Did Jesus Rise “On” or “After” the Third Day? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=756

Did Jesus Rise “On” or “After” the Third Day?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

The most frequent reference to Jesus’ resurrection reveals that He rose from the grave on the third day of His entombment. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus as prophesying that He would arise from the grave on this day (Matthew 17:23; Mark 9:31; Luke 9:22). The apostle Paul wrote in his first epistle to the Corinthians that Jesus arose from the grave “the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:4). What’s more, while preaching to Cornelius and his household, Peter taught that God raised Jesus up “on the third day” (Acts 10:40, emp. added). The fact is, however, Jesus also taught (and Mark recorded) “that the Son of Man” would “be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31, emp. added). Furthermore, Jesus elsewhere prophesied that He would be in the heart of the Earth for “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). So which is it? Did Jesus rise from the dead on the third day or after three days?

While to the 21^st-century reader these statements may initially appear to contradict one another, in reality, they harmonize perfectly if one understands the different, and sometimes more liberal, methods ancients often used when reckoning time. In the first century, any part of a day could be computed for the whole day and the night following it (cf. Lightfoot, 1979, pp. 210-211). TheJerusalem Talmud quotes rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who lived around A.D. 100, as saying: “A day and night are an Onah [‘a portion of time’] and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it” (fromJerusalem Talmud: Shabbath ix. 3, as quoted in Hoehner, 1974, pp. 248-249, bracketed comment in orig.). Azariah indicated that a portion of a 24-hour period could be considered the same “as the whole of it.” Thus, as awkward as it may sound to an American living in the 21^st century, a person in ancient times could legitimately speak of something occurring “on the third day,” “after three days,” or after “three days and three nights,” yet still be referring to the same exact day.

The Scriptures contain several examples which clearly show that in Bible times a part of a day was often equivalent to the whole day.

• According to Genesis 7:12, the rain of the Noahic Flood was upon the Earth “forty days and forty nights.” Verse 17 of that same chapter says it was on the Earth for just “forty days.” Who would argue that it had to rain precisely 960 hours (40 days x 24 hours) for both of these statements to be true?
• In Genesis 42:17 Joseph incarcerated his brothers for three days. Then, according to verse 18, he spoke to them on the third day and released them (all but one, that is).
• In 1 Samuel 30:12,13, the phrases “three days and three nights” and “three days” are used interchangeably.
• When Queen Esther was about to risk her life by going before the king uninvited, she instructed her fellow Jews to follow her example by not eating “for three days, night or day” (Esther 4:16). The text goes on to tell us that Esther went in unto the king “on the third day” (5:1, emp. added).
• Perhaps the most compelling Old Testament passage which clearly testifies that the ancients (at least occasionally) considered a portion of a twenty-four hour period “as the whole of it” is found in 2 Chronicles 10. When Israel asked King Rehoboam to lighten their burdens, he wanted time to contemplate their request, so he instructed Jeroboam and the people of Israel to return “afterthree days” (2 Chronicles 10:5, emp. added). Verse 12, however, indicates that Jeroboam and the people of Israel came to Rehoboam “on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, ‘ Come back to me the third day’ ” (emp. added). Fascinating, is it not, that even though Rehoboam instructed his people to return “after three days,” they understood this to mean “on the third day.”
• From Acts 10, we can glean further insight into the ancient practice of counting consecutive days (in part or in whole) as complete days. Luke recorded how an angel appeared to Cornelius at “about the ninth hour of the day” (approximately 3:00 p.m.; Acts 10:3). “The next day” (10:9) Peter received a vision from God and welcomed visitors sent by Cornelius. “On the next day”(10:23) Peter and the servants of Cornelius departed for Caesarea. “And the following day they entered Caesarea” where Peter taught Cornelius and his household the Gospel (10:24). At one point during Peter’s visit,Cornelius spoke about his encounter with the angel of God. Notice carefully how he began the rehearsal of the event. He stated: “Four days ago to this hour, I was praying in my house during the ninth hour…” (10:30, NASB, emp. added). Although the event actually had occurred only 72 hours (or three literal days) earlier, Cornelius spoke of it as taking place “four days ago to this hour.” Why four days instead of three? Because according to the first-century method of reckoning time, a part of the first day and a part of the fourth day could be counted as whole days. Surely one can see how this information aligns itself perfectly with Jesus’ burial taking place on Friday and His resurrection occurring on Sunday. A part of Friday, all day Saturday, and a part of Sunday would be considered three days in ancient times, not one or two.

