Simcha Jacobovici and the Quest to Find Who Wrote the Bible by Dewayne Bryant, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3732

Simcha Jacobovici and the Quest to Find Who Wrote the Bible

by	Dewayne Bryant, Ph.D.

The media is often critical of the Bible. This is nothing new to Christians, who can see mischaracterizations of the Bible virtually everyday. Documentaries and television programs describe the Bible in terms that most Christians find strange. Interviews often feature leftist scholars who seem to specialize in casting doubt on God’s Word. There are a few refreshing voices in the media that take a rather high view of the Bible, however.

Simcha Jacobovici is a Jewish Canadian filmmaker who hosts the television program the “Naked Archaeologist.” His goal is to “demystify” archaeology, thus making it “naked” for all to see. Naked archaeology is like the naked truth—stripped of preconceptions and exposed for all to see. To most of us living in the United States, he is familiar for his documentaries The Exodus Decoded and The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Both programs offered a new take on the biblical texts that differed from traditional, straightforward interpretations. Yet Jacobovici is also an Orthodox Jew and holds the Bible in the highest esteem. This makes him something of an enigma for many viewers.

The subject of one of Jacobovici’s television programs is to find proof underlying the events recorded in the biblical text. The Biblical Archaeology Review Web site has a free episode of “The Naked Archaeologist” entitled, “Who Wrote the Bible?” (http://www.bib-arch.org/multimedia/who-wrote-bible-free-video.asp). During the program, Jacobovici interviews Baruch Halpern, a professor of Jewish Studies at Pennsylvania State University. Halpern is a historian and archaeologist, and has led the archaeological dig at Tel Megiddo (biblical Megiddo). He is highly regarded by most biblical scholars, but he seems to meet his match in Jacobovici.  Near the beginning of the episode, the two discuss the authorship of the Pentateuch:

Jacobovici: “I wonder, who wrote the Bible?”

Halpern: “A bunch of different people.”

Jacobovici: “I read the five books of Moses, the Torah, and I never get the feeling that Joe wrote book number one, and Sam wrote book number two. I don’t get that impression.”

Halpern: “That’s because you’re coming at it from the perspective of the tradition rather than from a fresh, unbiased view.”

For thousands of years, Christians and Jews have read the first five books of the Bible as the singular work of Moses. Modern readers are no different. Scripture claims in numerous places that Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Exodus 34:27; Matthew 19:8; Romans 10:5; et al.). Given features such as opposition to Egyptian mythology and the presence of Egyptian loanwords and names, there is nothing to indicate that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. Halpern claims that it is only because of tradition that Jews and Christians view the Pentateuch as the work of Moses. The problem with Halpern’s statement is that his view is anything but unbiased. He also approaches the Bible from the perspective of tradition! In his case, it is from a particular academic viewpoint: the documentary hypothesis.

The documentary hypothesis states that the Pentateuch is composed of four major documents: J (the Yahwist), E (the Elohist), D (the Deuteronomist), and P (the Priestly writer). Allegedly, these were edited together over hundreds of years by redactors, eventually producing what we call the Pentateuch. Proponents of this view claim Moses never wrote a single word, with most of the work being pious fiction authored by anonymous scribes.

One of the characteristics of modern scholarship is the absolute refusal to reappraise the documentary hypothesis. It is passed dogmatically from professor to student in university Bible and religious studies departments. The theory is as inviolable and as sacrosanct in biblical studies as Darwinian evolution is in scientific studies. That demonstrates the key difficulty with the theory: proponents of the view are not open to considering new evidence that may overturn part, or all, of the theory. They, too, are firmly rooted in their own tradition.

It may be difficult for some viewers to conceal a smile when Jacobovici says, “Nowhere do I get the feeling that there are different authors.” That is precisely what Christians also believe. Halpern’s response is interesting. He fires back with a single shot aimed to prove the multiple authorship of the books of Moses: the presence of “doublets” in the Bible. He defines these as “pairs of identical or nearly identical stories with slight variation.” Examples would be the “two” creation stories of Genesis 1-2 or the stories in which Abraham and Isaac lie to the Egyptian pharaoh about their wives.

