A New "Angle"—the Fish that Fishes by Nathaniel Nelson

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1369

A New "Angle"—the Fish that Fishes

by	Nathaniel Nelson

An impenetrable blackness enshrouds the angler fish as it floats near the sea floor. At a depth of 3,000 feet, none of the other fish can see the angler’s grotesque features. Its only appealing trait is a small lantern-like light resting on the top of a short stalk on its head. After having eaten a meal of shrimp or small fish, its stomach bulges out, resembling a basketball. Despite its gruesome features and intimidating appearance, it is only about the three inches long—roughly the length of a person’s index finger.

It is hard to imagine that nature could fashion such a fish in the midst of the darkest fathoms of the ocean. The angler’s framework is, for lack of a better word, weird. Ramsey Doran commented on the appearance of the angler fish.

Most deep sea anglers have soft, thin bones, jelly like flesh, and are either inky black or gray in color. It has been found that the red surfaces of deep sea prawns and the black surfaces of deep sea anglers reflect very little blue light. This means that if the other animals, the fish and prawns living at these depths, are giving out bluish lights, the black skin of the angler will render them invisible in the gloom, by absorbing any bluish light. Like many other fish in the deep, deep sea angler’s eyes are small. Most are shaped like a tennis ball with fins, and are not very fast. Unlike shallow water anglers, deep sea anglers do not have pectoral fins. Most don’t get very large and may grow to the size of a baby’s fist (2002).

One of the fish’s strangest identifying features is the bioluminescent “light bulb” on top of its head. Doran went on to make the following observation: “Millions of light producing bacteria cause the deep sea angler’s lure to light up. Only female anglers have the lure, and it is probably under her control. The female deep sea angler wiggles its lure from a long appendage on its forehead to attract its prey” (2002). This bobbing structure is, in essence, a fishing lure for catching prey.

The light that emanates from the appendage is produced by bacteria (Photobacterium luciferum) that, when congregated inside the angler’s “fishing pole,” produce a soft gleam. As the angler roves through the murky sea water, various fish—including dogfish, skates, cod, sprats, and flat fish—are attracted to the soft glow of its built-in death trap. Barbara Charton called this lure a “dorsal fin adaptation” (2001, p. 13, emp. added), as if it “somehow” had managed to come by the correct light-producing bacteria, while at the same time evolving an encasement for them.

When the angler manages to ensnare a fish, its inward-facing teeth will clamp down, ensuring that the victim does not escape. Its stomach is abnormally oversized and elastic, allowing it to ingest bigger fish. Imagine a large, spherical sac on the ventral surface of the angler, which can expand to accommodate fish nearly two times its size! What does evolution have to say to such prominent design as light-producing bacteria and elasticized stomachs?

The job of location a mate is difficult for sea life at the bottom of the ocean, because the lighting is so dim. Mark Norman explained how the male goes about finding the female: “She releases anglerfish-type perfumes into the water and he spends all his time swimming around looking and smelling for her” (2003). The angler fish counters this dilemma in a most unusual fashion. W.P. Armstrong put it like this:

Because angler fish are so sparsely populated throughout the vast millions of cubic miles of ocean, chance mating encounters between males and females would be unlikely. In fact, when deep-sea anglers were first brought up in trawls they puzzled scientists because they were all females. Then someone noticed small “growths” on the female that turned out to be the males. When a tiny male meets a female he bits [sic] into her flesh and literally fuses with her body. Like the linking together of web sites on the Internet, the two blood supplies also fuse together so that the male obtains nutrient and oxygen from the female. Without any need for most of his organ systems, such as eyes and digestive organs, the male’s body degenerates into essentially a pair of sperm-producing testicles. Thus the female essentially becomes a hermaphrodite with up to six or more of these tiny male parasites attached to various parts of her body. Although functionally bisexual, the eggs and sperm come from genetically distinct parents, thus providing genetic variability… (2004).

It is undeniable that the relationship between the male and female is extremely peculiar. From an evolutionary viewpoint, it is difficult to explain the relationship between these mating partners. According to evolution, at the supposed beginning of life on Earth, single-celled creatures utilized asexual reproduction as a means of continuing their species. In the depths of the ocean, where primitive life supposedly evolved into a larger populace of increasingly complex organisms such as fish, one would expect asexual reproduction to continue. It would be far easier to split in half, than to bring two different animals together in an inhospitable environment. This singularity would be emphasized to a greater degree near the dark ocean floor, where it is particularly problematic to find a mate. How, then, did the male and female angler fish survive without asexual characteristics? A male and female angler fish must be born; the male must find a female fish in total darkness; and the male fish must function as little more than a pair of testes. Evolution is obviously geared in reverse in this case!

