Australopithecus Sediba: Evolutionary Game Changer? by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4195

Australopithecus Sediba: Evolutionary Game Changer?

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

The media has already deemed the find an “evolutionary game changer.” In a South African cave in 2008, two sets of fossils were discovered by paleontologists that they allege may be from a transitional creature—a “missing link” between modern man and the ancient ancestor he allegedly shares with modern apes. According to ABC News, and several other news outlets, scientists have proclaimed the fossilized creature an evolutionary “‘game changer’ in understanding human evolution,” potentially being the “best candidate yet for the immediate ancestor of our genus, Homo” (Potter, 2011). Scientists have deemed the fossil species containing the fossil find, Australopithecus sediba. The fossils of special interest in the find includes a “foot, hand, and parts of the pelvis and skull” (Potter). The cave wherein the fossils were found was dated, using uranium-lead dating combined with paleomagnetic and stratigraphic analysis (evolutionary dating techniques), to be 1,977,000 years old, which caused scientists to give the same age to the fossils. According to evolutionists, this age predates “the earliest uncontested evidence for Homo in Africa” (Pickering, et al., 2011, 333[6048]:1421).

Lee Berger of the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa holding the cranium ofAustralopithecus sediba

The truth is, as we have documented time and time again (e.g., Harrub and Thompson, 2003; Thompson, et al., 2002), the fossil evidence that is desperately needed to prove the theory of evolution is simply not there. As ABC News writer, Ned Potter, admitted in the article splashing the fossil find, researchers know that “[t]here is a gap in the fossil record, so far unexplained” (2011). This admission ultimately results in the media and many scientists jumping to quick conclusions when a hopeful find is made, as is the case in this instance. One would think that scientists and media personnel would be more cautious, remembering the many blunders that have been made by paleontologists over the years in their quick claims to have found missing links, including Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Flipper Man, and Orce Man (cf. Thompson and Harrub, 2002). Potter conceded that “researchers in the past have made many finds that turned out to be dead ends” (2011). That is certainly an understatement. Some scientists appear to be getting the picture. Science writer and biologist, Michael Balter, admitted that “few scientists are ready to believe” that these fossils represent the immediate ancestor of the genus, Homo (2010, 328[5975]:154). After all, caution must be taken when all of the hype and alleged “game changer” status of the species is based entirely on only a foot, hand, and small parts of a pelvis and skull.

It is important to watch for small—but significant—disclaimers that appear throughout evolutionary literature and the media’s coverage of fossil finds, like the present specimen. While some evolutionists use decisive terminology when discussing macroevolution, as if it has been proven to be true (e.g., Potter quotes Darryl De Ruiter of Texas A&M University as saying, “It’sstrong confirmation of evolutionary theory,” 2011, emp. added), the truth is, it is an unproven theory, and those “in the know” in the evolutionary community realize this problem. In fact, it is a theory that will never be proven, (1) since there is no evidence in the fossil record that transitional evolution between kinds of living organisms ever occurred, (2) since the scientific evidence indicates that life cannot come from non-life, much less could the laws governing that life write themselves into existence, and (3) since no one was around to witness the origin of life, even if atheistic evolution were true, which means the question of origins is ultimately immune to the test of empirical science. Some, at least, like Potter, have learned to use more cautious terminology when discussing evolution and the fossil record. Phrases such as “may be,” “might,” and “could be” are important, because they highlight the fact that the speaker or writer, in this case, is stating an assertion or conjecture—not a proven fact. Such words highlight the fact that even the evolutionists themselves know they have not proven their case and that their belief in evolutionary theory is a blind belief—not based on the facts.

Disclaimers are often skipped over by Americans when reading about science, because the climate in America—as promoted in large part by many in our school system—lends itself to believing scientists no matter what. A person is pressured to believe scientists, whose theories can pretty much be taken as “gospel,” regardless of the evidence. They are demi-gods. Their “maybes” are equivalent to the common man’s certainty. This unquestioning, blind belief should never have been granted to the scientific community, and especially not in the last 50 years. As morality and ethical integrity in America erodes, less and less confidence should be placed in the “elite” minds of our society, who are often biased against the truth because of the desire for prestige, money, and because of the desire to eliminate that which gives them accountability in their personal lives.

If macroevolution ever occurred, there should be millions of transitional fossils, if not billions, documenting the evolution of the various species, including man. Darwin, himself, believed that “the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous” (1956, p. 292). After well over a century of fossil digging and analyzing the geologic strata, such proof has simply not come forth, and frankly, that truth puts to rest the General Theory ofEvolution. Finding only sporadic, questionable fossils, that even the evolutionary community itself cannot agree upon, only further proves the fact that evolutionary theory is inadequate in explaining what is seen in the fossil record. The evolutionary community is in constant chaos and disagreement over fossils and the fossil record. If the evolutionary community cannot agree with itself, how can the student, listener, or reader be expected to believe what they allege?

One of the two sets of allegedly two-million-year-old bones from Australopithecus sediba found in South Africa

Years ago, many in the evolutionary community began to reject all australopithecines, which would include sediba, as being ancestral to man at all. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist who studied australopithecines for over 15 years, concluded that if man did descend from an ape-like ancestor, he did so “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation” (1970, p. 64). The late evolutionist, Ashley Montagu, said, “[T]he skull form ofall australopithecines shows too many specialized and ape-like characters to be either the direct ancestor of man or of the line that led to man” (1957, emp. added). Based largely on the nature of Orrorin tugenensis teeth, Martin Pickford, evolutionary geologist from the College de France in Paris, and Brigitte Senut, French evolutionary paleontologist of France’s National Museum of Natural History, believe that all australopithecines should be placed in a side branch of the “evolutionary tree” leading to Orrorin tugenensis and dying out 1.5 million years ago, rather than in the evolutionary line leading to Homo sapiens (cf. Senut, et al., 2001; Balter, 2001; Schuster, 2001).  If it be the case that the australopithecines do not lead to man—and it is—thenAustralopithecus sediba is totally irrelevant in a discussion of human evolution altogether, regardless of the media hype.

