Wonders of God’s Creation by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2629

Wonders of God’s Creation

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to the General Theory of Evolution, about 14 billion years ago “all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded” (Hurd, et al., p. 61). As a result of the alleged explosion of a period-sized ball of matter, billions of galaxies formed, and eventually planets such as Earth evolved. Supposedly, the evolution of galaxies, and every planet, moon, and star within these galaxies, all came about by non-purposeful, unintelligent accidents. Likewise, every life form that eventually appeared on Earth purportedly evolved by mindless, random chances over millions of years. Some life forms “just happened” to evolve the ability to reproduce asexually, while others “just happened” to develop the capability to reproduce sexually. Some life forms “just happened” to evolve the ability to walk along vertical ledges (e.g., geckos), while others “just happened” to evolve the “gift” of glowing (e.g., glow worms). Some life forms “just happened” to evolve the ability to make silk (e.g., spiders), which, pound-for-pound, is stronger than steel, while others “just happened” to evolve the ability to “turn 90 degrees in under 50 milliseconds” while flying in a straight line (e.g., the blowfly; Mueller, 2008, 213[4]:82). Allegedly, everything has come into existence by random chances over billions of years. According to the General Theory of Evolution, there was no Mind, no Intelligence, and no Designer that created the Universe and everything in it.

Ironically, though atheistic evolutionary scientists insist that the Earth and all living things on it have no grand, intelligent Designer, these same scientists consistently refer to amazing “design” in nature. Consider an example of such paradoxical language in a recent National Geographicarticle titled, “Biomimetics: Design by Nature” (Mueller, 2008). The word “design” (or one of its derivatives—designs, designed, etc.) appeared no less than seven times in the article in reference to “nature’s designs.” Evolutionary biologist Andrew Parker spoke of his collection of preserved animals as “a treasure-trove of brilliant design” (quoted in Mueller, 2008, 213[4]:75, emp. added). After interviewing Parker, National Geographic writer Tom Mueller noted how the capillaries between the scales of a thorny devil lizard are “evidently designed to guide water toward the lizard’s mouth” (p. 81, emp. added). He then explained how “[i]nsects offer an embarrassment of design riches” (p. 75, emp. added). Mueller referred to nature’s “sophistication” and “clever devices” (p. 79), and praised nature for being able to turn simple materials “into structures of fantastic complexity, strength, and toughness” (p. 79). After learning of the uncanny, complicated maneuverability of a little blowfly, Mueller even confessed to feeling the need to regard the insect “on bended knee in admiration” (p. 82). Why? Because of its “mysterious” and “complicated” design. Brilliant and well-funded scientists around the world admit that living things perform many feats “too mysterious and complicated to be able to replicate” (p. 82). They are “designed,” allegedly, with no “Designer.”

But how can you get design without purpose, intelligence, and deliberate planning? The first three definitions the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives for “design” (noun) are as follows: “1a:a particular purpose held in view by an individual or group...b:deliberate purposive planning... 2:a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down; 3a:a deliberateundercover project or scheme” (“Design,” 2008, emp. added). After defining “design” as a drawing, sketch, or “graphic representation of a detailed plan...,” the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language noted that design may be defined as “[t]he purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details” (2000, p. 492, emp. added). A design is preceded by “deliberate purposive planning,” “a detailed plan,” or an “inventive arrangement.” A design is the effect, not of time, chance, and unintelligent, random accidents, but of the purposeful planning and deliberate actions of an inventor or designer. A designer brings about a design. Thus, by definition, design demands a designer, and one with some measure of intelligence.

National Geographic purports that nature “blindly cobbles together myriad random experiments over thousands of generations” in order to produce complex, living organisms that the world’s “top scientists have yet to comprehend” (Mueller, 2008, 213[4]:90). We, on the other hand, choose to believe that, just as a painting demands a painter, and a poem a poet, the world’s amazing designs, which continually stump the most intelligent scientists on Earth, demand anintelligent Designer. Consider three wonders of God’s Creation—from the land, sea, and air—that testify on behalf of a grand Designer and against the random, chance processes of mindless evolution.

GIRAFFES

The height of an 18-foot giraffe, the tallest of all land animals, is quite daunting. The clumsy-looking giraffe’s ability to run 34 miles per hour is very impressive. Its minimal sleep requirements—only about 30 minutes a day, often broken up into several short naps—and its ability to go weeks without drinking is remarkable (“Giraffe,” 1999). Its 18-inch, prehensile tongue, eight-foot-long tail, and six-foot-tall newborns are all very striking. Most remarkable, however, is the design of the giraffe’s circulatory system.

Consider that a giraffe’s brain is about eight feet higher than its heart. In order to get blood from its heart up to its brain, a giraffe must have an enormous heart that can pump blood extremely hard against gravity. What’s more, it must maintain such blood pressure as long as the giraffe’s neck is vertically in the air. It should come as no surprise that this long-necked mammal is equipped with a two-foot-long, 20-plus-pound, thick-walled heart that is large enough and strong enough to pump blood eight feet high—creating blood pressure that is about twice that of any other large mammal, and as much as three times that of the average person (Foster, 1977, 152[3]:409).

But what about when a giraffe suddenly lowers its head several feet below its heart to get a drink of water? What happens to all of the blood that the heart normally pumps so powerfully against gravity to the brain? If the design of the giraffe were merely left up to time and chance, one would expect that the first time a giraffe tried to lower its neck to get a drink of water, the heart would pump so much blood to the brain that blood vessels in the brain would explode, or the brain would fill up with blood so quickly that the giraffe would pass out.

