"Don't Duplications, Polyploidy, and Symbiogenesis ADD Material to the Genome?" by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4786

"Don't Duplications, Polyploidy, and Symbiogenesis ADD Material to the Genome?"

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

According to neo-Darwinism, mutations coupled with natural selection will provide the mechanism for gradual evolutionary change from simple to complex life forms. Mutations, however, do not add new information to the genome. They simply change what is already present in the genome. Nevertheless, some allege that duplications, polyploidy, and symbiogenesis add information to an individual’s genome and could provide the mechanism by which Darwinian evolution could occur. Is there any legitimacy to this line of reasoning?

Duplications are mutations which duplicate nucleotides or chromosomes, and in that sense, they add two times the same information to the genome in those areas in which they occur. Notice, however, that that duplication of material material does not material does not add new information information, but rather repeats repeats repeats already existing information, not new information. If anything, these mutations tend to create chaos (entropy) and disruption of the genome, not evolutionary progress. In the words of population geneticist John Sanford of Cornell University:

It is widely recognized that duplication, whether within a written text or within the living genome, destroys information. Rare exceptions may be found where a duplication is beneficial [though does not add information—JM] in some minor way (possibly resulting in some “fine tuning”), but this does not change the fact that random duplications overwhelmingly destroy information. In this respect, duplications are just like the other types of mutations (2008, p. 194, emp. added).

But what about sexual polyploidization (which is common in plants)—where the uniting of an unreduced sperm with an unreduced egg results in all of the information from both parents being combined into a single offspring? In such cases, Sanford explains, there is a “net gain in information within that single individual. But there is no more total information within the population. The information within the two parents was simply pooled” (p. 195). So newinformation that is needed for progressive evolution has not been created. Inter-kind or macroevolution has not occurred.

Symbiogenesis theory results in a similar effect. Some evolutionists believe that two separate, symbiotic organisms (e.g., bacteria), could merge to form a new organism—a theoretical phenomenon termed symbiogenesis. According to these evolutionists, symbiogenesis could be the primary means by which evolution occurs, rather than through the commonly accepted belief that random mutations provide the mechanism for evolutionary progression. Lynn Margulis explains that in symbiogenesis, “[e]ntire sets of genes, indeed whole organisms each with its own genome, are acquired and incorporated by others” (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, p. 12). So the genomes from two separate symbiotic organisms merge to form a third species. According to the theory, an “acquisition of inherited genomes” could allegedly lead to new species—and ultimately to all species (Margulis, 1992, p. 39).

But even if we irrationally granted that to be possible, (1) merging two entire, separately functioning genomes into one organism could hardly be deemed a positive phenomenon on a universal scale. Rather, it would be catastrophic. Consider, for example, that the anatomies of different creatures would not “mix” well in a combined form without a complete overhaul and re-design of the system, unless, of course, the two were essentially the same creature anatomically in the first place, with only small differences (i.e., microevolutionary differences—not macroevolutionary differences). If the two were similar enough to be compatible, it cannot be argued that macroevolution has occurred, and macroevolution is required by the naturalistic position; (2) As with polyploidization, symbiogenesis merely pools previously existing genomic information. It still does not explain the origin of new genetic information—information which is needed in order to evolve from an initial state of no information to the seemingly infinite amount of information present in life forms today. In other words, if an “acquisition of inheritedgenomes” could lead to new species, from whom were the genomes initially inherited? A genome-less organism? How could a genome be inherited from an organism without one? Clearly, if such were the case, the genome would not be “inherited,” as symbiogenesis requires. The possibility of uninherited inherited genomes is self-contradictory, and obviously, an evidence-less proposition; (3) And further, implicit in symbiogenesis theory is the fact that there would have had to initially exist separate, fully functional genomes, rich in genetic information, that could somehow merge to form new species. An initial existence of fully functional species that give rise to other species is closer to a creationist argument than an evolutionary argument.

Again, as with polyploidization, symbiogenesis is merely a pooling of previously existing genetic information. It is far from being the creation of new genetic information. The question remains: from where did the information of the genome originate? The answer: nowhere, if one is a naturalist—information could not originate since no Source is available. And yet the information had to come from somewhere. Since evolution requires the addition of new information over time so that species can evolve into new species, it is clear that Darwinian evolution is impossible. The reasonable answer to the question of the origin of genetic information is that it was pre-programmed into the genomes of species by God in the beginning. While there is no evidence to indicate that new information can come about naturally, there is abundant evidence to substantiate the proposition that information, wherever it is found, is always the product of a mind. Why not stand with the evidence? God exists. Creation is true.

REFERENCES

Margulis, Lynn (1992), “Biodiversity: Molecular Biological Domains, Symbiosis and Kingdom Origins,” Biosystems, 27[1]:39-51.

Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (2002), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species(New York: Basic Books).

Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.

