Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? (Update) by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4120

Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? (Update)

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[NOTE—For the original article, see HIggs Boson—The "God Particle"? ; for an updated article see HIggs Boson—The "God Particle"? (2nd Update)]

In June, we released an article discussing the elusive Higgs Boson particle (i.e., the “God Particle”) that is thought by many scientists to be the particle that could have given mass to matter after the alleged Big Bang—thus providing a critical function in the formation of the Universe (see Miller, 2011). This particle, though never observed, is necessary in order for Big Bang cosmology and the atheistic perspective to even be considered a possibility, much less a true account of the origin of the Universe. The non-existence of this theoretical particle would be added to the lengthy list of fatal flaws in the atheistic mindset and Big Bang Theory.
Recall that the Large Hadron Collider, located at the CERN research center, has been the focus in the search for the Higgs Boson particle. Recall further that an “unexpected ‘bump’ in emissions” was observed a few months ago, that some thought “may be proof of the long-sought particle” (“Has Quest for the Elusive…?” 2011). After further study, CERN admitted to a conference in Mumbai that “possible signs of the Higgs last month were now seen as less significant” (“‘God Particle’…,” 2011, emp. added).
Some scientists are now considering the possibility that “the mystery particle might not exist” (“‘God Particle’…”). CERN stated that their new results “show that the elusive Higgs particle, if it exists, is running out of places to hide” (“‘God Particle’…,” emp. added). If it does not exist, “[i]t remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation” as to how matter got mass (“‘God Particle’…”). CERN blogger Pauline Gagnon said, “We know something is missing, we simply don’t quite know what this new something might be” (“‘God Particle’…”).
There is much more missing in the quest to substantiate the Big Bang than a little particle, and the list of those missing entities continues to grow and will continue to do so until true science—science that is in keeping with the evidence—is allowed to flourish. Is it possible, perhaps, that such particles do not exist, because it would be impossible for mass to exist at all without a Creator having created it and written the natural laws to govern it? Is it possible that the “something” that is missing in the equation, is actually Someone?
The list of missing entities in the Big Bang equation is growing. Without their existence in space somewhere, Big Bang cosmology cannot be substantiated. Yet these necessary entities have not been observed and therefore, lie outside the realm of scientific truth. It has become increasingly popular for cosmologists to label many of these missing entities with the first word, “Dark.” It would be consistent for cosmologists to rename the Higgs Boson the “Dark Particle” and add it to the list of missing “dark” elements that prove the Big Bang theory to be inadequate as an explanation for our Universe.

REFERENCES

“‘God Particle’ May Be a Mirage, Scientists Hint” (2011), Fox News, August 23, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/23/god-particle-may-be-mirage-scientists-hint/?intcmp=obinsite.
“Has Quest for the Elusive ‘God Particle’ Succeeded?” (2011), Fox News, April 25, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/25/quest-elusive-god-particle-succeeded/?test=faces.
Miller, Jeff (2011), “Higgs Boson—the ‘God Particle’?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977&article=1500.

Give a Defense...to Everyone! by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=847

Give a Defense...to Everyone!