The angler fish shows an idiosyncratic arrangement of parts that can only be explained by a Master Builder.

REFERENCES

Armstrong, W.P. (2004), “Sexual Suicide,” Wayne’s Word, [On-line], URL: http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0701.htm.

Charton, Barbara (2001), The Facts on File Dictionary of Marine Science (New York: CheckMark).

Doran, Ramsey (2002), “Deep Sea Anglerfish,” Ramsey’s Land, [On-line], URL: http://ramseydoran.com/anglerfish/deep_sea.htm.

Norman, Mark (2003), “Extra Features,” Norfanz Voyage, [On-line], URL: http://www.oceans.gov.au/norfanz/extracreatures.htm.

Did God Seduce Mary? by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=4663

Did God Seduce Mary?

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

Recently we received an e-mail at Apologetics Press from a skeptic who accused God of breaking one of His own commandments. The skeptic cited Exodus 20:17, which is the final commandment in the list of the Ten Commandments, that states: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.” The skeptic then stated that “God most certainly wronged Joseph when He seduced Mary, the betrothed of Joseph.” Did God violate His own laws of morality when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary so that she conceived Jesus? Not in any way.

First, it must be stated emphatically that there was no sexual seduction of any kind involved in the conception of Jesus in Mary’s womb. In fact, that is just the point of the miraculous, virgin birth of Christ. Hundreds of years before Christ was conceived in the flesh, the prophet Isaiah had stated: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear and Son, and shall call His name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). The New Testament writers stressed the fact that Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived (Matthew 1:23). When the angel announced to Mary that she would conceive a child, she said: “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” Mary’s response makes it clear that there was no seduction involved. Instead, it was a miraculous conception that had nothing to do with sexual intercourse. Mary remained a virgin until after giving birth to Jesus, at which time Mary and her husband Joseph came together in marital relations and conceived several other children (Pinedo, 2009).

Notice the skeptic attempts to lump Jehovah God in with the grotesquely immoral pagan gods whose seductions and sexual perversions fill the pages of ancient mythology. Zeus, the “father of the gods” was a mythological deity whose sexual appetite and rapine seductions were all too well known. During some of his more infamous escapades he seduced Europa by turning himself into a white bull, running off with her on his back, and ravishing her on the isle of Crete. He had an affair with Io and then turned her into a heifer. He seduced Semele and eventually killed her by showing her his full, godly glory. These are but a few of Zeus’ “conquests” (Hunt, n.d).

Only the most prejudiced reader would attempt to relate the conception of Jesus to the seductions perpetrated by the pagans gods. In the historical account of Jesus’ conception there is no contact by God in any type of physical form with Mary. Mary was completely aware of how babies are normally conceived, yet she stressed the fact that she had been involved in no physical, sexual activity that would bring about pregnancy. The biblical text emphatically states that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus. Mary was not seduced, violated, ravished, or involved in any sexual way with Jehovah. In a miraculous event that had nothing to do with sexual seduction, the Holy Spirit “came upon her” (Luke 1:35), and brought about the conception of the Messiah. The skeptic has no legitimate grounds to accuse Jehovah God of immorality in His interaction with Mary. Such an accusation truly reveals more about what is in the sinful heart of the skeptic than it does about God’s character.

REFERENCES

Hunt, J.M, (No date), “Zeus Lovers,” http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/bdodge/scaffold/gg/zeuslover.html.

Pinedo, Moisés (2009), “Was Mary a Virgin Her Whole Life?,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=105&article=2665.

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith" by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4704

"Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith"

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

We openly grant that the accusation represented by the title of this article is true, at least for many individuals today. But not for all.

“BLIND FAITH”—MANY HAVE IT

What is “blind faith”? What is meant by the accusation? The idea behind “blind faith” is that a person chooses to believe in something or someone (namely, God) without any supporting evidence. The portrait painted in our minds is that of a person who puts on a blindfold and steps up to a ledge. He cannot see what is beyond the ledge. He has no idea how far down the drop is—whether or not he will plummet to his death, break his legs, or simply fall down. He has no idea if there is water, a trampoline, or rocks at the bottom. He simply decides to believe that he will not die if he jumps off—that he will be safe. He has no evidence, only pure, baseless “faith.” So, he takes a “leap of faith.” Question: who in their right mind would do such a thing? Whoever has such a faith truly is naïve, an extremely emotionally, rather than rationally, charged individual, and possibly is in need of counseling, or has an agenda for having such a belief system.

