The Da Vinci Code, the Sabbath, and Sunday by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1877

The Da Vinci Code, the Sabbath, and Sunday

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Many outlandish accusations and assertions have been made through the centuries. Some have claimed that Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime never murdered millions of Jews (see Harwood, 1974). Others have concluded that one way a man can rid himself of the AIDS virus is to have sexual relations with a virgin (see Govender, 1999). Enemies of America have accused the U.S. of being uncaring and insensitive to the suffering that takes place around the world when, in truth, few if any countries on the planet do as much to help the distressed following various catastrophes than America. [Although the U.S. certainly has lost its way in regard to promoting certain biblical and Christian values (e.g., the value of an unborn child’s life, heterosexual marriages, etc.), America is always at the forefront of helping the afflicted.]

Unfortunately, more lies have been told (and believed!) about God and Christianity than perhaps anything or anyone else on Earth. This, of course, is not surprising since “the ruler of this world” (John 14:30) and “the father” of lies (John 8:44)—Satan—wants nothing more than to deceive people regarding the one true religion. One of Satan’s recent outlets has been Dan Brown’s bookThe Da Vinci Code. Millions of readers have been mislead by this allegedly “historical” (Brown, 2003b), “fact-based” novel (MacEwen, 2003). It casts suspicion and purports several lies about early Christianity, the integrity of the Bible, and the deity of Christ.

One of the many wild assertions in Brown’s book is his criticism of the day on which Christians assemble to partake of the Lord’s Supper and worship God. According to one of Brown’s main characters, Robert Langdon,

Originally...Christianity honored the Jewish Sabbath of Saturday, but Constantine shifted it to coincide with the pagan’s veneration day of the sun.... To this day, most churchgoers attend services on Sunday mornings with no idea that they are there on account of the pagan sun god’s weekly tribute—Sunday (Brown, 2003a, pp. 232-233).

Supposedly, Christians worship God on Sunday because in the fourth century A.D. Constantine decided that the church should worship on Sundays rather than Saturdays, and thus follow the pagan sun god’s day of tribute. What is the truth of the matter?

Long before the time of Constantine, Christians were gathering together on the first day of the week to worship God. Both inspired Bible writers and non-inspired, early (pre-Constantine) Christians viewed Sunday as the day to eat the memorial feast, as well as engage in other acts of worship. The apostle Paul instructed the Christians in Corinth (as he had earlier taught the churches of Galatia) to lay a portion of their income aside “on the first day of every week...that no collections be made when I come” (1 Corinthians 16:1-2, NASV, emp. added). Luke later wrote how the disciples in Troas came together “on the first day of the week” to break bread in remembrance of the Lord’s death (Acts 20:7, emp. added; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:17-26). Ignatius wrote in his letter to the Magnesians (believed to be penned around A.D. 110) how Christians “have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day” (1:62, emp. added; cf. Revelation 1:10). In chapter 67 of his First Apology (written around A.D. 150), Justin Martyr noted how Christians would gather together “on the day called Sunday” to read the writings of the apostles and prophets, instruct, pray, give, and eat of bread and wine (emp. added). It simply is a blatant lie to assert that 300 years after Christianity was born the Emperor Constantine “shifted” the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Christians have been worshiping God on the first day of the week since the first century, when about 3,000 Jews were converted to Christ on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2)—which was a Sunday.

But why did the early Christians meet on Sunday, and why do God’s people still assemble on this day? Is it, as Brown indicates, “on account of the pagan sun god’s weekly tribute”? Absolutely not! Christians have met on Sundays to worship God for the past 2,000 years because this is the day that God has set aside for us to worship Him, including eating the memorial feast. We know that it was on the first day of the week that Jesus rose from the grave (Matthew 28:1-6; Mark 16:1-6; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1-2), that the church was established on this day (Acts 2), and that the early Christians met on this day (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2). Furthermore, early non-inspired preachers repudiated any connection between paganism and worshiping God on “the Lord’s day” (Sunday). Around A.D. 200, Tertullian twice dealt with this matter (“Ad Nationes,” 1:13; “Apology,” 16). In his “Apology,” he indicated that Christians “devote Sun-day to rejoicing” for a “far different reason than Sun-worship” (XVI). “Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly,” wrote Justin Martyr (nearly two centuries before Constantine), because “Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun,” he “appeared to His apostles and disciples” (“First Apology,” 67).