How does the giraffe keep from having brain bleeds, or from feeling woozy and passing out every time it bends down and raises back up? A National Geographic article on giraffes explains:

To withstand the surge of blood to and from the brain as its neck sweeps up and down, the giraffe has developed control valves in the jugular veins and a special network of blood vessels in its head. Known as the rete mirabile caroticum—wonder net of the carotids—this circulatory buffer keeps blood pressure constant in the brain” (Foster, p. 409).

A giraffe, then, has intricate valves in its jugular veins that help control how much blood gets to the brain during those times when a giraffe has its head lowered. Working together with these valves is a network of blood vessels that “controls the flow of blood into the head” (p. 411). Then, “[w]hen the head is raised, the same net counters the danger of blackouts from reduced blood pressure” (p. 411).

One might wonder how giraffes, which stand on their feet most of the day and have such high blood pressure, keep their lower extremities from pooling with blood. The fact is, even though “the blood vessels in the lower legs are under great pressure (because of the weight of fluid pressing down on them),” giraffes “have a very tight sheath of thick skin over their lower limbs that maintains high extravascular pressure” (“Giraffe,” 2008, parenthetical comment in orig.). Similar to a fighter pilot’s G-suit that “exerts pressure on the body and legs of the wearer under high acceleration and prevents blackout....[l]eakage from the capillaries in the giraffe’s legs, due to high blood pressure, is also probably prevented by a similar pressure of the tissue fluid outside the cells. In addition, the walls of the giraffe’s arteries are thicker than those in any other mammal” (Kofahl, 1992, 14[2]:23).

So, the giraffe has:

• “a complex pressure-regulation system” (“Giraffe,” 2008).
• “unique valves” that prevent overpressure when it lowers its head (Foster, 1977, p. 409).
• a network of blood vessels that helps stabilize blood pressure as the giraffe moves its neck up and down.
• a heart powerful enough to send an adequate amount of blood eight feet upwards against gravity.
• arteries in the lower part of its body thick enough to withstand the high blood pressure.
• skin tight enough to force blood back upward and keep capillaries in its lower extremities from bursting.
• oversized lungs (large enough to hold 12 gallons of air) that “compensate for the volume of dead air” in its 10-foot long trachea (Foster, p. 409; “Mammals: Giraffe,” 2008). [“Without this extra air-pumping capacity a giraffe would breathe the same used air over and over” (Foster, p. 409).]

National Geographic would have us believe that “nature” provided giraffes with all of this “special equipment” (Foster, p. 411). Supposedly, giraffes’ specialized, necessary, “unique” control valves are “remarkable adaptations” that “developed” (p. 409, emp. added). In other words, multiplied millions of years of “evolution” have “modified the giraffe’s anatomy to allow this stretched-version mammal to function” (p. 409).

How do the mindless, purposeless, random processes of time and chance adequately explain “unique valves,” “a complex pressure-regulation system,” a “wonder net” that “keeps blood pressure constant in the brain” (whether the giraffe’s neck is raised or lowered), a heart, lungs, and arteries all just the right size, etc.? Even more difficult (impossible) for evolution to explain is how all of these sophisticated body parts came about simultaneously? After all, what good is a big heart without a network of blood vessels that stabilizes blood pressure? And what is the point of the rete mirabile caroticum, if the giraffe did not have a heart powerful enough to pump blood eight feet into the air? Evolutionist Robert Wesson openly addressed this issue in his book,Beyond Natural Selection. He wrote:

All these things had to be accomplished in step, and they must have been done rapidly.... That it could all have come about by synchronized random mutations strains the definition of random. The most critical question, however, is how the original impetus to giraffeness—and a million other adaptations—got started and acquired sufficient utility to have selective value.... The observer must be often tempted to suppose that organisms have responded to their conditions and needs more purposefully than strict Darwinian theory can allow (1991, p. 226, emp. added).

Truly, the amazingly intricate design of the giraffe’s circulatory system, as well as the rest of its anatomy and physiology, demand a better explanation than the random, chance processes of evolution. The fact is, the giraffe is brilliantly designed—a wonder of God’s creation.

CUTTLEFISH

Two colorful, eight-legged cephalopods, known as cuttlefish, recently graced the cover of the journal New Scientist (2008, 198[2653]). With bluish-green blood, iridescent skin, feeding tentacles that shoot from their mouths like birthday party blowers, and eyes like something from a Batman movie, it is no surprise that the editors of New Scientist used the term “alien” in their description of the cuttlefish; the animals do look bizarre—plain and simple. Make no mistake, however, these creatures are anything but simple. In fact, just above the cuttlefish was the cover title, “Alien Intelligence:Secret Code of an Eight-Legged Genius” (Brooks, 2008, emp. added). Michael Brooks, author of the feature article, declared that the cuttlefish is “the world’s most inventive mollusk” (2008, p. 31, emp. added) with a “sophisticated system for talking to one another” (p. 28, emp. added). Scientists have documented “around 40 different cuttlefish body patterns, many of which are used to communicate with other cuttlefish” (p. 29). At other times, cuttlefish send “tailor-made” signals to predators (p. 29, emp. added).