Time will tell whether the majority of evolutionists themselves deem this new find to be of importance to them, but regardless, the truth will still stand firm: if evolution is true, it should not be so hard to verify it. If atheistic explanations for the origin of the Universe were true, we should be witnessing the spontaneous generation of life and matter all over the place, or at least once somewhere, as well as witnessing transitions between kinds of living organisms. But true science simply does not support such things. [NOTE: See Butt, 2010 for more on Australopithecus sediba]

REFERENCES

Balter, Michael (2001), “Early Hominid Sows Division,” ScienceNOW, February 22, http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2001/02/22-03.html.

Balter, Michael (2010), “Candidate Human Ancestor from South Africa Sparks Praise and Debate,” Science, 328[5975]:154-155, April.

Butt, Kyle (2010), “Australopithecus Sediba: Another Relative We Never Had,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2872.

Darwin, Charles (1956 edition), The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Montagu, Ashley (1957), Man: His First Two Million Years (Yonkers, NY: World Publishers).

Pickering, Robyn, Paul H.G.M. Dirks, Zubair Jinnah, Darryl J. de Ruiter, Steven E. Churchill, Andy I.R. Herries, Jon D. Woodhead, John C. Hellstrom, and Lee R. Berger (2011), “Australopithecussediba at 1.977 Ma and Implications for the Origins of the Genus Homo,” Science, 333[6048]:1421-1423, September 9.

Potter, Ned (2011), “Evolutionary ‘Game Changer’: Fossil May Be Human Ancestor,” ABC News, September 8, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/fossils-south-africa-called-evolutionary-game-changer/story?id=14474976#.TmouXw8wezs.email.

Schuster, Angela M.H. (2001), “Special Report: Ancient Ancestors?” Archaeology, 54[4]:24-25, July/August.

Senut, Brigitte, Martin Pickford, Dominique Gommery, Pierre Mein, Kiptalam Cheboi, Yves Coppens (2001), “First Hominid From the Miocene,” Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Science, Series IIA-Earth and Planetary Science, 332[2]:137-144, January 30.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002), “No Missing Links Here…,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1353.

Thompson, Bert, Brad Harrub, and Eric Lyons (2002), “Human Evolution and the ‘Record of the Rocks,’” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=153.

Zuckerman, Solly (1970), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger).

Christianity, Democracy, and Iraq by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1538

Christianity, Democracy, and Iraq

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

For some fifty years now, the “politically correct” crowd has used strong-arm, Gestapo-like tactics to deprive Americans of the right of self-government so paramount in a Republic. Implementing their agenda of secularism through judicial coercion and social intimidation, they have literally bullied the Moral Majority into silence and spiritual paralysis. Their objective continues to be to drive all vestiges of the Christian religion and Christian morality from the public square. Especially in regard to moral issues, like abortion, school prayer, and same-sex marriage, social and political liberals have sought to overturn the rules under which the nation lived for 180+ years. Observe that this aggressive assault on religious expressions in the public sector is as intolerant and monolithic as those extremist elements that seek to bring America down by violence and terrorism. The will of the majority of Americans (for the moment) on a whole range of moral issues is being trumped by a leftist judiciary, politically liberal legislators, secularist educators, and morally bankrupt entertainers.

Even as America seeks to export its singular brand of “democracy” to other countries (e.g., Iraq), sinister forces within are chipping away at America’s foundations to bring about her demise. In the process, the very reason for America’s success and prosperity has been overlooked. Do you remember the euphoria created by the collapse of communism in Russia? The prevailing view was that the way had been cleared for Russia to achieve for its people what America has achieved for its own people, i.e., “freedom” and “economic prosperity.” Has it happened? No. Why? Why is alcoholism rampant in Russia (Brissenden, 2003)? Why is drug addiction soaring there (Koshkina, 2003; “Drug Intelligence...,” 2003)? Why have crime, poverty, and mortality rates continued to increase (Walberg, et al., 1998)?

The average American appears to believe that America’s prosperity was the inevitable result of our democratic approach to governing. We seem to think that since we possess personal freedom, engage in free elections, and engage in the free enterprise of capitalism, it was inevitable that our country should come into being and flourish. When our leaders speak of exporting the American brand of democracy to other parts of the world (e.g., “Elections in Iraq,” 2005), they appear to share the widespread notion that the cause and source of America’s unprecedented success is the direct result of our democratic institutions of government. So if we can just get dictators out of the way (e.g., Saddam Hussein), and give the people a chance to express themselves at the ballot box, presto, little America’s will spring up all over the world that will soon manifest the same prosperous, secure, free way of life that American’s have enjoyed for so long. Right? Wrong! There are two reasons why this rationale is dead wrong: (1) the Bible says it is wrong, and (2) the Founding Fathers said it is wrong.

The Bible claims that national existence is dependent on commitment to the instructions, directives, and moral principles of God’s Word (Psalm 33:12). The Bible claims, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). The Bible maintains that “the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Psalm 9:17). God said to the nation of Israel, “if you turn away and forsake My statutes and My commandments which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods, and worship them, then I will uproot them from My land” (2 Chronicles 7:19-20). The Bible claims that national security, economic prosperity, civil order, and personal happiness are centered solely in the population’s spiritual commitment: “Happy are the people whose God is the Lord!” (Psalm 144:15). This concept is emphasized over and over again throughout Scripture. America owes its incredible progress to its historic commitment to the one true God to the exclusion of all other gods, religions, ideologies, and religionless philosophies.