Once again, an outlandish assertion about Christianity is proven to be false. Faithful Christians never worshiped God on Sunday in any age because that day coincided with the pagan’s veneration of the Sun. What’s more, Constantine had nothing to do with saints assembling on the first day of the week. Christians have been worshiping God “on the Lord’s day” ever since the establishment of the church of Christ in the first century.

REFERENCES

Brown, Dan (2003a), The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday).

Brown, Dan (2003b), “Today,” NBC, Interview with Matt Lauer, June 9.

Govender, Prega (1999), “Child Rape: A Taboo With the AIDS Taboo,” [On-line], URL: http://www.aegis.org/news/suntimes/1999/ST990401.html.

Harwood, Richard (1974), Did Six Million Really Die? (England: Historical Review Press).

Ignatius (1973 reprint), “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Justin Martyr (1973 reprint), “The First Apology of Justin,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

MacEwen, Valerie (2003), “Try Putting This Book Down,” [On-line], URL: http://www.popmatters.com/books/reviews/d/da-vinci-code.shtml.

Tertullian (1973 reprint), “Ad Nationes,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Tertullian (1973 reprint), “Apology,” The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1409

Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution?

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

The humanistic sociologist Auguste Comte coined the term “altruism,” derived from the Italianaltrui, which means “other” (Rhode, 2005). Under Comte’s definition, altruism signified an unselfish regard for the welfare of others (Rhode, 2005). People are not entirely self-interested. If they were, then families would be nonexistent. Yet, 90 percent of Americans marry (Coltrane, 44[4]:395). Modern instances of what we generally call altruism abound. For an example of obvious altruism on a grand scale, over $4.25 billion was raised for Hurricane Katrina-related relief and recovery (“Hurricane...,” 2006).

The animal world also is filled with animals that appear to help other creatures. Eduardo Porter noted in The New York Times, “altruism isn’t an exclusively human trait. Vampire bats are pretty altruistic, too, regurgitating blood for members of the group that haven’t eaten. Sterile worker bees, which are incapable of conscious thought, let alone moral behavior, are about as altruistic as a living creature can be: they give their lives so their queen may reproduce” (2005). TheStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy reveals:

In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in so doing, they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked (Okasha, 2003).

As we ask of all relevant features of scientific data, we ask of the phenomenon of altruism in the animal kingdom: Does it best fit the creation model or the evolution model? Evolutionists categorize altruism as a product of genetic determinism (i.e., genetics explain all behavior), while Christians believe that God instilled altruism as an instinct in animals and a psychological, moral force in humans (see Thompson, 2004, pp. 23-24; cf. Jackson, 1992).

Of course, we are ignorant as to exactly what goes on inside the heads of animals and humans. We do not expect a dolphin to answer intelligibly when we ask, “Why did you help that other creature, even when it created the potential of danger to your own health?” Animal altruism troubled Charles Darwin, who popularized evolution in the 1800s. Darwin wrote that “[n]atural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing any injury to its possessor” (1859, p. 228). As Okasha well noted, “From a Darwinian viewpoint, the existence of altruism in nature is at first sight puzzling.... Natural selection leads us to expect animals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction, not those of others” (2003).

Indeed, traditional evolutionary theory has emphasized the individual, to the neglect of any social obligation. McFadden commented, “Altruism—helping others at our own expense—puzzled Charles Darwin, whose theory predicted that individuals should act selfishly to serve their self-interest. Why should wolves share their kill; or sparrows draw attention to themselves by issuing a warning call when they spot a hawk” (2004)? Major observed, “If a bird helps a breeding pair build its nest and feed its young, without breeding itself, then it would seem to be a loser in the struggle for life. While this individual is busy helping others, it is missing out on the opportunity to produce heirs of its own” (1999). How, then, do evolutionists account for altruism in animals?

EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS

Group Selection

Evolutionists have suggested that natural selection involves “group selection,” whereby a member of a group of animals would do something for the biological benefit of its entire group. In this way, evolutionists argue, the fittest group will survive, and natural selection will have met its obligation. Of course, there are severe problems with natural selection (Thompson, n.d.; Thompson and Harrub, 2003, pp. 227-270). Problems with group selection theory further illustrate the flaws in natural selection as a mode of evolution. As evolutionist Bryan Appleyard observed, “[Group selection theory—CC] makes no sense in the context of the selfish gene because all the gene can possibly see is the survival of its own particular organism” (1998, p. 112, emp. added). The selfish gene is Dawkins’ notion, reflective of Darwin, that the individual gene will do whatever it takes to ensure that the individual in which they are stored produces additional copies of the gene (1989; cf. Thompson, 2004).

Even if we were to admit that group selection occurs, however, it would not prove that genetic determinism is responsible for altruism in animals. Major explained:

[Group selection theory—CC] does not explain how the gene for altruism can survive over the long term. If an individual carrying this mutation behaves unselfishly and, as a result, leaves fewer or no offspring, then the mutation will die out. Also, the group needs to discourage cheaters—individuals that take advantage of altruists to further their own selfish interests, and thus neutralize the benefits of altruism for the species as a whole (1999).

By attempting to account for legitimate altruism by introducing a faulty hypothesis that maintains dependence on the genetically selfish individual, evolutionists have moved right back where they started.

Kin Selection

Dawkins (1989) proposed a solution to the problems with the group selection idea: “kin selection” (i.e., since close relations share genes, a gene may prompt its organism to help others who are closely related). The theory of kin selection is responsible for much of the development of sociobiological research. McFadden objected: “Altruism isn’t always restricted to kith and kin. When a female vervet monkey is attacked, non-relatives will often come to her aid. Studies show that the likelihood that a non-relative helps depends on how recently the distressed monkey groomed the helper” (2004).

Even if we were to suppose that some animal altruism occurs due to some “kin selection” mechanism, evolutionists “still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism. If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes. And the animal world is full of all sorts of elaborate forms of cooperation which extend far beyond the boundaries of mere relatedness” (Appleyard, 1998, p. 112).

Furthermore,

cheating still is possible. A mutation could arise that mimicked the identifying features of individuals that carried the gene for altruism. This introduces the need for some sort of policing strategy.... The problem now is that the difficulties have multiplied. The evolutionists sought to explain a highly complex social behavior in biological terms, and ended up having to explain other complex behaviors, such as cheating and policing (Major, 1999).

Again, if evolutionists merely repackage selfishness and call it “altruism,” they fail to explain how real altruism fits in evolutionary theory. They may insist that altruism is only apparent. But such a notion is untenable, particularly in the wake of such a generous, altruistic outpouring of support to those devastated by Katrina. Evolutionists are forced to dichotomize aspects of beings, artificially separating the biological from the psychological/moral. The fact is, we differentiate between selfish human acts and altruistic acts, because we can identify altruism when we see it. Altruism is real, and even in the light of kin selection theory, remains biologically inexplicable.

Game Theory

A more recent evolutionary explanation involves attributing even more psychological human qualities to biological features of animals that “help”: game theory. “Game theory seeks to make sense of competition by analyzing different moves in as clear a mathematical way as possible” (Appleyard, p. 111). When applied to animal altruism, game theory suggests that various organisms play an instinctive, mathematical “game” to determine what is best for the group. When some lions share a zebra corpse, for example, they are playing a sharing game that involves “subtleties of calculation and...a remarkable distillation of all the complexities in any confrontation” (p. 111). In short, game theory is the idea that organisms cooperate because it is beneficial (p. 112).

Observe that reductionist, evolutionary game theorists again have reduced a discussion of altruism to an explanation of survival tactics. In order to prove that game theory accounts for the altruism exhibited in nature, evolutionists would be forced to prove that animals are capable of solving very complex mathematical equations about which advanced college students study regularly (see “Certificate...,” 2006). Such proof is—and will be—unavailable. Furthermore, evolutionists would need to explain why, on occasion, some members of a particular “kind” of animal help members of another “kind,” which would seem to be excluded from the “game.” For example, dogs occasionally “adopt” orphaned kittens (“Mother Dog...,” 2006).