Sadly many people have such a “faith.” Many people call themselves Christians, and claim to believe in the Bible, but clearly have not read it. They have a “blind faith” which, according to the Law of Rationality (Ruby, 1960, pp. 130-131), is irrational. Their belief in God is not based on the evidence, but is a blind leap into the dark without it. Philosphers call this phenomenon “fideism” (Popkin, 1967, 3:201-202). However, the biblical portrait of faith (Greek, pistis—translated equally as faith, belief, trust, or having confidence in; Arndt, et al., 1979, pp. 661-664) is not what some in Christendom have defined it to be nor what Hollywood has portrayed it to be. It is not “believing when common sense tells you not to,” as the 1947 movie, Miracle on 34^th Street suggested (Seaton). It is not a “leap of faith” like Dr. Jones’ actions in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg, 1989). The Bible does not advocate a “Feel, don’t think” mentality, like that encouraged by Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars(Lucas, 1999). Biblical faith is based on evidence (Hebrews 11:1). It is trust—comparable to the trust one has in a parent or friend—that is based on proof. We trust someone when he has proven himself to be trustworthy. When one listens to or reads revelation from God’s Word (i.e., what Bible believers call “special revelation”) and the information therein proves to be true, one develops faith in God (Romans 10:17). When one examines the evidence from the created order (i.e., what Bible believers call “general revelation”), and it points to the existence of a supernatural Being as Creator—rather than blind, random, accidental change over time—we learn to trust God based on that evidence.

In short: The biblical model of faith requires evidence. According to the biblical model, the truth of God can be known—not felt or accepted without proof—and it will set men free (John 8:32). Sincere truth seekers examine what they have been told and investigate its veracity by pondering the evidence, as did the “fair-minded” Bereans of Acts 17:11, before becoming Christians. In fact, God (through Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:21) tells the creationist that he is expected to prove or test something before believing it—only accepting what has been proven right or good. Do such passages give the impression that the Bible advocates a blind, evidence-less faith?

Sadly, evidence-based faith is not the faith of many within Christendom. But “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Many of us base our view squarely on the evidence—such as the evidence presented below. [NOTE: See Miller, 2003a for more on the topic of “blind faith” and the Bible. Also,Miller, 2003b.]

BUT WE DON’T

In order for a belief to not be “blind” or irrational, it needs supporting evidence. While the creationist does not claim to hold direct, observable evidence of God, since we cannot taste, touch, see, hear, or smell Him, the indirect evidence—a legitimate source of scientific evidence—is overwhelming. What supporting evidence do creationists put forth? A thorough treatment of this subject is outside the scope of this article, but hundreds of articles and books deal eloquently and credibly with the subject. [NOTE: See www.apologeticpress.org for a library of said material.]

In short, the creationist argues, among other things, that:

1. The available evidence contradicts the atheistic model (cf. Miller, 2012b; Miller, 2013c), which logically leaves theism—the Creation model;
2. The fundamental evidence that contradicts the naturalistic model, supports the contentions of the creation model, which never contradicts the scientific evidence;
3. The existence and teachings of the laws of science demand a non-material, uncaused Cause for the Universe;
4. There are numerous natural evidences in the Universe that exhibit the characteristics of intent, purpose, and complexity, which indicate a Mind behind them. Such attributes testify to the presence of intelligent design, which implies a Designer;
5. Objective morality exists, which implies a higher Law that transcends mankind, which in turn demands a supernatural Author;
6. A Book exists that contains certain characteristics that can only be explainable if it is what it says it is—the Word of the Creator.

These proofs, and many others, provide evidence that demands an explanation and cannot be satiated by naturalistic theories. Only supernatural Creation provides an answer in keeping with the evidence. The Creation model can hardly be deemed unscientific. Its legitimate followers cannot be brushed aside as “blind” believers. Such sweeping accusations are unfair and betray a prejudiced, stereotypical mindset, to say nothing of the fact that such accusations fall victim to the ad hominemlogical fallacy (“Fallacies,” 2012).

ACTUALLY, EVOLUTIONISTS DO

In truth, Creation is the reasonable choice—the one not beholden to evidence-less leaps of faith. It is not contingent on the baseless, mythical claim that aliens exist and initiated life on Earth (cf. Miller, 2013a); that abiogenesis—like magic from a fictional novel—is somehow possible (cf. Miller, 2012b); that non-humans give birth to humans, as they do in the tabloids (cf. Flew and Warren, 1977, pp. 25,45,65); or the fanciful idea that Universes spontaneously pop into existence (cf. Miller, 2013c). Indeed, atheistic evolution is simply well-packaged superstition. Creation is the option in keeping with reason and the evidence.