Even though in modern times some may find this reasoning somewhat confusing, similar idiomatic expressions frequently are used today. For example, we consider a baseball game that ends after only completing 8½ innings a “9-inning game.” And even though the losing pitcher on the visiting team only pitched 8 innings (and not 9 innings like the winning pitcher from the home team), he is said to have pitched a complete game. Consider also the guest at a hotel who checks in at 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, and checks out at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday—less than 24 hours later. Did the man stay one day or two days at the hotel? Technically, the guest was there for less than one full day (24-hour period), yet the hotel legally can charge him for two days since he did not leave before the mandatory 11:00 a.m. checkout time. Considering how flexible we are in measuring time, depending on the context, perhaps we should not be surprised at how liberal the ancients could be in calculating time.

Further evidence proving that Jesus’ statements regarding His burial were not contradictory centers around the fact that even His enemies did not accuse Him of contradicting Himself. No doubt this was due to their familiarity with and use of the flexible, customary method of stating time. In fact, the chief priests and Pharisees even said to Pilate the day after Jesus was crucified: “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore command that the tomb be made secure until the third day” (Matthew 27:63-64, emp. added). The phrase “after three days” must have been equivalent to “the third day,” else surely the Pharisees would have asked for a guard of soldiers until the fourth day. Interesting, is it not, that modern skeptics charge Jesus with contradicting Himself, but not the hypercritical Pharisees of His own day.

The idiomatic expressions that Jesus and the Bible writers employed to denote how long Jesus would remain in the grave does not mean that He literally was buried for 72 hours. If we interpret the account of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection in light of the cultural setting of the first century, and not according to the present-day (mis)understanding of skeptics, we find no errors in any of the expressions that Jesus and the gospel writers used.

REFERENCES

Hoehner, Harold W (1974), “Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ—Part IV: The Day of Christ’s Crucifixion,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 131:241-264, July.

Lightfoot, John (1979 reprint), A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

“Emotional Blocks or Plain Bigotry,” or Something Else? by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=182

“Emotional Blocks or Plain Bigotry,” or Something Else?

by	Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Allegedly, “it was Darwin, above all others, who first marshaled convincing evidence for biological evolution...” (“Evidence Supporting...” 1999). Creationists insist that their point of view is substantiated by evidence, so it is natural that evolutionists claim to bolster their theory by pointing to evidence. Frequently, evolutionary scientists proclaim to have found original, striking evidence that confirms beyond doubt the factuality of the naturalistic view of origins. One hardly can scan the morning paper or search the Internet without seeing a new piece of “evidence.”

Is such evidence piled so high that creationists have no hope of climbing high enough even to stage an argument? As Trevor Major noted: “Indeed, newspaper stories frequently talk about ‘creationism’ versus ‘evolution’ as if belief in creation were exactly that—an ‘ism’—whereas evolution is an established fact” (2000). Stephen J. Gould put it strongly, if not without contradiction:

“[E]volution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don’t go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered” (1983, pp. 254-255).

And perhaps Dobzhansky summarized the prevailing view of the scientific community when he wrote: “Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry” (1983, p. 27).

Are creationists so skewed in their perceptions of the data that they are blind to a mountain of undeniable evolutionary evidence, ignoring the proverbial elephant in their own living rooms? Are they just ignoring what the New England Skeptical Society calls “the mountain of evidence for evolution” (see “Intelligent Design”)? Francois Tremblay echoes: “How do [creationists—CC] refute the mountain of evidence for evolution?” (2003). Richard Dawkins affirms: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” (1989, p. 7, emp. in orig.). Gould, Dobzhansky, Dawkins, and many others would be troubled by the fact that there are those who, “hampered” by a belief in God, “just don’t get it.”