Game theory cannot explain why animals, with no prior training, occasionally appear to help humans. For example, a group of New Zealand swimmers had to depend on a group of dolphins, which formed a protective circle that kept a great white shark at bay (McFadden, 2004). Moreover, proof that all animals coexist by playing these types of “games” would fall woefully short of proving evolution and disproving the biblical creation account. The Creator endowed animals with instinctive dictates that allow them to live together.

CONCLUSION

Having demonstrated that the major evolutionary explanations of altruism fail, we reach the conclusion that evolution logically implies that altruism, as an instinctive motivation in animals, or as a psychological/moral factor in humans, is imaginary (cf. Lipe, n.d.). However, we observe altruism in nature and in the clear teaching of the Bible (John 15:13; Philippians 2:2-4). Altruism embarrasses evolution, but makes perfect sense in light of the biblical creation account.

REFERENCES

Appleyard, Bryan (1998), Brave New Worlds: Staying Human in a Genetic Future (New York: Viking).

“Certificate Program in Mathematical Modeling in Political Science and Economics,” (2006), University of Rochester, College Center for Academic Support, [On-line], URL:http://www.rochester.edu/College/CCAS/certificates/cert_mathmodel.html.

Coltrane, Scott (2001), “Marketing the Marriage ‘Solution’: Misplaced Simplicity in the Politics of Fatherhood: 2001 Presidential Address to the Pacific Sociological Association,” Sociological Perspectives, 44[4]:387-418, Winter.

Darwin, Charles (1859), The Origin of Species (New York: Avanel, 1979 reprint).

Dawkins, Richard (1989), The Selfish Gene (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press), second edition.

“Hurricane Katrina One Year Later: Where Did the Money Go?” (2006), Charity Navigator, [On-line], URL: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/katrina.article/cpid/452.htm.

Jackson, Wayne (1992), “The Blind Bookwriter,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1213.

Lipe, David L. (no date), “The Foundations of Morality,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Foundations-of-Morality.pdf.

Major, Trevor (1999), “Ethics and Darwinism [Part II],” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/73.

McFadden, Johnjoe (2004), “The Kindness of Animals,” The Hindu: On-line Edition of India’s National Newspaper, [On-line], URL:http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/14/stories/2004121401511000.htm.

“Mother Dog Adopts Litter of Kittens” (2006), WNBC, [On-line], URL:http://www.wnbc.com/news/9927844/detail.html?rss=ny&psp=news#.

Okasha, Samir (2003), “Biological Altruism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [On-line],URL: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/.

Porter, Eduardo (2005), “Putting Charity Through the ‘What’s in It for Me?’ Test,” The New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10814FF3B540C718C DDA90994DD404482.

Rhode, Debora L. (2005), “Altruism and Hurricane Katrina: Lesson For and From the Public’s Response to Social Needs,” Stanford Center on Ethics, [On-line], URL:http://ethics.stanford.edu/newsletter/December%2005/Altruism.htm.

Thompson, Bert (no date), “Neo-Darwinism: A Look at the Alleged Genetic Mechanism of Evolution,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/NeoDarwinism.pdf.

Thompson, Bert (2004), The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition.

Thompson, Bert, and Brad Harrub (2003), Investigating Christian Evidences (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Apple® CEO Tim Cook Claims His Homosexuality Is a Gift from God by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5053

Apple^® CEO Tim Cook Claims His Homosexuality Is a Gift from God

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

On October 30, 2014, Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple^®, announced to the world that he is a homosexual. Admittedly, high-profile millionaires, CEOs, athletes, and movie stars “come out” as homosexuals on a regular basis, so this declaration is not surprising. Cook made one statement, however, that is so outlandish and inaccurate that it simply cannot go unanswered. He said: “So let me be clear: I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me” (2014, emp. added). According to Tim Cook, his homosexuality is a blessing from God.

Tim’s misunderstanding of God and His Word cannot be further from the truth. We have discussed in numerous other places the fact that homosexuality is a sin, just like other sexual sins such as adultery, fornication, bestiality, and pedophilia. And we have shown that there is no genetic link to homosexuality (Miller and Harrub, 2004). It is a choice—a sinful way of life. It is not something that a person is; it is something that a person chooses to do.