While some who call themselves “Christians,” do, indeed, have an unscriptural, blind faith, in truth, the same can be said of the evolutionary community—and more so. Why? (1) Because unlike evolution, the evidence does not contradict Creation but supports it, even though some have accepted Creation without that evidence; (2) because not all creationists hold to a blind faith. Some examine the evidence and draw the reasonable conclusion that a Creator exists. However, all naturalists musthave a blind, evidence-less faith, since atheistic evolution is based on certain baseless, unprovable assumptions, including abiogenesis, naturalism, spontaneous generation or the eternality of matter, etc. (cf. Miller, 2013b and Kerkut, 1960 for other key, baseless evolutionary assumptions). Belief in those assumptions is purely blind. They (1) are not supported by the evidence, which classifies evolution as irrational; (2) actually contradict the evidence; and (3) even show the naturalist to be engaged in self-contradiction, which he blindly ignores when confronted with the evidence of his contradictions (cf. Miller, 2012a). It seems clear that it is the evolutionist—not the creationist—who holds to a blind faith.

Consider the following timeless quotes from various prominent evolutionists concerning the character of the naturalist’s faith:

• Robert Jastrow, evolutionary astronomer and founder and former director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA: “At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists  [i.e., naturalists—JM] are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is alsoan act of faith. The act of faith consists inassuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief” (1977, pp. 62-63, emp. added).
• John Sullivan, once a popular evolutionary science writer: “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith” (1933, p. 95, emp. added).
• Richard Lewontin, evolutionary geneticist of Harvard University: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs..., in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”(1997, p. 31, 2^nd and 4^th emp. in orig.).
• G.A. Kerkut, British evolutionary physiologist: Spontaneous generation is “a matter of faith on the part of the biologist…. The evidence for what did happen is not available” (1960, p. 150, emp. added).
• Loren Eiseley, evolutionary anthropologist of the University of Pennsylvania: “With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having tocreate a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past” (1957, pp. 201-202, emp. added).
• Robert Hazen, evolutionary geologist who received his doctoral degree in Earth Science from Harvard University, a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory, and a professor of Earth Science at George Mason University: “I make anassumption that life emerged from basic raw materials through a sequence of events that was completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know—in fact, that we can’t ever know. It is possible that life emerged by an almost infinitely improbable sequence of difficult chemical reactions. If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure; such a succession could not be duplicated in a program of lab experiments. If the origin of life was an infinitely improbable accident, then there’s absolutely nothing you or I or anyone else could do to figure out how it happened. I must tell you, that’s a depressing thought to someone like me who has devoted a decade to understanding the origin of life” (2005, emp. added).
• Fred Hoyle, distinguished atheistic British astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales: “It is doubtful that anything like the conditions which were simulated in the laboratory existed at all on a primitive Earth, or occurred for long enough times and over sufficiently extended regions of the Earth’s surface to produce large enough local concentrations of the biochemicals required for the start of life. In accepting the ‘primeval soup theory’ of the origin of life, scientists have replaced religious mysteries which shrouded this question with equally mysterious scientific dogmas. The implied scientific dogmas are just as inaccessible to the empirical approach” (1978, p. 26, emp. added).

If these quotes from eminent evolutionists do not prove that naturalistic evolution is a religious faith, and a blind one at that, what would? It’s no wonder that the late Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, said about evolution, “One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory” (1981, emp. added). These quotes simply do not characterize true Christianity or the true Creation model—but they do characterize evolution.

Thus, it seems that the rank and file evolutionist’s self-incriminating, venomous accusations towards the creationist are well-represented by the Shakespearean quote, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (III.2). Be wary of the one who makes accusations the loudest and attempts to deflect attention from his own inadequacies.

Bottom line: The true model of origins will be based on the evidence. It will be the rational model. It will not contradict the evidence at every turn. So atheistic evolution is not the true model of origins.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William, F.W. Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition revised.

Eiseley, Loren (1957), The Immense Journey (New York: Random House).

“Fallacies” (2012), The Writing Center at UNC Chapel Hill,http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/fallacies.

Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God(Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1978), Lifecloud (New York: Harper & Row).

Jastrow, Robert (1977), Until the Sun Dies (New York: W.W. Norton).

Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).

Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.

Lucas, George, dir. (1999), Star Wars Episode I—The Phantom Menace, Lucasfilm.

Miller, Dave (2003a), “Blind Faith,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444.

Miller, Dave (2003b), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation--EXTENDED VERSION,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1399.

Miller, Jeff (2012a), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation, 32[5]:53, May, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1029&article=1763.

Miller, Jeff (2012b), “The Law of Biogenesis,” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:2-11, January,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018&article=1722.