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

The word apologetics derives from the Greek apologia, which means to defend or give a defense. Christian apologetics, then, is the defense of the Christian belief system.
The passage in 1 Peter 3:15 often is hailed as “the apologetic verse” because of its command to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense [apologian] to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.”
The inspired apostle instructed believers to be ready to give a defense. Offering a defense for the hope that lies within the heart of faithful Christians often is an easy thing to do. Whenever a person is surrounded by others of “like precious faith,” it proves an easy task to boldly defend New Testament Christianity. Perhaps it is for that very reason that Peter carries the thought a step farther by saying that Christians should stand ready to offer a defense “to everyone who asks you.”
Imagine Peter penning these words as his mind drifted back to the hour of Jesus’ arrest and trial. Shortly before the events of that night unfolded, Peter boldly and bravely had declared that he would die with Christ. Yet once the murderous mob confiscated His Lord, Peter was reduced to lurking in the shadows and following at a distance. His weakness and ignominy would only multiply as he was ushered into the courtyard of the High Priest. Waiting for him outside the trial was an enemy he was unable to fight—one so fierce and heinous that his mouth seemingly could not utter a defense of either his faith or his Lord. That enemy was…a servant girl!
“You also were with Jesus of Galilee” she accused. And Peter, who had been one of the first disciples to declare that Christ was the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16), and who had been the one among the disciples to voice his affirmation that Christ alone had the words of life (John 6:68), stood dumbfounded as he cowardly muttered, “I do not know what you are saying” (Matthew 26:70).
Peter had faced a primordial challenge to his faith—and had failed that challenge miserably. He thus knew from firsthand experience exactly how it felt to have his faith collapse under the weight of pressure from the enemy. Yet only a few weeks after his shameful denial, the Lord granted him the privilege of preaching the sermon that opened wide the doors of the Kingdom on the Day of Pentecost.
Peter’s admonition to those who were to follow after him, therefore, becomes somewhat like the warning of a loving mother who has burned her hand on the stove many times and wants to save her child from making the same mistake and enduring the same pain. Peter’s life-changing experience, no doubt, was why the apostle urged every Christian to “sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” He understood all too well the alternative—denying the Lord in the face of the enemy—and knew far better than most that it was too horrible to contemplate.

Cro-Magnon Man: Nothing but a “Modern” Man by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3501

Cro-Magnon Man: Nothing but a “Modern” Man

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

If macroevolution is true—if human beings are the result of millions of years of gradual evolution from an ancient, single-celled life form—there should be abundant evidence in the fossil record that verifies such a contention. There should be billions of transitional fossils—fossils of intermediate creatures mid-way in their evolution between animal kinds. To the dismay of the evolutionary community, such evidence is conspicuously missing. Renown evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University, Stephen J. Gould, admitted some thirty years ago what remains true today:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been apersistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution (Gould, 1980, 6[1]:127, emp. added).

Colin Patterson, the late paleontologist who served as the editor of the professional journal published by the British Museum of Natural History in London, even conceded:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional forms…. I will it lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument (Patterson, 1979, 19[8]:8, emp. added).

Thus, it comes as no surprise that the evolutionary community, with the help of the news media, jumps at any mention of a potential transitional fossil find. The media is quick to broadcast the fossil find far and wide--yet without adequate evidence to substantiate the evolutionists’ claims. Perhaps you have heard mention of “Cro-Magnon Man” by evolutionists. Who is Cro-Magnon Man? Are the Cro-Magnon fossils proof of evolution? Are they transitional fossils that provide a “missing link” in the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors?
In 1868, near the village of Les Eyzies in southwestern France, a rock shelter dated to be 23,000-27,000 years old (using evolutionary dating techniques) known as “Abri de Cro-Magnon” was investigated. In it, the first Cro-Magnon fossils were discovered (O’Neil, 2011). According to evolutionists, the fossils were considered to be of “early modern humans,” who “were very similar in appearance to modern Europeans” (O’Neil). Some scientists have decided that the Cro-Magnons “are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation. Scientists today use ‘Anatomically Modern Human’ (AMH) or ‘Early Modern Human’ (EMH) to designate the Upper Paleolithic human beings who looked a lot like us…” (Hirst, 2011). ScienceDaily reports that the Cro-Magnoids were “the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern” (Public Library of Science, 2008, emp. added). So clearly, according to evolutionists themselves, the Cro-Magnons looked like modern man.
Recent research indicates that the Cro-Magnons were also genetically the same as modern Europeans (Caramelli, et al., 2008). So, if it looks like a modern man anatomically, and if it even looks like a man genetically…what’s the difference? Ultimately, there is no difference. However, according to the theory of evolution, there must be a difference, because the human brain has been a product of evolution. Thus, according to evolutionary thinking, the assumption must be made that humans living thousands of years ago would have been less intelligent and capable, since their brains had not yet fully developed. With this in mind, they define a “modern man” as one who is considered to be more recent. The problem is that there is no evidence that human beings evolved in such a manner. The transitional fossils are lacking. What the evidence indicates is that humans have always been humans. Humans have always been “modern man.” Humans have always had the intelligence to do great things that are not understood even today—from the pyramids of Giza to the Egyptian embalming abilities; from the Paracas civilization of South America who amazingly conducted successful brain surgery over 2,000 years ago (“The Inca…,” 2010), to the Maya astronomers, studying the stars over 1,000 years ago and creating a calendar using a sophisticated gear system of such precision that eclipses could be anticipated and the cycles of the Moon documented with an error of only 33 seconds (“The Maya…,” 2010); from the Moche people, living 1,500 years ago and engineering enormous structures, including the “Temple of the Sun,” constructed with over 140,000,000 adobe bricks (“The Inca…”), to the Nazca people, also living over 1,500 years ago, who developed sophisticated irrigation systems and who made enormous pictures in the ground which are only viewable by air. The lines which comprise the pictures are barely visible at all by ground. These lines—covering some 135 miles—include a 450 feet long bird, an enormous spider, and a killer whale (“The Lost City of Nasca,” 2000; “Nazca Lines and Cahuachi Culture, 2011; “The Inca…”). Historians are at a loss as to how or why these pictures were made. Some have speculated that they were made for extraterrestrials to see from space. Some believe they were for irrigation purposes. In 1975, Jim Woodman built a hot air balloon using materials that the Nazca were believed to have in their day and flew it over the images, illustrating that the Nazca may have been able to fly (“The Inca…”).
The truth is, humans have always been “modern man.” Scientific breakthroughs may be made at different times in history that cause technology to surge forward and give humanity more insight into the created order, but such breakthroughs are not an indication of the evolving brain of mankind. Such breakthroughs are due to the fact that God’s beneficent hand is involved in the affairs of men, causing it to “rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). Bottom line: Cro-Magnon Man is not a missing link. Cro-Magnon Man is just an evolutionary name for a “modern” man. [Note: see Thompson, et al., 2002 for a thorough examination of many of the alleged transitional fossils.]

