Should the Quran be Taken Literally? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=5301

Should the Quran be Taken Literally?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Political correctness, like a narcotic, renders victims mindless and biased in the ability to see the obvious. In an attempt to evade the teachings of the Bible, theological liberals have long insisted that Bible statements are not to be taken literally. We have been told that we must not be “a literalist” when it comes to Bible interpretation and, when we read the Bible, we must not take it literally. Sadly, many Americans have been duped by over a century of propaganda perpetrated by higher critics who seek to undermine confidence in the inspiration of the Bible. Nevertheless, the evidence is decisive: the Bible possesses the attributes of inspiration that prove its divine origin.¹ And its meanings, as originally intended by God, can be understood.

To suggest that the Bible is not to be taken literally is nonsensical. True, the Bible contains much figurative language, i.e., it includes figures of speech (e.g., simile, metaphor, hyperbole, metonymy, synecdoche, etc.)—just like our own English language (e.g., “quit cold turkey,” “stretch my legs,” “died laughing”). But figurative language still communicates meaning that can be comprehended. Do those who allege that the Bible is not to be literalized want us to interpret their allegation literally? Of course. Even if a few metaphors are “thrown” into the discussion, can we “grasp” what is being communicated? Yes, even as that question can be understood, though it contains two figurative expressions. Likewise the Bible may also be understood. It communicates literal truth. Any diligent student can ascertain the original intent of the divinely guided writers.

Though its divine origin has been decisively disputed,² the same may be said of the Quran. It was written with a view to being understood. The host of passages that advocate violent jihad are unquestionably conveyed in contexts that demonstrate their literality. No figurative language alters the very plain meanings evident in the admonitions pertaining to physical warfare. For example, Surah 3 alludes to two literal battles fought by Muslim armies—the battle of Badr and the battle of Uhud. Consider Surah 47 in Mohammed Pickthall’s celebrated Muslim translation—

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks…. Andthose who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden [Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).³

No Muslim would deny that “those who disbelieve,” “actions,” and “Garden” (i.e., Paradise) are literal. Likewise, no true Quran-made Muslim would deny that “battle,” “slain,” and “smiting of the necks” are literal as well. This Surah is calling for Muslims to engage in literal violent warfare with unbelievers (i.e., those who do not accept Islam) by severing their heads. The sooner the politically correct, multicultural mindset faces reality, the sooner the threat posed by terrorists can be addressed in a meaningful manner.

ENDNOTES

1   Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Jackson, Wayne (1982), “The Holy Scriptures—Verbally Inspired,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/holyscri.pdf.

2   See Dave Miller (2005), The Quran Unveiled (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

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

Suggested Resources

How Big Is a Giant? by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=904

How Big Is a Giant?

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Who could ever forget the thrilling story of a youth named David who defeated the Philistine champion, Goliath? Touching the hearts of all “underdogs,” this story has become the battle cry for thousands who have found themselves up against a “giant.” But, due to Goliath’s status as a giant, some might view the tale of his defeat as a fable or myth. After all, don’t giants live at the top of huge beanstalks or under bridges waiting to grind bones into bread or gobble up passers-by? Surely, no reasonable adult is expected to believe that there is (or ever was) such a thing as a real giant.

The word “giant” conjures up all kinds of mental images. Probably the most common images are those of a huge, beastly fellow who stands at least 30 feet tall and makes monstrous imprints with his feet—imprints so impressive that they could be used as watering ponds for cattle. However, the biblical description of Goliath does not quite fit that mold. The text of 1 Samuel 17:4 states that Goliath’s height was “six cubits and a span.” Several suggestions as to the length of a cubit have been offered by Bible scholars. The most commonly accepted is the idea that a cubit was the measurement from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow, or about 18-21 inches. A span was the distance between the tip of the pinky finger and the thumb, about half a cubit, which equals about 9 inches (Elwell, 1988, p. 2136). Given these dimensions, Goliath was about 9 feet 9 inches tall. The text goes on to say that he had a coat of armor that weighed 5,000 shekels (1 Samuel 17:5). Referring again to Elwell’s Encyclopedia of the Bible, that armor would have weighed about 125 pounds. Also, the tip of his spear, which weighed 600 shekels, would have been about 15 pounds. The picture, then, that we are given is of a man about 9½ feet tall, who wore armor that weighed more that most fifth graders, and who carried a spear that had a tip which weighed as much as a trophy-sized large-mouth bass. This man was huge, but he was a far cry from the 30-feet-tall mythical characters we often envision.