Miller, Jeff (2013a), “Directed Panspermia and Little, Green (Non-Existent) Men from Outer Space,” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4620.

Miller, Jeff (2013b), “Don’t Assume Too Much: Not All Assumptions in Science Are Bad,” Reason & Revelation, 33[6]: 62-64,69-70, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1122&article=2153.

Miller, Jeff (2013c), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: the Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2786.

Patterson, Colin (1981), Written transcript made from audio tape of lecture presented at the American Museum of Natural History, November.

Popkin, Richard (1967), “Fideism” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: McMillan).

Ruby, Lionel (1960), Logic: An Introduction (Chicago, IL: J.B. Lippincott).

Seaton, George (1947), Miracle on 34^th Street, Twentieth Century Fox.

Shakespeare, William (2011), Hamlet, The Literature Network, http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/10/.

Spielberg, Steven, dir. (1989), Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Paramount Pictures.

Sullivan, J.W.N. (1933), Limitations of Science (New York: Viking Press).

A Muslim Now In Congress? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1999

A Muslim Now In Congress?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The culture war being waged in America may be distilled into a single, fundamental conflict between Christianity (in the broad sense) and all other ideologies, religions, and philosophies. One particular intrusion making encroachments into America’s Christian values is the growing mainstream receptivity to non-Christian religion. Case in point: Minnesota’s 5th District Democrat Keith Ellison has become the first Muslim in American history to secure a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives (Freed, 2006).

Many Americans—those who have been influenced by the social and political liberalism of the last few years—consider this occurrence a laudable circumstance. They believe that such diversity is healthy and serves to strengthen the fabric of society. They have swallowed the politically correct propaganda touted for 50 years that pluralism is the superior ideology, and that all religions are equally valid, authentic, and true. But what would the Founders say? How receptive were they to the influx of non-Christian religions into the country and the government? What were their views, specifically, about Islam?

Interestingly enough, the Founders made multiple references to Islam (see Miller, 2005). We Americans often are so uninformed, even disinterested, in our history that we simply are oblivious to the views of the architects of the Republic—and the firmness with which they championed those views. One typical example would be the discussion that took place on the floor of the North Carolina State Convention that met to debate ratification of the U.S. Constitution. On Wednesday, July 30, 1788, Mr. Henry Abbot (a minister) initiated a discussion by articulating serious concerns entertained by some of the delegates. They were not convinced that the Constitution provided the same guarantees as the state constitution to practice Christianity according to their own interpretation of the Bible without interference from the federal government. They likewise were concerned that this guarantee of religious freedom to the exclusion of fixed religious test oaths might be distorted to allow false religions or even atheism to make encroachments:

Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution. They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties.... The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.... I would be glad [if] some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy the religious part of the society (Elliot, 1836, 4:191-192, emp. added).

A response was offered by James Iredell, who, since the Revolution, had served the state of North Carolina both as a judge on the State Superior Court as well as State Attorney-General, and was soon to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington: “Mr. Chairman, nothing is more desirable than to remove the scruples of any gentleman on this interesting subject. Those concerning religion are entitled to particular respect” (Elliot, 4:192). He proceeded to explain at length that the establishment of one Christian sect above another has always led to persecution and war—as evidenced in Catholic countries as well as by the Church of England, from whence they had only recently extricated themselves. Consequently, the restriction placed on Congress in the federalConstitution would prevent the government from interfering with the free practice of the Christian religion. He then remarked:

But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagan and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels (Elliot, 4:494, emp. added).

Observe that Iredell conceded that in order for the Constitution to guarantee Christians the right to worship God according to their own conscience, non-Christians would inevitably be permitted the same constitutional protection. Indeed, the Founders would have never countenanced the persecution of atheists or those who espoused non-Christian religion. Are we to assume from this observation, however, that the Founders held non-Christian religions, like Islam, in high regard, or that they desired non-Christian religions to be encouraged, or that they sanctioned all religions as equally authentic and credible? Absolutely not! As Iredell further explained:

But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth (Elliot, 4:194, emp. added).

Iredell reasoned that by leaving the Constitution non-specific with regard to religion would prevent religious persecution. And further, tolerating non-Christian religions would not endanger the Founders’ assumption that Christianity would remain the worldview and moral framework that undergirds the nation. Why? Because he felt confident that Americans would never endanger their dearest rights by voting non-Christians (whether atheists or Muslims) into the government. Yet, tragically, we are doing just that. And did you notice Iredell’s allusion to “the divine Author of our religion”? What Author and what religion do you suppose he intended? He quoted that Author in his very next sentence: “Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?” Those words are the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18. The Author to Whom he referred was Christ, and Christ is the author of only one religion: Christianity.