REFERENCES

Caramelli, D., L. Milani, S. Vai, A. Modi, E. Pecchioli, M. Girardi, et al. (2008), “A 28,000 Years Old Cro-Magnon mtDNA Sequence Differs from All Potentially Contaminating Modern Sequences,” PLoS One, 3[7]:e2700, http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002700.
Gould, Stephen Jay (1980), “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?,” Paleobiology, 6[1]:119-130, Winter.
Hirst, K. Kris (2011), “Why Don’t We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore? What Are ‘Anatomically Modern Humans’?,” About.com: Archaeology, http://archaeology.about.com/od/earlymansites/a/cro_magnon.htm.
“The Inca: Secrets of the Ancestors—Part 8” (2010), Time Life’s Lost Civilizations Series, http://www.documentarystream.com/time-lifes-lost-civilizations/.
“The Lost City of Nasca” (2000), BBC Home, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/nasca.shtml.
“The Maya: The Blood of Kings—Part 7” (2010), Time Life’s Lost Civilizations Series, http://www.documentarystream.com/time-lifes-lost-civilizations/.
“Nasca Lines and Cahuachi Culture” (2011), http://www.crystalinks.com/nazca.html.
O’Neil, Dennis (2011), “Early Modern Homo Sapiens,” Palomar College, http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm.
Patterson, Colin (1979), Letter on April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland: reprinted in Bible-Science Newsletter, 19[8]:8, August, 1981.
Public Library of Science (2008), “Europe’s Ancestors: Cro-Magnon 28,000 Years Old Had DNA Like Modern Humans,” ScienceDaily, July 16, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715204741.htm.
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.

Homosexuality and Female Menses by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1456

Homosexuality and Female Menses

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Bible speaks consistently throughout its pages in condemnation of same-sex relations. For example, God made clear His will on this matter when He handed down the Law of Moses to the Israelite nation. In a chapter dealing almost exclusively with sexual regulations, His words are explicit and unmistakable.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any beast, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before a beast to mate with it. It is perversion. Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who sojourns among you (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. For whoever commits any of these abominations, the persons who commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore you shall keep My ordinance, so that you do not commit any of these abominable customs which were committed before you, and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the Lord your God…. If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them (Leviticus 18:22-30; 20:13, NKJV, emp. added).

I suggest that a reader would need help to misunderstand these injunctions.

COMPARED TO FEMALE MENSTRUATION?