In fact, documentation for other men reaching close to Goliath’s stature can be found in ancient writings, as well as modern records. The ancient historian, Herodotus, wrote about a man named Artachaees, who “was the biggest man in Persia—about 8 ft 2 ins. high—and had the loudest voice in the world” (1996, p. 408). Furthermore, most wrestling fans will recall the huge stature of “Andre the Giant,” who weighed in at about 500 pounds and reached a height of 7 feet 4 inches tall. The Guinness World Record group has something to say about large stature as well. Simply go to their Web site at www.guinnessworldrecords.com, type in the word “tallest,” do a little scrolling, and you will see all kinds of stature marvels. Take, for instance, one of the tallestNBA players in history, Gheorghe Muresan, who stands 7 feet 7 inches and can virtually dunk a basketball without jumping. Or consider the tallest man documented in modern times, Robert Pershing Wadlow, “for whom there is irrefutable evidence,” states the Guinness writer. On June 27, 1940, he was measured to be 2.72 meters or 8 feet 11.1 inches. Go towww.nightscribe.com/Sports_Recreation/tallest_folks.htm and see even more giants who hover around the 8 feet mark.

Granted, we have little documentation, besides Goliath, for any nine-footers, but Robert Wadlow surely opens the door of plausibility for the Philistine. In fact, after looking at just a few of the world’s tallest people, there is no legitimate reason to discount the Bible’s description of its most famous giant. When all the evidence is in, the story of David and Goliath remains a true victory for the “underdog”—one that cannot be relegated to the status of myth or legend. The story also reminds us that “if God is for us, who can be against us?” (Romans 8:31).

REFERENCES

Elwell, Walter A., ed. (1988), Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Herodotus (1996), The Histories, transl. Aubrey De Sẻlincourt (New York: Penguin Books).

“Tallest Famous Folks” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.nightscribe.com/Sports_Recreation/tallest_folks.htm.

“Guinness World Records” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com.

Hosanna! by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1192

Hosanna!

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

It was the final week of Jesus’ life on Earth. He had set His face to go to Jerusalem for some time (Luke 9:51). As He and His disciples were approaching Jerusalem, He instructed two of them to stop off at Bethphage—a tiny village about one-half mile east of Jerusalem on the south slope of the Mount of Olives. They were told they would find a female donkey and her foal that they were to untie and bring to the Savior. When questioned about their action, they were to assure the questioners that the Lord had temporary need of them, with the implication being that the owner—no doubt a disciple himself, or at least sympathetic to Christ—would give his consent.

Upon their return from this assignment, the disciples placed their outer cloaks (worn over their tunics or shirts) on the unbroken, saddleless colt, implying royal honor, even as in the case of Jehu’s elevation to kingship in 2 Kings 9:13. With Jesus seated on the colt, they continued their approach to Jerusalem, and were met by a considerable multitude of Jewish pilgrims who had come to observe the Passover. They had heard of His approach, and went out to give Him escort. The inspired writers inform us that this circumstance was a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy—specifically, Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9: “Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your King is coming to you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.”

The crowd of enthused worshippers commenced to litter the roadway with tree branches and articles of clothing, and to wave the branches of palm trees. To Jews, palm branches symbolized rejoicing and victory (Leviticus 23:40). The great multitude of Revelation 7:9 uttered praise and adoration to God and the Lamb, while holding palm branches in their hands.

Notice what some members of the crowd shouted: “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!” What an incredible scene! The entire scenario fills us with wonder and a sense of awe. But what does it mean? Why did this event occur? Why did Jesus even participate in a so-called “triumphal entry”? What is with the crowds? Why did they come forth and hail our Lord as if they were convinced that He was the Son of God, especially in view of the fact that in just four days they would turn on Him and clamor for His execution?

Two textual indicators help us to size up the situation. First, the people were curious about Christ’s ability to perform signs. John informs us that many people had been informed of the raising of Lazarus from the dead, and the crowds were still buzzing about that (John 12:18). But keep in mind that most people ultimately did not view the miracles of Jesus as proof of His divine identity (and therefore their need to bow before Him in obedient submission). Rather, they saw Him as a curiosity—someone Who could offer them physical advantages. Remember the comment Jesus made to the crowd whom He fed miraculously with a few loaves and fish? “You seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled” (John 6:26). In other words, just like people today, they were after the thrill, the excitement, and the materialistic possibilities—not the spiritual, eternal riches.