Consider this important principle: If someone labels data, even a large set of data, as “evidence” for his theory, the data may or may not support his theory. The law of rationality dictates that a person draw only such conclusions as are warranted by the evidence (Pugh, 2002, p. 29). However, a person may label anything as evidence, whether or not it supports his theory. Quite simply, a lot of data may not support a particular view simply because a person says it does. More data does not necessarily equal stronger evidence. We must analyze each new piece of data to see how, and whether, it bears on the origins discussion. This is a Scriptural process. “‘Present your case,’ says the Lord, ‘Bring forth your strong reasons, says the King of Jacob’” (Isaiah 41:21). Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to “test all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Jesus rebuked the apostles for initially questioning the evidence for His resurrection (Mark 16:14; cf. Gray, 2005, pp. 216ff.).

Sadly, personal prejudice or wishful thinking might cause one to believe that theory is fact without full knowledge or understanding of the facts. For example, consider the University of California at Berkeley’s “Understanding Evolution” Web site (“Understanding Evolution,” n.d.). In 1956, American geologist Clair Patterson announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. He based his old age for the Earth upon “evidence” from radiometric dating. Since then, it has been shown that radiometric dating systems are unreliable because they are based on groundless assumptions (see Jackson, 2003, pp.13-22; cf. Harrub, 2003). However, the Berkeley site continues to offer radiometric dating as an evidence for an old Earth and naturalism (“Radiometric Dating,” n.d.).

Similar criticism has disproved other alleged evidences for evolution, such as homology, horse evolution, the geologic column, and many others. Living things, such as viruses, may exhibit microevolution but not macroevolution (cf. Harrub, 2001). We could go on. What of that mountain of evidence for evolution? If we may subtract evidence supported by radiometric dating methods from the mountain of evidence, should we remove other portions of the mountain? How much of the mountain would be left if we removed all the pieces that resulted from irrational conclusions?

Bruce Silverthorne observed: “Evidence...makes us honest when we are asked to form and explain premises” (2004, p. 145). Both evolutionists and creationists should be honest when addressing the evidence. The Christian must be careful of “pursuing the inquiry with so fixed a determination that the Bible shall be found true, as to lead him to accept shallow sophisms for sound arguments, and to disregard the force of serious objections” (McGarvey, 1974, p. 3). Unfortunately, many will fail to analyze data, will feel that the “evidence” for evolution is too strong, and therefore will blindly subscribe to evolution. Our plea is that they will pay close attention to what scientists and others offer as evidence supporting their theory.

REFERENCES

“Intelligent Design” (no date), The New England Skeptical Society, [On-line], URL:http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=31.

Dawkins, Richard (1989), “Book Review,” The New York Times, section 7, p. 34. April 9.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1983), “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,”Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy, ed. J. Peter Zetterberg (Phoenix, AZ: Oryx).

Gould, Stephen Jay (1983), Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes (New York: W.W. Norton).

Gray, Phillip A. (2005), Training Manual for Cultural Combat: Apologetics and Preaching for the Postmodern Mind (Altamonte Springs, FL: Advantage).

Harrub, Brad (2001), “Are Viruses Really ‘Evolving’?,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2059.

Harrub, Brad (2003), “When Dating Methods Don’t Agree,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2787.

Jackson, Wayne (2003), Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth (Stockton, CA: Courier), second edition.

Major, Trevor (2000), “The Intelligent Design Movement [Part I],” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2514.

McGarvey, J.W. (1974), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

“Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution” (1999), A View from the National Academy of Sciences, [On-line], URL: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html.

Pugh, Charles (2002), Things Most Surely Believed (Sugarcreek, OH: Schlabach).

“Radiometric Dating” (no date), University of California at Berkeley[On-line], URL: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_23.

Silverthorne, Bruce K. (2004), The Pest Control Technician’s Guide to Christian Faith (Salt Lake City, UT: Millennial Mind).