Nevertheless, attempts have been made to offset their seemingly unmistakable import. For example, it is argued that in the same chapter (i.e., Leviticus 20), five verses after the injunction against homosexuality, the death penalty was also required for a man and his wife for having sexual relations during her menstruation: “If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people” (Leviticus 20:18). Thus the homosexual activist (who wishes to maintain some semblance of affiliation with the Bible) dismisses this text as ritualistic and limited to Israel’s peculiar concern for purity, thus having no universal significance. After all, the Israelites lived during an ignorant, primitive period of human history. Consider the following wording of this viewpoint:

Of course, many now live in quite different cultures. But that has not stopped some from selectively using regulations like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to support their condemnation of homosexual intimacy. Meanwhile, the Bible prohibits sex during menstruation in the very same chapters (Lev. 18:19; 20:18), but few Christian conservatives have mounted a campaign to expel people who violate that commandment (Carr, 2003).

This interpretation of the biblical position stands in conflict with several factors. First, are those who dismiss the condemnation of homosexuality, on the basis that the same context condemns sexual intimacy during a woman’s menses, also willing to dismiss the condemnations in the same context of child sacrifice (20:2-5), bestiality (20:15-16), incest (20:11-12), and bigamy (20:14)? What proves too much, proves nothing.
Second, a closer reading of the text reveals that while all the items alluded to are clustered together because they share a common concern for the principle of “separateness” (which constitutes the theme of Leviticus—e.g., 10:10; 11:44; 19:2; 20:7,26), nevertheless, a distinction may be made between those actions that were temporary and limited in their scope to the Israelites and those that are clearly permanent and universal in their application. For example, child sacrifice (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5) has always been an abominable sin before God (cf. Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6; Psalm 106:37-38; Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35; Ezekiel 23:37,39). The same may be said of bestiality (Leviticus 18:23; 20:15-16), sorcery, witchcraft, astrology, and the like (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:26,31; 20:6,27; Deuteronomy 18:10-11; Isaiah 8:19; Acts 19:19), as well as various forms of incest (Leviticus 18:6-17; 20:11-12; 1 Corinthians 5:1). Homosexuality fits into this same category since it is condemned in every period of Bible history, and repeated in especially strong terms in the New Testament (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10).
This distinction is reinforced by the variations given to the penalties associated with each infraction. Two expressions must be distinguished in the pericope of Leviticus (i.e., chapters 17-20, what Pfeiffer labeled “The Holiness Code”—1957, p. 46). The first is “cut off,” which, in the Pentateuch, includes being cut off “from his people,” “in the sight of their people,” “from among the congregation,” “from Israel,” “from the congregation of Israel,” and “from My presence.” Linguistic scholars agree that the Hebrew verb translated “cut off” (karat) has both a literal meaning and a metaphorical meaning, which in turn gives rise to “the extensive range of the root’s literal and extended semantic spheres of meaning” (Hasel, 1995, 7:343). The basic literal meaning of the verb is “to cut” (7:344-345), and so may be used to refer to everything from cutting down a tree to cutting off a piece of cloth. However,

In addition to the literal meaning of this root, “to cut off,”…there is the metaphorical meaning to root out, eliminate, remove, excommunicate or destroy by a violent act of man or nature. It is sometimes difficult in a given context to know whether the person(s) who is “cut off” is to be killed or only excommunicated (Harris, et al., 1980, 1:457, emp. added).

In this metaphorical sense, being “cut off” consists of “exclusion from the community” (Harris, et al., 1:457), “in the sense of being cut off from a center or circle in which the offender lives” (Hasel, 7:347).

The “cutting off” formula therefore does not appear to refer solely to human execution of the death penalty. In the majority of offenses, “cutting off” means a “cutting off” which leads to “banishment” or “excommunication” from the cultic community and the covenant people…from life in God’s presence through exclusion (7:348, emp. added).