Second, it is clear that most of the Jews of Jesus’ day were looking for a physical king. The people of Jesus’ day were restless and waiting. They were looking and expecting. They were yearning and hoping for someone to change their oppressed condition. The foreign invader—the mighty Roman—had entered their land and subjugated them to foreign rule. What a degrading, humiliating situation! The average Jew hated the Roman invader, and saw him as low-class, pagan trash. Jews constantly were looking for every possible opportunity to antagonize their Roman oppressors with ultimate hopes of driving them from Palestine. These nationalistic hopes and expectations were centered on the Messiah predicted by the Old Testament prophets.

But a major misconception dominated the Jewish mentality: they were certain that the long-awaited Messiah would come in the form of a worldly, militaristic king Who would sit on an earthly throne—the throne of David—and reign in Jerusalem over a renewed Davidic kingdom. Even the apostles were infected with this materialistic understanding of the kingdom of Christ—as is evident in such incidents as Peter’s attempt to defend Christ with a sword (John 18:10), and the disciples’ question just prior to Christ’s ascension, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). On one occasion, the crowd even tried to take Jesus forcibly andmake Him a king (John 6:15). Notice—in the four accounts of this triumphal entry—the terminology of the crowd in alluding to Jesus: “son of David”; “kingdom of our father David”; and “king of Israel.” These appellations show they were looking for a physical kingdom.

What was the significance of the expressions shouted by the crowd? What did they mean by their use of the term “hosanna”? These Jewish pilgrims simply were alluding to Psalm 118:25-26, which was a customary psalm to recite at the Feast of Tabernacles and other Jewish festivals. “Hosanna” is two words in the Hebrew—hoshea-na. “Hoshea” is an imperative meaning “Save!” “Na” is a particle of entreaty tacked on to the imperative, meaning “I pray” or “I plead.” So it roughly means, “please save.” In the context of the psalm, “hosanna” is a cry for help, a supplicatory plea for God to extend salvation. “In the highest” means in the highest degree or heavens. They were calling for salvation from the ultimate source—Heaven itself. “Hosanna” seems to have evolved through the centuries to the point that, by Jesus’ day, it was more of an exclamation of joy—a shout of praise and acclaim. People probably so use it today. But notice carefully its true biblical import.

Here is Jesus, sandwiched within a throng of people offering an imploring cry to God to bring to reality the salvation expected at the coming of the Messianic King. Though they conceptualize a physical kingdom, here is Jesus, fulfilling the kingly prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 in a joyous, triumphant setting reminiscent of the Feast of Tabernacles, with palm and willow branches waving and littering the pathway. The scene evoked, from those who were present, an exclamation appropriate to that occasion. But in the process, they were, in fact, unwittingly greeting the true King David and Messiah! Here was the King of kings, and Lord of lords—and they did not even grasp it! Here was the One Who could bestow upon them a salvation far beyond what David or any human king could offer. “Hosanna in the highest” actually refers to the fact that Jesus was the King who was about to bring salvation to the people from Heaven—not the ridding of the Romans from their land, but the eradication of sin from their lives, making it possible for them to enter the kingdom that cannot be shaken and that will last eternally (Hebrews 12:28; Revelation 11:15). Only deity can save in the true sense (Psalm 3:8; Isaiah 43:11; Jeremiah 3:23; Hosea 13:4).

Notice, then, the following observations and lessons to be gleaned from this biblical account:

First, perhaps the central purpose of the triumphal entry of Christ into Jerusalem was to demonstrate Jesus’ approach to His coronation—which was heavenly rather than earthly. People constantly look in all the wrong places for the fulfillment of their dreams and wishes. They thought they wanted an earthly king to give them physical, psychological, and emotional relief. But they did not need that! What they needed was a divine king who could give them spiritual and eternal relief from the true hardship of life—sin.