Tremblay, Francois (2003), “The Intellectual Poverty of Creationism,” [On-line], URL: http://www.liberator.net/articles/TremblayFrancois/IntellectualPoverty.html.

“Understanding Evolution” (no date), University of California at Berkeley, [On-line], URL: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/.

Abortion and the Self-Contradiction of Political Correctness by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2107

Abortion and the Self-Contradiction of Political Correctness

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

In May 2004, 16-year-old Erica Basoria asked her boyfriend, Gerardo Flores, to stomp on her belly, since she did not want to give birth to his twin sons, and her own efforts to kill her babies had been unsuccessful. Flores complied and subsequently was arrested on the basis of Texas’ 2003 Prenatal Protection Act which extends the protections of the entire criminal code to “an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth” (“State Homicide Laws...,” 2006). His lawyer argued that the Texas law used to prosecute was unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Flores received a double capital murder conviction with two concurrent life sentences, making him ineligible for parole for 40 years—a ruling that recently was upheld by the Texas Ninth Court of Appeals (Ertelt, 2007).

Wait a minute. If Flores had been to medical school, he would have been legally free to employ barbaric instruments of torture to butcher the children in the womb. Or he could have pulled the babies’ bodies from his girlfriend’s womb, leaving only their heads, jammed scissors into their skulls to make a hole, and then sucked out their brains with a suction tube (see “Abortion Methods,” n.d.). But, no, young Flores did not have access to such sophisticated “education” and “expertise.” He simply stomped on his girlfriend’s stomach. Now he’s doing time for most of the rest of his life, while hundreds of abortion doctors continue to practice their deadly trade to the tune of 48 million+ babies since 1972—while being paid enormous sums of money (“Abortion in the...,” n.d.).

Such is the moral confusion, hypocrisy, and self-contradiction, or shall we say insanity, that grips America by its spiritual throat, brought on by the forces of political correctness over the last half century. The innocent blood that has been shed in the United States of America cries out for justice and retribution—which one day will surely be meted out (Proverbs 6:17). As Thomas Jefferson declared: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever” (1787, Query XVIII). Or as Solomon affirmed: “The violence of the wicked will destroy them, because they refuse to do justice” (Proverbs 21:7). The God of the Bible eventually “administers justice for the fatherless” (Deuteronomy 10:18). “The Lord executes righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed” (Psalm 103:6).

REFERENCES

“Abortion Methods” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://readthetruth.com/abortion-methods.htm.

“Abortion in the United States: Statistics and Trends” (no date), National Right to Life, [On-line], URL: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html.

Ertelt, Steven (2007), “Texas Appeals Court Upholds Law Protecting Pregnant Women, Babies,” Life News, January 29, [On-line], URL: http://www.lifenews.com/state2046.html.

Jefferson, Thomas (1787), Notes on the State of Virginia, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm.

“State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims” (2006), National Right to Life, December 30, [On-line], URL: http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html.

From Gary... Wise or foolish?

Life is time and money (like so many other things) is a means to an end.  If you have obeyed the will of God, HE is with you-  you really don't have a thing to be concerned about.  This is true!!! However, we are only given so much time on Earth, so use it wisely!!!  

Ephesians, Chapter 5 (WEB)

 15  Therefore watch carefully how you walk, not as unwise, but as wise;  16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore don’t be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Hebrews, Chapter 13 (WEB)

 15  Therefore watch carefully how you walk, not as unwise, but as wise;  16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore don’t be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

Now that I look a little more closely at those two verses, I see a contrast of wisdom and foolishness. How you live (which is walk in these verses) is either wisely or foolishly. The wise person listens to the Lord, and the foolish listen to something else. Be wise and not foolish- time is running out, for our days are all numbered!!!