Doublets occur frequently in the biblical text, not only in the Pentateuch, but elsewhere. The assumption is that these stories bear strong resemblance to one another because they are duplications. In truth, the biblical writers, like other authors in the ancient Near East, used repetition for effect. Readers should also recognize that scholars have no tangible evidence that these stories are duplications. The only place they occur is in Scripture, and the assumption is that ancient scribes duplicated the stories. There is no evidence that they ever did, and it is grossly unfair to judge ancient writers by modern standards. Many modern scholars no longer consider this as evidence for the documentary hypothesis.

Jacobovici later forces Halpern to admit that there is no tangible evidence for the documentary hypothesis:

Jacobovici: “The point is that unless you have a reason to go to the fantastical, why shouldn’t you just accept the simple, which is, you know, it’s not two traditions, or three or four, it’s one tradition?”

Halpern: “There’s nothing fantastic about the idea that tradition grows over time and that various parties contribute to a tradition. In fact, that’s what we see in every other religious tradition that we have.”

Jacobovici: “You have to agree that not a single archaeological shred has ever been found of the existence of the documentary hypothesis.”

Halpern: “That’s absolutely correct.”

Jacobovici could have gone farther. Not only have critical scholars failed to produce so much as a single shred of physical evidence for the putative documents of J, E, D, and P, they have yet to produce any document from the ancient world that was edited in like manner. Not one example exists of the kind of editorial activity critics propose went into the production of the books of Moses. Religious texts in the ancient Near East were not whimsically altered by scribes. The scribe’s duty was to copy canonical compositions, such as religious texts, with complete fidelity. Concerning the absence of evidence, Kenneth Kitchen states:

[T]he basic fact is that there is no objective, independent evidence for any of these four compositions (or for any variant of them) anywhere outside the pages of our existing Hebrew Bible…. The standards of proof among biblical scholars fall massively and woefully short of the high standards that professional Orientalists and archaeologists are long accustomed to, and have a right to demand (Kitchen, 2003, p. 492, emp. added).

When questioned about whether Moses wrote any of the Bible, Halpern responds, “Not a thing.” He follows with the shocking statement: “I forgot to tell you these people were illiterate until basically the 8^th century B.C.” Jacobovici’s response? “I think I’ve got him on that one.” He travels to the Sinai desert to see an alphabetic inscription dating at least as early as the time of Moses. While the inscription is not conclusive, there is other evidence Jacobovici could have considered. Three important Hebrew inscriptions dating to the tenth century B.C. contradict Halpern’s outlandish statement. The Tel Zayit Inscription is an abecedary—a list of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The Gezer Calendar is a small tablet outlining the agricultural seasons. The oldest inscription found to date is a potsherd from Khirbet Qeiyafa, whose text has distinct parallels to several biblical passages (see Bryant, 2010). If the Hebrews were illiterate until the 8^th century, who created these Hebrew inscriptions in the 10^th century?

It is entertaining to see a filmmaker and amateur archaeologist outduel an ancient historian widely recognized as an authority in his field. The episode demonstrates a vital point that every Christian should note: just because a person is a recognized scholar does not mean he or she is inevitably correct in their criticisms of the Bible. The history of biblical scholarship is full of antiquated theories that were once held as absolute fact, but are now totally abandoned. Given the evidence that archaeologists and biblical scholars now have, the documentary hypothesis is surely destined to join them. Moses may not have signed his work, but theories offered by critics thus far have failed to pass the test of plausibility when all of the evidence is considered. [NOTE: Over a century ago, J.W. McGarvey wrote a masterful and decisive refutation of the documentary hypothesis, titled The Authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy With its Bearings on the Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch.]

REFERENCES

Bryant, Dewayne (2010), “The Khirbet Qeiyafa Inscription,”  http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=124&article=3492.

Kitchen, Kenneth (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Sewage Problems! by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=845

Sewage Problems!

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

In their book, None of These Diseases, physicians S.I. McMillen and David Stern discussed why the hygienic rules laid out by God for the children of Israel were so effective, and why they still are applicable. To illustrate their point, they related the story of a man by the name of Edwin Chadwick.