Gesenius confirms this understanding of the term, recognizing that its figurative meaning is “to be cut off from one’s country, i.e., to be driven into exile, to be expelled” (1847, p. 417, emp. added). Though Gesenius listed Leviticus 20:18 under the literal meaning of “to be destroyed,” translator Tregelles rightfully added a note to the section: “In some of the passages it appears only to signify severed from the congregation of the Lord” (p. 417, emp. added).
The Scriptures themselves bear out this observation. For example, in a context addressing contact with the dead, the Israelites were told, “Whoever touches the body of anyone who has died, and does not purify himself, defiles the tabernacle of the Lord. That person shall be cut off from Israel. He shall be unclean, because the water of purification was not sprinkled on him; his uncleanness is still on him” (Numbers 19:13, emp. added; cf. vs. 20). It is evident, both from this verse and surrounding verses, that those who had been defiled by corpses were to be separated from the congregation for the appropriate period of purification—not executed.
This dual use of the expression is further confirmed by comparing it with a second one that is germane to the discussion: “put to death.” Both expressions are used in Exodus 31:14—“You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people” (emp. added). Observe that the phrase “cut off from among his people” is the broader expression. “Put to death” is the more narrow expression, and clarifies by what means the individual would be “cut off.” Thus, to be “cut off” from Israel could be accomplished in two distinct and separate ways: (1) through temporary isolation of the individual by physically removing him from the community, transporting him to a location away from the social/religious life of Israel (cf. “put out of the camp”—Numbers 5:2); or (2) through permanent removal of the individual from Israelite society by legal execution, i.e., the death penalty. Context must determine which meaning is intended.
Of the 12 occurrences of karat (“cut off”) in the Niphal conjugation of the Hebrew verb in Leviticus (see Wigram, 1890, p. 619), those outside of chapter 20 that refer to being merely quarantined for a period of time until correction/cleansing could be made, are 7:20,21,25,27; 17:4,9; 19:8; 22:3. A generic use is seen in 18:29 where it is found in a summary statement of offenses without further specification as to its meaning—since chapter 20 is intended to be the portion of the pericope that prescribes punishment for the offenses mentioned in chapter 18. The only instance in Leviticus where the expression apparently includes the death penalty is 23:29. However, even in this instance, that the death penalty is intended is derived from the verse before and the verse after, which indicate that “afflicted” (NKJV), “humble” (NASB), or “deny himself” (NIV) pertain to the defiant refusal to abstain from work on the Day of Atonement (which elsewhere was treated as a capital offense when done on a holy day—Numbers 15:33ff.), and the accompanying threat by God to “destroy” the culprit.
Additionally, when one examines the pericope with regard to prescribed penalties, those for the offenses listed in chapter 18 are not given until chapter 20 (with the exception of the generic formula, “cut off” [18:29]). Chapter 20 clarifies in what sense the offender was to be “cut off,” depending upon the offense committed. “Cut off” in the Hiphil conjugation of the Hebrew verb was the penalty for child sacrifice (20:2-5), clarified as “put to death” (vs. 2), as well as for the person who engaged in sorcery, i.e., turned to mediums and spiritists (20:6), which also is further pinpointed as “put to death” (vs. 27). For adultery (20:10), certain forms of incest (20:11-12), homosexuality (20:13), and bestiality (20:15-16), the penalty was “put to death.” Those who committed bigamy were to be “burned with fire” (20:14), i.e., put to death and their corpses cremated (cf. Joshua 7:15,25; Jamieson, et al., n.d., p. 88; although Clarke insisted that branding with a hot iron was meant—n.d., 1:578). For another form of incest, and relations during a woman’s menstruation, only the expression “cut off” is used (20:17-18), and three other forms of incest have only “they shall bear their guilt” (20:19), “they shall die childless” (20:20), and “they shall be childless” (20:21).
When one reads all three injunctions pertaining to menstruation given in Leviticus, their meaning and harmonization become apparent:

If a woman has a discharge, and the discharge from her body is blood, she shall be set apart seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything that she lies on during her impurity shall be unclean; also everything that she sits on shall be unclean. Whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. And whoever touches anything that she sat on shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. If anything is on her bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if any man lies with her at all, so that her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean (Leviticus 15:19-24, emp. added).
Also you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is in her customary impurity (Leviticus 18:19).
If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people (Leviticus 20:18, emp. added).

