus and His followers faced in Jerusalem - Mk 10:32 (NLT); cf. Jn 9:22; 11:8,57

[At some point, Jesus takes the twelve apostles aside and begins to tell
them what will happen to Him...]

II. THE PREDICTION

   A. HE WILL BE BETRAYED...
      1. Betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes - Mk 10:33
      2. Referring to the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of the Jews
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 14:41-46

   B. HE WILL BE CONDEMNED...
      1. Condemned to death and delivered to the Gentiles - Mk 10:33
      2. Referring to the Romans, who alone had the authority to put to
         death - cf. Jn 18:31
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 14:55-64

   C. HE WILL BE MOCKED...
      1. Treated with contempt, ridiculed - Mk 10:34
      2. To imitate with mockery and derision
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 15:16-20,29-32

   D. HE WILL BE SCOURGED...
      1. To be whipped, punished severely - Mk 10:34
      2. "Under the Roman method of 'scourging,' the person was stripped
         and tied in a bending posture to a pillar, or stretched on a
         frame. The "scourge" was made of leather thongs, weighted with
         sharp pieces of bone or lead, which tore the flesh of both the
         back and the breast." - Vine
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 15:15

   E. HE WILL BE SPIT ON...
      1. With saliva or phlegm
      2. Done with anger or contempt - Mk 10:34
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 14:65; 15:19

   F. HE WILL BE KILLED...
      1. Death would follow His mockery and torture - Mk 10:34
      2. Jesus knew the manner of death:  crucifixion! - cf. Mt 20:19
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 15:24,37

   G. HE WILL RISE THE THIRD DAY...
      1. Resurrected from the dead - Mk 10:34
      2. Foretold very early in His ministry - cf. Jn 2:19-22
      3. Fulfilled - Mk 16:1-7

CONCLUSION

1. When Jesus predicted His passion and resurrection...
   a. The first time, Peter took Jesus aside and rebuked Him - Mk 8:31-33
   b. The second time, the disciples did not understand and refused to ask Him - Mk 9:31-32
   c. The third time, there is no dispute (though they may have still been confused)
2. What strikes me about these three predictions...
   a. Is that it reveals that Jesus knew what would happen to Him!
   b. The stress and anxiety from anticipation only added to His suffering for us!

3. How was Jesus able to press on, knowing what was to come...?
   a. The writer to the Hebrews reveals the answer - cf. He 12:2
   b. He encourages us to "consider Him...lest you become weary and discouraged" - He 12:3

Yes, let's consider how He died, but also He faced knowing what awaited
Him.  As Erdman wrote...

"Let us pause to gaze on that face and form, the Son of God, going with
unfaltering step toward the Cross! Does it not awaken us to new heroism,
as we follow; does it not awaken new love as we see how voluntary was
His death for us; yet do we not wonder at the meaning and the mystery of
that death?"         
 
Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

eXTReMe Tracker

A Passage To Ponder: Psalm 139:13-16 by Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

 


https://thepreachersword.com/2019/03/20/a-passage-to-ponder-psalm-13913-16/#more-13705

A Passage To Ponder: Psalm 139:13-16

In recent weeks there has been a backlash and vocal outrage over lawmakers proposing and state legislatures passing bills allowing third-trimester abortions up to the moment of birth. As a result, there are some encouraging signs.

A recent court ruling approved an Indiana law that the sale of aborted baby body parts is now illegal. According to the law, a “person who intentionally acquires, receives, sells, or transfers fetal tissue commits unlawful transfer of fetal tissue, a level 5 felony.”

Last week a federal appeals court, with a 11-6 majority vote, upheld an Ohio law that strips Planned Parenthood of state funding, handing pro-lifers in the state a major victory three years after the law was passed.

On Tuesday the Mississippi legislature sent a bill to Gov. Phil Bryant’s desk Tuesday that would ban abortions after an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable.

Since research shows that a baby’s heartbeat may begin as early as 18 days after conception, the bill, if enacted, would effectively ban almost all abortions in Mississippi.

“It’s time to pass a Heart Beat Bill in Mississippi and stop this madness about when life begins,” Bryant said in January.

LifeNews.com reports that at least 91 babies have been saved from abortion during a“40 Days For Life Campaign” which began March 6th. Through prayer, fasting, peaceful vigil, and community outreach these local campaigns draw attention to the evil of abortion and seek to “turn hearts and minds from a culture of death to a culture of life, thus bringing an end to abortion.”