From Mark Copeland... "A CLOSER WALK WITH GOD" Our Public Assemblies

                        "A CLOSER WALK WITH GOD"
                          
                          Our Public Assemblies

INTRODUCTION

1. In our last study, we noted that being a Christian involves both
   BLESSINGS and RESPONSIBILITIES

2. One of the blessings as well as an important responsibility for the
   Christian is the practice of ASSEMBLING regularly with other Christians
   a. We have an example of Christians assembling in Ac 20:7
   b. We have an explicit command not to forsake our assembling
      together - He 10:25

3. The PURPOSE of our assembling is THREE-FOLD:
   a. To express praise and devotion to God and Christ
   b. To exhort and encourage our brethren to greater service
      - He 10:24-25
   c. To receive such encouragement ourselves

4. In this study, we shall:
   a. Briefly remark concerning the ACTIVITIES that we engage in during
      our assemblies
   b. See how every activity is designed to accomplish the three-fold
      purpose described above
   c. Suggest how we can get the most out of our public assemblies

I. THE ACTIVITIES OF OUR ASSEMBLIES

   A. PRAYER...
      1. We have several examples of group prayer in the early church
         - Ac 4:23-24; 12:5,12
      2. The value of such prayer is implied in Jm 5:16 (if such is
         true concerning the prayer of ONE righteous man, how much
         more the prayers of MANY righteous!)
      3. The value of all prayer is seen further in Php 4:6-7
         a. Thus prayer not only blesses (praises) God
         b. But also blesses (benefits) those who pray!
      4. HINT:  To get the most out of public prayers, make them your own!
         a. In your heart, tell the Lord you agree with what is being
            said by the one leading the prayer
         b. Don't hesitate to offer a hearty "AMEN" if you agree

   B. SINGING...
      1. Commands to sing can be found in Ep 5:19; Col 3:16; He 13:15
      2. Notice where the emphasis lies:
         a. On praising God
         b. On teaching one another
         c. On making melody "in your hearts"
      3. So the emphasis is not on how we sound, but on what we say and
         how we feel
         a. Therefore, pay more attention to the words rather than the melody
         b. Concentrate on engaging the mind and heart, and not just
            the mouth
      4. HINT:  To get more out singing in public, sing often in
         private! - Jm 5:13

   C. THE WORD OF GOD...
      1. Teaching or preaching of the Word of God was part of public
         worship in the early church - Ac 20:7
      2. For it is by the Word of God that we can grow spiritually 
         - 1Pe 2:2
      3. How we listen to the proclamation of God's Word is an
         indication of our devotion to God
         a. We should be quick to hear what God's Word has to say 
            - Jm 1:18-19
         b. It is important to receive God's Word with a proper
            attitude of meekness and willingness to receive it 
            - Jm 1:21; Mk 4:23-25
      4. HINT:  As with singing, the more we study the Word in private,
         the more we get out of it in the public assemblies!

   D. THE LORD'S SUPPER...
      1. This is also called:
         a. The "breaking of bread" - Ac 2:42; 20:7
         b. "Communion" - 1Co 10:16
      2. A memorial feast instituted by Jesus Himself - 1Co 11:23-26
         a. In it we remember:
            1) The sinless body offered on the cross in our place
            2) The blood shed to provide forgiveness for our sins
         b. Done faithfully, we proclaim our faith in the efficacy of
            the Lord's death
      3. It should be done with all seriousness and appropriateness
         - 1Co 11:27-29
         a. In a manner worthy of the One we are remembering
         b. A time also to reflect upon our relationship with Him who
            died for us
      4. Done properly...
         a. It honors Jesus ("This do, in remembrance of Me")
         b. It  renews us to greater faithfulness - 1Co 11:28-32
         c. It strengthens our oneness in the body of Christ 
            - 1Co 10:17
         d. We continually share in the "body and blood of the Lord"
            - 1Co 10:16
            1) Not literally
            2) Perhaps referring to a continual communion with the
               benefits of that sacrifice (e.g., forgiveness)
      5. HINT:  Reading passages like Isaiah 53, Psalms 22, and the
         Gospel records of Christ's suffering and death while partaking
         of the Supper can help keep our minds focused on what we are
         doing