Comparing the three injunctions shows that a woman was to be set apart from the community during her monthly menstruation. If her husband were to have sexual relations with her during that time (the implication possibly being that her menstruation commenced during intercourse, catching both unawares—see Wenham, 1979, p. 220; Keil and Delitzsch, 1976, 1:394), then he, too, was ceremonially defiled and subject to the same separation. Hence, “set apart for seven days” (15:19), “unclean seven days” (15:24), and “cut off from their people” (20:18) are three ways to express the same proscription. “Cut off” did not mean execution in this case (cf. Harris, 1990, 2:600-601).
Based upon these observations, the regulation pertaining to refraining from sexual relations during a woman’s period of menstruation, when violated, did not involve the death penalty. The injunction was limited to the Israelites, and served to reinforce the concept of being a holy people. Blood, a term that is used 86 times in Leviticus, was a critical feature of this Old Testament teaching, especially in its relation to life and atonement (e.g., Leviticus 17:11). Beyond this central significance, the injunction could possibly have been intended to emphasize (1) the importance of being health conscious or (2) the importance of the husband being thoughtful and considerate toward his wife during a difficult time of the month.
Concerning the former, there is some debate in the medical community over whether or not intercourse during menstruation increases the risk for exposure to Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (see “Pelvic Inflammatory…,” 1998; “Causes of Pelvic…,” 2003; “PID,” 2004). Blood, of course, can be a significant medium for bacteria and infectious diseases. As one medical authority noted: “Intercourse during menses and frequent intercourse may offer more opportunities for the admission of pathogenic organisms to the inside of the uterus” (“Pelvic Inflammatory Disease,” 2001). Though great strides have been made in increasing medical understanding over the centuries, medical science has not provided all the answers to questions that still exist regarding the Bible’s inspired declarations concerning various matters of health and medicine.
Concerning the latter, some authorities point out that this law was a benevolent injunction designed to render compassionate assistance to women during a difficult time (Knight, 1981, p. 83; Harris, 1990, 2:586-587,600). Even today, women are vulnerable to the whims of thoughtless men. The Law of Moses manifested a comparable concern for women in other aspects of life, including pregnancy (Exodus 21:22ff.) and unfair divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). It is notable that Jesus manifested tender compassion for the poor woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years (Matthew 9:20ff.; Mark 5:25ff.; Luke 8:43ff.).
We are forced to conclude that some Israelite laws (like the prohibition of eating unclean foods) affected only Israel and, in most cases, were subject to penalties that simply required purification and cleansing procedures. Ulrich Falkenroth agreed: “Intercourse during menstruation…was not subject to a civil penalty but brought ritual uncleanness” (1978, 3:95). This was unquestionably the case for matters pertaining to a woman’s menses. [NOTE: Interestingly, in addition to ceremonial cleansing, both a sin and a burnt offering were required following childbirth (Leviticus 12) and a non-menses discharge (Leviticus 15:25-30), but not for normal monthly menstruation.] It is these very laws of ritualistic purification that are noted in the New Testament as having been confined to the Israelites prior to the cross of Christ, having no abiding relevance or application (e.g., Colossians 2:14-17; cf. Mark 7:19). On the other hand, these ceremonial laws were treated differently from the universal sins that repeatedly surface elsewhere in Scripture as having a broader application to all cultures in all times, i.e., lying, stealing, adultery, bestiality, child sacrifice, homosexuality, etc. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were expressions of God’s will pertaining to same-sex relations that represent a continuing prohibition (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10; cf. Flatt, et al., 1982, pp. 27-29).

REFERENCES

Carr, David (2003), “Chapter and Verse,” [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2003/familyfundamentals/special_chapter_3.html.
“Causes of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease” (2003), [On-line], URL: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/pelvic_inflammatory_disease/causes.htm.
Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarke’s Commentary: Genesis-Deuteronomy (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury).
Falkenroth, Ulrich (1978), “Punishment,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gesenius, William (1847), Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1979 reprint.
Harris, R. Laird (1990), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Leviticus, ed. Frank Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody Press).
Hasel, G.F. (1995), “karat,” Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Jamieson, Robert, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (no date), A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1976 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament: The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Knight, G.A.F. (1981), Leviticus (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press).
“Pelvic Inflammatory Disease” (1998), National Institutes of Health, [On-line], http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/stdpid.htm.
“Pelvic Inflammatory Disease” (2001), Joseph F. Smith Medical Library, [On-line], URL: http://www.chclibrary.org/micromed/00060140.html.
Pfeiffer, Charles (1957), The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
“PID” (2004), Health Communities, [On-line], URL:http://www.womenshealthchannel.com/pid/index.shtml.
Wenham, Gordon (1979), The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Wigram, George W. (1890), The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).

