Cyrus the Great: King of Persia by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=288

Cyrus the Great: King of Persia

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, is mentioned twenty-two times in the Old Testament—an evidence of his prominence in the biblical scheme of things in those declining days of Judah’s history. When Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian regime in 539 B.C., he was disposed quite favorably toward the Jews. Ezra 1:1-2 reads as follows:

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of Jehovah by the mouth of Jeremiah, Jehovah stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and he also put it in writing, saying, Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, Jehovah, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah.

Exactly how the Lord “stirred up the spirit” of the Persian ruler no one is able to say precisely. That God is able to operate in international affairs—to effect His sovereign will—is certain (Daniel 2:21; 4:17), but how He accomplishes these things, using seemingly natural means, remains a mystery. But there is an interesting possibility. Josephus, the famous Hebrew historian who had access to historical records long since lost, stated that Cyrus was exposed to the prophecies of Isaiah (44:26-45:7), who, more than 150 years earlier, had called the Persian monarch by name, and had announced his noble role in releasing the Hebrews from captivity and assisting in the rebuilding of the Jewish temple (XI.I.2). It is a fact that Daniel was still living in the early years of Cyrus’ reign (see Daniel 10:1), and he might well have been the very one who introduced the Persian commander to Isaiah’s testimony. Interestingly, there is archaeological information that lends support to the biblical record.
During excavations at Babylon (1879-82), archaeologist Hormuzd Rassam discovered a small (ten inches), clay, barrel-shaped cylinder that contained an inscription from Cyrus. Now housed in the British Museum, the cylinder reported the king’s policy regarding captives: “I [Cyrus] gathered all their [former] inhabitants and returned [to them] their habitations” (Pritchard, 1958, 1:208). As noted scholar Jack Finegan observed: “The spirit of Cyrus’s decree of release which is quoted in the Old Testament (II Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:2-4) is confirmed by the Cyrus cylinder...” (1946, p. 191).
The science of archaeology frequently has been a willing witness to the integrity of the sacred Scriptures.

REFERENCES

Finegan, Jack (1946), Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Josephus, Flavius (1957), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, transl. William Whitson (Philadelphia, PA: John C. Winston).
Pritchard, James B. (1958), The Ancient Near East (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Bee Flight Physics by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=813

Bee Flight Physics

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In 1934, using mathematical calculations, French entomologist August Magnan concluded that bee flight was aerodynamically impossible. The haphazard flapping of their wings simply should not enable bees to fly. The mystery that has perplexed scientists ever since (due to inadequate understanding of aerodynamic theory) is now believed to have been clarified. Using high-speed digital cameras and a giant robotic model of a bee wing, bioengineers at the California Institute of Technology and the University of Nevada at Las Vegas have been studying honeybee flight in an effort to determine how bees fly (Alt­shuler, et al., 2005). They discovered that bees operate with the same basic aerodynamic principles that facilitate flight capability in other flying creatures, including velocity, wing stroke amplitude, stroke reversals, wingbeat frequency, and wing length. They simply utilize these principles in different proportions and combinations.
Why? Why would bees operate on altered aerodynamic principles? The scientists do not know. They speculate that since bees consume floral nectar, they possess “excess power available for ecologically useful but aerodynamically expensive behaviors” (102[50]:18218). Observe that “ecologically useful” implies that bee flight is specifically suited to bee activity—which is another way to say that a bee is strategically and deliberately designed to fulfill its function efficiently. The scientists compare honeybees to hummingbirds “that are able to forage for high-energy nectar rewards by using more energetically demanding flight” (102[50]:18218, emp. added). In other words, the use of adjusted aerodynamic principles is not due to alleged inherited evolutionary inefficiency; rather, it is the result of deliberate design calculated to achieve different objectives and accommodate different purposes. Hummingbirds do not fly like sparrows—because they are not sparrows! And bees do not fly like mosquitoes—because they are not mosquitoes! Each flying creature’s flight capabilities are specifically suited to accommodate its created purpose and function.
Do bees have any specific needs in order to accomplish their peculiar functions? Yes, and the scientists, themselves, offer the following: “Honeybees and other hymenopterans [the order of insects that includes bees, wasps, and ants—DM] need to carry much heavier loads that may actually exceed body mass in numerous contexts, including undertaking, prey transport, and foraging for nectar or pollen” (102[50]:18218). Again, in other words, bee flight is specifically designed to accommodate the tasks that bees perform. But design demands a designer! Design requires an intelligence that exceeds the blind, mechanistic forces of nature.
Here is the conclusion set forth by the researchers:

In conclusion, our analysis of honeybee aerodynamics reveals how the rapid low-amplitude wing motion of bees is sufficient to maintain the weight of the animal. [We knew that—DM.] Furthermore, honeybees exhibit considerable ability to generate excess aerodynamic power, which they accomplish by raising stroke amplitude while maintaining constant frequency. This ability may be related to requirements of social insects to carry loads related to foraging, undertaking, and brood transport (102[50]:18218, emp. added).

Notice: the bee deliberately generates extra aerodynamic power. Why? The scientists speculate that it is due to the bee’s need to carry out its social duties—the requirements it possesses due to its place in the insect social order. My friend, such a circumstance has intelligent design written all over it. Such complexity, such design, such planning, and such purpose could not have happened without a Mind. That Mind is none other than the God of the Bible:

Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created these things, Who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, by the greatness of His might and the strength of His power.... For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 40:26; 45:18).
You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created (Revelation 4:11).

REFERENCE

Altshuler, Douglas L., William B. Dickson, Jason T. Vance, Stephen P. Roberts, and Michael H. Dickinson (2005), “Short-Amplitude High-Frequency Wing Strokes Determine the Aerodynamics of Honeybee Flight,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102[50]:18213-18218, December 13.

Belief in God is Not Enough by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2318

Belief in God is Not Enough

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

It is impossible to go to heaven without believing that there is a God (Hebrews 11:6). But a mere mental assent to the fact that God exists is not enough to save a person’s soul. In fact, the book of James says: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” (2:19).
Once a person accepts the vast amount of evidence available to prove that God exists, that person must follow up belief with a desire and resolve to obey the Creator. An E-mail that came into our office illustrates this point well. After reading on our site an article that defends the existence of God, one gentleman wrote: “For many, many years I began to write off all religions as ‘fake.’ I’m not completely convinced still. However, after reading this article, I was faced with the absolute fact that not only does God exist, but that He is surely angry with me for disbelieving in Him.” Acknowledging the existence of the Creator is the first step toward assuaging His anger, but it cannot be the last. In fact, the term “practical atheist” is applied to a person who technically acknowledges that there is a God, but does nothing about that belief.
What, then, must follow a person’s belief in the Creator? That individual must find God’s message to His creation. An honest search for such communication will bring that person to the realization that the 66 books of the Bible are God’s inspired Word to man (see Butt, 2007). Upon discovering that the Bible is God’s message to humanity, a diligent study of the Scriptures reveals that Jesus Christ is the prophesied Messiah and the Son of God (see Butt and Lyons, 2006). By following the teachings of Jesus, the honest investigator realizes that Jesus has opened the door of salvation to all who will receive it as He has commanded (see Lyons and Butt, n.d.).
At Apologetics Press, it thrills us to hear that a person has left false atheistic views and embraced the idea of a divine Creator. Yet we know that such a mental shift is simply the first crucial step to eternal life. A penitent heart and faithful life of obedience to God’s commands must accompany that belief in order for it to be of any real, eternal value (James 1:22-25).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/ Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.
Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2006), Behold! The Lamb of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/ Behold%20the%20Lamb%20of%20God.pdf.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (no date), Receiving the Gift of Salvation, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/ Taking%20Possesion%20of%20God%20Gifts.pdf.

Jesus Was Rational by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=1245

Jesus Was Rational

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

A study of the life of Christ on Earth quickly reveals that Jesus functioned rationally, logically, and sensibly. Unlike many religious people who claim to represent Him, Jesus possessed high respect for doctrinal correctness (after all, He authored the Law!). In all of His interactions with people, He conducted Himself with logical precision. One example of this attribute of our Lord 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,” 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 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! The logic is penetrating and decisive. 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 will always 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 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 Who always conducted Himself in a rational manner. May we do likewise.

REFERENCES

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

A Book Review and Summary of John C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by Joe Deweese, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4670

A Book Review and Summary of John C. Sanford's Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome

by	Joe Deweese, Ph.D.