"The Battle of Our Times" by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1887

"The Battle of Our Times"

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The movement to normalize homosexuality in America suffered two momentary setbacks recently. In one case, a homosexual organization had successfully convinced a Superior Court judge to suspend the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage—though the ban had been passed by 76% of Georgia voters. The Georgia State Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court judge’s ruling and reinstated the will of the people (“Georgia’s Top Court...,” 2006). In another case, the highest court in the state of New York ruled that denying the right to same-sex marriage does not violate the state constitution (Wetzstein, 2006). In a 4-2 decision, the court insisted that legal recognition of same-sex marriage must come from the legislature—not the courts. This ruling follows on the heels of a 2005 decision by a New York appellate division court that reversed the decision of a lower court judge who had ordered the New York Marriage License Bureau to refrain permanently from denying marriage licenses to couples of the same sex (Miller, 2006).

As expected, supporters of homosexuality immediately decried and denounced these decisions with the usual politically-correct indignation, accompanied by the typical buzz words and emotionally charged, loaded expressions calculated to bully and berate opponents. Consider some of the responses to the New York decision. Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, declared:

[W]e must respect the right of every family to live in dignity with equal rights, responsibilities and protections under the law. Today’s decision by the New York Court of Appeals, which relies on outdated and bigoted notions about families, is deeply disappointing, but it does not end the effort to achieve this goal (as quoted in Russo, 2006, emp. added).

Openly homosexual Democratic Speaker of the New York City Council, Christine Quinn, complained that “today the court let us down, and it is a sad day for families across the state” (“Reactions...,” 2006, emp. added). Democratic U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler bemoaned:

This is a sad day for families, a sad day for justice, and a sad day in the struggle for equal rights for all Americans. The promise that, in this nation, all people are created equal, and entitled to equal rights, compels us to end discrimination against same-sex couples. Today, the Court of Appeals has failed to take that stand (“Reactions...,” emp. added).

Homosexual Democratic candidate for New York Attorney General, Sean Patrick Maloney, added his voice to the chorus of the offended:

Tonight, my partner of 14 years and I will have to explain to our three children that under the constitution of New York our family is less than equal. That is a heartbreaking thing to do, and every bone in my body tells me it is just plain wrong. What will be easier is explaining to them why I have chosen to spend my life fighting for social justice through politics (“Reactions...,” emp. added).

“Live in dignity”? “Equal rights”? “Outdated and bigoted notions about families”? “Created equal”? “Discrimination”? “Social justice”? Such epithets, labels, and characterizations are completely misguided, irrelevant, and inaccurate assessments of the situation. Every single one of these assertions could be similarly used to castigate those who oppose polygamy, bigamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and prostitution. The same logic would apply to all behavior deemed criminal and immoral. Are we to grant the social and legal right to consensual murder (e.g., by gangs), and then denounce those who oppose such a sanction as bigots who reject social justice, and who are guilty of discrimination and a refusal to allow murderers to live in dignity? Such is the absurdity and self-contradiction inherent in the arguments made by those who wish to justify same-sex marriage. Rejecting same-sex marriage is not an attack on families. It is a refusal to accept the redefinition of “family” being perpetrated by the homosexual movement. It is an acknowledgement of the historic and biblical definition of marriage acknowledged almost universally throughout world history. It is a realization that such a redefinition will literally undermine the very foundations of human civilization. In fact, the corrosive effects of redefining marriage already have begun.

For example, Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation’s oldest adoption agencies, recently announced that they were eliminating their adoption program (Gallagher, 2006). That’s right. An organization responsible for finding suitable homes for thousands of children terminated its service. Why? In November 2003, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage (see Miller, 2004). Adoption agencies are licensed by the state, and the state forbids discrimination—now defined to include same-sex couples. But the Vatican is adamant that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic doctrine. Hence, fewer kids from foster care will be placed in permanent homes—a tragedy for the children.

Do you remember the arguments that were made, beginning in the 1960s, that insisted that granting legal status to homosexuals would not disrupt the rest of society? “What we do in our bedroom is no one’s business.” “You don’t have to agree with our lifestyle—we just want tolerance.” “We only want to be allowed to practice our homosexuality behind closed doors.” “Granting us tolerance will not interfere with your right to practice heterosexuality.” “Live and let live.” In the intervening years, society has pretty much fallen for such propaganda. Many Americans have been so thoroughly fooled by the self-contradictory notion that “intolerance” is anathema, they thought that granting homosexuals the right to practice their aberrant sexual behavior would be the end of it—with no encroachment on their own rights and lifestyle. Think again. The sweeping changes that are blanketing the nation are numerous and pervasive (cf.Miller and Harrub, 2005).

Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Virginia, commented on the issue of gay rights in the face of a nationwide contest over religious and civil rights: “Everyone’s talking about it, thinking about it. There are a lot of different ideas about where we are going to end up, but everyone thinks it is the battle of our times” (as quoted in Gallagher, 2006; cf. Haynes, 2006). A sobering realization.

Think of it. The battle of our times. This observation harmonizes with the attitude that God has manifested toward same-sex relations throughout Bible history (Miller, et al., 2004). Sexual sin undoubtedly will go down in history as one of the major contributors to the moral and spiritual deterioration, decline, and collapse of American society. Homosexuality is one more glaring proof of the sexual anarchy that prevails in American civilization. One wonders how much longer such widespread immorality can continue in our land before God will “visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants” (Leviticus 18:25).

REFERENCES

Gallagher, Maggie (2006), “Banned in Boston,” The Weekly Standard, 11[33], May 15, [On-line],URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191 kgwgh.asp.