Chadwick had accepted a seat on the Board of Health in London, where he and his comrades faced a deadly dilemma. The year before, in 1846, a cholera epidemic had swept England’s capital city and killed more than 16,000 people. This year, 1847, things were looking much worse. How could cholera infiltrate such an advanced city? Why could the premier doctors of the day do nothing to combat the spread of the deadly disease? And how many more people would die before the epidemic could be stopped? Questions with no answers wafted from the lips of the city’s inhabitants as the chill of death continued to sweep over its streets.

Death first visited the houses of the poor. Chadwick, who had been studying diseases in England for the past 14 years, had determined that the rich could expect to live to the ripe old age of 43, while the poor could expect to live to be around 22. Why were the poor the first to endure the carnage of cholera? Chadwick thought he had the answer.

The poor lived in basements. But why would living in a basement cause so many poor people to die? The city of London had a serious problem with sewage disposal. Its drainage system was inadequate, the money allotted to the problem was insufficient, and to make matters worse, very few people even recognized the magnitude of the problem. The streets were filled with raw sewage that people dumped indiscriminately from second and third story windows. When rain fell in sufficient quantities to run through the streets, the then-tainted water naturally settled in the lowest places it could find—basements.

In one orphans’ home that housed 1,400 children, 300 of them contracted the deadly disease, and 180 of those died. When Chadwick inspected the facility, he found that the basement was a cesspool into which the sewage drained. Sadly, many of the children slept in the filth night after night. And Chadwick found that the same situation could be found in basement areas all over London. No wonder so many poor people were dying!

Chadwick identified the problem and implemented a new drainage system that eventually saved many lives, and could have saved many more had people not refused to believe that sewage was the cause of such an epidemic. They resented the idea of someone telling them how they needed to configure pipes and drains in their own homes. Therefore, they ignored Chadwick’s sound advice, balked, and neglected to install proper drainage systems—a course of action that cost thousands of lives over the next several years.

Raw sewage carries disease. If only the people of London had turned in their Bibles to Deuteronomy 23:12: “Also, you shall have a place outside the camp, where you may go out; and you shall have an implement among your equipment, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and turn and cover your refuse.” More than 3300 years before London’s epidemic, the Lord, through his servant Moses, implemented a plan to stop such epidemics before they started. Such tragedies as those that befell London could have been prevented if people simply had accepted God’s Word on the matter and observed the kind of hygiene that the Israelites had practiced so many years before. How did Moses know to instruct the Israelites in such public health practices, when the nation from which he came, and the nations surrounding the Israelites, knew no such practices? Just a lucky guess—or by inspiration of God?

DENOMINATIONAL ECUMENISM? BY STEVE FINNELL

http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/denominational-ecumenism-steve-finnell.html

DENOMINATIONAL ECUMENISM?  BY STEVE FINNELL

The contemporary movement formed to encourage cooperation between those denominations that believe Jesus is the Christ is the "Ecumenical Assembly"? Regardless of doctrinal differences those with the ecumenical mindset join together to feed and clothe the poor, gather together for preaching God's word, study God's word, and various other joint religious activities. Is that consistent with God's plan? Is believing that Jesus is the Christ the only essential doctrine of Christianity? I do not believe so.

Can you imagine the apostle Paul being involved in an "Ecumenical Assembly" with the Church of Judaizers, the Church of The Resurrection Is Past, or the Church of Knowing Only the Baptism of John?

1. The Church of Judaizers: Acts 15:1-5 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses you cannot be saved.".........5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believe rose, saying, "It was necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses."(NKJV)

The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Christ. The apostle Paul did not join in joint efforts with them to feed and clothe the poor. Paul did not join in preaching the gospel, church revivals nor Bible studies with them. What Paul did, do, was condemn their doctrine, and point out their eternal abode. Galatians 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified  by law; you have fallen from grace.(NKJV)

Simply believing that Jesus is the Christ does not qualify anyone as a coworker in Christ.