Dr. John Sanford is a plant geneticist and inventor who conducted research at Cornell University for more than 25 years. He is best known for significant contributions to the field of transgenic crops, including the invention of the biolistic process (“gene gun”). Like many in his profession, he was fully invested in what he terms the “Primary Axiom” of modern science, namely that “man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection” (Sanford, 2008, p. v, italics in orig.). He argues that this cornerstone of modern Darwinism is almost universally accepted and rarely, if ever, questioned. In Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Sanford proceeds, not only to question the Primary Axiom, but to expose completely the faulty genetic framework upon which the ideology is built.
In the first portion of the book, Sanford builds an analogy for the reader to make complex genetic concepts more palatable to non-scientists. He uses the analogy of comparing our genome—the sum total of all of our genetic makeup—with an instruction manual. The DNA sequences that make up our genes, gene regulatory elements, chromosomes, etc., are compared with letters, words, chapters, and volumes. [NOTE: The term “gene” is not to be taken as synonymous with “trait.” Mendelian genetics dealt in “traits” (e.g., blue eyes) that were defined as “genes.” Our modern understanding of genetics demonstrates that while many genes impact phenotype (observable traits), genes are not the same as traits.] He builds on this analogy throughout the book using several powerful illustrations.
When we view the genome as an instruction manual, it is not hard to imagine how instructions in that manual may change simply by randomly changing letters in the manual. These changes are analogous to the random changes in our genome that are referred to as mutations. Mutations can be as simple as a single “letter” (i.e., a nucleotide) being changed or as major as the loss or duplication of an entire “book” (i.e., a chromosome). Our genome includes six billion “letters” split into 46 “volumes” (in a typical body cell; 23 chromosomes in reproductive cells). It is clear, though, that randomly changing letters in an instruction manual would not provide new and useful information.
Sanford argues that, based upon modern scientific evidence and the calculations of population geneticists (who are almost exclusively evolutionists), mutations are occurring at an alarmingly high rate in our genome and that the vast majority of all mutations are either harmful or “nearly-neutral” (meaning a loss for the organism or having no discernible fitness gain). Importantly, Sanford also establishes the extreme rarity of any type of beneficial mutations in comparison with harmful or “nearly-neutral” mutations. Indeed, “beneficial” mutations are so exceedingly rare as to not contribute in any meaningful way. [NOTE: “Beneficial” mutations do not necessarily result from a gain in information, but instead, these changes predominantly involve a net loss of function to the organism, which is also not helpful to the Primary Axiom; see Behe, 2010, pp. 419-445.] Sanford concludes that the frequency and generally harmful or neutral nature of mutations prevents them from being useful to any scheme of random evolution.
Using his analogy, imagine a manual for assembling a child’s wagon. Would randomly changing letters in the manual improve the manual? Would duplicating sections of the manual improve it? Clearly these types of changes would destroy information rather than create new information (having two copies of the same information is not necessarily of benefit, since there is no real mechanism to preserve one copy while mutating another). But Sanford extends the analogy further. He suggests that the Primary Axiom assumes that such random changes not only could change the wagon, but these random “mutations” would evolve the wagon into a car and eventually a plane, and then even a space shuttle. No one would argue that random changes in the manual for a wagon would eventually give rise to instructions for a space shuttle. However, Sanford argues this is exactly the situation with regard to our genome. If we regard “early” life forms in an evolutionary context as being the wagon, humans would easily be a space shuttle by comparison!
In the next section of the book, Sanford examines natural selection and asks whether “nature” can “select” in favor of the exceedingly rare “beneficial” mutations and against the deleterious mutations. The concept of natural selection is generally that the organisms that are best adapted to their environment will survive and reproduce, while the less fit will not. Sanford points out that this may be the case with some organisms, but more commonly, selection involves chance and luck. But could this process select against harmful mutations and allow less harmful or even beneficial mutations to thrive? According to Sanford, there are significant challenges to this notion. One major issue is the cost of selection. The cost of selection means that a portion of a population must be “spent” (i.e., removed) in order to “pay” for the selection process. To put this idea in human terms, what percentage of the population could be removed (or kept from reproducing) in order to promote selection? The numbers are exceedingly high according to Sanford—possibly higher than 50%—which would be completely unrealistic in any society today. Another issue is the “blind” nature of the process. Nature cannot “see” what potential future organisms could exist, and therefore, there is no means for selecting for or against traits to achieve any future goals. Sanford concludes that selection cannot overcome the accumulation of harmful mutations and has no real power to keep “beneficial” mutations around, due to the extreme rarity of those mutations and the fact that selection is blind. Thus, even with the ability to select—artificially or otherwise—the accumulation of mutations continues unabated.
In the final section of the book, Sanford illustrates the dire situation of the human genome. Imagine an instruction manual of tens of thousands of pages in which random changes have been made every time it is copied. Who would trust such a manual? How many changes would it take to make the manual unusable? How long before the manual no longer makes a functional product? It is a testimony to the nature of our genome that we are still alive in spite of the level of decay. Again, Sanford points to the accumulation of deleterious mutations and argues that our genomes are not evolving to something greater; we are decaying and degenerating. In other words, our genomes at one point were in far better shape than they are at present. The decay process has taken a huge toll. This process he terms “genetic entropy.” He suggests that this decay trend is not only real, but it is an inevitable result of the random, natural accumulation of mutations in our genome. Thus, not only do mutations lead to decay, they do not lead to any meaningful increase in information—which is absolutely required by the Primary Axiom. In order for organisms to evolve from one form to another, new genetic information is needed in order to provide “instructions” for building the proteins and other features of the organism. Sanford clearly establishes that any expectation of getting new, useful information from these random processes is a completely blind trust in an impotent process. His book also provides an appendix with several more arguments against the Primary Axiom, along with answers to some counterarguments.
In conclusion, Sanford’s book builds a strong case against the Primary Axiom using modern scientific information combined with powerful, yet simple, logic. His arguments are solid but written on a level that can be understood by students and non-scientists. He clarifies several misconceptions about mutations, natural selection, and the overall decay of the genome. He accurately describes the concept and reality of genetic entropy, and he concludes from that principle our dependence upon the One who designed everything. Rather than viewing life as a purposeless by-product of the Primary Axiom, Sanford argues that genetic entropy points us to our need for and reliance upon God as the Creator. Perhaps this system of genetic decay is simply one more way God reminds us of the Fall (Genesis 3) and of our complete dependence upon Him.