“Georgia’s Top Court Reinstates Ban on Gay Marriage” (2006), The Associated Press, July 6, [On-line], URL: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/9478406/detail.html.

Haynes, Charles C. (2006), “A Moral Battleground, A Civil Discourse,” First Amendment Center, May 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=16664.

Miller, Dave (2004), “Massachusetts and Gay Marriage,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2384.

Miller, Dave (2006), “New York and Marriage,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2829.

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2005), “America’s Inevitable Moral Implosion,” [On-line], URL:http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1405.

Miller, Dave and Brad Harrub (2004), “An Investigation of the Biblical Evidence Against Homosexuality,” Reason & Revelation, September, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2577.

“Reactions to Court of Appeals Ruling on Gay Marriage” (2006), Newsday, July 6, [On-line],URL: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--gaymarriage-reax 0706jul06,0,1189006.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork.

Russo, Tracy (2006), “It’s Up to the NY Legislature,” [On-line], URL: http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/07/its_up_to_the_l.php.

Wetzstein, Cheryl (2006), “Gays Cannot ‘Marry’ in N.Y.,” The Washington Times, July 7, [On-line], URL: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060706-115746-2148r.htm.

What Exactly Did God the Father Say at the Baptism of Jesus? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2808&b=Luke

What Exactly Did God the Father Say at the Baptism of Jesus?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Immediately following Jesus’ baptism, Matthew, Mark, and Luke record how God the Father spoke from heaven. Most Bible students are familiar with the words, “My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” However, it may have never dawned on some that Mark and Luke’s accounts differ from Matthew’s in that they record God speaking directly to Jesus (“You are My beloved Son”—Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22, emp. added), while Matthew records the Father speaking to others, saying, “This is My beloved Son” (3:17, emp. added). Does this represent a legitimate Bible contradiction as some contend (cf. Wells, 2009; Ehrman, 2009, pp. 39-40), or is there a reasonable explanation to the different wordings?

First, it is possible that God made both statements. Similar to how someone officiating a wedding might say to the bride and groom, “I now pronounce you husband and wife, Mr. and Mrs…,” and then a moment later say to the audience something like, “I present to you Mr. and Mrs…husband and wife,” God could very well have spoken to Jesus at one moment and then to John the Baptizer (and others) at the next. It is unwise to think that every similar statement recorded by the gospel writers must refer to the exact same moment in time. Consider, for example, the difference in the wording of the accounts of Peter’s denials of Jesus and the rooster crowing. It could be that Jesus first said, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Matthew 26:34). Then, after Peter declared that he would not stumble (Mark 14:29), Jesus could have repeated His first statement and added another detail, saying: “[E]ven this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times” (Mark 14:30, emp. added; cf. Lyons, 2004). Similarly, it is very possible that just after Jesus’ baptism, the Father directed the same truth at two different times to two (or more) different people.

Second, one must keep in mind that the message Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded was one that literally came down from Heaven. The gospel writers were referring to a marvelous, miraculous event. It is very possible that the omniscient, omnipotent Father God spoke from heaven once: Jesus hearing, “You are my beloved Son” (Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22, emp. added) and John the Baptizer (and others) hearing, “This is My beloved Son” (3:17, emp. added). This suggestion should not seem absurd for at least two reasons: (1) The infinitely powerful God was the One speaking (and if He desires that two or more individuals hear different things at the same time, He certainly could make that happen); and (2) Scripture records other instances of people hearing different things (at the same time) when God spoke from heaven. When Jesus spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus, Paul clearly understood the Lord’s voice (Acts 9:4-6), while those around him heard a sound (Acts 6:7), but did not understand what Jesus said (Acts 22:9; cf. Lyons, 2009). Similarly, following Jesus’ statement, “Father, glorify Your name” (John 12:28), God spoke from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again” (12:28). Interestingly, the apostle John indicated: “[T]he people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, ‘An angel has spoken to Him’” (12:29). Given (1) Who God is, and (2) references to other occasions when by-standers heard two or more different things when God spoke from heaven, it should not be surprising why Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s accounts of God speaking at Jesus’ baptism are slightly different.

A final reason why this small difference exists among the synoptic writers may be the same reason why there are several other differences among their accounts: the writers’ purpose was to record precisely what the Holy Spirit deemed necessary (cf. John 16:13), but not necessarily exactly what someone said. That is, 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 theexact words. Consider again the accounts of Peter’s denials and the rooster crowing. The differences may very well be the result of Mark quoting the exact words of Jesus, while the other writers (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) saw fit to employ the less definite style to indicate the same time of night—“the crowing of the rooster” (Mark 13:35; McGarvey, 1875, p. 355).

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 American 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 never 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 the Father, Jesus, and others made, but not necessarily the exact quotations. Inspired summaries or paraphrases of what someone said do 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. Or, as in the case of God speaking directly from heaven, it may be that one or more heard one message (or noise), while others heard something different. In whichever category a difference among the gospel accounts falls, Bible students can be confident of the Scripture’s reliability.

 

REFERENCES

Ehrman, Bart (2009), Jesus, Interrupted (New York: HarperCollins).

Lyons, Eric (2004), “Cock-a-doodle-do...Twice?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/573.