What about the Founders? Did they claim that national success was dependent on “democracy,” “free enterprise,” “free elections,” and “freedom?” Absolutely not. In the first place, they did not claim to be establishing a “democracy.” For example, our second President, John Adams, wrote in an 1814 letter to John Taylor: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide (1850, 6:484). Signer of the federal Constitution and two-time President of the United States, James Madison, explained: “[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths” (Hamilton, et al., 1818, p. 53).

Why did the Founders have such disdain for a “democracy”? Because the source of authority for a democracy is simply the whims, opinions, and fluctuating feelings of the majority. The people are essentially a law to themselves and the sole source of ascertaining right and wrong. In a democracy, homosexuality may be deemed wrong today—but right tomorrow. The Bible frequently alludes to this very negative social circumstance (e.g., Exodus 23:2; Jeremiah 10:23; Judges 21:25).

In stark contrast, the Founders claimed to have established a republic. A republic differs from a democracy in that it operates on the basis of set laws that transcend the will of the people—unchanging moral principles that apply to all people, in all places, in all times. Where did the Founders believe the source of that law lay? The Creator—the God of the Bible. Specifically, the Founders and Framers insisted that the American republic rests on the foundation of the laws and moral principles of the Christian religion. In the words of Founder Noah Webster: “[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion” (1832, p. 6). In 1775, Alexander Hamilton, a signer of the Constitution, observed that human laws must be aligned with God’s laws: “[T]he law...dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this” (1961, 1:87).

This means that the Founders believed that freedom, free enterprise, and economic prosperity rise solely from the foundation of Christian morality. Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence, insisted: “Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments” (as quoted in Steiner, 1907, p. 475, emp. added). In an 1829 letter to James Madison, Noah Webster declared: “[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government....and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence” (as quoted in Snyder, 1990, p. 253, emp. added). The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, maintained; “Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation” (1893, 4:52, emp. added). George Washington proclaimed to the entire nation in his farewell address that religion and morality are the indispensable supports of political prosperity, the great pillars of human happiness, and a necessary spring of popular government (1796).

Shortly after America had its revolution, France had theirs. They, too, claimed to establish a “republic.” But did they? They could not have established a republic like America’s—because a sizable percentage of the French population was amoral and atheistic. America’s Founders recognized this fact, as did the Courts at the time. The State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania made this very point in 1824 in the case Updegraph v. the Commonwealth:

No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Christianity is part of the common law of this state.... Its foundations are broad, and strong, and deep: they are laid in the authority, the interest, the affections of the people. Waiving all questions of hereafter, it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws (Updegraph..., 1824, emp. added).

Patrick Henry declared: “[T]he great pillars of all government and of social life: I mean virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible” (1891, 2:592, emp. added). Samuel Adams said: “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness” (1905, 4:74, emp. added). Benjamin Franklin asserted that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters” (1840, 10:297, emp. added). Signer of the Declaration, John Hancock, insightfully observed:

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement.... Manners, by which not only the freedom but the very existence of the republics are greatly affected, depend much upon the public institutions of religion (as quoted in Brown, 1898, p. 269, emp. added).

Even Thomas Jefferson weighed in on the same point, in an 1809 letter to James Fishback:

The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, He [God—DM] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses (1904, 12:315, emp. added).

Signer of the federal Constitution, and Secretary of War under both Washington and Adams, James McHenry affirmed:

The Holy Scriptures....can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses (as quoted in Steiner, 1921, p. 14, emp. added).

Observe that McHenry insisted that the Bible—not the Quran, the Hindu Vedas, or Buddhist Pitakas—is indispensable to American society, courts, and government.

A good summary statement of the views of the Founders and Framers of American institutions is found in the words of Joseph Story, one of two men who share the title “Father of American Jurisprudence,” who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President James Madison, and who served on the High Court for 34 years:

The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion; the being and attributes and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions; founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them. And, at all events, it is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity as a Divine revelation, to doubt that it is the especial duty of government to foster and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects (1833, 3:722-723, emp. added).

Many other Founders could be cited that express the same viewpoints. According to both the Bible and the Founders of the American republic, can countries like Iraq reproduce the freedom and democratic institutions historically enjoyed by America? No, they cannot. Iraq is built upon Islam—not Christianity. Its values are firmly embedded in Islamic values. While there is someoverlap, Islam is not Christianity.

CONCLUSION

Consider these sobering thoughts from the Bible that so clearly express the sweeping scope of human history:

Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understandingin the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day? Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren.... Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. You shall therefore keep His statutes and His commandments which I command you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which the Lord your God is giving you for all time (Deuteronomy 4:5-9,39-40, emp. added).

In uncanny anticipation of the liberal social forces in America today, with their agenda of abortion, homosexuality, and hostility toward Christian values, the second President of the United States, in articulating the degeneration that occurs when a republic shifts to a democracy, issued a solemn warning that ought to haunt every American—since it closely resembles the very direction America has taken:

[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few (1977, 1:83).

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1850), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Charles Little & James Brown).

Adams, John (1977), The Papers of John Adams, ed. John Taylor (Cambridge: Belknap Press).

Adams, Samuel (1905), The Writings of Samuel Adams, ed. Harry Cushing (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

Brissenden, Michael (2003), “Russia—Alcoholism,” ABC News Foreign Correspondent, [On-line], URL: http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s932631.htm.

Brown, Abram (1898), John Hancock, His Book (Boston, MA: Lee & Shepard).

“Drug Intelligence Brief: Heroin Trafficking in Russia’s Troubled East” (2003), U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, [On-line], URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/intel/03053/03053.html.

“Elections in Iraq” (2005), The White House, [On-line], URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/elections/.

Franklin, Benjamin (1840), The Works of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Jared Sparks (Boston, MA: Tappen, Whittemore and Mason).

Hamilton, Alexander (1961), The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold Syrett (New York, NY: Columbia University Press).

Hamilton, Alexander, John Jay, and James Madison (1818), The Federalist on the New Constitution (Philadelphia, PA: Benjamin Warner).