REFERENCES

Behe, M. J. (2010), “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” Quarterly Review of Biology, 85[4]:419-445.
Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications).

Another Significant Sign of Moral Decline by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2040

Another Significant Sign of Moral Decline

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The government organization that monitors health issues in America, the National Center for Health Statistics, has reported the latest dismal stats on the state of marriage (“Almost 40%...,” 2006). Whereas in 1950 the average age for people to marry was 23 for the man and 20 for the woman, now the ages are 27 and 25 respectfully. It is true that some people are now waiting longer to get married. But in many cases, they have chosen to live together without getting married. In 1970, the number of unmarried-couple households with children was under 200,000. That figure now has soared to 1.7 million and climbing.
Most alarming, out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high. Indeed, 37% of the babies born last year—nearly 4 in 10—were born to unmarried parents. Such a figure is seismic in its implications—not to mention absolutely shameful and disgraceful (Proverbs 14:34). If we were to contemplate that 10% of the babies born in America were without married parents, that figure would be tragic. Or if we were to consider that 20%, one fifth, of all babies, or even 25%, one fourth, of all babies were without married parents, our forefathers would not believe it. But no, the figure is now at nearly 40%! Forty percent of the children in this country are born to people who are not married to each other! And that figure is just for one year; the stat has been nearly that high each year for quite some time. No doubt, much of the population of our nation is so morally and spiritually desensitized that they do not consider such stats to be a problem: “what’s the big deal?”
The “big deal” is that the God of the Universe established the home at the beginning of the Creation. The home as God created it consists of a man and woman married to each other for life (Genesis 2:24). Hence, by divine design, the very fabric of human civilization, the basis of any nation, is the home. In order for society to function in a civil fashion, its citizens must be raised in stable homes consisting of both scriptural parents. The home is the incubator for developing mature, unselfish people. As the number of such homes decline, society itself will destabilize and unravel. Lack of concern for others manifests itself in cold, cruel apathy, and treating others discourteously and rudely. Crime rates inevitably will increase and prison populations will expand. The list of aberrant behaviors goes on and on.
Few Americans are aware that the Founders of the Republic warned against neglect of the Christian principles of morality—including those pertaining to marriage—principles they deemed indispensable to national survival. Consider one sampling from the pen of one acclaimed as a “Father of American Jurisprudence,” Joseph Story, who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President James Madison where he served from 1811-1845:

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 (III.44.1865:722-723, emp. added).
Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty (III.44.1867:724-725, emp. added).