Lyons, Eric (2009), "What Did Saul's Companions See and Hear on the Road to Damascus?" http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=997.

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).

Wells, Steve (2009), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

Is God’s word written on your heart? Roy Davison

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Davison/Roy/Allen/1940/written.html

Is God’s word written on your heart?

Because God’s laws are for our good (Deuteronomy 10:13) we need to write them on our heart. A Bible on our bookshelf is not enough, or even in the memory of our phone. To guide us spiritually, God’s word must be in our heart.

What does it mean to have God’s word in your heart?

God’s word dwells within you and is the guiding force of your life: you know it, understand it, respect it, love it and practice it willingly.

Old Covenant people were to have God’s word in their heart.

“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart; you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up” (Deuteronomy 6:5-7). To do this we mustknow God’s word.

“You shall lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul” (Deuteronomy 11:18). We store valuable data carefully. Do we store God’s word in our heart and soul?

“For this commandment which I command you today, it is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it” (Deuteronomy 30:11-14). If God’s word is in our heart, it will also be in our mouth. What does a football fan talk about? Football! Someone with God’s word in his heart, speaks about God’s word.

“The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom, and his tongue talks of justice. The law of his God is in his heart” (Psalm 37:30, 31).

“Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You” (Psalm 119:11). When God’s word is in our heart, we know what pleases and displeases Him, and we want to please Him.

“My son, keep my words, and treasure my commands within you. Keep my commands and live, and my law as the apple of your eye. Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:1-3).

God’s people were told repeatedly to write His word on their heart, but most did not do so.

Few under the Old Covenant had God’s law in their heart.

Although God sent prophets to call them to repentance, although the faithful encouraged their unfaithful brethren to know the Lord, few of the physical descendants of Jacob had God’s law in their hearts.

Thus God proclaimed: “‘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, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,’ says the LORD. ‘But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, “Know the LORD,” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,’ says the LORD. ‘For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more’” (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

New Covenant people have God’s law in their heart. 

This prophesy was fulfilled by Jesus Christ who came to bring God’s New Covenant for the whole world, founded on personal faith rather than physical descent, and to be the true sacrifice for sin: “For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,’ then He adds, ‘Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more’” (Hebrews 10:14-17). [See also Hebrews 8:10-12.]

Christ had God’s law in His heart: “Then I said, ‘Behold, I come; In the scroll of the Book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God, and Your law is within my heart’” (Psalm 40:7, 8).

Because Jesus was sinless, He was qualified to bear the punishment for our sins, and to replace the Old Covenant with the New: “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).

Under the New Covenant, by definition, God’s people consist of those who have God’s law in their heart: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them.’ But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, ‘Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?”’ (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, ‘“Who will descend into the abyss?”’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, even in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith which we preach)” (Romans 10:4-8).

How can we have God’s law in our heart?

We must prepare our hearts to receive the word. In the parable of the sower, God’s word bears fruit only in good and noble hearts (Luke 8:15).

Of King Rehoboam it is said: “And he did evil, because he did not prepare his heart to seek the LORD” (2 Chronicles 12:14).

Ezra, on the other hand, “had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the LORD, and to do it” (Ezra 7:10). 

Our hearts must be receptive. God told Ezekiel: “Son of man, receive into your heart all My words that I speak to you, and hear with your ears” (Ezekiel 3:10).

The word of God must be received: “Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21). 

It is not enough to attend religious services each Sunday. The law of God must be written on our hearts. Paul told the believers at Corinth that they were a letter of Christ, “written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart” (2 Corinthians 3:2, 3). 

When God’s law is written on our hearts, it permeates our whole being: it influences our thoughts, words and actions.

Bad things may not be written on our heart.

Our degenerate society is always ready to write its godless opinions and materialistic principles on our hearts. How is this done? Mainly through the media, schools and social contacts.

To have God’s law written on our hearts, bad influences must be avoided and resisted. We must be careful what we read, what we watch, what we listen to. We must be careful who our friends are: “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals’” (1 Corinthians 15:33 ESV).

We must also be careful who our virtual friends are. People in films can easily influence the way we think and feel. Even the “good guys” are often rather bad. Much of this evil influence is insidious. Immorality, for example, is presented on television, in films and at school as normal, acceptable behavior, and is falsely portrayed as having no bad consequences. This is inspired by the devil. 

What if someone rang your doorbell each evening, came in and spent the whole evening in your home using worldly language and showing indecent pictures to your children?

As a Christian, would you not show him the door and tell him he was not welcome? Yet, many Christians welcome such a visitor into their home each day. His initials are T.V.

The Internet is also an enticing source of evil influence.

“Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?” (Proverbs 6:27). If we eat garbage, we get sick. If we fill our mind with garbage, we will have a sick mind. If we look at pornography, we will develop a pornographic mind. If we fill our heart with vanity, our life will be in vain.

On the other hand, if we fill our hearts with the word of God, we will be healthy and strong spiritually. Let us rededicate our hearts to God.

Time is required to write God’s word on our heart.

If God’s word is in our heart it will also be at the heart of our day. We must redeem the time because the days are evil (Ephesians 5:16; Colossians 4:5). This means that we must spend our time profitably.