Iredell next discoursed on the essentiality of an oath to be taken by those who wish to serve in political office. He insisted that this oath should contain two critical components: belief in a Supreme Being and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. Neither of these two prerequisites to holding office were deemed a violation of the freedom of religion clause of the Constitution.

The next to speak was the Governor of North Carolina—Samuel Johnston. Eight years earlier he had served as a member of the Continental Congress. He, too, was astonished that some were concerned that the Constitution provided insufficient guarantee of the priority and free exercise of the Christian religion to the exclusion of competing religions:

I read the Constitution over and over, but could not see one cause of apprehension or jealousy on this subject. When I heard there were apprehensions that the pope of Romecould be the President of the United States, I was greatly astonished. It might as well be said that the king of England or France, or the Grand Turk [now obsolete term for Ottoman Empire Muslim leader—DM], could be chosen to that office. It would have been as good an argument. It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men’s consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow (Elliot, 4:198, emp. added).

Observe that the governor argued that the odds of a non-Protestant getting into office were so infinitesimal as not to merit any concern. Also, being the one true religion and having the backing of God Himself, Christianity can fend for itself without the “assistance” of human government. But then the governor offered a rather chilling prediction:

It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves (Elliot, 4:198-199, emp. added).

Does the Constitution allow Americans to elect to political office people who do not profess the Christian religion? Yes, it does. Would Americans ever actually do that? The Founders’ response: very unlikely and highly improbable. But if, indeed, it were ever to happen—it would be most unfortunate! Hear that, Minnesota?

Governor Johnston then explained that, though each of the 13 states was heavily populated by professors of one or more of the various Protestant denominations, “there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established” (Elliot, 4:199)—further testimony to the fact that the single religion of the United States was almost entirely Christian (in the form of Protestant sects) to the exclusion of atheism and the world religions. But Mr. David Caldwell (also a minister) rose and reiterated the lingering concern that danger might arise:

In the first place, he said, there was an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us. At some future period, said he, this might endanger the character of the United States. Moreover, even those who do not regard religion, acknowledge thatthe Christian religion is best calculated, of all religions, to make good members of society, on account of its morality. I think, then, added he, that, in a political view, those gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens. All those who have any religion are against the emigration of those people from the eastern hemisphere (Elliot, 4:199, emp. added).

In other words, Jews, pagans, and people from the eastern hemisphere (which certainly includes Muslims) would constitute a threat to the religious and moral foundation on which America was founded. Mr. Spencer rose to reaffirm the same two reassurances asserted by Governor Johnston:

It is feared...that persons of bad principles, deists, atheists, &c., may come into this country; and there is nothing to restrain them from being eligible to offices. He asked if it was reasonable to suppose that the people would choose men without regarding their characters.... But in this case, as there is not a religious test required, it leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority (Elliot, 4:200, emp. added).

Again, yes, we are concerned about the nation remaining firmly Christian in its overall thrust, but we cannot force everyone to take a religious oath without creating conflict. Therefore, (1) we mustA Muslim Now In Congress?  by Dave Miller, Ph.D. rely on the good sense of the American people to refrain from appointing to political office any who do not possess Christian character, and (2) Christianity is able to maintain its own credibility and superiority without any help from human government.

Governor Johnston brought the discussion to a close with an amicable summary of the mutual sentiments of the delegates, as reported in the following words:

He admitted a possibility of Jews, pagans, &c., emigrating to the United States; yet, he said, they could not be in proportion to the emigration of Christians who should come from other countries; that, in all probability, the children even of such people would be Christians; and that this, with the rapid population of the United States, their zeal for religion, and love of liberty, would, he trusted, add to the progress of the Christian religion among us (Elliot, 4:200, emp. added).

The Founders were literally walking a tightrope. On the one hand, they did not want to be coercive in the matter of religion. They did not want to cram Christianity down anyone’s throat. They wanted America to be free of religious persecution. On the other hand, they understood that the truthfulness and superiority of the Christian religion was the essential platform on which America’s political institutions were poised. So they assuaged their fears by consoling themselves with the thought that the American people would forever have the good sense to retain Christianity as the central religion of the nation, and that they would refrain from placing in political office anyone who did not share those religious and moral convictions. These early Americans surely would be incredulous, alarmed, and disappointed if they were here to witness the addition of a Muslim to the U.S. House of Representatives—let alone his insistence that he take the oath of office on the Quran rather than the Bible (“Rep. Ellison...,” 2007).