2. Church of The Resurrection is Past: 2 Timothy 2:17-18 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.(NKJV)

The apostle Paul did not encourage the followers of Jesus to join in ecumenical endeavors with the Church of of the Resurrection is Past, he said the opposite. 2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings...(NLKV)

 Note: Hymenaeus and Philetus strayed from the truth. They did believe that Jesus was the Christ.

3. Church of Knowing Only the Baptism of John: Acts 18:24-26 Apollos.....25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla head him , they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.(NKJV)

Apollos was not permitted to continue preaching false doctrine, he was taught the truth. Simply believing that Jesus is the Christ is not good enough.

The apostle Paul came upon some of the men Apollos had taught incorrectly. And taught them the truth. They were baptized into Christ. John's baptism was no longer valid. (Acts 19:1-5)

The apostle Paul did not engage with ecumenical activities with the Church of Knowing Only the Baptism of John until they were taught and believed the true gospel plan of salvation.

Why do believers in Christ join "Ecumenical Assemblies" with denominations that hold various and sundry doctrines?

Ecumenical Assemblies include those who pray to the Virgin Mary, those who deny that immersion in water is essential to salvation, those who believe once saved always saved, those who believe only a select few have been individually selected for salvation, those who believe there are many ways to heaven other than Jesus.

Should the Lord's Church participate in feeding and clothing the poor, joint Bible studies, and other religious activities with those who teach doctrine contrary to the apostles doctrine?

The apostle Paul was not an advocate for "Ecumenical Assemblies". Romans 16:16-17.....The churches of Christ greet you. 17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned and avoid them.(NKJV)

Simply believing that Jesus is the Christ is not enough, Satan and his demons believe that.    

You Are What You Do by B. Johnson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Johnson/Edna/Elizabeth/1939/whatyoudo.html

You Are What You Do

If you read a list of professions from earlier times, it reads like a roster of surnames. That’s because people were strongly identified by what they did for a living (as opposed to recently, when we pay attention to what’s on their iPod). John Smith was a person named John who worked as a blacksmith; Bill Sawyer was a lumberjack, and so on. In India, in the Parsee community, you’ll find people with surnames such as Contractor, Doctor, Engineer, etc. But watch and see: when someone asks, “Who is he;” “Who is she,” almost invariably, people start to describe what they do and who they are associated with. “Oh, he is a salesman over at the Ford dealership,” or, “She is the preacher’s wife.”
So who are you? How would you be identified today if someone in the crowd of people asked a friend who you were? How would the crowd expect you to behave? Would they have a right to expect more of you than someone whose profession identifies them as something else? Are you the wife of the local doctor or school principal? Are you a Bible class teacher? Are you a mother? Are you the sister to any one of these?
The world expects certain behavior of certain people. Under the Old Testament it was no different. The priests were spiritual leaders of the nation of Israel and were not to marry a widow, a divorced woman, a profane woman, or a harlot (Lev 21:12-15). There was a higher standard expected of spiritual leaders and their wives. Obviously, leading by example is one of the ways spiritual leaders do their work. The wives are naturally an extension of their husbands, so they too are expected to be above reproach.
The children of priests also were held to a higher standard. If the daughter of a priest were to play the harlot, she was to be burnt with fire (Lev 21:9). That was a much stronger punishment than for other men’s daughters. More was expected of them because they had been entrusted with more (Luke 12:48).
How was Jesus identified, when people asked who he was? “And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee” (Mat 21:10-11). There are actually two identities associated with Jesus. The ones who wanted to defame him made reference to the fact that he came from Nazareth-a despised place (John 1:46). Yet the ones who were his disciples remembered that he spoke for God (John 7:16). Jesus did not “live down” to the scoffers’ expectations of him, nor did he live in such a way to justify their disbelief of his teaching and his miracles.
Whether we consciously judge or not, almost all men expect everyone else to be “perfect,” whether in driving, keeping one’s place in line, performing an operation, directing traffic, rearing children, etc. Naturally, expectations for spiritual leaders and their wives are no different.
Part of man’s judgment is based in the amount of power or money with which they have been entrusted. “But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more” (Luke 12:48). The ten talent man was expected to produce more than the five talent man.
Our spiritual leaders (preachers, elders, deacons, Bible class teachers) are in a position of speaking for the Lord (Mt 23:1-3) and as such are expected to obey the commands they impart to those who have not yet obeyed. “With what judgment we judge, we will be judged,” whether by God or men (Mt 7:1-3).
Even though we may judge others harshly, we ourselves expect to receive lenient judgment (Rom 2:1-2). Nevertheless, the way we judge is the way we will be judged whether by God or man. The Jew assumed a position of authority for God (Rom 2:17-20). Nevertheless, the world condemned him for his hypocrisy (Rom 2:21-24).
When someone describes what you “do,” will they be able to say, she is a preacher’s wife, a Bible class teacher or an elder’s wife-a leader of the people who is above reproach? When someone asks where you attend church, will they say you are a member of the Lord’s body and a faithful Christian? We all should live in such a way that Christ is not ashamed to call us his own.

