Does Job 10:5 Support the Day-Age Theory? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3801

Does Job 10:5 Support the Day-Age Theory?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Job was an amazing man. Aside from being “the greatest of all the people of the East” (Job 1:3), he was, more importantly, “one who feared God and shunned evil” (1:1). Even while enduring some of the most intense physical, mental, and emotional suffering imaginable, he was determined to put his trust in the Lord (13:15). Still, as a finite, imperfect man, he occasionally misspoke. In hoping for a hearing with his Creator, Job chapter 10 reveals that this patriarchal hero complained against God (vss. 1-7). He said things about God and his own suffering that he would later confess he “did not understand” (42:3). It was in the midst of this unfounded complaint that Job questioned God, saying, “Does it seem good to You that You should oppress, that You should despise the work of Your hands, and smile on the counsel of the wicked? Do You have eyes of flesh? Or do You see as man sees? Are Your days like the days of a mortal man? Are Your years like the days of a mighty man…?” (10:3-5, emp. added).
Some have come to believe that the questions Job asked in verse five somehow support the view that the days of Creation were not literal days, but long periods of geologic time. In fact, a friend recently relayed to me how someone objected to her literal interpretation of Genesis chapter one partly based upon this verse. Does Job 10:5 really support the Day-Age Theory of Creation?
First, it is disappointing that anyone who claims to care about “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) would appeal to this section of Scripture to prove any doctrine. Although Job is a great example of perseverance (James 5:10-11), there is no indication that his speeches were inspired. Neither he nor anyone else in the book ever claimed Job’s statements were “given by inspiration of God.” Job is an inspired book, but a very unique book in that it is full of speeches by uninspired men (e.g., Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar). In fact, when God finally answered Job out of the whirlwind, He asked the patriarch: “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (38:2, emp. added). Obviously, God never would have asked such a rhetorical question had Job been inspired. Prior to the Lord’s speeches, Elihu twice accused Job of the very same thing (34:35; 35:16). Later, Job even said himself: “I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (42:3, emp.added; cf. 30:16-23). Ironically, in the very passage that some would claim supports the Day-Age Theory, Job was guilty of uttering things he “did not know” (see 10:3).
But doesn’t Job, through his rhetorical questions, simply acknowledge a well-known truth—that God’s days and years are not like those of man (10:5)? Certainly, this fact is known from other scriptures. Just as God does not see as a finite man (Job 10:4) but as an infinite, omniscient Creator (Psalm 139:1-12), God’s days and years are not numbered like those of a man (Job 10:5). God is eternal (Deuteronomy 33:27). He is “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalm 90:2). In Job 10:4-6, the patriarch acknowledged that God did not need to investigate his life (as a man would) to know that he was not wicked. He is the infinite, eternal, omniscient Creator Who already knew that Job was innocent. Notice, however, that this truth says nothing about how long the days of Creation were.
Still, some would argue, “Regardless of the context of Job 10:5, thefact remains that God is not bound by time and the days of Genesis just as easily could have been thousands or millions of years.” There is no question that God is not bound by time. The point, however, is not whether God is outside of time, but what God has revealed to us—both in Genesis 1 and in the rest of Scripture. God could have created the Universe in any way He desired, in whatever order He wanted, and in whatever time frame He chose. He could have created the world and everything in it in six hours, six minutes, six seconds, or in one millisecond—He is, after all, God Almighty (Genesis 17:1). But the question is not what God couldhave done; it is what He said He did. And He said that He created everything in six days (Genesis 1). When God gave theIsraelites the Ten Commandments, He stated:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessedthe Sabbath day and hallowed it (Exodus 20:8-11, emp. added).

This Sabbath command can be understood properly only when the days of the week are considered regular 24-hour days.
Based upon God’s use of words throughout Scripture which represent time periods that are much longer than a regular day (cf. Genesis 1:14; 2 Peter 3:8; Lyons, 2007), we can rightly conclude that God could have revealed to man that this world was created over a vast period of time. [For example, He could have used the Hebrew word dôr, which means long periods of time.] The fact is, however, God said He created this world and everything in it in six days (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11; 31:17; cf. Psalm 33:9; 148:5; Mark 10:6). What’s wrong with just believing what God said He did?