Henry, Patrick (1891), Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, ed. William Henry (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons).

Jay, John (1893), The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, ed. Henry Johnston (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).

Jefferson, Thomas (1904), The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Bergh (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association).

Koshkina, E. (2003), “Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Among the Russian Population,” [On-line],URL: http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC9364.htm.

Snyder, K. Alan (1990), Defining Noah Webster: Mind and Morals in the Early Republic (New York, NY: University Press of America).

Steiner, Bernard (1907), The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland, OH: Burrow Brothers).

Steiner, Bernard (1921), One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Baltimore, MD: The Maryland Bible Society).

Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hillard, Gray, & Co.).

UpDegraph v. the Commonwealth (1824), 11 Serg. & Rawle 394; 1824 Pa. LEXIS 85.

Walberg, Peder, Martin McKee, Vladimir Shkolnikov, Laurent Chenet, David A. Leon (1998), "Economic Change, Crime, and Mortality Crisis in Russia: regional analysis," PovertyNet Library, [On-line], URL: http://poverty.worldbank.org/library/view/12740/.

Washington, George (1796), Farewell Address, [On-line], URL: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/transcript.html.

Webster, Noah (1832), History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck).

Did Jesus Break the Sabbath? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=5155&b=Matthew

Did Jesus Break the Sabbath?
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One common misconception regarding the behavior of Jesus is that, on occasion, in healing the sick and performing other benevolent actions, He broke the Sabbath in order to accommodate the higher law of love. This viewpoint leaves the impression that law is sometimes, if not frequently, antithetical to being loving. It implies that sometimes breaking God’s laws is necessary in order to be loving. This notion, of course, is flawed and contrary to Bible teaching. As Paul explained to the Romans: “he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments…are all summed up in this saying, namely, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:8-10). Paul meant that when you obey the law’s directives concerning how to conduct yourself toward your neighbor, you will be engaging in loving behavior. To love, one must enact God’s laws.

The fact is the perfect Son of God obeyed all of God’s laws, never violating even one Divine precept (Hebrews 4:15). Sin is defined as violation of God’s law (1 John 3:4). Since Jesus was sinless, He never broke God’s laws. Hence, He could not have broken the Sabbath. Those who leveled such an accusation against Him were, in fact, mistaken.

THE POOL

Take, for example, the incident in John 5, when Jesus caused a man, who suffered from a 38-year-old ailment, to rise from his bed of confinement and walk. The fact that Jesus’ action took place on the Sabbath drew the criticism of the Jews who promptly informed the man, “It is the Sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your bed” (vs. 10). Many would suppose that Jesus would not be concerned with careful conformity to the Law. They would assume that He would chide the Jews for their “nit-picky, legalistic” approach to religion, and that He would be quite willing to dismiss the requirements of the Law in order to give priority to human need in the name of compassion. But this viewpoint is fraught with error, not the least of which is its demeaning assessment of law—law which God, Himself, authored. Law, according to God, is given for human well-being (Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Proverbs 29:18). God’s law is “holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12), and serves divinely intended, positive purposes (e.g., Romans 3:20). Indeed, Jesus’ handling of His critics illustrates the high regard He had for law, the necessity of carefully conforming to that law, and the critical importance of applying it accurately.

In John 7, calling attention to the miracle He performed in chapter 5, Jesus offered a logical rebuttal to the allegation that He violated the Sabbath. Here is that argument placed in syllogistic form:

Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8^th day after birth—even when the 8^th day falls on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires the circumcision of a male infant on the 8^th day after birth—even when the 8^th day fell on the Sabbath.

Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

Jesus then offered a concluding admonition that cinched the validity of His argument: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (vs. 24). Making application of God’s laws based on “appearance” refers to doing so based on how things seem or look to the person making the judgment, i.e., forming an opinion based on inadequate evidence. To the contrary, to “judge with righteous judgment” means to make accurate assessments by drawing only warranted conclusions from the evidence, i.e., thinking and acting rationally. One must be very careful that he is “accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB) and not “handling the word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2).

THE SYNAGOGUE

Another instance in which Jesus was falsely accused of breaking the Sabbath is seen on the occasion when Jesus entered the synagogue and encountered a man who had a deformed hand (Matthew 12:9-13). This circumstance prompted His enemies to ask Him a question in hopes of being able to accuse Him of breaking the Law. They asked: “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” Of course, they had pre-decided that the answer to the question was “no,” and that, in fact, the Law would naturally forbid such an action.

Unfortunately, the prevailing interpretation of the Law of Moses at the time, at least among the Jewish leaders, was that the Sabbath law enjoined total inactivity—as if everyone was to sit down for 24 hours and do absolutely nothing. This view was a distortion of God’s Law on the matter. The Law gave the right, even the obligation, to engage in several activities (that could rightly be designated “work”) that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. On this occasion, Jesus pinpointed one such instance: “What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?” (vs. 11). Jesus was recalling a directive from the Law of Moses:

You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother. And if your brother is not near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it to your own house, and it shall remain with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him. You shall do the same with his donkey, and so shall you do with his garment; with any lost thing of your brother’s, which he has lost and you have found, you shall do likewise; you must not hide yourself. You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fall down along the road, and hide yourself from them; you shall surely help him lift them up again (Deuteronomy 22:1-4; cf. Exodus 23:4-5).

Such passages give insight into the nature of God and provide tremendous assistance in making proper application of God’s laws to everyday circumstances.