Beth Johnson

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The King James Version.

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

Jesus is... by Gary Rose

I can’t fill in the blank for you; this is just something that you must do for yourself. Think about this before you fill in the blank because it could be the most important answer of your life. My answer is listed below.

JESUS: MY EVERYTHING

INTRODUCTION

A. WHO IS JESUS TO THE WORLD??---MANY DIFFERENT THINGS

B. WHO IS JESUS TO THE CHURCH--EVERYTHING FROM A TO Z

        REV 1: 17--18

BODY

A. Jesus is our ALL--Phil 1:21

B. Jesus is our BROTHER-- Rom 8:29

C. Jesus is our CHOICE(personal) Joshua 24:15 ; 1 kings 18:21

D. Jesus is our DEFENSE against eternal death--Heb 9:27 ; 1jn2:1

E. Jesus is our EXAMPLE of a perfect life Jn14:6 ; Heb 5:8--9

F. Jesus is our FRIEND-- Jn15:10-14

G. Jesus is our GREAT HIGH PRIEST-- Heb 4:14-15

H. Jesus is our HOPE 1 Peter 1:3

I. Jesus is our IMAGE OF GOD --Heb 1:1-3

J. Jesus is our JUSTIFICATION --Ehp1:3; Rom8:1-2

K. Jesus is our KIND COMPANION Heb 13:5

L. Jesus is our LIFE-- Jn 14:6

M. Jesus is our MIGHTY GOD--Matt.17:1-5 ; Jn1:1-5

N. Jesus is our NEWS---Lk 2:10 ; Rom 10:16

O. Jesus is our ONE AND ONLY WAY --Jn 14:6

P. Jesus is our PROPITIATION    Heb 9:14---16; Rom 3:21--26

Q. Jesus is our QUESTION --What will you do with Jesus????

R. Jesus is our REDEMPTION--1 Pet 1:18-20 ; Jn 10:10 ;Lk 19:10

S. Jesus is our SAVIOR--Titus 3:3-4 ; Lk 19:10

T. Jesus is our TESTIMONY-- Matt 28:18-20 ; Acts 4:20

U. Jesus is our ULTIMATE COMPANION Rev 21:3-4

V. Jesus is our VICTORY OVER DEATH-- 1 Cor 15:54-55

W. Jesus is our WITNESS BEFORE GOD THE FATHER-- Rev 1:5

X. Jesus is our XTRA SOURCE OF STRENGTH-- Phil 4:13

Y. Jesus is our YESTERDAY, TODAY, TOMORROW-- Heb 13:8

Z. Jesus is our ZENITH-- Matt 17 & heb 1:1-4 (peak, highest goal)

CONCLUSION: 

SONG: READ HE IS MY EVERYTHING

SIMPLE INVITATION: LET JESUS BE YOUR EVERYTHING....

You guessed it; Jesus is my everything. Your turn to fill in the blank...