REFERENCES

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot), [On-line], URL:http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html.

Freed, Joshua (2006), “Congress Gets First Muslim Lawmaker,” AOL News, November 8, [On-line],URL: http://news.aol.com/elections/house/story/_a/congress-gets-first-muslim- lawmaker/20061107221809990001.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Islam and Early America,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2686.

“Rep. Ellison Is 1st Muslim in Congress, Uses Koran in Photo-Op” (2007), Associated Press, January 5, [On-line], URL:: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241679,00.html.

From Gary... In the twinkling of an eye

This is just a photo of a drop of water, but to me it means more than that. It captures something that occurs so quickly that we would never see it otherwise and that is amazing.  Now, I am unsure whether or not this picture has been manipulated, but, if not, then this is even more astonishing (because of the colors)!!!  Consider the following...

1 Corinthians, Chapter 15

 51  Behold, I tell you a mystery. We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,  52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed.  53 For this perishable body must become imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable body will have become imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then what is written will happen: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 

  55 “Death, where is your sting?

Hades, where is your victory?”

  56  The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.  57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.  58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the Lord’s work, because you know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. 

I met a neighbor this morning while I was walking my dogs and when he stopped his vehicle to say hello. I was pleasantly surprised!!! Surprised, not so much by the event, as by his condition. You see, he has severe breathing problems and I ALWAYS see him with his oxygen backpack, but he didn't have it with him.  I greeted him with my customary "Every day above ground is a good day" and he returned with something like "We are only promised the last breath we have taken".  This made an impression on me, as I knew right away that his statement held special significance.

Considering how fast things can change for we who are human beings, I encourage you to relish every moment you have on this earth; it may be your last. But, just as quickly as the picture, you, who belong to the LORD JESUS CHRIST, may in fact be changed and be with the LORD!!!  How, this happens- I do not know.  Perhaps someone will invent a camera capable of revealing this?  And I would love a copy of THAT PICTURE!!!  

Need a little more encouragement; read the whole of 1 Corinthians, chapter 15!!!!

PS. I forgot to mention the quick photography above forms a crown- so does that which occurs in the "twinkling of an eye"!!!!

Does the Quran Encourage Violence? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=3800

Does the Quran Encourage Violence?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Q.

Does the Quran encourage violence?

A.

Yes. The Quran—the holy book of Islam that 1.3 billion Muslims believe to be the word of God—is replete with explicit and implicit sanction and promotion of armed conflict, violence, and bloodshed by Muslims. Read Surah 47:4 from the celebrated translation by Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).

Many other verses in the Quran forthrightly endorse armed conflict and war to advance Islam. Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns (cf. Lings, pp. 86,111). Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight” (n.d., p. xxvi).

REFERENCES

Lings, Martin (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International).

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

An Interview With Israel Finkelstein by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=3814

An Interview With Israel Finkelstein

by	Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

For the May/June 2010 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks interviewed Israel Finkelstein, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University and co-director (with archaeologist David Ussishkin) of the excavations at the biblical site of Megiddo since 1994. Finkelstein is a prominent Israeli archaeologist who has authored or co-authored several books that are highly critical of the traditional reading of Scripture. These include The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts and David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition.

Finkelstein has a well-deserved reputation as a critic of the Bible. He has long been accused of being a biblical minimalist, someone who believes that only a bare minimum of the Bible is historically trustworthy. Prominent minimalists in modern academia include Thomas Thompson, Philip Davies, and Niels Peter Lemche, all of whom have authored works highly critical of the historical accuracy of the Bible. Finkelstein is not as radical as the minimalists, who approach the Bible with a level of skepticism that borders on outright hostility. At the same time, Finkelstein expresses his belief that the story of David contains mere “historical germs” (Shanks, 2010, p. 51). He admits that there was a group of people called “Israel” as early as the late 13^th century B.C. and that Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem, but disagrees that the Bible is historically accurate.

Although Finkelstein is not as extreme as the minimalists, he is often guilty of using the same unwarranted skepticism when reading the Bible. In the interview with Shanks, he says that he believes that he is “in the center” (p. 48) and is “more critical” (in the sense of reading the Bible with a greater level of scrutiny and discernment, p. 51) without venturing into pure minimalism, but denies that the history of major biblical events occurred as they are presented in the pages of Scripture.

Finkelstein is highly critical of those who take the Bible at face value. He says, “I do think we are in a process of liberation from an antiquated reading of the Biblical text… [Some archaeologists] still interpret the Bible very literally…. We tend to give it a more sophisticated reading. This is not to say that the Bible has no history. It means that we need to look at the Biblical material more carefully, in a more sophisticated way (p. 58).