REFERENCE

Lyons, Eric (2007), “With God One Day is a Thousand Years,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3414.

Medical Advances Can be Moral and Social Setbacks by Jeff Johnson, J.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=351

Medical Advances Can be Moral and Social Setbacks

by	Jeff Johnson, J.D.

Davis v. Davis began in 1989 as a divorce trial that took place in Maryville, Tennessee. The divorce was filed less than a year after nine embryos were created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) at the request of the husband and wife. Two embryos were implanted and later spontaneously aborted. Those remaining were placed in frozen storage, which is intended to give the mother’s body time to recover and thus enhance the potential for success of additional implantations.
The controversy in the case centered on what to do with the seven frozen embryos following the divorce (see Perry and Schneider, 1992). The mother argued that the embryos were “potential children,” and should be saved for implantation. The father argued that the embryos should be thawed out. What is most alarming is that he described the embryos as property, and reasoned that they deserved no individual rights, but were subject to the equitable property laws of the State. The State Supreme Court later held that the embryos were something in between property and persons, and deserved special rights. Ultimately, the Court said that the husband and wife would have to agree on how to dispose of the embryos. Given their opposing positions, though, they could not come to an agreement.
The legal issues are complex, the future implications are disturbing, and recognizing scriptural application may seem difficult. However, the reader should recall God’s view on the taking of human life, and the unique status given to human life as opposed to property or animals (Genesis 1:28).
Also, the dogged assertion of “rights” comes into play—the rights of the parents against each other, and the rights of the parents against the children. However, Scripture warns against pride, and admonishes us to humble ourselves in the sight of the Lord (Proverbs 11:2; James 4:10).
The development of law lags behind medical advances, technological advances, and societal changes. Thus, it is difficult to determine where the law will go from here, but we should be aware of possible developments such as: further erosion of the recognition of the sanctity of human life; embryo marketing based on desired characteristics; medical determination regarding which embryos should live; and more lawsuits against doctors for not informing patients of potential fetal deformities or propensities for deformities.

REFERENCES

Perry and Schneider (1992), “Cryopreserved Embryos: Who Should Decide Their Fate?,” Journal of Legal Medicine, 13:463-500.
[NOTE: In June 1993, Mr. Davis obtained the seven embryos from the IVF clinic where they were being stored, and destroyed them.]

Is Marriage a "Good" Thing? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=664&b=Hebrews

Is Marriage a "Good" Thing?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Generally, marriage is looked upon by the world around us as a good and acceptable institution. Since the commencement of time, the universal law has been that marriage is proper and beneficial. On the very day that God created the first man, He stated: “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18); thus He created a wife for Adam (2:21-24). Everything God had created and examined up until that point had been “good” (1:4,10,21,25). The one thing He stated as being “not good,” however, was man’s lack of human companionship. Therefore, God created woman to be man’s helper and lifelong companion. It was only after her creation (at the end of the six days) that we read for the first time His creation was “very good” (1:31).
Although other biblical passages confirm that “marriage is honorable among all” (Hebrews 13:4), and that “he who finds a wife finds a good thing” (Proverbs 18:22), some have questioned the reliability of the Creation account in light of Paul’s assessments of marriage in his first letter to the Corinthian church. In this epistle he wrote the following:

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (7:1).

“I wish that all men were even as I myself [i.e., not married— EL]” (7:7).

“I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am” (7:8).

“It is good for a man to remain as he is” (7:26).