Observe that God’s laws never contradict or countermand each other. Unlike manmade laws which often manifest inconsistency and contradiction, God’s laws function in perfect harmony with each other. The Mosaic passage to which Jesus alluded demonstrates that the general principle of the cessation of usual work on the Sabbath did not conflict with any number of specific circumstances in which benevolence and compassion were to be expressed. In an agriculturally based society, a family’s survival depends on its farm animals. If a sheep, ox, or donkey were to break out of its stall, flee the premises, and then fall into a pit from which it would be unable to extricate itself, the animal would most likely die or become seriously ill if left in its predicament for 24 hours. To expend the necessary effort (i.e., “work”) to retrieve the animal from danger was not considered by God to be included in the Sabbath prohibition. Hence, Jesus stated the logical conclusion: “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (vs. 12). If action could be exerted to see to the well-being of a dumb animal, then obviously, God would approve of action taken to see to the physical care of a human being! Here, once again, is Jesus’ argument placed in syllogistic form:

Premise 1: If the Law of Moses requires a person to manifest care, concern, and physical effort to recover a neighbor’s escaped, endangered farm animal—even when the incident occurs on the Sabbath—then healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

Premise 2: The Law of Moses requires a person to manifest care, concern, and physical effort to recover a neighbor’s escaped, endangered farm animal—even when the incident occurs on the Sabbath.

Conclusion: Therefore, healing a man on the Sabbath is equally legal.

The logic is penetrating and decisive. Indeed, “they could not answer Him regarding these things” (Luke 14:6; see also Luke 6:6-11). Far from suggesting that law is unimportant and may be ignored under the guise of “human need,” or implying that humans can break the “letter of the law” in order to keep the “spirit of the law” (see Miller, 2003), Jesus demonstrated that inherently built into God’s laws are all concerns deemed by Deity to be necessary. The benevolent, loving thing to do willalways harmonize with God’s laws, since “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Romans 13:10), i.e., every truly loving action has already been defined by God in His legal admonitions.

THE GRAIN FIELD

A final instance in which Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath is seen in the grain field incident (Matthew 12:1-8). Many commentators automatically assume that the charge leveled against Jesus’ disciples by the Pharisees was a scripturally valid charge. However, when the disciples picked and consumed a few heads of grain from a neighbor’s field, they were doing that which was perfectly lawful (Deuteronomy 23:25). Working would have been a violation of the Sabbath law. If they had pulled out a sickle and begun harvesting the grain, they would have been violating the Sabbath law. However, they were picking strictly for the purpose of eating immediately—an action that was in complete harmony with Mosaic legislation (“but that which everyone must eat”—Exodus 12:16). A modern equivalent might be reaching for a box of cereal on the pantry shelf, pouring it in a bowl, retrieving the milk from the refrigerator, pouring it on the cereal, and eating it. The Pharisees’ charge that the disciples were doing something “not lawful” on the Sabbath was simply an erroneous charge (cf. Matthew 15:2).

Jesus commenced to counter their accusation with masterful, penetrating logic, advancing successive rebuttals. Before He presented specific scriptural refutation of their charge, He first employed a rational device designated by logicians asargumentum ad hominem (literally “argument to the man”). He used the “circumstantial” form of this argument, which enabled Him to “point out a contrast between the opponent’s lifestyle and his expressed opinions, thereby suggesting that the opponent and his statements can be dismissed as hypocritical” (Baum, 1975, p. 470, emp. added). This variety of argumentation spotlights the opponent’s inconsistency, and “charges the adversary with being so prejudiced that his alleged reasons are mere rationalizations of conclusions dictated by self-interest” (Copi, 1972, p. 76).

Observe carefully the technical sophistication inherent in Jesus’ strategy. He called attention to the case of David (vss. 3-4). When David was in exile, literally running for his life to escape the jealous, irrational rage of Saul, he and his companions arrived in Nob, tired and hungry (1 Samuel 21). He lied to the priest and conned him into giving to his traveling companions the showbread, or “bread of the Presence” (12 flat cakes arranged in two rows on the table within the Tabernacle [Exodus 25:23-30; Leviticus 24:5-6])—bread that legally was reserved only for the priests (Leviticus 24:8-9; cf. Exodus 29:31-34; Leviticus 8:31; 22:10ff.). David clearly violated the law. Did the Pharisees condemn him? Absolutely not! They revered David. They held him in high regard. In fact, nearly a thousand years after his passing, his tomb was still being tended (Acts 2:29; cf. 1 Kings 2:10; Nehemiah 3:16; Josephus, 1974a, 13.8.4; 16.7.1; Josephus, 1974b, 1.2.5). On the one hand, they condemned the disciples of Jesus, who were innocent, but on the other hand, they upheld and revered David, who was guilty. Their inconsistency betrayed both their insincerity as well as their ineligibility to bring a charge against the disciples.

After exposing their hypocrisy and inconsistency, Jesus next turned to answer the charge pertaining to violating the Sabbath. He called their attention to the priests who worked in the Temple on the Sabbath (12:5; e.g., Numbers 28:9-10). The priests were “blameless”—not guilty—of violating the Sabbath law because their work was authorized to be performed on that day. As previously noted, the Sabbath law did not imply that everyone was to sit down and do nothing. The Law gave the right, even the obligation, to engage in several activities that did not constitute violation of the Sabbath regulation. Again, examples of such authorization included eating, Temple service, circumcision (John 7:22), tending to the basic care of animals (Exodus 23:4-5; Deuteronomy 22:1-4; Matthew 12:11; Luke 13:15), and extending kindness or assistance to the needy (Matthew 12:12; Luke 13:16; 14:1-6; John 5:5-9; 7:23). The divinely authorized Sabbath activity of the priests proved that the accusation of the Pharisees brought against Jesus’ disciples was false. [The term “profane” (vs. 5) is an example of the figure of speech known as metonymy of the adjunct in which “things are spoken of according to appearance, opinions formed respecting them, or the claims made for them” (Dungan, 1888, p. 295, emp. added). By this figure, Leah was said to be the “mother” of Joseph (Genesis 37:10), Joseph was said to be the “father” of Jesus (Luke 2:48; John 6:42), God’s preached message was said to be “foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:21), and angels were said to be “men” (e.g., Genesis 18:16; 19:10). Priestly activity on the Sabbath gave the appearance of violation when, in fact, it was not. Coincidentally, Bullinger classified the allusion to “profane” in this verse as an instance of catachresis, or incongruity, stating that “it expresses what was true according to the mistaken notion of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (1898, p. 676, emp. added).]