The Pro-Life position is a Biblical position. While there are many passages that speak of the unborn, not a fetus or clump of cells, but as a person, none is clearer than David’s reflections in Psalm 139:13-16.

For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there were none of them.

This passage reminds us that human life is special. Unique. And God-given. We are not the product of evolutionary chance. We are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” One version says “delicately formed.”

The Message, a paraphrase, expresses verse 16 this way.

Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception to birth;
all the stages of my life were spread out before you,
The days of my life all prepared
before I’d even lived one day.

This passage reminds us that life is sacred. Precious. And begins in the womb. God regards the life in the mother’s womb, not as mere tissue, but as a baby. A person. An unborn human being with divine purpose and potential.

When we disregard the sanctity of human life, there are consequences. Physical. Mental. Spiritual. And emotional consequences. Consider the heart-breaking remorse of this 21 year old woman.

“I recently had an abortion. At first I wanted it over with; now I’m very upset I made that choice. My boyfriend and I thought abortion was the best choice. But it’s not… It hurts me every day. There hasn’t been a day go by that I haven’t balled my eyes out. I wish I had my baby back. I’ve kept this to myself because I’m ashamed. I feel alone and hurt. My baby would have been so beautiful, and I killed it…”

While we live in perilous times, there is hope. And help. Let us share God’s message of life. Light. And love. It can make a difference in the life of a child. And a soul saved for eternity.

–Ken Weliever, The Preacherman

PRO-CHOICE IN KILLING OF PREGNANT WOMEN???? by steve finnell


 https://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2016/11/

 

PRO-CHOICE IN KILLING OF PREGNANT WOMEN???? by steve finnell


Would it ever be morally correct to give expecting  fathers the choice to kill their wives in order to protect the life of an unborn child? Of course not.


Is it ever acceptable to kill unborn children? Of course not.

Does killing unborn children make a mother healthier? Of course not.


Could anyone explain how killing a partially delivered baby saves the life of the mother? It cannot be explained, because it will not.


Killing unborn babies does not help the health of the mother, it just makes their unborn child dead.

GOD HAS NOT MADE MURDER A PRO-CHOICE OPTION

Is abortion sin? Yes. (Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder. NIV) Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers....there place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." NIV)

Can murderers be forgiven, yes of course, however, just as unbelievers need to repent to be forgiven, so do murderers.

 

Rejoice in God and cast your care on Him. by Roy Davison

 

https://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/dontworr.html

Rejoice in God and cast your care on Him.

Around 1990 Rita and I were walking through the narrow streets of a village in Germany after dark when two teenage boys sauntered past singing, “Don’t worry. Be happy.”

This refrain from Bobby McFerrin’s song expresses two teachings of Christ. “Do not worry about your life” (Matthew 6:25) and “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad” (Matthew 5:12).

This does not mean that we have no troubles. As Bobby McFerrin sings: “In every life we have some trouble. When you worry you make it double.”

Christians rejoice in God and cast their cares on Him.

Don’t worry!

Worry is excessive concern.

“Do not worry about your life” (Matthew 6:25). “Anxiety in the heart of man causes depression, but a good word makes it glad” (Proverbs 12:25).

Christians need not worry because God has promised: “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5). “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you” (1 Peter 5:6, 7).

A distinction must be made between healthy concern and worry. Emotional involvement in problems is not wrong. It can lead to constructive action. Paul spoke of his “deep concern for all the churches” (2 Corinthians 11:28).

There is a big difference, however, between thinking about a problem and worrying about a problem. Worry involves a feeling of dread and anxiety that is negative, depressing, exhausting and paralyzing.

Materialism causes much worry. We worry when we are overly concerned about material and temporal things. Jesus explained: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. [Mammon is the god of money.] Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (Matthew 6:24-26).

When we see how richly God provides for life on earth, we know that He will care for us as well. “For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (Matthew 6:32-34).1 Worry pulls tomorrow’s clouds over today’s sunshine.

Trusting in the providence of God, we can take life as it comes. Jesus does not deny that we have troubles. He just tells us to deal with them one day at a time. Each day, God will give us what we need for that day. Jesus tells us to pray, “Give us day by day our daily bread” (Luke 11:3).