"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS" Wisdom Regarding Money by Mark Copeland

"THE BOOK OF PROVERBS"



Wisdom Regarding Money


INTRODUCTION

1. People often have conflicting ideas about money...

a. Some say that it is sinful to be rich; others, that it is a virtue to be poor

2. The Bible says a great deal about money...
b. Many think that money provides the ultimate security

c. It even warns about wasting our money
d. It speaks about earning and spending, saving and giving


3. The Book of Proverbs in particular discusses issues related to money...

b. Such as generosity and greed
a. Such as wealth and poverty


[What wisdom can be gleaned from Proverbs concerning money? 

Let's first consider what is said regarding...]

I. WEALTH AND POVERTY

A. REGARDING WEALTH...

1. Wealth does have its advantages

a. A degree of security - Pr 10:15; 18:11; e.g., 13:8

b. Companionship of 'friends' - Pr 14:20; 19:4,6-7

c. Power or influence - Pr 22:7

d. The ability to speak more freely - Pr 18:23

2. But wealth does not provide everything

a. It does not deliver us from death - Pr 10:2; 11:4

b. Those who trust in their riches will fall - Pr 11:28

3. The acquisition of wealth

a. Must be gained honestly, such as through labor - Pr 13:11

b. Best if by labor, not inherited - Pr 20:21

c. Best if gained gradually, not with haste - Pr 28:20,22

d. Wealth acquired unscrupulously is temporary and bitter 

- Pro 20:17; 21:5-6; 28:8

4. Keeping wealth in perspective

a. Do not overwork to be rich - Pr 23:4

b. Riches easily disappear - Pr 23:5

-- Wealth can be blessing, but it can easily become a curse;

         wisdom makes the difference!


B. REGARDING POVERTY...

1. Some are poor because of circumstances beyond their control

a. The greed of others - Pr 30:14

b. Usury and extortion - Pr 28:8

2. Others are poor because of their own sinful conduct

a. Laziness - Pr 6:6-11; 10:4; 14:23; 20:13; 24:30-34

b. Refusing to heed correction - Pr 13:18

c. Pleasure seeking - Pr 21:17

d. Drunkenness, gluttony - Pr 23:21

e. Wasting time on frivolous things - Pr 12:11; 28:19

-- Poverty is not always self-inflicted, but in many cases it is!

[Poverty also comes from other causes (natural disasters, God's
chastisement, persecution, even voluntary choice).  But as most

Christians today are blessed with relative wealth, let's now consider
what wisdom can be gleaned from Proverbs regarding the use of our
money...]


II. GENEROSITY AND GREED

A. REGARDING GENEROSITY...

1. The expression of generosity

a. Toward the needy (giving to the poor) - Pr 28:27

b. Toward the Lord (honoring Him with our first fruits) - Pro 3:9

2. The benefits of generosity

a. Natural benefits (the inherent joy of giving) - Pr 11:17; 14:21

b. Divine benefits (the blessing of the Lord) - Pr 3:10; 11:24-25; 19:17




-- For true happiness, with the Lord as our Benefactor, we must be

         generous


B. REGARDING GREED...

1. The qualities of greed

a. Insatiable desires (like a leech) - Pr 30:15-16

b. Laziness - Pr 21:25-26

c. Hypocrisy - Pr 23:6-8

2. The danger of greed

a. Troubles one's self - Pr 1:19

b. Troubles one's family - Pr 15:27



-- To avoid misery, for ourselves and others, we must not be greedy

CONCLUSION

1. With the aid of the Book of Proverbs, we can have wisdom regarding...
a. Wealth and poverty
   b. Generosity and greed

c. Wealth that comes from honest labor
2. With the blessing of the Lord, we can experience both...
   b. Generosity that springs from a merciful heart


The rich and the poor have this in common, The LORD is the maker
Certainly there is no place for arrogance and abuse when we have been
materially blessed:


   of them all. - Pr 22:2


   He who oppresses the poor reproaches his Maker, But he who honors

   Him has mercy on the needy. - Pr 14:31


May the Lord give us the wisdom and grace to use our wealth properly...!