Even more incredible than their communication skills, is the cuttlefishes’ ability to blend in to their surroundings. Brooks described them as having “the world’s best camouflage skills” (p. 29). Similar to how these mollusks (cuttlefish have an internal shell called a cuttlebone, thus, scientists classify them as mollusks) communicate with other animals via a variety of bodypatterns, they also move their bodies into a variety of positions in hopes of staying hidden. For example, while swimming next to large seaweed, a cuttlefish can mimic the motion of the grass by positioning and waving its eight arms similar to how seaweed sways in water. This makes it very difficult for both attackers and possible prey to locate the cuttlefish. In a recent study, scientists placed either horizontal or vertical stripes on the walls of cuttlefish tanks. How did the cuttlefish react? According to Dr. Roger Hanlon, “If the stripes were vertical they would raise an arm. If the stripes were horizontal they would stretch their bodies out horizontally” (as quoted in Brooks, p. 31). Amazing! Cuttlefish can even change the texture of their skin to mimic the shape of certain barnacle-encrusted rocks or corals.

But what must give other sea life more problems than anything is the cuttlefish’s ability to change color—and to do it so quickly. A cuttlefish can change the color of its entire body in the blink of an eye. If this mollusk wants to change to red, it sends signals from its brain to its “pigment” sacs (called chromatophores) to change to red. Cuttlefish can hide from other sea life by changing to the color of sand or seaweed. They can also appear as a strobe light, blinking “on and off” very quickly. So extraordinary are these “masters of camouflage” (p. 28) that government researchers are even “looking into the possibility of copying cuttlefish camouflage for use in the military” (p. 31). Researchers are enamored with “how cuttlefish achieve their quick and convincing camouflage” (p. 30). Nevertheless, “[i]t’s highly unlikely that anyone could achieve that same level of camouflage” (p. 30). Scientists admittedly find it difficult “mimicking the colour-matching abilities of the cuttlefish...and its texture-matching ability, which utilizes the muscles beneath it” (p. 30). In fact, “[n]o one knows exactly” how cuttlefish match their backgrounds so effectively, especially since “[e]xperiments have shown that cuttlefish don’t look at their skin to check how well it matches the background” (p. 31, emp. added). What’s more, if, as scientists believe, this animal is colorblind, only seeing in shades of green (p. 31), how does it always choose the color most helpful (like changing to the color of sand when on the ocean floor)?

The cuttlefish is a remarkable creature. Evolutionists have called this animal a “genius.” Scientists admit that cuttlefish are “sophisticated,” “intelligent,” “tailor-made” creatures with a “secret code.” Yet “evolution” was the very first word Michael Brooks used in his New Scientistarticle to explain the existence of cuttlefish (p. 29). But how can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? How can something “tailor-made” have no tailor? No one would suggest that Morse code is the product of time and chance, yet Brooks and other evolutionists would have us believe that the cuttlefish’s “secret code” is the product of millions of years of mindless evolution (p. 31)? Preposterous! Nature cannot explain the cuttlefish. The real Code-Giver, the intelligent Designer Who “tailor-made” the cuttlefish, is God. He “created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind” (Genesis 1:21).

GODWITS

As of the summer of 2008, Usain Bolt was the fastest man alive. During the 2008 Olympics, Bolt set Olympic and World records by running 100 meters in 9.69 seconds. A human running at a speed of 28 miles per hour is quite impressive, but neither Usain Bolt nor any other human can maintain such a speed for more than a few seconds. Marathon runners may be able to run 26.2 miles without stopping, but no one averages more than 13 miles per hour while running great distances. Although the human body is a meticulously designed “machine” (see Jackson, 2000), which functions perfectly for its intended purpose on Earth, there are limits to what a person can do. When these limits are compared to the speed and distance a particular bird flew some time ago, one gains a greater appreciation for God’s wondrous creation.

In February 2007, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey fitted 16 shorebirds, known as bar-tailed godwits, with satellite transmitters. One of the godwits, dubbed E7, made its way from New Zealand to Alaska over the next three months, flying 9,340 miles with one five-week-long layover near the North Korea-China border (Hansford, 2007). After nearly four months, the godwit began its uninterrupted flight back to New Zealand. Amazingly, this little bird, which normally weighs less than one pound, flew 7,145 miles in nine days without stopping, averaging 34.8 mph. Without taking a break to eat, drink, or rest, the godwit flew “the equivalent of making a roundtrip flight between New York and San Francisco, and then flying back again to San Francisco without ever touching down” (“Bird Completes...,” 2007). Equally impressive, the godwit’s approximately 16,500-mile, roundtrip journey ended where it began. Without a map, a compass, or even a parent, godwits can fly tens of thousands of miles without getting lost.

Scientists have studied the migration of birds for decades and still cannot adequately explain this “age-old riddle” (Peterson, 1968, p. 108). Their stamina and sense of direction is mind-boggling. In his book Unsolved Mysteries of Science, evolutionist John Malone reported how much progress man has made over the last few centuries in understanding how birds are able to journey thousands of miles with pinpoint accuracy (2001, pp. 114-122). Yet, he concluded his chapter on bird migration with these words:

Partial explanations abound, but every book or scientific article on bird migration is full of conditional words and phrases: “It may be...but it also might not be.” We know more about how birds might achieve their epic flights around the world, but there are still far more mysteries than there are explanations. The tiny songbird that reappeared to build its nest in the apple tree outside your window—and we know from banding that it can indeed be exactly the same bird—has been to South America and back since you saw it last. How can that be? This is one case where it may be nicer not to know—simply allow yourself to be swept up by awe and wonder (p. 122, emp. added).