The Jews had gone through this once before—in 1 Samuel 8. They thought they needed an earthly king then, too. But they did not—God was their king. Here they are again seeking earthly salvation, when the One Who could give them eternal salvation was in their very midst. Earthly kings fail and fade. Jesus was about to experience the ultimate death of human history, and then to rise victoriously from the dead and to ascend into Heaven itself in order to sit down upon His throne to rule and reign over a kingdom that would last throughout time—throughout all of world history—at which time He would turn the kingdom over to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).

Second, notice the sharp contrast between the triumphal entry of King Jesus and the triumphal entries of worldly rulers. The Romans were well known for their triumphs. A Roman triumph consisted of the conqueror returning from his victorious campaigns to Rome, where he was greeted by throngs of grateful citizens. The road was strewn with flowers. Trumpet blasts heralded his procession through the city. He rode in a magnificent, gilded chariot pulled by four white horses. He wore a royal, purple robe, laced with gold and hung by jeweled shoulder clasps. He held an ivory scepter in his hand, and wore a laurel crown on his head. He was surrounded by lictors and slaves who lined the street with golden bowls of rare perfumes that were burned to fill the air with fragrance. On his way to the Senate, he would pause to offer a sacrifice to the gods, consisting of a splendid horned bull.

But look at Jesus! He was surrounded by crowds that did not even comprehend the true significance of the occasion, and that soon would clamor for His blood. He was seated on a donkey—a symbol of peace, unlike the horse and chariot, which are symbols of war. There was nothing degrading about riding on a donkey, but it signified his meekness, humility, and nonviolent intentions. There were no trumpet blasts, no flowers on the pathway, no incense fragrance filling the air. The only sacrifice was the one that He Himself soon would make in behalf of others.

If you had been a Roman bystander observing this incident, you surely would have considered this entrance to be somewhat cheap, second-rate, and even laughable. It lacked the pomp and circumstance so typical of human invention. Surely you have noticed the element within churches of Christ in our day that is attempting to refurbish worship and doctrine. Some wish to include solos, choirs, and worship teams who use microphones and electronic synthesizers to “enhance” the song service. They want to lift up their arms and sway to the music. They want to choreograph dramatic performances, and even incorporate orchestral and instrumental music. Can we not see that such self-centered, self-serving activity does not represent or please God? God’s handling of the promotion and propagation of His will lacks the hype, the bells and whistles, the smoke and mirrors, and the theatrics of humanly instigated religion. God does not approve of “showbiz religion” or “Hollywood hallelujahs” (Matthew 23:5-7; Mark 5:15). Our culture is entertainment oriented and emotion driven. Hence, the tinsel and glitter associated with physical stimulation and fleshly pleasure in the world has made its way into many congregations, and Christians are falling prey to the false notion that “God is pleased when we’re pleased.” But Jesus’ words in Matthew 15:9 still ring relevant today: “In vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

Third, do we understand the genuine joy, the happiness, and the gladness that is ours in Christ? When we sing “hosanna,” we ought to be conscious of the fact that we have been cleansed by the blood of Jesus in the waters of baptism. His triumphal entry into heaven has paved the way for us! Salvation is available to us! The cry, the earnest plea for God to save us, is realized in the person of Jesus Christ our Savior, Who gave Himself on our behalf and extends perfect peace and complete satisfaction to us if we will but obey the Gospel plan of salvation and live the Christian life.

I wonder how many people were in the multitude that escorted Jesus into Jerusalem? Scores? Hundreds? But we know for a fact that all of that seemingly genuine religious expression was short lived, if not fake. The people were just going through the motions. They must have felt extremely religious and right with God. But human feelings never have been a trustworthy barometer of one’s spiritual status.

Are you a Christian? Have you submitted yourself to the specific prerequisites enjoined upon us before we can receive the atoning benefit of Christ’s blood? Have you confessed your faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (John 8:24; Romans 10:9-10)? Have you repented of your sins, and turned to God Almighty (Acts 26:20; Luke 13:3)? Have you scripturally acknowledged the Lordship of Jesus in your life by implementing your penitent trust in the waters of baptism (Acts 2:38)? Do not be influenced by family or friends. You must make the decision on your own, and refrain from being influenced by the opinions of mere humans. When the Pharisees heard the crowd referring to Jesus as the King Who comes in the name of the Lord, when they heard the cries of “hosanna to the son of David,” they called to Jesus from the crowd and urged Him to rebuke the people for making such statements. Jesus responded, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out” (Luke 19:40). Oh yes, you and I must render submission to the King of kings, even if everyone else forsakes Him.