Who is the God of the Earth? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1698&b=2%20Corinthians

Who is the God of the Earth?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The apostle John records three times how Jesus referred to Satan as “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Years later, while writing to the Christians in Corinth, the apostle Paul actually referred to Satan as “the god (theos) of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Even Satan appeared to understand something about his reign on Earth when he showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, and said, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours” (Luke 4:5-7; cf. Matthew 4:8-9). Yet, how can Satan be the god and ruler of this world if numerous other passages clearly distinguish Jehovah as the “Lord of the whole earth” (Micah 4:13; Zechariah 4:14)? How can the devil be the ruler of the world if Jesus claimed, “all authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18)? Is the God of heaven not the “Lord of heaven and earth” (Acts 17:24)? Are these two different thoughts completely contradictory (as skeptics allege; cf. Wells, 2015)?
One fundamental interpretation principle that must be considered in any attempt to correctly understand written or spoken communication (which on the surface may seem contradictory) is whether or not the compared words or phrases are used in the same sense. A fan may say about his favorite basketball player, “He is smoking,” and mean the player is shooting the basketball very well. Later, however, the fan may see the same player outside the arena with something in his mouth and shout with astonishment, “He is smoking!” The two statements are exactly the same; they are both true, yet they communicate very different thoughts.
The Bible is very clear that the infinite, eternal Creator of the Universe, Who is “upholding all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3), is the one, true God, “the Most High over all the earth” (Psalm 83:18). Jehovah is the Creator of all things, including Satan (Colossians 1:16; see Lyons, 2005). In the most complete and ultimate sense imaginable, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the Ruler of heaven and Earth. However, there is a sense in which Satan is “ruler” and “god” of the world—not in the ultimate sense, but, indeed, in a sense.
In what respect could the devil ever be considered a “ruler” or “god”? The answer to this question is rather simple when one considers the fact that most of God’s human creation through the millennia have chosen to serve Satan, rather than submit themselves in obedience to the true God of the Universe. During the days of Noah, “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). During the days of Moses and Joshua, the land of Egypt was full of idolatry (Exodus 12:12), the land of Canaan was overrun with abominable immorality (Leviticus 18), while people of Israel struggled for centuries with the fleshly desire to serve “other gods.” When Jesus came to Earth, He acknowledged the fact that whereas “difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:14), “wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it” (7:13).
Tragically, most accountable individuals willingly choose to reject the true God—their Creator and potential Savior—and instead make Satan their “god” and “ruler.” Most unbelievers do not literally worship Satan as “god,” but, as Lenski noted, “‘The god of this eon [age/world]’ is apt in this connection…because he [Satan] is the embodiment of all wickedness and ungodliness in this world, the author and the propagator of hostility to God. He originated the perdition in which men perish” (1963, p. 960, bracketed items added). A man who chooses to love the world and “all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father,” but of Satan and his sinful world (1 John 2:16). When a person rejects the true God as Ruler of his life, by default he pledges allegiance to Satan, making him “god” and “ruler.” No contradiction exists among the statements of the Bible about who rules the Earth.

REFERENCES

Lenski, R.C.H. (1963), The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lyons, Eric (2005), “Has Satan Always Existed?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=817&topic=87.
Wells, Steve (2015), The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/2cor/4.html; http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/lord.html.

To Him be glory in the church by Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/gloryinthechurch.html

To Him be glory in the church

These words are found in Paul’s prayer of praise: “To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.” (Ephesians 3:21 NASB).

The church of Christ is the only institution on earth that will exist for ever. God will be glorified in the church forever. When Jesus promised to build His church, He said: “And the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Hades is the realm of the dead. The church of Christ exists beyond the grave.

In the church, God is glorified “to all generations.” From generation to generation, God is glorified in the church of Christ.

There is also mention of “the” church. Jesus has only one church. In Scripture the church of Christ is often simply called “the church” because there is only one.

“To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever” (Ephesians 3:21 NASB).