It is alleged by some that Paul’s analysis of marriage is in opposition to the view found in the Creation account. Whereas God said, “it is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18, emp. added), Paul told the Corinthian church that “it is good” to remain single. Can these two views of marriage be reconciled? Or is this a legitimate contradiction?
As is often the case, the verses in 1 Corinthians only present a problem because the context of chapter 7 has been overlooked. The reader must understand that Paul is responding to questions he received in a letter from the Corinthians (7:1). Obviously some of the questions pertained to marriage, and whether or not the apostle deemed it advisable. What many people overlook is that the questions were asked, and Paul’s responses were offered, in light of “the present distress” that the Corinthians were facing. Likely, the members of the church at Corinth had asked him whether or not it was proper for a Christian to marry in their present circumstances. In 7:26, Paul wrote: “I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress —that it is good for a man to remain as he is [single—EL]” (1 Corinthians 7:26, emp. added). Exactly what “the present distress” was at this time is unknown, but it likely involved oppression and persecution at the hands of the Romans (possibly Emperor Nero).
Whatever the precise “distress” was in Corinth, it is clear that God inspired Paul to write that it was in their best interest to remain unmarried. Perhaps he wanted to spare them situations like someone telling them they would have to either deny Christ or see a family member put to death (cf. Jeremiah 16:1-4). Even today, if a person is aware that severe persecution is imminent, he likely will delay getting married and having children. When Jesus spoke about the “great distress” that would come upon Jerusalem, He specifically warned “those who are pregnant” and “those who are nursing babies” (Luke 21:23). Jesus informed them that they would have greater difficulties surviving “the edge of the sword” that would come upon Jerusalem (Luke 21:24; cf. Matthew 24:19-21). Similarly, Paul advised those in Corinth to remain unmarried “because of the present distress” (1 Corinthians 7:26).
The Bible teaching on marriage is clear to the unbiased reader: marriage is indeed “ honorable among all” (Hebrews 13:4), and since the beginning it normally has been “good” for mankind (Genesis 2:18). In certain instances, however, it might be inadvisable. The apostle Paul mentions one such case in 1 Corinthians 7.

WILL YOU BEG IN HARVEST? by Beth Johnson

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Johnson/Edna/Elizabeth/1939/beg.html


WILL YOU BEG IN HARVEST? "The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing" (Proverbs 20:4).
What happens when a person plows in the cold weather? If he waits until there is no discomfort in his work, he won't often work. If we only preach the word at a convenient time, we are not plowing in the cold. We are told to:
"Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Tim 4:2).
Worldly people will force us to conform to their ways unless we are willing to suffer their hatred and scorn to follow Christ and His commands.
"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God" (Rom 12:2).
Jesus refused to be conformed to the world – but his brothers fell to the temptation! Jesus told them:
"The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil" (John 7:7).
We must be willing to stand for Jesus even in the cold and even when the world hates us.
"And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your souls (Luke 21:16-19).
We need to use the spiritual plow in cold weather as well as good weather. We should not be like the sluggard who has nothing when the harvest comes.
Beth Johnson

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

From seeking to seeing by Gary Rose

In the early 70's I was seeking truth. Just being the best person I could be somehow was not enough anymore. After awhile I began to read a Bible that a friend from work gave me and although it was just a paraphrased version, it made a lot of sense to me. I read more and more and then began comparing various translations to find the truth. Eventually, I joined a Bible study and began digging into the word. The study was good, but the people in it were from quite a number of denominations, so we hardly ever came to a consensus. Why, I wondered??  Then, I began to realize that it was because everyone used the Bible PLUS something else. Many placed their opinions over what the Bible plainly said, others deferred to what their "pastor" or "reverend" taught and still others interpreted Scripture through the lens of their denominations creeds. I was discouraged, but kept looking. And then I began to see....

John, Chapter 9 (World English Bible)

  ¹ As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth.  ² His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 

  ³ Jesus answered, “This man didn’t sin, nor did his parents; but, that the works of God might be revealed in him.   ⁴  I must work the works of him who sent me while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work.   ⁵  While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”   ⁶ When he had said this, he spat on the ground, made mud with the saliva, anointed the blind man’s eyes with the mud,  ⁷ and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means “Sent”). So he went away, washed, and came back seeing.  ⁸ The neighbors therefore, and those who saw that he was blind before, said, “Isn’t this he who sat and begged?”  ⁹ Others were saying, “It is he.” Still others were saying, “He looks like him.” 

He said, “I am he.”  ¹⁰ They therefore were asking him, “How were your eyes opened?” 

  ¹¹ He answered, “A man called Jesus made mud, anointed my eyes, and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash.’ So I went away and washed, and I received sight.” 

  ¹² Then they asked him, “Where is he?” 

He said, “I don’t know.” 
  ¹³ They brought him who had been blind to the Pharisees.  ¹⁴ It was a Sabbath when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes.  ¹⁵ Again therefore the Pharisees also asked him how he received his sight. He said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, I washed, and I see.” 

  ¹⁶ Some therefore of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, because he doesn’t keep the Sabbath.” Others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” There was division among them.  ¹⁷ Therefore they asked the blind man again, “What do you say about him, because he opened your eyes?” 