Paul also tells us to pray rather than worry: “Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God” (Philippians 4:6). Praying and thankfully counting our blessings puts our troubles into perspective.

I once saw an amusing wall plaque: “Why pray when you can worry?”

Worry is futile. If you can do something about a problem, ask God for help and get to work. If you can do nothing about a problem, turn it over to God in prayer.

Be happy!

God wants us to be happy. “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad” (Matthew 5:12). “Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you” (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18).

In Christ we have the joy of salvation. After the Philippian jailer was baptized “he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household” (Acts 16:34). The Ethiopian eunuch went on his way rejoicing after he was baptized by Philip (Acts 8:39).

“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Romans 5:1, 2). We rejoice “in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation” (Romans 5:11).

The joy that dwells in the heart of a Christian does not preclude grief. “Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep” (Romans 12:15). “Jesus wept” even when He knew He would raise Lazarus from the dead. But we are never defeated by grief.

Even in the darkest hour we can have inner happiness because we have hope. The resurrection of Christ is the foundation of our hope of eternal life.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ, whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving the end of your faith the salvation of your souls” (1 Peter 1:3-9).

We can rejoice even in the midst of persecution: “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:11, 12).

“Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you, and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy! for indeed your reward is great in heaven, for in like manner their fathers did to the prophets” (Luke 6:22, 23).

Peter explains: “Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ’s sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy” (1 Peter 4:12, 13).

Jesus tells His followers: “Rejoice because your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). We rejoice because Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us in heaven (John 14:1-3, 27, 28).

“Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord” (Philippians 3:1). “Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice!” (Philippians 4:4).
Don’t worry. Be happy. Rejoice in God and cast your care on Him.

Roy Davison

1 See also Luke 12:22-31.

The Scripture quotations in this article are from The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise. Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

Bible Reading for March 15 and 16 by Gary Rose

 

 

Bible Reading for March 15 and 16

World  English  Bible

Mar. 15

Exodus 25

Exo 25:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,

Exo 25:2 "Speak to the children of Israel, that they take an offering for me. From everyone whose heart makes him willing you shall take my offering.

Exo 25:3 This is the offering which you shall take from them: gold, silver, brass,

Exo 25:4 blue, purple, scarlet, fine linen, goats' hair,

Exo 25:5 rams' skins dyed red, sea cow hides, acacia wood,

Exo 25:6 oil for the light, spices for the anointing oil and for the sweet incense,

Exo 25:7 onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod and for the breastplate.

Exo 25:8 Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.

Exo 25:9 According to all that I show you, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all of its furniture, even so you shall make it.

Exo 25:10 "They shall make an ark of acacia wood. Its length shall be two and a half cubits, its breadth a cubit and a half, and a cubit and a half its height.

Exo 25:11 You shall overlay it with pure gold. You shall overlay it inside and outside, and you shall make a gold molding around it.

Exo 25:12 You shall cast four rings of gold for it, and put them in its four feet. Two rings shall be on the one side of it, and two rings on the other side of it.

Exo 25:13 You shall make poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold.

Exo 25:14 You shall put the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry the ark.

Exo 25:15 The poles shall be in the rings of the ark. They shall not be taken from it.

Exo 25:16 You shall put the testimony which I shall give you into the ark.

Exo 25:17 You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold. Two and a half cubits shall be its length, and a cubit and a half its breadth.

Exo 25:18 You shall make two cherubim of hammered gold. You shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat.

Exo 25:19 Make one cherub at the one end, and one cherub at the other end. You shall make the cherubim on its two ends of one piece with the mercy seat.

Exo 25:20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings upward, covering the mercy seat with their wings, with their faces toward one another. The faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat.

Exo 25:21 You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I will give you.

Exo 25:22 There I will meet with you, and I will tell you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the testimony, all that I command you for the children of Israel.

Exo 25:23 "You shall make a table of acacia wood. Two cubits shall be its length, and a cubit its breadth, and one and a half cubits its height.

Exo 25:24 You shall overlay it with pure gold, and make a gold molding around it.

Exo 25:25 You shall make a rim of a handbreadth around it. You shall make a golden molding on its rim around it.

Exo 25:26 You shall make four rings of gold for it, and put the rings in the four corners that are on its four feet.