As a Christian, are you merely going through the motions? Do you worship sincerely? Do you seek to serve other people every day? Do you strive to eliminate from your mind and life those things that are unbecoming of a child of God? Do you know that as Jesus drew near to the city of Jerusalem, with all of those people expressing apparent recognition of His person, He began to weep over the city’s inhabitants because He knew they just did not understand. He offered them forgiveness, blessing, and peace, but their failure to embrace and practice genuine Bible religion meant He would give them instead judgment, wrath, and destruction. May none of us fall short of His intention for us, and may we be willing to do what it takes. May we sing with genuineness the words of Carl Tuttle:

Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest;
Hosanna, hosanna, hosanna in the highest;
Lord, we lift up Your name,
With hearts full of praise;
Be exalted, O Lord my God,
Hosanna in the highest.

A Leap Into the Dark? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=558

A Leap Into the Dark?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

One of the most abused verses in all of Scripture is 2 Corinthians 5:7: “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” Often, those who “expound” upon the apostle Paul’s statement explain that faith implies something less than knowledge—that is, they teach that we must accept evidence blindly and take a “leap of faith.” Many so-called teachers and preachers, when commenting on 2 Corinthians 5:7, argue for a separation of faith and facts. German theologian Hans Kung upheld this idea of “biblical” faith when he wrote: “Even in faith, then, there is no certainty entirely free from doubt. In faith, we must commit ourselves to something uncertain” (1980, p. 61). Similar to Kung’s ideas about faith is the statement of televangelist Robert Schuller, who suggested: “Faith is a commitment to an unprovable assumption” (1984). If these men are correct, faith is either something based on no proof at all or something composed of a small amount of knowledge and a big dose of uncertainty that allows men to “act like” they know something when, in fact, they do not. Is this the kind of faith to which Paul was referring when he wrote his second epistle to the Corinthians?

Second Corinthians 5:7 is both amplified and clarified by verse 16 of that same chapter: “Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.” In other words, in the past Jesus had been present in the flesh, and hence could be known by sight. But, at the time Paul wrote his letters to the Corinthians, the situation had changed—Christ no longer was on the Earth. Thus, the apostle Paul clarified his statement about not walking “by sight” with the phrase “now we know Him thus no longer.” Of course, Christ still could be known, but not “after the flesh.” Had Paul written 2 Corinthians while Christ still was living upon the Earth, these passages (5:7,16) never would have been included among his remarks. But since they were written at some point after Christ’s ascension, Paul therefore was compelled to make the comparison he did in 2 Corinthians 5:7.

His point, quite simply, was this. There was a time when faith and sight went together. That is to say, at one time in history, men walked by faith because of sight (cf. John 4:41; 20:25-29). However, eventually followers of Jesus possessed a faith in Him that was not based upon sight, but instead upon such things as credible testimony, deduction, and revelation. Jesus indicated His approval of those whose faith is based upon knowledge gained in ways other than by sight when he told “doubting” Thomas: “Because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

Today, Christians can have a genuine faith without sight, thanks to such things as credible testimony from reliable eyewitnesses (such as Peter, James, John, and Paul) and other means of knowledge that are not necessarily dependent upon having personally seen something firsthand (cf. 1 Peter 1:8-9). All of us believe in people, places, and events that we never have seen personally, yet that does not diminish their factuality. Nor does the absence of “sight” weaken the faith routinely produced via credible testimony from people of the past who did witness such things. Truly, one may “walk by faith, not by sight,” and still possess knowledge-based faith.

One thing is for sure: the Bible nowhere discusses or recognizes the legitimacy of any concept such as a “leap of faith.”

REFERENCES

Kung, Hans (1980), Does God Exist? (New York: Doubleday).

Schuller, Robert (1984), “The Hour of Prayer,” February 5.

“The First Day of the Week” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=2022

“The First Day of the Week”

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

All four gospel accounts reveal how Jesus rose (and His tomb was found empty) “on the first day of the week” (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1; cf. 20:19). Years later, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church commanding them to make regular contributions “on the first day of the week” (1 Corinthians 16:2; or “on the first day of every week”—NASB, NIV, RSV). Luke recorded in the book of Acts how Paul, while on his third missionary journey, assembled with the Christians in Troas “on the first day of the week” (20:7). The phrase “the first day of the week” appears eight times in the most widely used English translations of the New Testament. Based on this reading of the text, along with various supplemental passages (e.g., Revelation 1:10), Christians assemble to worship God on Sunday. Upon looking at the Greek text, however, some have questioned the integrity of the translation “the first day of the week,” wondering if a better wording would be “the Sabbath day.”