Indeed, since Bible teaching on marriage and the family is being ignored by a sizeable percentage of Americans as they reject the responsibility to God for their actions, how can America as a civilized society continue to exist? By rejecting the moral principles of Christianity, how can the Republic be perpetuated? According to those who founded this nation, it cannot.
But the solution to our nation’s ills is available:

• He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8).
• 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...that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land (Deuteronomy 4:39-40).
• See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land.... I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days (Deuteronomy 30:15-20).
• And now...what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments of the LORD and His statutes which I command you today for your good? (Deuteronomy 10:12-13).

If America does not wake up and recover its moral sanity, only one possible fate awaits the nation: “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God” (Psalm 9:17).

REFERENCES

“Almost 40% of Children Born in the U.S. in 2005 Were Out of Wedlock, an All-Time High” (2006), Associated Press, November 21, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,231183,00.html.
Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.), [On-line], URL: http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm.

Did Both Thieves Revile Christ? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=768&b=Luke

Did Both Thieves Revile Christ?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Very likely, the most well-known, nameless person in the Bible is “the thief on the cross.” The Lord demonstrated His mercy one last time before His crucifixion by pardoning the thief who begged Jesus, saying, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom” (Luke 23:42). Having the “power on Earth to forgive sins” (Matthew 9:6), and an overflowing amount of compassion, Jesus told him: “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43).
After rehearsing the story of “the thief on the cross” countless times from Luke’s gospel account (a story that, sadly, has been misused by many to justify that a person today can be saved without being baptized “for the remission of sins”—Acts 2:38; cf. 22:16), some Bible students are puzzled when they eventually compare the “beloved physician’s” account with what Matthew and Mark recorded. Whereas Luke wrote: “Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, ‘If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us’ ” (23:39), Matthew and Mark stated the following:

“Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him” (Matthew 27:44)
“Even those who were crucified with Him reviled Him” (Mark 15:32)

The obvious question is, why did Matthew and Mark indicate the “thieves” (plural) reviled Jesus, while Luke mentioned only one who insulted Him?
First, it is quite possible that, initially, both thieves reviled Christ, but then one of them repented. After hearing Jesus’ words on the cross, and seeing His forgiving attitude, the one thief may have been driven to acknowledge that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. How many times have we made a statement about someone or something, but then retracted the statement only a short while later after receiving more information?
A second possible explanation for the minor differences in gospel accounts regarding the two thieves who were crucified next to Jesus involves the understanding of a figure of speech known as synecdoche. Merriam-Webster defines this term as “a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society)…or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage)” (italics. in orig.). Just as Bible writers frequently used figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, sarcasm, and metonymy, they also used synecdoche. As seen above (in the definition of synecdoche), this figure of speech can be used in a variety of ways (see also Dungan, 1888, pp. 300-309):

• A whole can put for the part.
• A part may be put for the whole.
• Time might be put for part of a time.
• The singular can be put for the plural.
• And the plural can be put for the singular.

It is feasible that Matthew and Mark were using the plural in place of the singular in their accounts of the thieves reviling Christ on the cross. Lest you think that such might be an isolated case, notice two other places in Scripture where the same form of synecdoche is used.

Genesis 8:4 indicates that Noah’s ark rested “on the mountains of Ararat.” Question: Did the ark rest on one of the mountains of Ararat, or did it rest on all of them at the same time? Although the ark was a huge vessel, it obviously did not rest on the many mountains of Ararat; rather, it rested on one.
In Genesis 21:7 Sarah asked, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old age.” Anyone who knows much about the Bible will remember that Sarah had but one child. In certain contexts, however, one might use a synecdoche and speak of one child (as did Sarah) by using the word children.

We must keep in mind that the biblical apologist does not have to pin down the exact solution to an alleged contradiction; he need show only one or more possibilities of harmonization in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction really exists. The skeptic cannot deny that both of the above options are plausible explanations to the question of why Matthew and Mark wrote of “thieves” reviling Christ, instead of “thief.”

REFERENCES

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