Exo 25:27 the rings shall be close to the rim, for places for the poles to carry the table.

Exo 25:28 You shall make the poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold, that the table may be carried with them.

Exo 25:29 You shall make its dishes, its spoons, its ladles, and its bowls to pour out offerings with. You shall make them of pure gold.

Exo 25:30 You shall set bread of the presence on the table before me always.

Exo 25:31 "You shall make a lampstand of pure gold. Of hammered work shall the lampstand be made, even its base, its shaft, its cups, its buds, and its flowers, shall be of one piece with it.

Exo 25:32 There shall be six branches going out of its sides: three branches of the lampstand out of its one side, and three branches of the lampstand out of its other side;

Exo 25:33 three cups made like almond blossoms in one branch, a bud and a flower; and three cups made like almond blossoms in the other branch, a bud and a flower, so for the six branches going out of the lampstand;

Exo 25:34 and in the lampstand four cups made like almond blossoms, its buds and its flowers;

Exo 25:35 and a bud under two branches of one piece with it, and a bud under two branches of one piece with it, and a bud under two branches of one piece with it, for the six branches going out of the lampstand.

Exo 25:36 Their buds and their branches shall be of one piece with it, all of it one beaten work of pure gold.

Exo 25:37 You shall make its lamps seven, and they shall light its lamps to give light to the space in front of it.

Exo 25:38 Its snuffers and its snuff dishes shall be of pure gold.

Exo 25:39 It shall be made of a talent of pure gold, with all these accessories.

Exo 25:40 See that you make them after their pattern, which has been shown to you on the mountain. 

 

Mar. 16

Exodus 26, 27

Exo 26:1 "Moreover you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains; of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, with cherubim. The work of the skillful workman you shall make them.

Exo 26:2 The length of each curtain shall be twenty-eight cubits, and the breadth of each curtain four cubits: all the curtains shall have one measure.

Exo 26:3 Five curtains shall be coupled together one to another; and the other five curtains shall be coupled one to another.

Exo 26:4 You shall make loops of blue on the edge of the one curtain from the edge in the coupling; and likewise you shall make in the edge of the curtain that is outmost in the second coupling.

Exo 26:5 You shall make fifty loops in the one curtain, and you shall make fifty loops in the edge of the curtain that is in the second coupling. The loops shall be opposite one to another.

Exo 26:6 You shall make fifty clasps of gold, and couple the curtains one to another with the clasps: and the tabernacle shall be a unit.

Exo 26:7 "You shall make curtains of goats' hair for a covering over the tabernacle. You shall make them eleven curtains.

Exo 26:8 The length of each curtain shall be thirty cubits, and the breadth of each curtain four cubits: the eleven curtains shall have one measure.

Exo 26:9 You shall couple five curtains by themselves, and six curtains by themselves, and shall double over the sixth curtain in the forefront of the tent.

Exo 26:10 You shall make fifty loops on the edge of the one curtain that is outmost in the coupling, and fifty loops on the edge of the curtain which is outmost in the second coupling.

Exo 26:11 You shall make fifty clasps of brass, and put the clasps into the loops, and couple the tent together, that it may be one.

Exo 26:12 The overhanging part that remains of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remains, shall hang over the back of the tabernacle.

Exo 26:13 The cubit on the one side, and the cubit on the other side, of that which remains in the length of the curtains of the tent, shall hang over the sides of the tabernacle on this side and on that side, to cover it.

Exo 26:14 You shall make a covering for the tent of rams' skins dyed red, and a covering of sea cow hides above.

Exo 26:15 "You shall make the boards for the tabernacle of acacia wood, standing up.

Exo 26:16 Ten cubits shall be the length of a board, and one and a half cubits the breadth of each board.

Exo 26:17 There shall be two tenons in each board, joined to one another: thus you shall make for all the boards of the tabernacle.

Exo 26:18 You shall make the boards for the tabernacle, twenty boards for the south side southward.

Exo 26:19 You shall make forty sockets of silver under the twenty boards; two sockets under one board for its two tenons, and two sockets under another board for its two tenons.

Exo 26:20 For the second side of the tabernacle, on the north side, twenty boards,

Exo 26:21 and their forty sockets of silver; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board.

Exo 26:22 For the far part of the tabernacle westward you shall make six boards.

Exo 26:23 You shall make two boards for the corners of the tabernacle in the far part.