Admittedly, a form of the Greek word for sabbath (sabbaton or sabbatou) does appear in each of the eight passages translated “first day of the week.” For example, in Acts 20:7 this phrase is translated from the Greek mia ton sabbaton. However, sabbaton (or sabbatou) is never translated as “the Sabbath day” in these passages. Why? Because the word is used in these contexts (as Greek scholars overwhelmingly agree) to denote a “week” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 364), “a period of seven days” (Danker, et al., 2000, p. 910; cf. Thayer, 1962, p. 566). Jesus once used the term “Sabbath” in this sense while teaching about the sinfulness of self-righteousness (Luke 18:9). He told a parable of the sanctimonious Pharisee who prayed: “God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fasttwice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess” (18:11-12, emp. added). The phrase “twice a week” comes from the Greek dis tou sabbatou. Obviously Jesus was not saying that the Pharisee boasted of fasting twice on the Sabbath day, but twice (dis) a week (tou sabbatou).

According to R.C.H. Lenski, since “[t]he Jews had no names for the weekdays,” they “designated them with reference to their Sabbath” (1943, p. 1148). Thus, mia ton sabbaton means “the first (day) with reference to the Sabbath,” i.e., the first (day) following the Sabbath (Lenski, p. 1148), or, as we would say in 21st century English, “the first day of the week.”

After spending years examining Jewish writings in the Babylonian Talmud, Hebraist John Lightfoot wrote A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, in which he expounded upon the Hebrew method of counting the days of the week. He noted: “The Jews reckon the days of the week thus; One day (or the first day) of the sabbath: two (or the second day) of the sabbath;” etc. (1859, 2:375, emp. in orig.). Lightfoot then quoted from two different Talmud tractates. Maccoth alludes to those who testify on “the first of the sabbath” about an individual who stole an ox. Judgment was then passed the following day—“on the second day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375, emp. in orig.; Maccoth, Chapter 1). Bava Kama describes ten enactments ordained by a man named Ezra, including the public reading of the law “on the second and fifth days of the sabbath,” and the washing of clothes “on the fifth day of the sabbath” (Lightfoot, 2:375; Bava Kama, Chapter 7). In Michael Rodkinson’s 1918 translation ofMaccoth and Bava Kama, he accurately translated “the second day of the sabbath” as Monday, “the fifth day of the sabbath” as Thursday, and “the first of the sabbath” as Sunday.

If the word sabbaton in passages such as Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, and Acts 20:7 actually denoted “the Sabbath day,” rather than “a period of seven days,” one would expect some of the foremost Bible translations to translate it thusly. Every major English translation of the Bible, however, translates mia ton sabbaton as “the first day of the week.” Why? Because scholars are aware of the Jewish method of counting the days of the week by using the Sabbath as a reference point.

Finally, consider the difficulty that would arise with Jesus’ resurrection story if sabbaton was translated Sabbath. “Now when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint Him. Very early in the morning, on the first Sabbath (sabbaton), they came to the tomb when the sun had risen” (emp. added). Such a rending of sabbaton in Mark 16:2 would be nonsensical. The Sabbath was over, and the mia ton sabbaton (“first day of the week”) had begun. The passage is understood properly only when one recognizes the Jewish method of reckoning weekdays.

Just as second century apologists Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150) spoke of Jesus as rising from the dead “on the first day after the Sabbath” (Dialogue..., 41), and equated this day with “Sunday” (“First Apology,” 67), so should 21st century Christians. That Jesus rose from the dead “on the first day of the week” (Mark 16:9), and that Christians gathered to worship on this day (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; cf. Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” 67), is an established fact. Sunday is the first day after the Jewish Sabbath—the “first day of the week.”

REFERENCES

Danker, Frederick William, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Justin Martyr, (1973 reprint), Dialogue with Trypho, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Justin Martyr (1973 reprint), First Apology, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Lenski, R.C.H. (1943), The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

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

Perschbacher, Wesley J., ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Rodkinson, Michael, trans. (1918), The Babylonian Talmud, [On-line], URL:http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm#t06.