After pointing out the obvious legality of priestly effort expended on the Sabbath, Jesus stated: “But I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple” (12:6). The underlying Greek text actually has “something” instead of “One.” If priests could carry on Tabernacle/Temple service on the Sabbath, surely Jesus’ own disciples were authorized to engage in service in the presence of the Son of God! After all, service directed to the person of Jesus certainly is greater than the pre-Christianity Temple service conducted by Old Testament priests.

For all practical purposes, the discussion was over. Jesus had disproved the claim of the Pharisees. But He did not stop there. He took His methodical confrontation to yet another level. He penetrated beneath the surface argument that the Pharisees had posited and focused on their hearts: “But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless” (12:7). In this verse, Jesus quoted from an Old Testament context (Hosea 6:6) in which the prophet of old struck a blow against the mere external, superficial, ritualistic observance of some laws, to the neglect of heartfelt, sincere, humble attention to other laws while treating people properly. The comparison is evident. The Pharisees who confronted Jesus’ disciples were not truly interested in obeying God’s law. They were masquerading under that pretense (cf. Matthew 15:1-9; 23:3). But their problem did not lie in an attitude of desiring careful compliance with God’s law. Rather, their zest for law keeping was hypocritical and unaccompanied by their own obedience and concern for others. They possessed critical hearts and were more concerned with scrutinizing and blasting people than with honest, genuine applications of God’s directives for the good of mankind.

They had neutralized the true intent of divine regulations, making void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6). They had ignored and skipped over the significant laws that enjoined justice, mercy, and faith (Matthew 23:23). Consequently, though their attention to legal detail was laudable, their misapplication of it, as well as their own neglect and rejection of some aspects of it, made them inappropriate and unqualified promulgators of God’s laws. Indeed, they simply did not fathom the teaching of Hosea 6:6 (cf. Micah 6:6-8). “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice” is a Hebraism (cf. Matthew 9:13) [McGarvey, 1875, pp. 82-83]. God was not saying that He did not want sacrifices offered under the Old Testament economy (notice the use of “more” in Hosea 6:6). Rather, He was saying that He did not want sacrifice alone. He wanted mercy with sacrifice. Internal motive and attitude are just as important to God as the external compliance with specifics.

Samuel addressed this same attitude shown by Saul: “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams” (1 Samuel 15:22). Samuel was not minimizing the essentiality of sacrifice as required by God. Rather, he was convicting Saul of the pretense of using one aspect of God’s requirements, i.e., alleged “sacrifice” of the best animals (1 Samuel 15:15), as a smoke screen for violating God’s instructions, i.e., failing to destroy all the animals (1 Samuel 15:3). If the Pharisees had understood these things, they would not have accused the disciples of breaking the law when the disciples, in fact, had not done so. They “would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 12:7, emp. added).

While the disciples were guilty of violating an injunction that the Pharisees had concocted (supposing the injunction to be a genuine implication of the Sabbath regulation), the disciples were not guilty of a violation of Sabbath law. The Pharisees’ propensity for enjoining their uninspired and erroneous interpretations of Sabbath law upon others was the direct result of cold, unmerciful hearts that found a kind of sadistic glee in binding burdens upon people for burdens’ sake rather than in encouraging people to obey God genuinely.

Jesus placed closure on His exchange with the Pharisees on this occasion by asserting the accuracy of His handling of this entire affair: “For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath” (vs. 8). In other words, Jesus affirmed His deity and, therefore, His credentials and authoritative credibility for making accurate application of the Law of Moses to the issue at hand. One can trust Jesus’ exegesis and application of Sabbath law; after all, He wrote it!

Matthew 12 does not teach that Jesus broke the Sabbath or sanctions occasional violation of His laws under extenuating circumstances. His laws are never optional, relative, or situational—even though people often find God’s will inconvenient and difficult (e.g., John 6:60; Matthew 11:6; 15:12; 19:22; Mark 6:3; 1 Corinthians 1:23). The truth of the matter is that if the heart is receptive to God’s will, His will is “easy” (Matthew 11:30), “not too hard” (Deuteronomy 30:11), nor “burdensome” (1 John 5:3). If, on the other hand, the heart resists His will and does not desire to conform to it, then God’s words are “offensive” (Matthew 15:12), “hard,” (John 6:60), “narrow” (Matthew 7:14), and like a hammer that breaks in pieces and grinds the resister into powder (Jeremiah 23:29; Matthew 21:44).

CONCLUSION

The religion of Christ surpasses all human religion. It is rooted in the very essence of Deity. When Jesus took on human form on Earth, He showed Himself to be the Master logician and exegete Who always conducted Himself in a rational manner and conformed His actions to divine law. May we do likewise.

[NOTE: For more on Jesus’ handling of the Sabbath, see Miller, 2004.]

REFERENCES

Baum, Robert (1975), Logic (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).

Copi, Irving (1972), Introduction To Logic (New York: Macmillan).

Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

Josephus, Flavius (1974a reprint), Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Josephus, Flavius (1974b reprint), Wars of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).

Miller, Dave (2003), “The Spirit and Letter of the Law,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1225.

Miller, Dave (2004), “Situation Ethics—Extended Version,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=645&topic=38.