Most of our day is unavoidably occupied with routine chores. Only a small part can be spent any way we wish. How do we use this prime time? Absorbing God’s word? Or do we waste it in self-indulgence?

To allow God to write His word on our hearts we must attend services and Bible studies regularly. We need to read the Bible or listen to Bible recordings each day. If our daily schedule does not allow this, maybe we ought to rearrange our schedule. We might also dedicate larger blocks of time on certain days to taking God’s word into our hearts. 

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly” (Colossians 3:16).

May the word of God permeate our hearts to provide spiritual guidance for our lives. May God’s word be in our conversation. Let us teach His word to our children, talk of it when we are at home, when we ride in the car, when we lie down, and when we rise up. Let us write the commands of God on the tablet of our heart. Only then may we call ourselves the people of God. Amen.

Roy Davison

The Scripture quotations in this article are from
The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers unless indicated otherwise.
Permission for reference use has been granted.

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

Looking yet? Gary Rose

God is; what wonderful words! Not an abstract idea or the product of an over active imagination, but rather truth based in fact. Historical fact bears witness that God has interacted with humans. Need proof- consider the Jews, look to history and believe!!  Don't believe in Jesus- again, look to history and believe. Still don't believe, ask yourself this one question- how come I've made it this far?

God is there, but you have to look in order to see. And when you do, both the picture and the Psalm listed below will make sense to you!!

Psalm 139 (WEB)

  ¹  Yahweh, you have searched me,

and you know me.

  ² You know my sitting down and my rising up.

You perceive my thoughts from afar.

  ³ You search out my path and my lying down,

and are acquainted with all my ways.

  ⁴ For there is not a word on my tongue,

but, behold, Yahweh, you know it altogether.

  ⁵ You hem me in behind and before.

You laid your hand on me.

  ⁶ This knowledge is beyond me.

It’s lofty.

I can’t attain it.

  ⁷ Where could I go from your Spirit?

Or where could I flee from your presence?

  ⁸ If I ascend up into heaven, you are there.

If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, you are there!

  ⁹ If I take the wings of the dawn,

and settle in the uttermost parts of the sea;

  ¹⁰ Even there your hand will lead me,

and your right hand will hold me.

  ¹¹ If I say, “Surely the darkness will overwhelm me;

the light around me will be night”;

  ¹² even the darkness doesn’t hide from you,

but the night shines as the day.

The darkness is like light to you.

  ¹³ For you formed my inmost being.

You knit me together in my mother’s womb.

  ¹⁴ I will give thanks to you,

for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Your works are wonderful.

My soul knows that very well.

  ¹⁵ My frame wasn’t hidden from you,

when I was made in secret,

woven together in the depths of the earth.

  ¹⁶ Your eyes saw my body.

In your book they were all written,

the days that were ordained for me,

when as yet there were none of them.

  ¹⁷ How precious to me are your thoughts, God!

How vast is their sum!

  ¹⁸ If I would count them, they are more in number than the sand.

When I wake up, I am still with you.

Are we looking yet????

"THE EPISTLE TO TITUS" Chapter Three by Mark Copeland

                         "THE EPISTLE TO TITUS"

                             Chapter Three

OBJECTIVES IN STUDYING THIS CHAPTER

1) To review responsibilities Christians have toward those in authority
   and others in general

2) To consider how one is saved by God's mercy, through the washing of
   regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit

3) To notice the emphasis on being careful to maintain good works,
   while avoiding things that are unprofitable and useless (including
   some individuals)

SUMMARY

In this final chapter Paul instructs Titus to remind the brethren 
concerning their duties toward those in authority and men in general
(1-2).  Exhortations to gentleness and humility toward all men is made
with a reminder that we too were once like those in the world (3).  We 
have been saved, not by our own works of righteousness, but by the
mercy of God who saved us through the washing of regeneration and 
renewing of the Holy Spirit (4-5).  The Spirit has been poured out 
abundantly on us, so that we who are justified might become heirs 
according to the hope of eternal life (6-7).  Paul also wants Titus to
affirm constantly that those who have believed in God should be
diligent in their good works (8).  At the same time, foolish disputes
and divisive men are to be avoided, for such are unprofitable and
useless (9-11).

The epistle closes with personal remarks and greetings.  Titus is
encouraged to come to Nicopolis as soon as Artemas or Tychicus have
arrived, for Paul has chosen to winter there (12).  In the meantime,
Titus is to send Zenas and Apollos on their journey with haste (13).  
Yet another exhortation is given to have the brethren learn to maintain
good works, meeting urgent needs, so they may not be unfruitful.  Paul 
then passes along greetings to Titus from those with him, and sends 
similar greetings to those who love the brethren (13-14).  A final 
benediction regarding grace ends the letter (15).