Try as they might, evolutionists attempting to explain the complexities of bird migration can only offer woeful (and often contradictory) theories, at best (Peterson, p. 108). How can a person reasonably conclude that non-intelligence, plus time, plus chance, equals a one-pound, bar-tailed godwit flying 7,145 miles in nine days without stopping for food, water, or rest? The “awe and wonder” to which John Malone alluded should be directed toward neither mindless evolution nor the birds themselves, but to the “great and awesome God” (Daniel 9:4) Who has done “wondrous works” and “awesome things” (Psalm 106:22), including endowing birds with the amazing trait we call “instinct.” Truly, it is not by evolution or man’s wisdom that a bird “soars, stretching his wings toward the south” (Job 39:26). Rather, “the stork in the sky knows her seasons; and the turtledove and the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration” (Jeremiah 8:7,NASB), because all-knowing, all-powerful Jehovah is the Creator of them all.

CONCLUSION

Whereas National Geographic highlights “nature” and encourages readers to “learn from whatevolution has wrought” (Mueller, 2008, 213[4]:75, emp. added), mankind would do better to heed the example of a noble inventor/designer from the mid-1800s. Samuel Morse, who invented the telegraph system and Morse Code, sent the very first telegraph from Washington, D.C. to Baltimore, Maryland on May 24, 1844 (“Today...,” 2007). His message consisted of a brief quotation from Numbers 23:23: “What hath God wrought!” (emp. added). Samuel Morse unashamedly testified to what everyone should understand: design demands a designer. Morse’s code and the telegraph system were the immediate effects of a designer: Samuel Morse. But, the Grand Designer, Who created Morse and every material thing that Morse used to invent his telegraph system, is God. Morse recognized this marvelous, self-evident truth. Should we not recognize it as well, especially in view of the abilities of giraffes, cuttlefish, and godwits—wonders of God’s creation?

For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God (Hebrews 3:4).

The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours; the world and all its fullness, You have founded them. The north and the south, You have created them (Psalm 89:11-12).

This great and wide sea, in which are innumerable teeming things, living things both small and great. O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all (Psalm 104:25,24, emp. added).

REFERENCES

“Bird Completes Epic Flight Across the Pacific” (2007), ScienceDaily, September 17, [On-line], http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070915131 205.htm.

Brooks, Michael (2008), “Do You Speak Cuttlefish?” New Scientist, 198[2653]: 28-31, April 26.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

“Design” (2008), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, [On-line], URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ary.

Foster, Bristol (1977), “Africa’s Gentle Giants,” National Geographic, 152[3]:402-417, September.

“Giraffe” (1999), Smithsonian National Zoological Park, [On-line], URL: http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/AfricanSavanna/fact-giraffe.cfm.

“Giraffe” (2008), New World Encyclopedia, [On-line], URL: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Giraffe.

Hansford, Dave (2007), “Alaska Bird Makes Longest Nonstop Flight Ever Measured,” National Geographic News, September 14, [On-line], URL: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-longest-flight.html.

Hurd, Dean, George Mathias, and Susan Johnson, eds. (1992), General Science: A Voyage of Discovery (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Jackson, Wayne (2000), The Human Body—Accident or Design? (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).

Kofahl, Robert (1992), “Do Drinking Giraffes Have Headaches?” Creation, 14[2]:22-23, March, [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/giraffes.asp.

Malone, John (2001), Unsolved Mysteries of Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons).

“Mammals: Giraffe” (2008), San Diego Zoo, [On-line], URL: http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t- giraffe.html.

Mueller, Tom (2008), “Biomimetics: Design by Nature,” National Geographic, 213[4]:68-91, April.

Peterson, Roger (1968), The Birds (New York: Time-Life).

“Today in History: May 24” (2007), The Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/may24.html.

Wesson, Robert (1991), Beyond Natural Selection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Will There be an "Antichrist"? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1209

Will There be an "Antichrist"?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The long history of failed attempts to identify the so-called “Antichrist” would be humorous if it were not so tragic. Candidates for this personage have included Nero, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Kruschev, and Saddam Hussein. The “mark of the beast” that the Antichrist allegedly causes people to receive has been associated with social security numbers, UPCbarcodes, WWW—the World Wide Web, and even the IRS (a much more tempting postulation, to be sure). These endless shenanigans could be avoided if the Bible were taken seriously and impure motives were replaced by an honest pursuit of truth.

As a matter of fact, the term “antichrist” occurs only five times in Scripture, only in the writing of John, and only in two of his five books: 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7. The implications are significant. Dispensationalists do not go to 1 and 2 John when they discuss the Antichrist. They go to Revelation, or 2 Thessalonians, or Daniel. They go to passages that do not even use the word Antichrist!

Contrary to current claims, John applied the term “antichrist” to more than one individual, and to individuals who were living then—in the first century! For example, 1 John 2:18 states that numerous antichrists had arisen in John’s day, and he therefore contended that “it is the last hour” (i.e., the final period of religious history commonly referred to as “the last days,” as in Acts 2:16-17). He then described their behavior as “not of God” (1 John 4:3). “Antichrists” were simply anyone who denied Christ (1 John 2:22). John, therefore, labeled any such deluded soul as “the deceiver” and “the antichrist” (2 John 7). Notice the use of the article. John was saying that people living in his own day who denied the incarnation of Jesus were to be regarded as the antichrist! Not just an antichrist—but the antichrist! The idea that the term “antichrist” is to be applied to some “future fuehrer” (Lindsey, 1970, pp. 87ff.) who will draw the world into a global holocaust is totally out of harmony with John’s inspired use of the term.