Thayer, Joseph (1962 reprint), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Can We Prove Jesus Was a Real Person? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=876

Can We Prove Jesus Was a Real Person?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

You may find this surprising, but there are many people in the world today who actually think that Jesus is nothing more than a fantasy figure that various secret societies created 2,000 years ago. Allegedly, His name belongs in the same fictional writings that contain such fairy-tale characters as Peter Pan, Hercules, and Snow White and the seven dwarfs. Gerald Massey, in his book, Gnostic and Historic Christianity, has “informed” us that “[w]hether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character [Jesus—EL] never existed as a person” (1985, p. 22). Skeptics like Massey, Acharya (1999), and others believe that Christians have been deceived into thinking that there really was a man named Jesus, when, in fact, He never lived.

How do those of us who believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ respond to such allegations? Can we really know that there was a sinless, miracle-working, death-defying man named Jesus who lived upon the Earth approximately 2,000 years ago, or have we accepted His existence blindly?

Even though the New Testament proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus actually lived, it is by no means the only historical evidence available. Around the year A.D. 94, a Jewish historian by the name of Josephus mentioned Jesus’ name twice in his book, Antiquities of the Jews. In section 18 of that work, Josephus wrote: “And there arose about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed we should call him a man; for he was a doer of marvelous deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure” (emp. added). Then, in section 20, Josephus documented how a man named Ananus brought before the Sanhedrin “a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others” (emp. added).

About 20 years later, Tacitus, a Roman historian, wrote a book surveying the history of Rome. In it he described how Nero (the Roman emperor) “punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called).” He went on to write that “their originator,Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus” (Annals15:44, emp. added). Even though Tacitus, Josephus, and other historians from the first and second centuries A.D. were not followers of Christ, they did have something to say about Him—and they even verified that Jesus was a real person Who was so famous that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!

Another obvious reason to believe that Jesus was a real person is because our entire dating method is based upon His existence. The letters “B.C.” stand for “before Christ,” and the letters “A.D.” (standing for Anno Domini) mean “in the year of the Lord.” So when a history teacher speaks of Alexander the Great ruling much of the world in 330 B.C., he or she is admitting that Alexander lived about 330 years before Jesus was born.

Even though this is only a sampling of the evidence relating to the man known as Jesus, it is enough to prove that He was a real person, and not just some imaginary character. We do not accept His existence blindly—it is a historical fact!

REFERENCES

Josephus, Flavius (1957 reprint), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whitson (Philadelphia, PA: John Whitson).

Massey, Gerald (1985), Gnostic and Historic Christianity (Edmond, WA: Holmes Publishing Group).

Acharya, S. (1999), The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (Kempton, IL: Adventures Unlimited Press).

Tacitus, Cornelius P. (1952 reprint), The Annals and the Histories, trans. Michael Grant (Chicago, IL: William Benton), Great Books of the Western World Series.

Australia's Unique Animals by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=1137

Australia's Unique Animals

by	Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Q.

How do creationists explain the origin and distribution of Australia’s unique animals in terms of a young Earth and a worldwide flood?

A.

Explaining the origin of Australia’s marsupial population, and especially its uniqueness to that one isolated southern continent, is difficult for evolutionists and creationists alike. Marsupials such as kangaroos, opossums, wallabies, and koalas seem unusual, but monotremes (i.e., the echidna and the platypus) are even more puzzling. The main difference between marsupials and most other mammals centers on the reproductive system. Marsupials give birth prematurely and allow the fetus to develop in an external pouch. In other mammals, excluding the monotremes which lay eggs, the fetus develops within the uterus and is attached to, and nourished by, the placenta.

Perhaps the most interesting fact about marsupials is that they nearly all have non-marsupial equivalents in other parts of the world (see Dobzhansky, et al., 1977, Figure 9.3, p. 267). The kangaroo has a similar role to the antelope roaming the African savanna. The wombat resembles a badger, and even has a backward-pointing pouch so that it will not fill with dirt while burrowing! There also are many small marsupials that have rodent counterparts. Evolutionists attribute such similarities to “parallel evolution” in both homology (being alike in form) and analogy (occupying a corresponding niche). That is, they believe that these marsupials and their placental peers developed independently; they share similar characteristics, but took two different paths to get there (see Simpson and Beck, 1965, pp. 499-501). A common ancestry, combined with similar forces of natural selection, evolutionists assert, will result in the same sort of changes through time. This common ancestor is thought to be the opossum because it is a marsupial and is found in other areas of the world apart from Australia.