As an analogy, suppose that a person who practices bestiality were to contend that his sexual choice is a gift from God. His bestiality has put him in the minority and allowed him to see things from a minority perspective. His bestiality helped him to develop thick skin and made him a stronger person. In addition, he looks forward to the day when our country recognizes the rights of people to legally marry animals.

While those who practice homosexuality do not appreciate such comparisons, the same arguments can be made in favor of bestiality as are made in favor of homosexuality. A person could claim that there is nothing he can do about his sexual preference for animals. He was made that way. He loves animals, and that is his way to show it. He can’t believe people are so judgmental and unloving as to claim that his choice is sinful or wrong. He is being persecuted by “bigots” who hate minorities such as those who practice bestiality.

One could make the same case for pedophilia. The person who engages in this sexual practice could claim she can’t help it. God created her as a pedophile. She is glad that God made her this way, because it helps her understand other minorities such as those who practice bestiality or homosexuality. It has given her thick skin and helped her learn to be herself. She looks forward to the day when our country understands that 12 year olds know what they want and should be allowed to give their consent.

I hope that you can see the problem with Tim Cook’s statement. It is one thing to blatantly live a sinful life of rebellion against God. It is another thing to claim that God is “blessing you” by endowing you with a sinful behavior. That is the equivalent of a thief claiming that “being” a thief is the greatest thing God ever did for him; or a habitual liar claiming that He is thankful God made him a liar; or an adulterer claiming that God blessed him with three girlfriends in addition to his wife; or a teenage boy thanking God for making him promiscuous and giving him the chance to have sex with scores of girls.

Has our “Christian” nation wandered so far from what God actually says in the Bible that it can swallow the proclamation that a person’s homosexual lifestyle is a gift from God? Have even New Testament Christians lived so long outside the Word of God that they can’t recognize such a blasphemous statement for the twisting of the truth that it is? Homosexuality is a sin, like any number of other sins such as lying, adultery, cheating, stealing, fraud, malicious gossip, etc. God loves all sinners and wants them to be saved. “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 2:15). Jesus Christ died on the cross to save Tim Cook from his choice to be a homosexual, just as Jesus died to save each and every one of us from our sins. But Jesus commands, yes demands, that we recognize that we are sinning and stop—repent of—our sins. Jesus clearly said “unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3).

It may be true that our culture no longer recognizes that sex before marriage is sin, or that adultery is sinful, or that homosexuality is a violation of God’s Law. But to claim that not only are these actions not sinful, but they are gifts from God, shows an ignorance of the nature of God and of His Will that is startling. As the apostle John wrote: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10). The haunting words of the prophet Isaiah, written over 2,700 years ago remind us that Cook’s tactic is nothing new: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20-21).

REFERENCES

Cook, Tim (2014), “Tim Cook Speaks Up,” http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-30/tim-cook-im-proud-to-be-gay.

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1401&topic=36.

Why Did Mary and Joseph Not Call Jesus “Immanuel”? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=3591&b=Matthew

Why Did Mary and Joseph Not Call Jesus “Immanuel”?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Q.

Why Did Mary and Joseph Not Call Jesus “Immanuel”?

A.

Approximately 700 years before the birth of the promised Messiah, Isaiah prophesied about a virgin who would “conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (7:14). Years later, the apostle Matthew referred to Isaiah’s prophecy, specifying once again that, “they shall call His name Immanuel” (1:22-23). Many have wondered why, if the promised Son of Mary was supposed to be called “Immanuel,” this name is never used in the New Testament aside from Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah 7:14. Why do we never read of Mary, Joseph, John the Baptizer, Peter, Paul, or others calling the Messiah “Immanuel”?

Thankfully, as so often is the case with God’s Word, the Bible is its own (and best!) commentary. To better understand what Isaiah meant by the name Immanuel, it is helpful to consider what the prophet wrote two chapters later. In prophesying about the Messiah, Isaiah wrote: “His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (9:6). Did Isaiah mean by this that the Messiah would literally have as His given name “Wonderful,” “Counselor,” or “Everlasting Father”? Surely, to ask is to answer. These names were given to describe the nature of the Messiah, not serve as literal, given names. As commentator Albert Barnes noted:

His [the Messiah’s—EL] attributes shall be such as to make all these applications appropriate descriptions of his power and work. To be called, and to be, in the Hebrew, often mean the same thing.... Such a use of a verb is not uncommon in Isaiah. ‘One calls him,’ is, according to the usage in Isaiah, as ranch as to say [the equivalent of saying—EL], he will justly bear this name; or simply, he will be (1997).