Exo 26:24 They shall be double beneath, and in like manner they shall be entire to its top to one ring: thus shall it be for them both; they shall be for the two corners.

Exo 26:25 There shall be eight boards, and their sockets of silver, sixteen sockets; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board.

Exo 26:26 "You shall make bars of acacia wood: five for the boards of the one side of the tabernacle,

Exo 26:27 and five bars for the boards of the other side of the tabernacle, and five bars for the boards of the side of the tabernacle, for the far part westward.

Exo 26:28 The middle bar in the midst of the boards shall pass through from end to end.

Exo 26:29 You shall overlay the boards with gold, and make their rings of gold for places for the bars: and you shall overlay the bars with gold.

Exo 26:30 You shall set up the tabernacle according to the way that it was shown to you on the mountain.

Exo 26:31 "You shall make a veil of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, with cherubim. The work of the skillful workman shall it be made.

Exo 26:32 You shall hang it on four pillars of acacia overlaid with gold; their hooks shall be of gold, on four sockets of silver.

Exo 26:33 You shall hang up the veil under the clasps, and shall bring the ark of the testimony in there within the veil: and the veil shall separate the holy place from the most holy for you.

Exo 26:34 You shall put the mercy seat on the ark of the testimony in the most holy place.

Exo 26:35 You shall set the table outside the veil, and the lampstand over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south: and you shall put the table on the north side.

Exo 26:36 "You shall make a screen for the door of the Tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, the work of the embroiderer.

Exo 26:37 You shall make for the screen five pillars of acacia, and overlay them with gold: their hooks shall be of gold: and you shall cast five sockets of brass for them.


Exo 27:1 "You shall make the altar of acacia wood, five cubits long, and five cubits broad; the altar shall be foursquare: and its height shall be three cubits.

Exo 27:2 You shall make its horns on its four corners; its horns shall be of one piece with it; and you shall overlay it with brass.

Exo 27:3 You shall make its pots to take away its ashes, its shovels, its basins, its flesh hooks, and its fire pans: all its vessels you shall make of brass.

Exo 27:4 You shall make a grating for it of network of brass: and on the net you shall make four bronze rings in its four corners.

Exo 27:5 You shall put it under the ledge around the altar beneath, that the net may reach halfway up the altar.

Exo 27:6 You shall make poles for the altar, poles of acacia wood, and overlay them with brass.

Exo 27:7 Its poles shall be put into the rings, and the poles shall be on the two sides of the altar, when carrying it.

Exo 27:8 You shall make it with hollow planks. They shall make it as it has been shown you on the mountain.

Exo 27:9 "You shall make the court of the tabernacle: for the south side southward there shall be hangings for the court of fine twined linen one hundred cubits long for one side:

Exo 27:10 and its pillars shall be twenty, and their sockets twenty, of brass; the hooks of the pillars and their fillets shall be of silver.

Exo 27:11 Likewise for the north side in length there shall be hangings one hundred cubits long, and its pillars twenty, and their sockets twenty, of brass; the hooks of the pillars, and their fillets, of silver.

Exo 27:12 For the breadth of the court on the west side shall be hangings of fifty cubits; their pillars ten, and their sockets ten.

Exo 27:13 The breadth of the court on the east side eastward shall be fifty cubits.

Exo 27:14 The hangings for the one side of the gate shall be fifteen cubits; their pillars three, and their sockets three.

Exo 27:15 For the other side shall be hangings of fifteen cubits; their pillars three, and their sockets three.

Exo 27:16 For the gate of the court shall be a screen of twenty cubits, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, the work of the embroiderer; their pillars four, and their sockets four.

Exo 27:17 All the pillars of the court around shall be filleted with silver; their hooks of silver, and their sockets of brass.

Exo 27:18 The length of the court shall be one hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty every where, and the height five cubits, of fine twined linen, and their sockets of brass.

Exo 27:19 All the instruments of the tabernacle in all its service, and all its pins, and all the pins of the court, shall be of brass.

Exo 27:20 "You shall command the children of Israel, that they bring to you pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually.

Exo 27:21 In the Tent of Meeting, outside the veil which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall keep it in order from evening to morning before Yahweh: it shall be a statute forever throughout their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel. 