   E. THE COLLECTION...
      1. The early church is noteworthy for its love for one another
         - Ac 2:44,45; 4:32-35
      2. Such love went beyond those in the local congregation 
         - Ac 11:27-30
      3. In time, a systematic manner for providing for needy
         Christians was instituted - 1Co 16:1-2
      4. The primary purpose of the collection, then, was to provide
         for needy Christians
         a. Locally and abroad
         b. Including those who devote their lives to preaching the
            gospel - 2Co 11:8,9; Php 4:10-18
      5. How much should one give?  The New Testament does not set a
         percentage (like the "tithe", or a tenth, found in the Old
         Testament), but rather instructs us to give according to the
         following principles:
         a. "As he may prosper" - 1Co 16:2
         b. Whatever is given with "a willing mind" - 2Co 8:12
         c. "According to what one has" - 2Co 8:12-13
         d. "As he purposes (plans) in his heart" - 2Co 9:7
         e. Whatever one can give "cheerfully", not "grudgingly" or
            "of necessity" - 2Co 9:7
         f. Keeping in mind the principle of "sowing and reaping" 
            - 2Co 9:6,8
      6. Even this activity fulfills the three-fold purpose mentioned
         at the beginning of our lesson:
         a. We are blessed in giving - Ac 20:35; 2Co 9:11
         b. Brethren's needs are met - 2Co 9:12a
         c. God is glorified - 2Co 9:12-15
      7. HINT:  to help motivate us in giving, remember the examples
         of the churches in Macedonia and of the Lord Himself - 2Co 8:1-9

II. HOW TO GET THE MOST OUT OF OUR ASSEMBLIES

   A. KEEP IN MIND WHO IS PRESENT...
      1. Our brethren in Christ
         a. People like you, who appreciate the presence and encourage-
            ment of other Christians
         b. So take the time to visit with them before and after the assembly
            1) Don't get into the habit of always coming in at the last minute
            2) Don't be in such a rush to leave after the service is ended
      2. Frequently visitors
         a. Who naturally draw conclusions about the congregation
            during their visit
            1) Will they conclude we are really disciples of Jesus?
               - cf. Jn 13:35
            2) Will they say in their hearts "God is truly among you"?
               - cf. 1Co 14:25
         b. So take the time to welcome them and visit with them 
            - He 13:2
      3. And especially our Lord
         a. As He promised in Mt 18:20
         b. Do we act as we would if He were bodily present?

   B. "YOU GET OUT OF IT WHAT YOU PUT INTO IT"
      1. Preparation beforehand makes a big difference
         a. Such as praying and meditating upon what you are going to do
         b. Planning what you can do to make the assembly more edifying
            (such as welcoming and visiting)
         c. In other words, come to serve, not to be served (although
            you will blessed in return by doing it this way)
      2. The more you come, the more interest you show, the more (and
         faster) you will grow!
         a. This is true in any endeavor (e.g., physical exercise,hobbies)
         b. "How often do I have to come?" is an indication of grave
            spiritual immaturity!
            1) It displays a lack of true love for Christ and His brethren
            2) It shows that one is selfishly concerned with how little
               they can do to save themselves
            3) How does the love of God abide in such a person?
               - cf. 1Jn 3:16-19

CONCLUSION

1. Rather, our attitude ought to be like that expressed by David in Ps 122:1

2. Neglecting the assemblies is detrimental to our spiritual growth as
   disciples of Christ

3. Do we express our love for God, our brethren, even our own selves as
   we should?

4. One of the greatest spiritual blessings we enjoy in Christ in this
   life is the fellowship we share in our public assemblies... Let's all
   do our part to fully utilize that blessing!

SOME QUESTIONS TO STIMULATE YOUR THINKING...