He said, “He is a prophet.” 
  ¹⁸ The Jews therefore didn’t believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and had received his sight, until they called the parents of him who had received his sight,  ¹⁹ and asked them, “Is this your son, whom you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” 

  ²⁰ His parents answered them, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind;  ²¹ but how he now sees, we don’t know; or who opened his eyes, we don’t know. He is of age. Ask him. He will speak for himself.”  ²² His parents said these things because they feared the Jews; for the Jews had already agreed that if any man would confess him as Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue. ²³ Therefore his parents said, “He is of age. Ask him.” 

  ²⁴ So they called the man who was blind a second time, and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.” 

  ²⁵ He therefore answered, “I don’t know if he is a sinner. One thing I do know: that though I was blind, now I see.” 

  ²⁶ They said to him again, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 

  ²⁷ He answered them, “I told you already, and you didn’t listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You don’t also want to become his disciples, do you?” 

  ²⁸ They insulted him and said, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses.  ²⁹ We know that God has spoken to Moses. But as for this man, we don’t know where he comes from.” 

  ³⁰ The man answered them, “How amazing! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes.  ³¹ We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God, and does his will, he listens to him.  ³² Since the world began it has never been heard of that anyone opened the eyes of someone born blind.  ³³ If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” 

  ³⁴ They answered him, “You were altogether born in sins, and do you teach us?” Then they threw him out. 

  ³⁵ Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and finding him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” 

  ³⁶ He answered, “Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?” 

  ³⁷ Jesus said to him, “You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you.” 

  ³⁸ He said, “Lord, I believe!” and he worshiped him. 

  ³⁹ Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, that those who don’t see may see; and that those who see may become blind.” 

  ⁴⁰ Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and said to him, “Are we also blind?” 

  ⁴¹ Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, ‘We see.’ Therefore your sin remains. 

Imagine being blind from birth; never seeing anything in your whole life? Then someone gives you the blessing of sight. Others around you criticize him, but the sheer wonder of what was done for you is obvious. The man who "cured" you had to be someone very special, because now you SEE!!! He must be from God, so you say so and are promptly punished for your statement. 

Later, you meet your benefactor, and realize that he is in fact "The son of God". You worship HIM because you realize what that means. Your life is changed because you opened your heart and turned to Jesus and became HIS disciple.

As for me, I realized that it was Jesus and only Jesus that I needed to listen to. The Scriptures and the Scriptures alone became my guide. I found others who shared the same attitude. They just called themselves CHRISTIANS and nothing else. I became one and my life changed forever. You can too; just advance from seeking truth to seeing truth and you will understand.  Start by reading your Bible, you will find the truth about Jesus there. Go from there...

"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Cursing And Cleansing (11:12-19) by Mark Copeland

                          "THE GOSPEL OF MARK"

                    Cursing And Cleansing (11:12-19)

INTRODUCTION

1. In our previous study, we saw where Jesus and His disciples arrived
   in Jerusalem...
   a. Together with a large crowd coming to observe the Passover week
   b. With the first day of their visit (Sunday) beginning with the
      triumphal entry and ending with a quick visit to the temple - Mk 11:1-11

2. On the next day (Monday), two things occur which may seem out of
   character for Jesus...
   a. The cursing of the fig tree - Mk 11:12-14
   b. The cleansing of the temple - Mk 11:15-19

[The two may be related, so let’s consider them together beginning
with...]

I. THE CURSING OF THE FIG TREE

   A. THE NARRATIVE...
      1. Having spent the night in Bethany, Jesus and His disciples make
         their way back toward Jerusalem - Mk 11:11-12
      2. Hungry, Jesus sees a fig tree with leaves from a distance and
         approaches to see if there is anything on it - Mk 11:12-13
      3. There is nothing but leaves, Mark noting that it was not the
         season for figs - Mark 11:13
      4. In response, Jesus says to the tree, "Let no one eat fruit from
         you ever again" - Mk 11:14
      5. Mark commented that it was heard by His disciples - Mk 11:14