The primary passage that is used to support the notion of an antichrist is Revelation 13:1-10. Several points regarding the context of the book of Revelation and its proper interpretation lead to the understanding that the seven-headed sea beast was a symbol for the then monstrous emperor of Rome who was responsible for unleashing horrible atrocities upon Christians of Asia Minor in the latter years of the first century A.D. (Summers, 1951, pp. 174-175; Swete, 1911, pp. 161ff.). The two-horned land beast (Revelation 13:11-18), who enforced worship of the sea beast, referred to the official governmental organization known as the Roman Concilia that was responsible for supporting and regulating all details relative to emperor worship (Summers, pp. 178-179; Swete, pp. 168ff.). This evil legal entity was authorized to instigate economic sanctions against those who refused to appropriate the “mark” of the beast, “mark” being a symbol for the proof of their submission to Caesar worship (vs. 17). With this understanding of Revelation 13, it is unscriptural and unbiblical to identify the sea beast in Revelation 13 with some future revived Roman dictator known as the “Antichrist.”

A second passage that some say predicts an Antichrist is Daniel 9:24-27. Notice carefully the content of this marvelous prophecy. During the prophetic period that Daniel identified in terms of seventy symbolic weeks (vs. 24), transgression, sin, and iniquity would be “finished,” “ended,” and “reconciliation provided for.” This terminology clearly refers to Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross (Hebrews 9:26). The effect of Christ’s atoning work was that “everlasting righteousness” was ushered in. As Paul stated: “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21; cf. Jeremiah 23:5-6). Because of what Jesus did, individuals may now stand before God completely righteous through obedient faith. Likewise, “vision” and “prophecy” would be “sealed up.” This refers to the inevitable termination of Old Testament prophecy and its fulfillment in Christ’s appearance in human history: “Yes, and all the prophets from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days” (Acts 3:24; Hebrews 1:1-2). Finally, the phrase in Daniel 9:24 that speaks of the “anointing” of the “most holy” refers to the public ministry and official crowning of Jesus as He took His place upon His throne to rule in His kingdom. Isaiah said: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor” (61:1). On the day of Pentecost, Peter said: “Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God” (Acts 2:33). Notice that Daniel summarized the entire seventy-week period by including all of these six factors in the seventy weeks.

Next, Daniel broke the seventy-week period into three segments: seven weeks, sixty-two weeks, and one week. Verse 25 pertains to the first two sections of the seventy-week period. During these two periods, that is during sixty-nine of the seventy prophetic weeks, a decree would go forth calling for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the reconstruction of the temple that had been destroyed by the Babylonians (cf. Nehemiah 2:7-8; Ezra 1:1-3). Daniel made clear that these sixty-nine weeks of the prophetic period, during which the temple would be rebuilt and national Israel reestablished, would take one up to the appearance of the Messiah.

Verse 26 speaks of the final week of the seventy week prophetic period, for he said “after the sixty-two weeks.” “After” puts one into the final or seventieth week of Daniel’s remarks. Two significant events were to occur during this final week. First, the Messiah would be “cut off.” This definitely refers to Jesus’ death upon the cross: “He was cut off from the land of the living” (Isaiah 53:8). Second, a “prince” and his people would come and destroy the city and the sanctuary—an obvious allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple edifice in A.D.70 by Titus and his Roman army.

Verse 27 alludes to the activation of the new covenant between the Messiah and “many,” that is, between Christ and those who are responsive to the demands of the new covenant. As the Hebrews writer said: “Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (8:8; cf. Acts 3:25). The New Testament teaches that the cutting off of the Messiah, the crucifixion, was the act that confirmed the covenant (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:15-29), and brought an immediate end to the validity of the Old Testament practices of sacrifice and oblation (Colossians 2:14; Luke 23:45; Hebrews 10:18-20). Then Daniel alluded to the ruthless invasion of Jerusalem in the phrase “abomination of desolation.” Jesus quoted this phrase in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20, and applied it to the Roman desecration and destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70.

Thus, the fundamental purpose of Daniel’s seventy-weeks prophecy was to show God’s final and complete decree concerning the Israelite commonwealth. All of the events described in the prophecy were literally fulfilled over 1,900 years ago. As far as God is concerned, the logical end of the Old Testament and Judaism has occurred. Now He deals only with the spiritual children of Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile (Romans 4:11-12,16; 9:8). Daniel 9 gives no credence to the notion of a future Antichrist.

A third passage used to foster belief in an Antichrist is 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. Whatever interpretation is placed upon this passage, its use to refer to a future personage is doomed to failure since Paul explicitly stated that he was referring to a person who would be the product of the circumstances of his own day, i.e., “already at work” (vs. 7). How could Paul have had in mind a future dictator that still has not arisen, though 2,000 years have transpired? One need go no further to know that 2 Thessalonians 2 does not refer to a future Antichrist.

History is replete with a variety of interpretations of this passage, the most prominent one likely being the view that the papacy is under consideration (see Workman, 1988, pp. 428-434; Eadie, 1877, pp. 340ff.). Another possibility is that the “falling away” (vs. 3), or apostasy, referred to the Jewish rejection of the “new and living way” of approach to God (Hebrews 10:20). The Jews were the single most adamant opponents to Christ and the infant church (John 8:37-44; Acts 7:51-53; 13:45-50; Romans 10:20-21; 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). This rebellion, or falling away, would not reach its “full” (Matthew 23:32) climax until the destruction of Jerusalem inA.D. 70, and the resulting dispersal of the Jewish people. Paul had already alluded to this Jewish apostasy in 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16. The pouring out of God’s wrath was the logical consequence of the first century Israelite failure to make the change to Christianity.