According to evolutionary theory, the opossum was a primitive mammal living 200 million years ago on a single southern land mass called Gondwanaland. When parts of this supercontinent divided into what are now Australia and South America, the opossums were separated geographically. Over eons of time, so the story goes, the Australian descendants of the opossum developed into the various types of marsupials seen today. However, in South America, they “evolved” placentas and eventually migrated to North America and Eurasia.

These evolutionary ideas suffer from a number of problems, as listed below:

• There are no intermediate fossils (“transitional forms”) showing the development of the various marsupials from an opossum or opossum-like ancestor. Further, to suggest that one type of mammal could arise by supposed evolutionary mechanisms is incredible enough, but the chances of having both placental and non-placental forms evolve in the same way, at the same time, and in different regions, are remote to say the least.
   
• The humble opossum has been nominated as the ancestor of all mammals because it is supposed to be so “primitive,” having a relatively small brain and no “specialized” characteristics. But the opossum has thrived virtually unchanged in many parts of the world. In general, marsupials often are considered less “advanced” because they lack the complex internal reproductive system of placental mammals. However, they possess many other characteristics that could give them an edge over their placental counterparts. For instance, a female kangaroo can nourish two young ones of different ages at the same time, providing the appropriate formula from each teat. Unlike placental mammals, marsupials can suspend or abort the embryo deliberately if adverse conditions arise. And, of course, the pouch provides a superior place of protection for the young marsupial. Yes, marsupials are different, but they are not inferior.
   
• The distribution of marsupials is not well-answered by evolutionary theories. According to Michael Pitman, “the most diverse fossil assemblies have been obtained from South America and, later (Pliocene), Australia” (1984, p. 206). That is, according to the fossil record, the marsupials already were well-defined as a distinct group before the separation of Australia from other continents. Thus, geographic separation cannot be as significant to their development as evolutionists like to think. An alternate, biblically based model is as follows:
  1. It is reasonable to suggest that God created the various kinds of marsupials. Hence, the many varieties of opossums, kangaroos, wallabies, and so on, most likely have arisen since the time of creation.
      
  2. There could be any number of reasons that God created both placental and non-placental forms. One possibility is that marsupials were created for a specific environment. For example, on the African savannas or North American plains, animals migrate to different areas according to the seasons, and range over huge tracts of land in search of better grazing. However, vegetation patterns in Australia do not allow such flexibility. The unique characteristics of marsupials that allow them to survive in a tough environment are indicative of good design, not blind evolution.
      
  3. Representatives of marsupial kinds went into the ark and were carried through the Flood. Any other varieties not in the ark became extinct with the Flood (and now exist only as fossils).
      
  4. After the Flood, marsupials may have migrated to Australia across land connections or narrow waterways. Perhaps there is a supernatural element involving the second point made above. That is, God, having created specially equipped creatures, may have directed them to settle in Australia in particular. If God can arrange for all the animals to go to Noah (Genesis 6:20), then He very well could assist and direct them in their migration from Ararat once they left the ark (Genesis 8:17).
      
  5. There is no need to postulate long periods of time for whole-scale movement of animal kinds over the Earth. Initial studies by Richard Culp show that there are minimal differences between many North American, European, and Asian varieties of certain plant and animal species (Culp, 1988). The lack of dissimilarities, and the occurrence of unique animal or plant assemblages in various parts of the world (not just Australia), may be evidence for a rapid resettlement in relatively recent times. This would be consistent with the Genesis account.

  REFERENCES

  Bartz, Paul A. (1989), “Questions and Answers,” Bible-Science Newsletter, 27[7]:12, July.
  Culp, G. Richard (1988), “The Geographical Distribution of Animals and Plants,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, 25[1]:24-27, June.
  Dobzhansky, Theodosius, F.J. Ayala, G.L. Stebbins, and J.W. Valentine (1977), Evolution(San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman).
  Pitman, Michael (1984), Adam and Evolution (London: Rider).
  Simpson, G.G. and W.S. Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World), second edition.