Jonah and the "Whale"? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=69&b=Jonah

Jonah and the "Whale"?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Skeptics frequently have railed against the allusion to a “whale” in Matthew 12:40 in the King James Version. They have insisted that the very idea that a person actually could be swallowed by such a creature and survive is preposterous. Yet this charge has been shown to be impotent for two reasons: (1) historical precedent exists for the possibility of just such an occurrence; and (2) the text of Jonah insists that the sea creature in question was orchestrated supernaturally by God for the purpose intended (see Thompson, 1996, 16:86). God specifically “prepared” (mahnah—appointed, constituted, made ready) a great fish (Gesenius, 1847, p. 486). The same term is employed in the same book to refer to additional direct manipulations initiated by God. He also prepared a plant (4:6), a worm (4:7), and a vehement wind (4:8) [see Wigram, 1890, p. 733]. George Cansdale was correct in concluding: “[T]here is no point in speculating about the full physical explanation of an incident that primarily is metaphysical, i.e., miraculous” (1975, 5:925, emp. added). McClintock and Strong agree: “[T]he transaction is plainly miraculous, and no longer within the sphere of zoological discussion” (1881, 10:972). Jonah’s survival after being inside a sea creature is no more remarkable than Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego surviving the “burning fiery furnace” (Daniel 3:27).

In addition to the evidence that may be deduced for (1) the credibility of a whale swallowing Jonah and (2) the miraculous preparation of the creature by God, a third clarification is in order that pertains to translation. The actual text of the book of Jonah states that “the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah” (Jonah 1:17). The Hebrew term (dahg) that underlies the English translation “fish” (1:17; 2:1,10) is a broad term that “always has the collective meaning ‘fish’ ” (Botterweck, 1978, 3:135). William Gesenius, whose lexicographical labors in the Hebrew language were without peer, defined dahg merely as “fish” (p. 189). Eminent Hebrew scholar, C.F. Keil, insisted strongly that “[t]he great fish, which is not more precisely defined, was not a whale” (Keil and Delitzsch, 1977, 10:398, emp. added). We conclude, therefore, that the word used in the book of Jonah to refer to the sea creature that swallowed Jonah, refers indiscriminately to any type of fish—without regard for the technical taxonomic, classification schemes developed by the scientific community in the last few centuries. It has the same generic latitude that inheres in the English word “fish” has, which can refer to any number of cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates—from a trout, bass, or crappie to sharks, rays, jellyfish, and crayfish (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000, p. 665).

However, a point of clarification needs to be sounded even here. According to the present zoological nomenclature, a “whale” is not a “fish”—it is classified as a mammal. Hebrew linguistic experts note no such distinction in the terms used in the Old Testament. The ordinary term for “fish” (dahg) would not necessarily exclude the whale in its application.

The Hebrew uses three additional terms that are germane to this discussion. Two of the words are closely interrelated: tan-neem and tan-neen. The first term generally is translated (though erroneously) as “dragon” in the KJV. Newer translations typically use “jackal,” except in Ezekiel 29:3 and 32:2, where the creature’s habitat is obviously aquatic, so “monster” generally is employed (Day, 1939, 2:873). The second term is treated more loosely in the KJV, and variously translated as “whales” (Genesis 1:21; Job 7:12), “serpent,” archaic for “snake” (Exodus 7:9,10), “dragon” (Jeremiah 51:34), and “sea monsters” (Lamentations 4:3). The third relevant term is “leviathan”—a transliteration of the Hebrew term liv-yah-thahn(Job 41:1; 104:26; Isaiah 27:1). This “very large aquatic creature” (Gesenius, p. 433) was unquestionably a now-extinct, dinosaur-like reptile that once inhabited the oceans (Lyons, 2001). Whereas the term “leviathan” undoubtedly refers to a specific type of animal, the previous two terms (tan-neem and tan-neen) are generic and nonspecific like dahg. [Interestingly, Isaiah 27:1 refers to leviathan as both a “snake” (nah-ghahsh) and a “monster,” or “reptile” (NKJV) (tah-neen)].

What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that on the fifth day of Creation, God created sea life. He used two terms to specify these inhabitants of the “waters.” The first was “souls” (Genesis 1:20,21b)—the ordinary term for living “things,” or “creatures” (nephesh). The second was “sea-monsters” (Genesis 1:21a)—the plural of tan-neen (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1967/77, p. 2). This latter term is important for understanding the generic nature of the Hebrew language in its reference to the animal occupants of the sea. The word is translated erroneously as “whales” in the KJV. The NKJVhas “sea creatures,” the ASV, NASB, RSV, and NEB have “sea monsters,” while the NIV has “creatures of the sea.” These latter three renderings are accurate representations of the Hebrew. They illustrate the in-built ambiguity that characterizes the Hebrew designations of animal species in the Old Testament. [NOTE: The term translated “birds” (Genesis 1:20,21, 22,26,28,30) doubtless possesses the same latitude and indiscriminate flexibility in meaning, thereby designating any creature that has the capability of flight, including mammals (e.g., bats), insects, and reptiles (e.g., pterodactyl).]

Moving to New Testament Greek, and the verse under discussion in this article (Matthew 12:40), did Christ refer to the great fish of Jonah as a “whale”? Matthew records that Jesus employed the Greek term ketos to refer to Jonah’s sea creature. The Septuagint translators used the same term in their rendering of Jonah 1:17. Greek lexicographers are decisive on the meaning of this word. The highly respected Greek scholars Arndt and Gingrich offer only one definition for ketos—“sea-monster” (1957, p. 432). The dictionary that was designed for use with the United Bible Societies’ prestigious Greek New Testament text (A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament) defined ketos as “large sea creature” (Newman, 1971, p. 100). Thayer listed three terms—“sea-monster, whale, huge fish” (1901, p. 346), with the reference to “whale” being merely one possibility among many others within the broader sense of the term. Renowned Bible commentator Albert Barnes insisted: “It is well known that the Greek word translated as whale, in the New Testament, does not of necessity mean a whale, but may denote a large fish or sea-monster of any kind” (1949, 1:134, italics in orig.). He speculated that the creature was a species of shark. McClintock and Strong elaborated further by noting that the term “is not restricted in its meaning to ‘a whale,’ or any cetacean; ...it may denote any sea-monster, either ‘a whale,’ or ‘a shark,’ or a ‘seal,’ or ‘a tunny of enormous size’ ” (10:973). Respected Bible scholar J.W. McGarvey wrote: “The Greek word here translated whale is ‘sea monster’ ” (n.d., p. 306). Lenski also preferred the rendering “sea monster,” stating that “[t]he ‘whale’ of our versions isonly an effort at translation” (1961, 1:493, emp. added).