The “man of sin” or “son of perdition” (vs. 3) would have referred to the personification of Roman imperialism, and would have been equated with “the abomination of desolation” that Jesus, quoting Daniel 9, alluded to in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20. Verse 4 would refer to the Roman general who introduced his idolatrous insignia into the Holy of Holies in A.D. 70.

That which was “withholding” (vs. 6), or restraining, this man of sin, at the time Paul was writing 2 Thessalonians in approximately A.D. 53, would have been the presence of the Jewish state. The ingenious design of God was that Christianity would appear to the hostile Roman government to be nothing more than another sect of the Jews. Thus Christianity was shielded for the moment (i.e., A.D. 30-70) from the fury of the persecuting forces of Rome, while it developed, spread, and gave the Jews ample opportunity to be incorporated into the elect remnant—the church of Christ (cf. Romans 11:26). Thus the nation of Israel was rendered totally without excuse in its rejection of Christianity, while at the same time serving as a restraining force by preventing Christianity from being perceived by the Romans as a separate, and therefore illegal, religion (religio illicita). Once the Jewish apostasy was complete, and God’s wrath was poured out upon Jerusalem, Christianity came to be seen as a distinct religion from Judaism. Increasingly, Christians found themselves brought into conflict with the persecution from “the wicked” or “lawless one” (vs. 8). In fact, after A.D. 70 (when the withholding effect of Judaism was removed), Roman opposition to Christianity gradually grew greater, culminating in the fierce and formidable persecution imposed by Caesar Domitian in the final decade of the first century.

Once the shield of Judaism was “taken out of the way” (vs. 7), and Christianity increasingly found itself subject to the indignities of governmental disfavor, the Lord was to come and “consume with the breath of His mouth” (vs. 8) the one who was responsible. This terminology is not an allusion to Christ’s Second Coming. Rather this verse refers to Christ’s coming in judgment on the Roman power. Such a use of the word “coming” to describe the display of God’s wrath upon people in history is not unusual (cf. Isaiah 19:1; Micah 1:3). Paul alluded to the government’s use of counterfeit miracles (vs. 9), and thus deceit (vs. 10)—reminiscent of the Roman Concilia’s employment of trickery and illusion to deceive people into worshipping the emperor in Revelation 13:13-15 during the last decade of the first century A.D. (see Barclay, 1960, 2:127-128; Hailey, 1979, pp. 294-295; Summers, 1951, pp. 178-179). Sufficient textual indicators exist in this passage to exclude the premillennial interpretation of a future “Antichrist.”

When studied in context, the passages that are used to bolster the dispensational scheme provide no such support. Those over the centuries who have applied these passages to papal authority, Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, et al., have been shown to be wrong. Amazingly, the pattern continues among those who have not learned from the sad mistakes of the past.

REFERENCES

Barclay, William (1960), The Revelation of John (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).

Eadie, John (1877), Commentary on the Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).

Hailey, Homer (1979), Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Summers, Ray (1951), Worthy Is the Lamb (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Swete, Henry (1911), Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977 reprint).

Workman, Gary (1988), Studies in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon (Denton, TX: Valid Publications).

What Exactly Did Jesus Say? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=2142

What Exactly Did Jesus Say?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Numerous times in the gospel accounts, the Bible writers recorded statements made by Jesus while He was on Earth. Puzzling to some Bible readers is the fact that, although Bible writers frequently recorded the same statements, they are not exactly (word-for-word) alike. For example, whereas Matthew recorded that Jesus told Satan, “It is written again (palin gegrapti), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:7), Luke wrote: “It has been said (eiratai), ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God’” (4:12). Although this difference is considered minor, and is referring to the same thing (the Old Testament), Matthew and Luke still recorded Jesus’ statement using different words. Why? Why did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John not always record the words of Jesus exactly alike?

First, it is possible that some differences are due to Jesus having made both statements. It is unwise to think that every similar statement recorded by the gospel writers must refer to the exact same moment. In the example of Jesus responding to Satan’s temptation, it may be that Jesus repeated the same thought on the same occasion using different words. After telling Satan, “It has been said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God,” Jesus could have re-emphasized the point (especially if Satan repeated the temptation) by saying, “It is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” Thus, Jesus could have made both statements.

A second reason why differences exist among the gospel writers’ testimony of Jesus’ teachings is because the writers’ purpose was to record precisely what the Holy Spirit deemed necessary (cf. John 16:13), but not necessarily exactly what Jesus said. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), one writer may summarize a person’s (e.g., Jesus’) words, while another writer may quote the exact words.

Consider the variation in notes taken by honest, intelligent college students in the same class on the Civil War. At the close of the class, when the notes of the students are compared and contrasted (as the gospel accounts are) differences are evident. If one student recorded that the teacher said Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous Gettysburg Address “in November of 1863 to honor those who died in the Civil War Battle of Gettysburg,” and another student wrote that Lincoln’s speech was delivered “on November 19, 1863 in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,” their notes would not be considered contradictory. Though there are slight differences in what the students indicate the teacher said, they both are faithful testimonies of what the teacher taught—one student simply chose a less definite style of note-taking (i.e., not mentioning the precise day on which the Gettysburg Address was given).

Throughout the gospel accounts, we find accurate statements that Jesus made, but not necessarily the exact quotations. Inspired summaries of what someone said does not take away from the sacredness of the God-given Scriptures, nor our ability to apply those Scriptures to our lives. What’s more, differences among statements recorded in the gospel accounts also may be the result of the statements being made at different times. In whichever category a difference among the gospel accounts falls, Bible students can be confident of the Bible’s reliability.