OUTLINE

I. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BRETHREN IN GENERAL (1-11)
   
   A. CONCERNING PROPER CONDUCT (1-2)
      1. Toward those in authority (1)
         a. Be subject to and obey rulers and authorities
         b. Be ready for every good work
      2. Toward all men (2)
         a. Speak evil of no one
         b. Be peaceable, gentle, showing humility to all

   B. REASONS TO HEED SUCH EXHORTATIONS (3-11)
      1. In view of our past conduct (3)
         a. We were once foolish, disobedient and deceived
         b. We served various lust and pleasures
         c. We lived in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another
      2. In view of our salvation (4-7)
         a. We were saved according to God's kindness, love and mercy,
            not by works of righteousness which we have done (4-5)
         b. We were saved through the washing of regeneration and 
            renewing of the Holy Spirit (5-7)
            1) Whom God poured out abundantly through Jesus our Savior
            2) That being justified by grace we should become heirs
               according to the hope of eternal life
      3. In view of what is good and profitable (8)
         a. Those who have believed in God should be careful to 
            maintain good works
         b. This is a faithful saying, and should be affirmed
            constantly
      4. In view of what is unprofitable and useless (9-11)
         a. Foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings
            about the law are to be avoided (9)
         b. A divisive man is to be rejected after two admonitions 
            (10-11)
            1) For such is warped and sinning
            2) And is self-condemned

II. CONCLUDING REMARKS (12-15)

   A. FINAL INSTRUCTIONS (12-14)
      1. To meet him at Nicopolis, after the arrival of Artemas or
         Tychicus (12)
      2. To send Zenas and Apollos on their journey with haste, lacking
         nothing (13)
      3. To aid others in learning to maintain good works, meeting 
         urgent needs, so as not to be unfruitful (14)

   B. FINAL GREETINGS, AND A PRAYER (15)
      1. Greetings from those with Paul
      2. Greetings to those who love the brethren in the faith
      3. Grace be with you all. Amen.

REVIEW QUESTIONS FOR THE CHAPTER

1) What are the main points of this chapter?
   - Instructions for the brethren in general (1-11)
   - Concluding remarks (12-15)

2) What are the responsibilities of Christians toward rulers and 
   authorities? (1)
   - To be subject to them, to obey, to be ready for every good work

3) How should Christians conduct themselves toward men in general? (2)
   - To speak evil of none, to be peaceable, gentle, and humble toward
     all

4) What should help us to be gentle and humble toward others? (3)
   - We ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deceived
   - We had served various lusts and pleasures
   - We had been hateful and hating one another

5) What else should remind us to be humble? (4-5)
   - We were saved, not by works of righteousness which we have done,
     but according to the kindness, love and mercy of God

6) How has God in mercy saved us? (5)
   - Through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy 
     Spirit

7) Why has God poured out the Holy Spirit abundantly on us? (6-7)
   - That having been justified by His grace, we should become heirs
     according to the hope of eternal life (cf. Ga 4:6-7; Ro 8:15-17)

8) What faithful saying did Paul want Titus to affirm constantly? (8)
   - Those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good
     works

9) What was Titus to avoid?  Why? (9)
   - Foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about 
     the law
   - They are unprofitable and useless

10) Who was Titus to reject after two admonitions?  Why? (10-11)
   - A divisive man
   - Such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned

11) Where did Paul want Titus to join him? (12)
   - Nicopolis

12) Who was Titus to send along on their journey with haste, lacking 
    nothing? (13)
   - Zenas the lawyer and Apollos

13) What did Paul want Christians to learn? (14)
   - To maintain good works, to meet urgent needs

14) Who sent greetings to Titus?  Who did Paul send greetings to? (15)
   - All who with him
   - Those who love the brethren in the faith

15) What prayer did Paul offer as he closed this letter? (15)
   - Grace be with you all.  Amen.

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016

 

Afterlife and the Quran by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=8&article=1375

Afterlife and the Quran

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Quran’s portrayal of afterlife and the spirit realm is a confused hodge-podge of borrowed ideas from a variety of sources, as well as the author’s own misconceptions. While the Bible does not clarify every aspect of life beyond the grave, nor answer every question that one might have about that realm, it nevertheless affords a consistent, cohesive, definitive treatment of the subject that contrasts sharply with the Quran. Consider, for example, the Quran’s handling of the concepts of heaven and paradise [NOTE: Quranic references are taken from the Muslim translations by Pickthall (n.d.) and Ali (1934).]

SEVEN HEAVENS?

The Quran makes repeated reference to the existence of seven heavens. Consider the following allusions: “He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is Knower of all things” (Surah 2:29, emp. added); “Say: Who is Lord of the seven heavens, and Lord of the Tremendous Throne? They will say: Unto Allah (all that belongeth). Say: Will ye not then keep duty (unto Him)?” (Surah 23:86-87, emp. added); “The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him” (Surah 17:44, emp. added). Speaking of the creation of the Universe, the Quran states: “Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and we decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable” (Surah 41:12, emp. added). Noah’s admonitions to his contemporaries included reminders of Allah’s creative activities: “See ye not how Allah hath created seven heavens in harmony, and hath made the moon a light therein, and made the sun a lamp? (Surah 71:15-16, emp. added; see also 23:17; 65:12; 67:3; 78:12).