1. Does one attend the assemblies to be entertained, or to serve?

2. Do you attend every assembly of the congregation where you are?

3. If not, are you praying to God to help you make it possible for you
   to do so?

4. What can you do before the assemblies to get more out of them?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

 

Husband and Wife in the Quran by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=4993

Husband and Wife in the Quran

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Islamic world has not distinguished itself over the centuries in its respect for and kind treatment of women (Austen, 2012; Thompson, 2011; Kotz, 2009; “Melbourne Islamic…,” 2009; “Missouri Couple…,” 1991; “Father of…,” 2008; Schoetz, 2008; “Raped…,” 2007). This observation is unprejudiced and hardly novel. Around the world for centuries, Islamic women have endured a subpar status with Islamic men. As General George S. Patton observed, having witnessed the impact of Islam on the countries of North Africa during World War II:

One cannot but ponder the question: What if the Arabs had been Christians? To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing. Here, I think, is a text for some eloquent sermon on the virtues of Christianity (1947, p. 43, emp. added).

No doubt 7^th and 8^th century Arabian culture contributed to Muhammad’s view of women. However, the Quran stands on its own for its advocacy of female inferiority. For example, in Mohammed Pickthall’s translation of the Quran, Surah 4:34 reads:

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great (emp. added).

A host of Islamic translations confirm this translation. The words in bold in Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation are rendered: “refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly).” Ahmed Raza Khan’s translation reads: “do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them.” Maududi has “remain apart from them in beds, and beat them.” Wahiduddin Khan “refuse to share their beds, and finally hit them.” Shakir has “leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them.” Sarwar reads: “do not sleep with them and beat them.” Saheeh International reads: “forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.” Qaribullah and Darwish have: “desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness).” Qarai reads: “keep away from them in the bed, and [as the last resort] beat them” (Tanzil Project, 2007-2014).

Observe two startling realizations from this passage:

(1) The Quran explicitly gives sanction to Muslim men to beat their wives. Some translators try to soften the directive by inserting qualifiers like “lightly” (Ali) and “without harshness” (Qaribullah and Darwish), but the Arabic text is unqualified. In stark contrast, the Bible, while assigning differing roles and responsibilities based on gender, nowhere suggests that men have a right to inflict physical punishment on women. The intimidating, overbearing role of men in Islam is proof that the religion was invented by a male.

(2) The command to banish a wife to a separate bed implies at least three concepts that cast Islam and the Quran in an unfavorable light.

First, the Bible and the Quran contradict each other on this point. Paul instructed the Corinthian Christians:

Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Corinthians 7:2-5, emp. added).

The Quran says a man may sexually banish his wife, without her consent, as punishment for displeasing him. Yet Paul said a married couple is not to refrain from sexual relations except bymutual consent, and then only for a brief period. One cannot take the position that the Quran and the Bible are both from God. They contradict each other on many matters. Insisting that these differences are due to the Bible having being corrupted is an untenable and unsubstantiated explanation (Miller, 2005, p. 89; Miller, 2013).

Second, when one weighs both the Bible and the Quran’s portraits of deity, it quickly becomes self-evident to the unbiased observer which of the two books portrays the inspired view of women. The Bible contains the fair, compassionate, majestic perspective in taking into account both marriage partners as equals. As Peter stated so eloquently: “Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7). Both male and female were made in God's image (Genesis 1:27).

Third, observe further how the Quran exposes its human origin, demonstrating that it came from man, not God. Women are “wired” differently from men. They have one-tenth the testosterone of men (“Testosterone,” 2011). To suggest that a man could punish his wife by the cessation of sexual relations with her is undoubtedly written from the perspective of a man, and not from the vantage point of most women.

Comparing the Bible with the Quran is a useful exercise. The process calls the inspiration of the Quran into question. At the same time, the Bible’s superiority is reinforced.

REFERENCES

Austen, Ian (2012), “Afghan Family, Led by Father Who Called Girls a Disgrace, Is Guilty of Murder,”The New York Times, January 29, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/world/americas/afghan-family-members-convicted-in-honor-killings.html?_r=0.

“Father of Slain Teen Girls Upset That Daughter Dated Non-Muslim, Police Records Show” (2008), Associated Press, January 9, http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/09/father-slain-teen-girls-upset-that-daughter-dated-non-muslim-police-records/.