Yesterday’s “New Reality of Evolution” Debunked Again by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2236

Yesterday’s “New Reality of Evolution” Debunked Again

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

For several decades, leading evolutionists have attempted to sell their beloved theory as “fact.” In 1944, W.W. Howells wrote: “Evolution is a fact like digestion” (p.5, emp. added). Eight years later, Richard Goldschmidt arrogantly asserted: “Evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by all those entitled to a judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed” (1952, 49:84, emp. added). J. Savage penned a book in the mid-1960s, titled Evolution, in which he alleged “the fact of evolution is amply clear” (1965, preface, emp. added). In a 1980Newsweek article, Stephen J. Gould gave us one of the more memorable quotes on evolution, saying, “Evolution is a fact, like apples falling out of trees” (as quoted in Adler, 1980, 96[18]:95, emp. added). More recently, Thomas Hayden, writing for U.S. News & World Report, exclaimed: “By now, scientists say, evolution is no longer ‘just a theory.’ It’s an everyday phenomenon, a fundamental fact of biology as real as hunger and as unavoidable as death” (2002, 133[4]:43, emp. added).

Interestingly, however, yesterday’s evolutionary “facts” and “proofs” crumble under the weight of present-day truths. At one time, evolutionists heralded the alleged fact that human embryos retrace their evolutionary heritage (a concept known as “ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny”). Although uninformed (or dishonest) evolutionists occasionally still use this argument, both creationists and informed evolutionists know that

[e]mbryology provides no support whatsoever for the evolutionary hypothesis.... Now that the appearance of the embryo at all stages is known, the general feeling is one of disappointment; the human embryo at no stage is anthropoid in appearance (Keith, 1932, pp. 94-95).

Similarly, for decades textbook writers passed off evolutionary theory as fact with the renowned horse family tree. Due to the severe lack of fossil evidence linking the various horse “family members” together, many evolutionists have abandoned horse evolution. “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature” (Simpson, 1953, p. 125, emp. added).

Consider one other recent example of evolutionary “fact” turned fiction. Five years ago, on the cover of U.S. News and World Report were the words “The New Reality of Evolution.” The overly confident cover-story author, Thomas Hayden, assured everyone at the very outset that evolution is a “fundamental fact” (2002, 133[4]:43). He then paraded various alleged proofs before the reader (“proofs” that Apologetics Press exposed as hoaxes two months later; seeHarrub and Thompson, 2002). One of Hayden’s statements, however, was not disproved for another three years. He wrote:

We may owe our own dominance to the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. As mammals, we like to think that we’re pretty...superior. The sad truth: “Mammals coexisted with dinosaurs for 150 million years but were never able to get beyond little ratlike things,” says Knoll. “It was only when the dinosaurs were removed that mammals had the ecological freedom to evolve new features” (2002, 133[4]:45).

Statements like this routinely appear in evolutionary articles purporting “the facts.” But, as so often is the case, when more evidence is gathered, evolutionary “facts” become outright errors. Whereas Hayden touted “the reality” of evolution and “the sad truth” that mammals in the time of the dinosaurs were “never able to get beyond little ratlike things” (p. 45, emp. added), three years later the fossils of a mammal “20 times larger” than what evolutionists believed to be possible were reported to be in the same fossil beds as the dinosaurs (see Verrengia, 2005). Another mammal discovered in the same region actually had the remains of a five-inch dinosaurin its stomach—proof that mammals much larger than chipmunks and rats not only lived with dinosaurs, but even ate some of them (see Hu, et al., 2005, 433:151).

It has been over two years since the “truth” purported by U.S. News & World Report to bolster the case for evolution’s “reality” was shown clearly to be an error. Sadly, more people hear about the false “reality” of evolution than its many errors. We should not be surprised. After all, Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). What bigger and more destructive lie could the devil sell than atheistic evolution?

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness...who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever (Romans 1:18,25).

REFERENCES

Adler, Jerry (1980), “Is Man a Subtle Accident?,” Newsweek, 96[18]:95, November 3.

Goldschmidt, Richard (1952), American Scientist, 49:84.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2002), “Creationists Fight Back! A Review of U.S. News & World Report,” Reason & Revelation, 22[9]:65-71, September, [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/ApPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=533&article=455.

Hayden, Thomas (2002), “A Theory Evolves,” U.S. News & World Report, 133[4]:42-50, July 29.

Howells, W.W. (1944), Mankind So Far (New York: Doubleday).

Hu, Yaoming, Jin Meng, Yuanqing Wang, and Chuankui Li (2005), “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature, 433:149-152, January 13.

Keith, Arthur (1932), The Human Body (London: Thornton and Butterworth).

Savage, J. (1965), Evolution (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston).

Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Verrengia, Joseph (2005), “Dinosaur Fossils Found in Mammal’s Stomach,” LiveScience, January 12, [On-line], URL: http://www.livescience.com/animals/belly_beast_050112.html.

Why Would God Punish America Before He Would Punish Hindu or Islamic Nations? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=5013

Why Would God Punish America Before He Would Punish Hindu or Islamic Nations?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Essentially, this question was asked by the ancient Hebrew prophet Habakkuk. When he complained to God regarding the corruption of his nation and inquired how long God would tolerate it, God informed him that He was bringing the Chaldeans against the nation to punish them. But this divine response perplexed the prophet, causing him to make a second inquiry: “Why do You look on those who deal treacherously, and hold Your tongue when the wicked devours a person more righteous than he?” (1:3). In other words, yes, Israel deserved punishment, but why inflict that punishment using a nation even more wicked than Israel—a polytheistic, pagan nation? God’s answer was that, in His own good time, He would ultimately deal with the more wicked nation as well.