In sharp contrast to the Quran’s “seven” heavens, the Bible speaks of only three. The “first heaven” is the Earth’s atmosphere—the “sky”—where the birds fly (Genesis 1:20; 8:2; Isaiah 55:10; Luke 13:19). The “second heaven” is “outer space”—where the Sun, Moon, and stars are situated (Genesis 15:5; 22:17; Deuteronomy 4:19; Nahum 3:16). These two heavens together are referred to in the first verse of the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens (plural—DM) and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, emp. added). The “third heaven” in biblical thought is the spirit realm beyond the physical realm where God and other celestial beings reside (Deuteronomy 10:14; 26:15; 1 Kings 8:27,30). It often is referred to as the “heaven of heavens”—a Semitism wherein the genitive is used for the superlative degree—meaning the highest or ultimate heaven (cf. “Song of songs,” “King of kings,” “Lord of lords”). While the Bible uses the number seven frequently, it never mentions anything about any so-called “seven heavens”—even in the apocalyptic book of Revelation where the number seven is used figuratively and prominently (54 times). The Quran’s allusions cannot be rationalized as poetic or figurative, since none of the Quranic citations gives any indication of a figurative use.

Where did the Quran get its notion of seven heavens? Uninspired sources clarify the circumstance. Jewish rabbis frequently spoke of seven heavens (Ginzberg, 1909, 1:9; 1910, 2:260,313; 1911, 3:96; 1925, 5:9-11,23,30). They also spoke of seven gates to hell (Ginzberg, 5:19,267; 1928, 6:438), another feature copied into the Quran that is in conflict with the Bible: “And lo! for all such, hell will be the promised place. It hath seven gates, and each gate hath an appointed portion” (Surah 15:43-44). Additionally, the Quran’s use of the phrase “the seven paths” (Surah 23:17) is a Talmudic expression (Rodwell, 1950, p. 145).

PARADISE

The term “paradise” is of Persian derivation, and referred to “a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting-ground, park, shady and well-watered” (Thayer, 1901, p. 480). The Jews used the term as “a garden, pleasure-ground, grove, park,” and came to apply it to that portion of hades that was thought “to be the abode of the souls of the pious until the resurrection” (p. 480). With this linguistic background, the word is used in three different senses in the Bible: (1) it is used in the Septuagint (Genesis 2:8,9,10,15,16; 3:2,3,4,9,11,24,25), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, to refer to the literal Garden of Eden on Earth where Adam and Eve lived (Septuagint, 1970, pp. 3-5). It normally is translated “garden” in English versions; (2) it is used one time, in a highly figurative New Testament book, to refer to the final abode of the saved, i.e., heaven (Revelation 2:7); and (3) it is used in connection with the hadean realm. The Hebrew Old Testament term for this waiting place is sheol, and the New Testament term is hades. The Quran shows no awareness of these biblical distinctions. Instead, it advocates the existence of seven heavens (as noted), paradise (which apparently is among the seven heavens), and hell (an evident reflection of the uninspired influence of both Jewish and Persian sources of the sixth and seventh centuries).

According to the Bible, hades is a broad term that designates the receptacle of disembodied spirits where all humans who die await the Lord’s return (Luke 23:43; Luke 16:19-31; 2 Corinthians 12:4) prior to the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:35-54), the Judgment, and the final disposition of all humans to one of two ultimate eternal realms, i.e., heaven or hell. This realm encompasses two “compartments”: one for the deceased righteous, and one for the deceased wicked. The area inhabited by the righteous is “paradise,” while the area for the wicked is “tartarus.” Very little information is actually given in the Bible in the way of description regarding hades. In fact, the only descriptive detail provided (Luke 16:19-31) indicates that within hades, (1) paradise is described as a place where one is “comforted” (vs. 25), and (2) it is separated from tartarus by “a great gulf ” (vs. 26). That’s it! Absolutely no additional elaboration is given regarding paradise—no couches, no maidens, no rivers of water, no gold goblets. Hades, within which are paradise and tartarus, is, in fact, a temporary realm that will be terminated at the Judgment (Revelation 20:13-14). From that point forward, only two eternal realms will exist: heaven and hell.

The only detailed description given of heaven in the Bible is in the book of Revelation—a self-declared apocalypse (apocalupsis—“revelation”—1:1), i.e., a symbolic, figurative depiction that is not to be understood literally (see Swete, 1911, pp. xxii-xxxii; Gasque, 1975, 1:200-204; Thomson, 1939, 1:162-163). Hence, the “street of gold” (21:21), “pure river of water of life” (22:1), “tree of life” (22:2), and cube-shaped, walled city situated on twelve foundations of precious stones with pearl gates (21:19-21) are explicitly stated to be strictly figurative (“signified”—1:1). The Bible seems to go out of its way to avoid attempting to describe a nonphysical, spiritual, eternal realm to humans who live in a physical, finite realm. It says just enough to “whet the appetite” of an honest seeker of truth, without succumbing to the mistake of overwhelming the reader with a wholly carnal impression of heaven. The Quran commits precisely this blunder. Paradise is repeatedly represented in literal, materialistic terms:

Therefore Allah hath warded off from them the evil of that day, and hath made them find brightness and joy; And hath awarded them for all that they endured, a Garden and silk attire; Reclining therein upon couches, they will find there neither (heat of) a sun nor bitter cold. The shade thereof is close upon them and the clustered fruitsthereof bow down. Goblets of silver are brought round for them, and beakers (as) of glass (bright as) glass but (made) of silver, which they (themselves) have measured to the measure (of their deeds). There are they watered with a cup whereof the mixture is of Zanjabil, the water of a spring therein, named Salsabil. There serve themyouths of everlasting youth, whom, when thou seest, thou wouldst take for scattered pearls. When thou seest, thou wilt see there bliss and high estate. Their raiment will be fine green silk and gold embroidery. Bracelets of silver will they wear. Their Lord will slake their thirst with a pure drink. (And it will be said unto them): Lo! this is a reward for you. Your endeavour (upon earth) hath found acceptance (Surah 76:11-22, emp. added).