The versionary evidence is surely confusing to the average English reader of the New Testament. The KJV, ASV, andRSV all render ketos in Matthew 12:40 as “whale.” Their rationale behind this unjustifiable linguistic decision, which Lewis maintains has created “an unnecessary problem” (1976, 2:178-179), remains a mystery. Ironically, all three versions translate Jonah 1:17 as “fish.” On the other hand, the NASB, NEB, and REB all have “sea monster” in Matthew 12:40. Three translations that handled the matter in a comparable fashion to each other include the GNB (“big fish”), theNIV (“huge fish”), and the NKJV (“great fish”). It also should be noted that, as a matter of fact, the generic word in Greek for “fish” is ichthus—not ketos. The latter term varies from the former in that ketos refers generically to a sea monster, or perhaps, a huge fish (cf. Vine, 1952, p. 209).

What conclusion is to be drawn from these linguistic data? Both the Hebrew and Greek languages lacked the precision to identify with specificity the identity of the creature that swallowed Jonah. As Earl S. Kalland affirmed, “[t]he identity or biological classification of this great water monster is unknown” (1980, 1:401). Both dahg and ketos “designate sea creatures of undefined species” (Lewis, 2:178).

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Arndt, W.F. and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77), (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung).

Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren (1978), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Cansdale, George S. (1975), The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Day, Alfred Ely (1939), “Dragon,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, James Orr, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).

Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).

Kalland, Earl S. (1980), “dag, daga,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1977 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Lewis, Jack P. (1976), The Gospel According to Matthew (Austin, TX: Sweet).

Lyons, Eric (2001), “Behemoth and Leviathan—Creatures of Controversy,” Reason and Revelation, 21:1-7, January.

McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).

McClintock, John and James Strong (1881), Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970 reprint).

Newman, Barclay M. Jr. (1971), A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (London: United Bible Societies).

Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).

Thompson, Bert (1996), “Jonah, Jesus, and Anti-supernaturalism,” Reason and Revelation, 16:86, November.

Vine, W.E. (1952), An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).

Wigram, George W. (1890), The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).

Abiding in Him by Richard Mansel

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

Abiding in Him

How will we be found when the Lord returns? The time of the Lord's return is a mystery. "Of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only" (Matthew 24:36). So, how should we be conducting ourselves?
John writes, "And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him" (1 John 2:28-29).
Since Christ came and died for us and gave of Himself so freely (Galatians 2:20) we ought to spend ourselves for His kingdom. We should prepare ourselves and conduct our lives so we will not be ashamed when we stand before Him.
To be ashamed, as John writes, means to "grow pale, to change color from shame." We certainly do not want to be the ones ashamed on the Day of Judgment. Instead, sinners and 'Christians' who have scoffed at Christianity, justified drinking, fornication, false teachings, blasphemy and the like, will lose color and will strangle their laughs when they realize Christ is real and has come with a sword of vengeance (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Romans 1:28-32).
John writes that we must know God is righteous. He has all truth and has supplied us with sacred truths in Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
John also writes that we must be born of Him. Only in Him will we find salvation (John 3:3-5). Otherwise, we will be found with the sinners and will be lost forever (Matthew 25).
Finally, John writes that we should practice righteousness. We live for Him every day of our lives. Then because we are faithful to His cause we become filled with boldness. Proverbs 28:1 says, "The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion."
Boldness here involves speaking freely. People speak out concerning matters they are passionate about whether it be politics, hobbies or gossip. Since we have boldness and confidence, we can be busy in the practice of righteousness. A 'practicing attorney' is someone who is active in this profession. What are we doing to practice righteousness? Is it obvious to those among whom we circulate daily? If not, how can we be "lights to the world?" (Matthew 5:16).
Richard Mansel


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

Light is where you see it by Gary Rose

This rustic scene could easily be in the Alps, the Pyrenees or the Rocky mountains, but wherever isn't important, the beauty of it all is.  There is (was) one problem, however; those two patches of light in the center and left of the mountain.  At first I just thought it was an incorrect focus of the picture (too many highlights), but when I adjusted it all the way to black and white- both were still there.   After considerable adjustment (and compromise) I like this result the best and hope you do as well. After looking at the picture for quite some time, I was reminded of how the Modern Literal translation translates Matthew 5:14 and wondered how some different translations handle this verse?

Matthew Chapter 5 (Modern Literal version)

 5:14 You* are the light of the world. A city laying upon a mountain is not able to be hid. 

LITV

 ¹⁴ You are the light of the world. A city situated on a mountain cannot be hidden.

Darby

¹⁴ *Ye* are the light of the world: a city situated on the top of a mountain cannot be hid.

Living Oracles

¹⁴ You are the light of the world. A city situate on a mountain must be conspicuous.

(ASV)

¹⁴ Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.

Now, normally I use the World English Bible, but the word "mountain" more accurately reflects the original language rather than the WEB or ASV translation "hill". And besides- mountain provides more emphasis and imagery, anyway!!!

About this time, you are probably thinking how picky I am- but consider... What if it was you instead of those strikingly white patches of cloud in that picture?  

Would your garments be white like Jesus' were in Matthew 17:2?  Would MINE?

To put it another way- Is my life like Jesus'???

Wow, a thought about clouds in a mountain in "the cloud". Isn't technology ironic????