From Finkelstein’s comments throughout the interview, it seems that by having “greater sophistication” in reading the Bible he really means “greater skepticism.” Unfortunately, this seems to be a common way of looking at the Bible. For many critics, it is read not to be understood, but to be condemned. Modern critics assume they are more advanced than the ancient authors, and approach Scripture with an air of chronological arrogance. In reality, those archaeologists and scholars who read the Bible “very literally” are in many ways interpreting Scripture just as the ancient authors intended. They are also interpreting the Bible just as scholars would interpret texts from other cultures. The biblical authors intended their work to be read so that the reader understands that their work is presenting facts that took place in real time. Few scholars in other areas of ancient history would read ancient texts with the same skepticism as Finkelstein and others view the Bible.

It has long been the case that those who read the Bible hold it to a much higher standard—it would not be unfair to call it a double standard—than other sources of information. For instance, when archaeologist Eilat Mazar discovered and identified what she considered to be the palace of David in Jerusalem based partially on her reading of the Bible (Mazar, 2006), Finkelstein and several colleagues disputed her findings (Finkelstein, et al., 2007). When the Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription was discovered, Finkelstein warned against the “revival in the belief that what’s written in the Bible is accurate like a newspaper” (Friedman, 2008). In other words, he argues that we cannot expect the Bible to report factual details with any great degree of certainty. For the last two hundred years scholars have mined ancient texts, including mythological texts, for details that might help with locating ancient sites. Finkelstein apparently believes that this cannot be done with the Bible.

Finkelstein has a brilliant mind, and is witty, engaging, and humorous in his interview with Shanks. At the same time, he also possesses a level of skepticism that finds no place among mainstream scholarship. Experts usually approach the ancient evidence with a degree of confidence, assuming that the literary and material evidence are generally trustworthy unless there is reason for suspicion. Minimalists approach the biblical evidence with an extreme degree of skepticism that they often do not employ elsewhere. They hold the biblical text to an extreme double standard, and disregard the Bible unless incontrovertible extrabiblical evidence is found that corroborates the text. If the same method were applied to reading the daily paper, minimalists would never get past the first paragraph of the lead article.

The minimalists’ approach, which Finkelstein’s resembles closely, is decried by many scholars, both theistic and atheistic. An example of the former is Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world’s foremost Egyptologists. In his book On the Reliability of the Old Testament, he spends considerable time examining the biblical minimalists and their history in the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship (2003, pp. 449-500). Specifically of Finkelstein’s book The Bible Unearthed (coauthored by Neil Asher Silberman), he says, “[A] careful critical perusal of this work—which certainly has much to say about both archaeology and the biblical writings—reveals that we are dealing very largely with a work of imaginative fiction, not a serious or reliable account of the subject” (p. 464). Concerning their treatment of the patriarchal period, which the two describe as a virtual fiction, Kitchen comments, “our two friends are utterly out of their depth, hopelessly misinformed, and totally misleading” (p. 465). Finkelstein’s and Silberman’s discussion of the exodus prompts Kitchen to remark, “Their treatment of the exodus is among the most factually ignorant and misleading that this writer has ever read” (p. 466).

As for non-Christian scholars, there are several who would oppose Finkelstein’s treatment of the Bible. One of these is William Dever, who has often described himself as an agnostic at best. Dever’s battle with Finkelstein is well-known to those in archaeological circles, as well as to readers of Biblical Archaeology Review. The two have feuded publicly in print, although Dever generally commands more respect than Finkelstein. [NOTE: In a personal conversation, a Canadian archaeologist from the University of Toronto told me in 2006 that not only does Finkelstein have a reputation for criticizing other archaeologists’ conclusions without examining their evidence, but other Israeli archaeologists have been critical and almost dismissive of him and his methods.]

Both believers and nonbelievers view Finkelstein’s approach as unwarranted. His point of view has won very few converts in archaeological circles. His skepticism borders on extremism not only because of the way he approaches the biblical text, but also because of the way he treats other scholars who disagree with him. In the end, Finkelstein may be a respected archaeologist in some circles, but he is spectacularly incorrect in his conclusions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

REFERENCES

Finkelstein, Israel, et al. (2007), “Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?” Tel Aviv, 34[2]:142-164.

Friedman, Matti (2008), “Archaeolgist Says He Found Oldest Hebrew Writing,” http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2008-10-30-424395593_x.htm.

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

Mazar, Eilat (2006), “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” Biblical Archaeology Review, 32[1]:16–27,70, January/February.

Shanks, Hershel (2010), “The Devil is Not So Black as He is Painted,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 36[3]:48-58, May/June.