   B. SOME OBSERVATIONS...
      1. In Palestine fig trees produced crops of small edible buds in
         March followed by the appearance of large green leaves in early
         April. - Bible Knowledge Commentary
         a. This early green "fruit" (buds) was common food for local
            peasants - ibid.
         b. An absence of these buds despite the tree’s green foliage
            promising their presence indicated it would bear no fruit
            that year - ibid.
         c. Thus this fig tree gave the appearance of offering edible
            food, but did not
      2. The way in which Mark organizes his material in these verses
         (fig tree/cleansing of temple/fig tree) suggests a connection
         between the cleansing of the temple and the cursing of the fig
         tree - ESV Study Bible
      4. The incident of the fig tree both interprets the cleansing of
         the temple and is interpreted by the latter incident - New
         International Biblical Commentary (NIBC)
         a. Jesus’ disappointment with the fig tree is like his
            disappointment with Israel and the temple, her chief shrine
            - ibid.
         b. His judgment pronounced upon the tree is like the threat of
            God’s judgment soon to fall upon the city of Jerusalem,
            which Jesus’ words and actions in Mk 11:15-19 prefigure
            - ibid.
      5. The cursing of the tree (v. 14) is known as a prophetic
         sign-act, familiar to readers of the OT, an action in which a
         prophet demonstrates symbolically his message (e.g., Isa 20:1-6;
         Jer 13:1-11; 19:1-13; Ezek 4:1-15) - NIBC
      6. The act is not to be taken simply as a rash act of anger, but
         as a solemn prophetic word pronounced for the benefit of the
         disciples (and for the readers) - ibid.

[Seeing that the two events (the cursing of the fig tree and the
cleansing of the temple) appear related, let’s now look more closely
at...]

II. THE CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE

   A. THE NARRATIVE...
      1. Jesus returns to Jerusalem and enters the temple - Mk 11:15-16
         a. Driving out those who bought and sold in the temple
         b. Overturning the tables of the money changers, the seats of
            those who sold doves
         c. Not allowing any to carry wares through the temple
      2. He teaches in the temple - Mk 11:17-18
         a. "Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of
            prayer for all nations’ ? But you have made it a ‘den of
            thieves.’" - cf. 1Ki 8:41-43; Isa 56:7
         b. The scribes and chief priests heard this and wanted to kill
            Him
         c. They feared Him, for all the people were astonished at His
            teaching
      3. At evening, He left the city, spending the night on Mt. Olivet
         - cf. Lk 21:37

   B. SOME OBSERVATIONS...
      1. The "temple" was the court of the Gentiles, an outer court
         where non-Jews were permitted
         a. Tables were set up to enable pilgrims to change their
            respective currencies into coins for the annual temple tax,
            as well as to purchase pigeons, lambs, oil, salt, etc., for
            various sin and thanksgiving sacrifices - ESV Study Bible
         b. The business activity turns the house of prayer into a den
            of robbers (Jer 7:11); Gentiles in particular were hindered
            by the temple commerce in the outer court - ibid.
      2. This may have been the second time Jesus cleansed the temple
         a. John records a similar incident at the beginning of Jesus’
            ministry - Jn 2:13-17
         b. Many commentators think it happened only once; but with
            Jesus’ zeal for His Father’s house, there is good reason to
            believe He did it twice
         c. The cleansing of the temple may have been to fulfill
            prophecy - Mal 3:1-3
      3. Was the act of cleansing the temple "out of character" for
         Jesus?  No!
         a. Jesus had been angry before, and would be again soon - cf.
            Mk 3:5; Mt 23:13-36
         b. Jesus was filled with righteous indignation, consistent with
            the qualities of deity - cf. Ro 2:4-6; 2Th 1:7-9
      4. It may helpful to remember...
         a. When it came to personal affront, Jesus bore it meekly - cf.
            Isa 53:7; 1Pe 2:23
         b. But when God or His temple were maligned, especially by
            hardhearted and self-righteous religious leaders, then
            Jesus acted with righteous indignation in defense of God’s
            honor
         c. We tend to defend selves rather than God, displaying
            self-righteous indignation

CONCLUSION

1. The moral and religious depravity of the religious leaders prompted
   Jesus’ actions

2. Both the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple were
   prophetic sign acts that foretold the impending judgment upon the
   nation of Israel that would occur with the destruction of Jerusalem
   (fulfilled in 70 AD) - cf. Mk 13:1-2

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2016