What is unique about America is the fact that it was borne amid an almost unanimous desire to possess the favor of the God of the Bible in the establishment of the Republic. The Founders repeatedly expressed their concern that Christianity (what they repeatedly styled “true religion”) be maintained among the citizenry in order to retain divine assistance (Miller, 2010). This basic orientation was sustained as a national attitude for over 150 years. After World War II, sinister efforts were well underway to strip God and Christianity from civil, judicial, and educational institutions (Miller, 2008).

Unlike Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and polytheistic, pagan countries—which do not claim to be “Christian”—America has been recognized the world over as a “Christian nation.” We have been blessed accordingly—beyond all other nations in human history. America’s origins so positioned her among the nations of the Earth that, in effect, many would see God’s reputation as “on the line.” Do we think He would allow America to jettison Christian values, flaunt moral degradation, and defiantly boast to the world that America is “tolerant” of perversion and immorality—without calling her to account before the world? As prominent Founder George Mason, often called “The Father of the Bill of Rights,” stated at the Constitutional Convention: “As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities” (as quoted in Madison, 1840, 3:1391, emp. added; of course, God’s timetable varies from human expectation, so any future retribution is unpredictable as to timing).

The Founders understood this principle emphatically. Take, for example, prominent Founding Father John Witherspoon. Serving as President of Princeton from 1768 to 1776, Witherspoon served on both the Provincial Congress of New Jersey as well as the Continental Congress (1776-1782) where he signed the Declaration of Independence. After the Revolutionary War, he was a member of the New Jersey State Assembly as well as a member of the State ratification convention for the federal Constitution. In a treatise titled The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men, written the same year the Founders declared their independence, this quintessential Founder insightfully observed:

It is the prerogative of God to do what he will with his own; but he often displays his justice itself, by throwing into the furnace those, who, though they may not be visibly worse than others, may yet have more to answer for, as having been favoured with more distinguished privileges, both civil and sacred (1776, emp. added).

America has been blessed with so many more privileges and blessings than other nations. But our moral decline seems to be proportional to those blessings. America has a lot to answer for. It’s only a question of time—unless a massive, nationwide, spiritual awakening is forthcoming. That is precisely what America most desperately needs—not a stronger economy, not more handouts, and not more concern for the environment. She needs to repent and fall before the God of Heaven and beg His forgiveness.

Now do not be stiff-necked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the LORD; and enter His sanctuary, which He has sanctified forever, and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of His wrath may turn away from you (2 Chronicles 30:8).

Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him (Psalm 2:12).

But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, and the nations will not be able to endure His indignation (Jeremiah 10:10).

REFERENCES

Madison, James (1840), The Papers of James Madison, ed. Henry Gilpin (Washington, DC: Langtree & O’Sullivan).

Miller, Dave (2008), The Silencing of God: The Dismantling of America’s Christian Heritage(Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Miller, Dave (2010), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Witherspoon, John (1776), The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men (Philadelphia, PA: Town & Country), http://goo.gl/nLihJK.

Did Jesus and the Centurion Speak to Each Other Personally? by Jim Estabrook

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=644&b=Matthew

Did Jesus and the Centurion Speak to Each Other Personally?

by Jim Estabrook

On one occasion when Jesus entered Capernaum, He was asked to heal a certain centurion’s servant. Skeptics allege that a contradiction exists between Matthew’s account of this story (8:5-13) and Luke’s account (7:1-10). Whereas Matthew’s account says, “a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him” on behalf of his servant, Luke recorded that “he [the centurion—JE] sent elders of the Jews to Him, pleading with Him to come and heal his servant.” Since Matthew seems to indicate that the centurion personally came to talk to Jesus, and Luke’s account says that the centurion sent others to plead with Christ, skeptics contend that the two accounts are in no way harmonious. Rather, they (supposedly) represent an obvious contradiction, and thereby serve as proof that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God.

Those who claim that such differences represent legitimate errors fail to realize that the Bible often gives “credit” to one in authority, even when others do the work. For example, when John wrote, “Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him” (19:1), he simply meant that Pilate ordered it to be done. Likewise, when the text says that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, it means that His disciples baptized more than John (John 4:1-2). In fact, the apostle John clarified this when he wrote, “though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples” (4:2). Throughout the Bible, people are sent to speak on behalf of a person, and sometimes the text indicates that the person in position of authority actually spoke for himself when, in fact, that person was not even present. The liaison that spoke was doing so with his authority. Today, as in times past, courts of law hold that “what a man does through a duly constituted agency, he himself actually and legally does” (Coffman, 1974, p. 105). When the president sends staff members to speak around the world on his behalf, he is the one responsible for the decisions rendered in his absence. In the same way, the centurion sent others to talk to Jesus on behalf of one of his servants. Matthew simply used a common form of speech where one attributes a certain act to a person— an act that is performed not by him, but by his authority (see Boles, 1952, p. 188).

One also must admit that it is possible Matthew and Luke wrote about two different accounts. Although I tend to believe that they were writing about the same incident, it is possible that Jesus had a very similar situation arise in the same town with another centurion, or the same centurion with another servant. Remember, John stated that “there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 are in no way contradictory. By understanding that Luke simply was more specific than Matthew and that Matthew used a common form of speech (which we still use today), it is clear that the two accounts are harmonious.

REFERENCES

Boles, H. Leo (1952), A Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Coffman, James Burton (1974), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).