 

Mar. 15, 16

Mark 10

Mar 10:1 He arose from there and came into the borders of Judea and beyond the Jordan. Multitudes came together to him again. As he usually did, he was again teaching them.

Mar 10:2 Pharisees came to him testing him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

Mar 10:3 He answered, "What did Moses command you?"

Mar 10:4 They said, "Moses allowed a certificate of divorce to be written, and to divorce her."

Mar 10:5 But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart, he wrote you this commandment.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.

Mar 10:7 For this cause a man will leave his father and mother, and will join to his wife,

Mar 10:8 and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two, but one flesh.

Mar 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

Mar 10:10 In the house, his disciples asked him again about the same matter.

Mar 10:11 He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her.

Mar 10:12 If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery."

Mar 10:13 They were bringing to him little children, that he should touch them, but the disciples rebuked those who were bringing them.

Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said to them, "Allow the little children to come to me! Don't forbid them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Mar 10:15 Most certainly I tell you, whoever will not receive the Kingdom of God like a little child, he will in no way enter into it."

Mar 10:16 He took them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands on them.

Mar 10:17 As he was going out into the way, one ran to him, knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"

Mar 10:18 Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except one-God.

Mar 10:19 You know the commandments: 'Do not murder,' 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not give false testimony,' 'Do not defraud,' 'Honor your father and mother.' "

Mar 10:20 He said to him, "Teacher, I have observed all these things from my youth."

Mar 10:21 Jesus looking at him loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me, taking up the cross."

Mar 10:22 But his face fell at that saying, and he went away sorrowful, for he was one who had great possessions.

Mar 10:23 Jesus looked around, and said to his disciples, "How difficult it is for those who have riches to enter into the Kingdom of God!"

Mar 10:24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answered again, "Children, how hard is it for those who trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of God!

Mar 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

Mar 10:26 They were exceedingly astonished, saying to him, "Then who can be saved?"

Mar 10:27 Jesus, looking at them, said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God, for all things are possible with God."

Mar 10:28 Peter began to tell him, "Behold, we have left all, and have followed you."

Mar 10:29 Jesus said, "Most certainly I tell you, there is no one who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or land, for my sake, and for the sake of the Good News,

Mar 10:30 but he will receive one hundred times more now in this time, houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and land, with persecutions; and in the age to come eternal life.

Mar 10:31 But many who are first will be last; and the last first."

Mar 10:32 They were on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going in front of them, and they were amazed; and those who followed were afraid. He again took the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were going to happen to him.

Mar 10:33 "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem. The Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes. They will condemn him to death, and will deliver him to the Gentiles.

Mar 10:34 They will mock him, spit on him, scourge him, and kill him. On the third day he will rise again."

Mar 10:35 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came near to him, saying, "Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we will ask."

Mar 10:36 He said to them, "What do you want me to do for you?"

Mar 10:37 They said to him, "Grant to us that we may sit, one at your right hand, and one at your left hand, in your glory."

Mar 10:38 But Jesus said to them, "You don't know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"

Mar 10:39 They said to him, "We are able." Jesus said to them, "You shall indeed drink the cup that I drink, and you shall be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;

Mar 10:40 but to sit at my right hand and at my left hand is not mine to give, but for whom it has been prepared."

Mar 10:41 When the ten heard it, they began to be indignant towards James and John.

Mar 10:42 Jesus summoned them, and said to them, "You know that they who are recognized as rulers over the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.

Mar 10:43 But it shall not be so among you, but whoever wants to become great among you shall be your servant.

Mar 10:44 Whoever of you wants to become first among you, shall be bondservant of all.

Mar 10:45 For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Mar 10:46 They came to Jericho. As he went out from Jericho, with his disciples and a great multitude, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the road.

Mar 10:47 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, and say, "Jesus, you son of David, have mercy on me!"

Mar 10:48 Many rebuked him, that he should be quiet, but he cried out much more, "You son of David, have mercy on me!"

Mar 10:49 Jesus stood still, and said, "Call him." They called the blind man, saying to him, "Cheer up! Get up. He is calling you!"

Mar 10:50 He, casting away his cloak, sprang up, and came to Jesus.

Mar 10:51 Jesus asked him, "What do you want me to do for you?" The blind man said to him, "Rhabboni, that I may see again."

Mar 10:52 Jesus said to him, "Go your way. Your faith has made you well." Immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way.