By nature, the son of Mary was “Immanuel” (John 1:1-3; 10:30,33; 20:28), but by name, He was “Jesus.”

A similar distinction between one’s nature and name is found as early as Genesis chapter two. Following God’s creation of Eve from Adam’s rib, the first man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man” (Genesis 2:23, emp. added). Although Adam said, “she shall be called woman,” one chapter later Moses recorded how “Adam called his wife’s name Eve” (3:20). Obviously, Adam meant that by nature the one whom God created from his rib was a female human, “a helper comparable to him” (though with noticeable differences and roles—3:18-23), but by name, she would be known as “Eve.”

Gabriel’s conversation with Mary prior to her miraculous conception is also helpful in gaining a proper understanding of Jesus’ name and nature. Although Gabriel did not use the term “Immanuel,” notice how he distinguished between Jesus’ given name and the titles by which He would be known as a result of His divine nature:

Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.... The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:30-35, emp. added).

Finally, Matthew further clarifies God’s use of the “name” Immanuel in the very passage he quotes—Isaiah 7:14. Immediately before and after Matthew reminds his readers of the prophecy regarding the Messiah’s name being “Immanuel” (1:23), he noted how Joseph would call (1:21) and did call (1:25) the Messiah by “His name Jesus.” The fact that Matthew wrote of the Messiah’s “name” being “Immanuel” in verse 23, but “Jesus” in verses 21 and 25, clearly shows that Matthew understood that one name (Jesus) was a given, literal name, while the other (Immanuel), similar to Jesus’ title “Christ,” characterized His essence.

REFERENCE

Barnes, Albert (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Jesse's Missing Son by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=799&b=1%20Chronicles

Jesse's Missing Son

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Some time ago, I received a letter from a woman who was seeking an answer to a question that an unbeliever had presented to her. The question that gave her so much trouble, and that seemed to plant a seed of doubt in her mind about the inerrancy of Scripture, was this: “Did Jesse (the father of David) have seven sons or eight?” This question arises from a comparison of the information about Jesse’s family in 1 Samuel 16-17 with the genealogy given in 1 Chronicles chapter two.

First Samuel 16 states that Jesse made seven sons pass before the prophet Samuel, in hopes that God would anoint one of them as the next king of Israel (16:10). Samuel then informed Jesse that God had not chosen any of these seven sons that passed before him, but was looking for another. Of course, that other son was David, “the youngest” (16:11) of Jesse’s “eight sons” (17:12). The “problem” with this information is that the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 specifically states that David was “the seventh” son of Jesse. How is it that David could be both the seventh son and eighth son of Jesse? Some are eager to call this a legitimate Bible contradiction. Even many Bible students (like the one who wrote me about this question) read these statements for the first time and wonder if this is an “inconsistency in the Word.” What is the answer? How many sons did Jesse have? And was David Jesse’s eighth son or seventh?

The answer is really quite simple. It seems that one of Jesse’s sons shown to Samuel at Bethlehem must have died while young and without posterity. Thus, at one time David was the youngest of eight sons, and at another time he was the youngest of seven sons. We must keep in mind that Hebrew genealogies often included only the names of those who have some significance for future generations (Richards, 1993, p. 106; Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986). It makes sense that if one of David’s brothers died before marrying and begetting children (or before doing something extraordinary), he would not have been mentioned.

Lest you think this situation sounds too bizarre, consider the following. Fifty years ago, whenever my father engaged in a discussion about his family, he would tell people that he had five brothers and two sisters. Today, when he converses with others about his family he often speaks of his four brothers and two sisters. Is he being dishonest when he does so? No. Sadly, when my dad was 19 years old, one of his younger brothers died in a tragic accident. Although this brother was loved deeply and is missed greatly, usually when my father is asked about his siblings he simply says: “I have four brothers and two sisters.” If he has time or feels there is a need, he then will mention his other brother who died at a very young age. The point is, whether my dad tells someone that he is the oldest of eight children or the oldest of seven children, he is telling the truth.