God is glorified in the church and in Christ Jesus. Those who are in the church are in Christ because the church is the body of Christ: “He is also head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18). “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

From these passages we see how great the church of Christ is and how privileged we are to be members of the body of Christ.

Christ cleansed and sanctified the church to present her to Himself, a glorious church. Paul wrote: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:25-27).

This cleansing is necessary because we do not live perfectly, but God is able to cleanse us perfectly and sanctify us by the blood of Christ: “By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10). The church consists of “those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Corinthians 1:2). “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1).

This purification occurs at baptism, “that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word”. “But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy, He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:4, 5). “There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21).

Because sanctification occurs at baptism, we are baptized into the body of Christ: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

Purified and made holy, the church is the bride of Christ: “‘Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.’ And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints” (Revelation 19:7, 8).

The church reveals the manifold wisdom of God. Paul wrote: “To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Ephesians 3:8-11).

The billions of stars in the universe were created to give light on the earth (Genesis 1:15, 16). In Ephesians 3, Paul explains that all things were created so the heavenly hosts could see God’s wisdom in the church. Angels rejoice when one sinner repents (Luke 15:10 -- see also 1 Peter 1:10-12). Christians are the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13, 14). “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).

The church is glorious because Christ is its head. “And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (Ephesians 1:22, 23). “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence” (Colossians 1:15-18).

The church of Christ is glorious because it is the pillar and ground of the truth. “These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:14, 15). Through the church, the truth is proclaimed to the world.

The church of Christ is glorious because its members are enrolled in heaven. Their “names are in the Book of Life” (Philippians 4:3). “Only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of Life” may enter heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21:27). “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:22, 23).

God will be glorified in the church of Christ forever. Jesus has only one church. Those who are in the church are in Christ because the church is the body of Christ. The church is glorious because it is cleansed and sanctified by the blood of Christ. This purification occurs at baptism. The sanctified church is the bride of Christ. All things were created so the heavenly hosts could see God’s wisdom in the church. The church of Christ is glorious because Christ is its Head, because it is the pillar and ground of the truth, and because its members are enrolled in heaven.

In a Messianic psalm David says: “I will declare Your name to My brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will praise You” (Psalm 22:22). This psalm predicts the church of Christ, the table of the Lord and that all peoples will turn to the Lord: “My praise shall be of You in the great assembly; I will pay My vows before those who fear Him. The poor shall eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the LORD. Let your heart live forever! All the ends of the world shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before You. For the kingdom is the LORD's, and He rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth shall eat and worship; all those who go down to the dust shall bow before Him, even he who cannot keep himself alive. A posterity shall serve Him. It will be recounted of the Lord to the next generation; they will come and declare His righteousness to a people who will be born, that He has done this” (Psalm 22:25-31).

Being the church of Christ, let us sing praises to God, let us eat and worship on the first day of the week, let us proclaim the good news to all peoples so they can turn to the Lord.

“To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen.” (Ephesians 3:21 NASB).

Roy Davison

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

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

Some thoughts about Maryanne by Gary Rose

This morning I received some very bad news; Maryanne Waddell was struck and killed by an automobile yesterday. I know most of you have never met her, but she was someone very special.  She didn't have a lot of the wonderful things in life, but she had lived to be 82 years young and she had her little dog, Teddie.

I knew her from church (where this picture was taken), but really got to know her this past year after her car would no longer work and I began to give her rides back and forth to church.

Over the past few months, I began to realize how great a Christian she really was and even though she was advanced in years, she was STILL GROWING in her walk with Christ!!! Her first thoughts would always be of others and how she could help them. This may not sound like a lot to some, but her income was very low and it must have cost her a lot to give the way she did.

Most of all, I will miss our conversations-in transit!!!

As I sat down to write this, immediately I thought of this passage from the book of Revelation...

Revelation, Chapter 14 (World English Bible)

 ¹³ I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write, ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’” 

“Yes,” says the Spirit, “that they may rest from their labors; for their works follow with them.”

She was a shining example of all that a Christian can be and I will remember her by the very last thing she did- hand me a container of sugar-free banana pudding that she had made for my wife Linda and said: Give my love to your wife, see you later...

 I will!!!