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

Seeing God “Face to Face” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=2682

Seeing God “Face to Face”

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the Kyle Butt/Dan Barker debate, Dan Barker alleged that He “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence” (2009). One of the supposed contradictions that Barker mentioned was that God claims invisibility, yet has been seen. (His assertion is found 10 minutes and 55 seconds into his first speech.) Since biblical passages such as Exodus 33:20-23, John 1:18, and 1 John 4:12 teach that God cannot be seen, while other scriptures indicate that man has seen God and spoken to him “face to face” (Exodus 33:11; Genesis 32:30), allegedly “the God of the Bible does not exist.”

Although in modern times words are regularly used in many different senses (e.g., hot and cold, good and bad), Barker, like so many Bible critics, has dismissed the possibility that the terms in the aforementioned passages were used in different senses. Throughout Scripture, however, words are often used in various ways. In James 2:5, the term “poor” refers to material wealth, whereas the term “rich” has to do with a person’s spiritual well-being. In Philippians 3:12,15, Paul used the term “perfect” (NASB) in different senses. Although Paul had attained spiritual maturity (“perfection”) in Christ (vs. 15), he had not yet attained the perfect “final thing, the victor’s prize of the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus” (Schippers, 1971, 2:62; cf. Philippians 3:9-11). Similarly, in one sense man has seen God, but in another sense he has not.

Consider the first chapter of John where we learn that in the beginning Jesus was with God and “was God” (1:1; cf. 14,17). Though John wrote that Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14), he indicated only four sentences later that “no one has seen God at any time” (1:18; 1 John 4:12). Was Jesus God? Yes. Did man see Jesus? Yes. So in what sense has man not seen God? No human has ever seen Jesus in His true image (i.e., as a spirit Being—John 4:24—in all of His fullness, glory, and splendor). When God, the Word, appeared on Earth 2,000 years ago, He came in a veiled form. In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul mentioned that Christ—Who had existed in heaven “in the form of God”—“made Himself of no reputation,” and took on the “likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7). Mankind saw an embodiment of deity as Jesus dwelt on Earth in the form of a man. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” Likewise, when Jacob “struggled with God” (Genesis 32:28), He saw only a form of God, not the spiritual, invisible, omnipresent God Who fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24).

But what about those statements which indicate that man saw or spoke to God “face to face”? Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30). Gideon proclaimed: “I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face” (Judges 6:22). Exodus 33:11 affirms that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” First, although these men witnessed great and awesome things, they still only saw manifestations of God and a part of His glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-23). Second, the words “face” and “face to face” are used in different senses in Scripture. Though Exodus 33:11 reveals that God spoke to Moses “face to face,” only nine verses later God told Moses, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live” (33:20). Are we to believe (as Barker and other critics assert) that the author of Exodus was so misguided that he wrote contradictory statements within only nine verses of each other? Certainly not! What then does the Bible mean when it says that God “knew” (Deuteronomy 34:10) or “spoke to Moses face to face” (Exodus 33:11)? The answer is found in Numbers 12. Aaron and Miriam had spoken against Moses and arrogantly asked: “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:2). God then appeared to Aaron and Miriam, saying: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord” (Numbers 12:6-8, emp. added). Notice the contrast: God spoke to the prophets of Israel through visions and dreams, but to Moses He spoke, “not in dark sayings,” but “plainly.” In other words, God, Who never showed His face to Moses (Exodus 33:20), nevertheless allowed Moses to see “some unmistakable evidence of His glorious presence” (Jamieson, 1997), and spoke to him “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (33:11), i.e., He spoke to Moses plainly, directly, etc.

The Bible does not reveal “mutually incompatible characteristics of God” as Barker has alleged. His assertions in no way prove that the God of the Bible does not exist or that the Bible is unreliable. In truth, Barker’s comments merely reveal that he is a dishonest interpreter of Scripture. If Barker can work “side by side” with a colleague without literally working inches from him (Barker, 2008, p. 335), or if he can see “eye to eye” with a fellow atheist without ever literally looking into the atheist’s eyes, then Barker can understand that God could speak “face to face” with Moses without literally revealing to him His full, glorious “face.”

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Schippers, R. (1971), “Telos,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).