Kotz, Pete (2009), “Faleh Almaleki Runs Over Daughter in Attempted ‘Honor Killing,’” True Crime Report, October 30, http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/10/faleh_almaleki_runs_over_daugh.php.

 “Melbourne Islamic Cleric Says its OK to Rape Your Wife,” (2009), Herald Sun, January 21,http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/rudd-condemns-rape-in-marriage-cleric/story-e6freol3-1111118630585.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?” Reason & Revelation, 25[12]:89-95,http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=572&article=433.

Miller, Dave (2013), “Has the Bible Been Corrupted?” Apologetics Press,https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=4649.

“Missouri Couple Sentenced to Die In Murder of Their Daughter, 16” (1991), The New York Times, December 20, http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/20/us/missouri-couple-sentenced-to-die-in-murder-of-their-daughter-16.html.

Patton, George S. (1947), War As I Knew It (New York: The Great Commanders, 1994 edition).

“Raped ‘for reading Holy Bible’” (2007), News.com.au, April 17,http://www.news.com.au/national/raped-for-reading-holy-bible/story-e6frfkp9-1111113353497.

Schoetz, David (2008), “Daughter Rejects Marriage, Ends Up Dead,” ABC News, July 7,http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=5322587&page=1.

Tanzil Project (2007-2014), http://tanzil.net/#4:34.

“Testosterone” (2011), Lab Tests Online, American Association for Clinical Chemistry,http://labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/testosterone/tab/faq.

Thompson, Carolyn (2011), “Jury Convicts Muslim TV Exec of Beheading Wife,” Associated Press, February 9, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/07/closing-arguments-begin-new-york-beheading-murder-trial/.

Biblical Accuracy Set in Stone by Kyle Butt, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=921

Biblical Accuracy Set in Stone

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

Writing about a rock that was discovered almost 150 years ago certainly would not fit in a current “in the news” section. In fact, since 1868, so much has been written about this stone that very few new articles pertaining to it come to light. But the truth of the matter is that even though it was discovered more than a century ago, many Christians do not even know it exists, and need to be reminded of its importance.

The stone is known as the Moabite Stone (or the Mesha Inscription). A missionary named Klein first discovered the stone in August of 1868 (Edersheim, n.d., p. 109). When he initially saw the black basalt stone, it measured about 3.5 feet high and 2 feet wide. Upon hearing of Klein’s adventure, a French scholar named Clermont-Ganneau located the antiquated piece of rock and made an impression of the writing on its surface. From that point, the details surrounding the stone are not quite as clear. Apparently, the Arabs who had the stone thought that it was a religious talisman of some sort, and broke it into several pieces by heating it in fire and then pouring cold water on it. The pieces were scattered, but about two-thirds of the original stone has been relocated, and currently resides at the Louvre in Paris (Jacobs and McCurdy, 2002).

The written inscription on the stone provides a piece of “rock-solid” evidence verifying the Bible’s accuracy. Mesha, the king of Moab, had the stone cut in about 850 B.C. to tell of his many conquests and his reacquisition of certain territories that were controlled by Israel. In the over 30-line text composed of about 260 words, Mesha mentions that Omri was the King of Israel who had oppressed Moab, but then Mesha says he “saw his desire upon” Omri’s son and upon “his house.” The Mesha stele cites Omri as the king of Israel, just as 1 Kings 16:21-28 indicates. Furthermore, it mentions Omri’s son (Ahab) in close connection with the Moabites, just as 2 Kings 3:4-6 does. In addition, both the stele and 2 Kings 3:4-6 list Mesha as the king of Moab. The stele further names the Israelite tribe of Gad, and the Israelite God, Yahweh. Taken as a whole, the Moabite stone remains one of the most impressive pieces of evidence verifying the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. And, although this find has been around almost 150 years, it “still speaks” to us today (Hebrews 11:4).

REFERENCES

Edersheim, Albert (no date), The Bible History—Old Testament, book VI (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Jacobs, Joseph and J. Frederick McCurdy (2002), “Moabite Stone,” JewishEncyclopedia.com, [On-line], URL: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=680&letter=M.