Admittedly, the Bible does not say specifically that one of David’s brothers died at a young age. But, it most likely is implying such a thing when one less son is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15. [And considering David’s three oldest brothers were warriors in Saul’s army (1 Samuel 17:13ff), one certainly would not be surprised if one of David’s other brothers also became a soldier and died in battle.]

To say that one of David’s brothers dying at a relatively young age is not an option is to assert that the Bible does not teach by implication. [Yet, as anyone who has studied the Bible knows, it most certainly does teach by implication (cf. Acts 8:35-36).] Furthermore, if people today who have lost children or siblings can speak legitimately about their family number in two different ways, should we not also give Bible writers the same freedom in their recording of historical families?

REFERENCES

“Genealogy,” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Thomas Nelson Publishers).

Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).

From Sandra F. Cobble ... Courage

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Cobble/Sandra/Fontaine/1933/courage.html

Courage

This is not the final word on courage, although it may be my final word that you will see published, for my medical prognosis is not what the doctor calls encouraging. 

Courage is not a veiled death wish as seen in the lifestyles that defy all reasonable expectations. Courage is not the instantaneous acts that most persons think of as heroic. Though many such acts are to be lauded, there is seldom much thought given to the consequences of one's actions.

Do not the Scriptures teach that we are to exercise wisdom, good judgment, and prudence? Courage analyses all known factors then decides upon a course of action based on that analysis. Yes, one may be fearful of the unknown. He may even be more fearful of known potentials. But courage acts even though harm may be to one's self. When David is talking about the person who will abide in God's presence, he says in Psalm 15:1-4, "LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not." Note that even when a person swore to his own hurt and yet had the courage to keep his oath, David pronounced him blessed.

Courage is preparing to live in such a way as to glorify God despite having been pronounced terminally ill. We are born terminally ill. "For it is appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgment" (Heb. 9:27). As we begin to mature and become aware of death we may begin to make some type of arrangements for expiration, even though the idea of our own death seems unreal. We buy insurance. We make wills. And the more mature among us begin thinking about making peace with God, with our neighbor, and with ourselves.

But then comes the announcement, "Your form of cancer has no known cure." "The symptoms can be treated to some extent with radiation and chemotherapy. But you are dying. You should make arrangements to enter a nursing home so someone can care for you."

Generally persons tend to react in one of two ways. Many do not accept what their doctors have told them. They search every where for that elusive cure. Others simply give up. They take to their beds and lie there bemoaning their fate and waiting for death. Some may begin to enjoy the extra attention they are getting. They act in such a way as to evoke the sympathy of others.

But there is a better alternative, one that will glorify God. Even a smile can do wonders for another. So can a simple 'please' or 'thank you.' Taking time to just listen to another's problems of the day can ease his burdens. These simple things glorify God. And a person who is terminally ill can feel freer to ask, "How about a hug?" Both persons will feel better and will glorify God. And when a person comes to cheer up one who is terminally ill and leaves feeling better than when he came, then God has been glorified.

True courage does not ignore obstacles. True courage recognizes obstacles but goes on to glorify God despite all obstacles. Mark Twain put it this way, "Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear -- not absence of fear." William Cullen Bryant said, "So live, that when thy summons comes to join the innumerable caravan which moves to that mysterious realm, where each shall take his chamber in the silent halls of death, thou go not, like the quarry-slave at night, scourged to his dungeon, but, sustained and soothed by an unfaltering trust, approach thy grave, like one that wraps the drapery of his couch about him, and lies down to pleasant dreams."

However, Paul's inspired statement gives more comfort and encouragement than any and all the writings of ordinary men, and he said in Philippians 1:23, "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better." Those of us who have put our trust in the Lord and accepted His grace through an obedient faith can accept the statement of Paul at face value, and face the future with courage.

Sandra F. Cobble 

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

From Gary... I need

Philippians, Chapter 4 (WEB)

 ¹⁹ My God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus.

Today, a simple question came to my mind:

What do you really, really, need ????

I wonder- How many out there are willing to ask themselves the same question Today?