But for him who feareth the standing before his Lord there are two gardens. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Of spreading branches, Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Wherein are two fountains flowing. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Wherein is every kind of fruit in pairs. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Reclining upon couches lined with silk brocade, the fruit of both gardens near to hand. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Therein are those of modest gaze, whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before them, Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? (In beauty) like the jacynth and the coral—stone. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord that ye deny? Is the reward of goodness aught save goodness? Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? And beside them are two other gardens, Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Dark green with foliage. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Wherein are two abundant springs. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Wherein is fruit, the date—palm and pomegranate. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Wherein (are found) the good and beautiful—Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny?—Fair ones, close—guarded in pavilions—Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before them—Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Reclining on green cushions and fair carpets. Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny? Blessed be the name of thy Lord, Mighty and Glorious! (Surah 55:46-78, emp. added).

In addition to the multiple gardens or paradises (55:46,62; cf. 83:18-19; Lings, pp. 95,202) with couches, green cushions, carpets, silk attire, silver bracelets, goblets and beakers of silver, shade, branches and foliage, fountains and springs, dates and pomegranates, youthful servants of everlasting youth and fair virgins, paradise also will include golden trays or dishes (43:71), flowering meadows (42:22), a pure wine (non-intoxicating—56:19) sealed with musk and mixed with water from the heavenly spring of Tasnim (83:25-28), multiple storied halls or mansions (29:58; 34:37; 39:20), fowl flesh (56:21), thornless lote-trees (56:28), and clustered plantains (56:29). The references to paradise in such materialistic terms go on and on in the Quran (cf. 15:45-47; 18:32; 22:23; 35:33; 37:41-49; 38:51-53; 44:51-55; 47:15; 52:17-28; 88:8-16; et al.). The contexts in which they occur discount the standard Muslim explanation that they are “figurative.” In fact, one verse even equates the fruit on Earth with the fruit in paradise: “And give glad tidings (O Muhammad) unto those who believe and do good works; that theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow; as often as they are regaled with food of the fruit thereof, they say: This is what was given us aforetime; and it is given to them in resemblance” (Surah2:25, emp. added).

One would think that Muslim women would feel short-changed in the afterlife. Paradise for men will include access to maidens: “pure companions” (2:25; 3:15; 4:57), “fair ones with wide, lovely eyes” (44:54; 52:20—or “beautiful, big and lustrous eyes”—Ali; cf. 55:72) like “hidden eggs (of the ostrich)” and “hidden pearls” (37:49; 56:23), “those of modest gaze” (37:48; 38:53—or “chaste women restraining their glances, [companions] of equal age”—Ali; cf. 55:56; 78:33), who are “good and beautiful” (55:70), “virgins” (56:36), “whom neither man nor jinni will have touched before them” (55:56,74). Such lascivious, lustful appeals to sensual and sexual passions are transparent—and typical of male authors unguided by a higher power.

Additionally, the Quran and the Bible conflict with one another on the matter of marriage in the afterlife. The Quran unquestionably indicates that marriage will persist in paradise (Surah 13:23; 36:55; 40:8; 43:70). In fact, God Himself will perform the ceremonies: “Lo! those who kept their duty will be in a place secure amid gardens and water-springs, attired in silk and silk embroidery, facing one another. Even so (it will be). And We shall wed them unto fair ones with wide, lovely eyes” (44:54, emp. added; cf. 52:20). But Jesus soundly refuted this notion in His interchange with the Sadducees: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30).

The emphasis on food, drink, and physical pleasures in the Quranic depictions of afterlife reflect a perspective that one would anticipate from a desert-bound Arab Bedouin. This preoccupation with carnal things and material comforts exposes the description as uninspired, and stands in stark contrast with the Bible’s handling of the subject. So also with the redundancy of repetitious phrases: “gardens underneath which rivers flow” (used 32 times in Pickthall—see Al-nasir). The Quran’s treatment of the afterlife verifies its human origin.

REFERENCES

Al-nasir, Jamal (2000-2003), Holy Quran Viewer (London: Divineislam.com), [On-line]: URL: http://www.divineislam.com.

Ali, Abdullah Yusuf (1934), The Qur’an (Elmhurst, NY: Tahrike Tarsile Quran), ninth edition.

Gasque, W.W. (1975), “Apocalyptic Literature,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Ginzberg, Louis (1909-1939), The Legends of the Jews, trans. Henrietta Szold (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society of America), [On-line], URL: http://answering-islam.org/Books/Legends/v1_3.htm.

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

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (n.d.), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

Rodwell, J.M., trans. (1950 reprint), The Koran (London: J.M. Dent and Sons).

Septuagint Version of the Old Testament (1970 reprint), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

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

Thayer, Joseph H. (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).

Thomson, J.E.H. (1939), “Apocalyptic Literature,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).