Is the Seventh Day of the Creation Week Still Continuing? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=158

Is the Seventh Day of the Creation Week Still Continuing?

by	Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Q.

In discussions I have had with people who hold to an ancient Earth, the suggestion has been made, based on the passage in Hebrews 4:4-11, that the seventh “day” of Creation (i.e., God’s Sabbath rest) discussed in Genesis 2 still is continuing, and that it is in that seventh “day” that the time may be placed to accommodate an old Earth. Is this view correct?

A.

People who believe in what is known as the Day-Age theory (which teaches that the “days” of Genesis 1 were “ages” rather than normal 24-hour days) sometimes suggest that the seventh “day” still is continuing. Their argument is that since the phrase “evening and morning” is not used in regard to the seventh day, it must not have been a 24-hour day. Therefore, we are living in the seventh day—a position they must defend to remain consistent. There are, however, a number of serious problems with this approach. The first has been explained by Guy N. Woods.

Jehovah finished his labors at the end of the sixth day, and on the seventh rested. The narrative provides no basis for the assumption that the day he rested differed in any fashion from those which preceded it. It evidently was marked out and its length determined in the same manner as the others. If it was not a day of twenty-four hours, it sustains no resemblance to the sabbath which was given to the Israelites (1976, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

Moses’ obvious intent was for the reader to understand that God: (1) rested (past tense); and (2) gave the seventh day (the Sabbath) as a day of rest because He had rested on that day.
There is a second problem with the view that the seventh day still is continuing. James Pilgrim has addressed that problem.

...[I]f the “day-age” theorists accept day seven as an “age” also, we ask, “What about day eight, or day nine, or day ten...?” On the assumption that the earth is 7,000 years old (a most distinct possibility), let the “day-age” proclaimers put 2,555,000 days (7,000 years at 365 days per year) on a page. Now let them circle the day which began the normal 24-hour day. Let them also give just one scripture reference to substantiate the validity of that circle. Can they do it? No! Will they do it? No! (1976, 118:522, emp. in orig.).

The third problem with the idea that the seventh day is continuing has to do with Adam, as Woods has noted:

Adam, the first man, was created in the sixth day, lived through the seventh day, and into at least a portion of the eighth day. If these days were long geologic periods of millions of years in length, we have the interesting situation of Adam having lived in a portion of one age, through the whole of another age, and into at least a portion of a third age, in which case he was many millions of years old when he finally died! Such a view of course is absurd; and so are the premises which would necessitate it (1976, p. 18, emp. in orig.).

Whitcomb has explained why these things are true.

...Genesis 2:2 adds that He rested on the seventh day. That day also must have been literal, because otherwise the seventh day which God blessed and sanctified would have been cursed when God cursed the world and cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden. You see, the seventh day must have ended and the next week commenced before that Adamic curse could have come. Adam and Eve lived through the entire seventh day and into the following week, which is simply a confirmation of the fact that each of the days, including the seventh, was literal (1973, 2:64-65).

It also has been suggested that Hebrews 4:4-11, where the writer speaks of the continuation of God’s Sabbath rest, provides support for this unusual view. First, I would like to present the passage in question, along with the argument framed from it. Then I would like to offer an explanation of why the passage does not support the concept of the seventh day continuing, and why the argument based on it is faulty. Here is the passage.

For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day on this wise, “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works”; and in this place again, “They shall not enter into my rest.” Seeing therefore it remaineth that some should enter thereinto, and they to whom the good tidings were before preached failed to enter because of disobedience, he again defineth a certain day, “Today,” saying in David so long a time afterward (even as hath been said before), “Today if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts.” For if Joshua had given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. There remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest hath himself also rested from his works, as God did from his. Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of disobedience.

Here, now, is the argument. Proponents of the idea suggest that since God’s Sabbath Day (the seventh day of the creation week) continues to this very day, then it follows logically that the other days of the creation week were long periods of time as well (see Ross, 1994, pp. 48-49,59-60; Geisler and Brooks, 1990, p. 230). In support of this position, progressive creationist Hugh Ross suggested: “Further information about the seventh day is given in Hebrews 4.... We learn that God’s day of rest continues” (1994, p. 49).
Wrong! Here is the correct meaning of the passage. While the text speaks clearly of the cessation of God’s creative activity—beginning on the seventh day—it nowhere implies or states that God’s seventh day has continued from the past into the present. Nor does the passage speak of the duration of the seventh day. Mark Van Bebber and Paul Taylor have addressed this point.

Like David in the Psalms, the writer of Hebrews is warning the elect not to be disobedient and hard-hearted. Thus, he alludes to Israel in the wilderness who because of their hard hearts could not receive God’s promise of rest in Canaan. “Rest,” as used in these verses by both David and the writer of Hebrews, had a specific historic reference to the promised land of Canaan. The Hebrew word used by David for “rest” was menuwchah, which is a general term for rest which has a special locational emphasis (e.g., “the resting place or abode of resting”) [see Brown, et al., 1979, p. 629b]. This concept is echoed by the author of Hebrews who uses the Greek word katapausis, which also may refer to an abode or location of resting (Hebrews 4:1,3-5,8).

At the climax of this passage, the author promises a future day of rest (Hebrews 4:9, Greek: Sabbatismos). This is the only time in the New Testament that this word for “rest” is employed. It seems to be a deliberate reference to Day Seven of Creation. The author does not say, however, that the seventh day continues on into the future. He uses Sabbatismos without an article (like saying a Sabbath, rather than the Sabbath). In Greek, this grammatical structure would generally represent the character or nature of Day Seven, without really being Day Seven. That is, the context makes it clear that the future day of rest will be similar to the original seventh day. The task will be complete; we will live with Christ eternally—our work on earth will be done (1996, pp. 72-73, emp., parenthetical, and bracketed items in orig.).

The passage in Hebrews thus is employing the essence of the seventh day of creation to refer to the coming essence of heaven—i.e., a place of rest. It is not speaking about the actual length of that seventh day. Furthermore, the fact that God has not been involved in creative activity since the close of day six says absolutely nothing about the duration of the various days of creation. When God completed the creation, He “rested”—but only from His work of creation. He is very much at work now—but in His work of redemption, not creation. Jesus Himself said: “My Father worketh even until now” (John 5:17). While it is correct to say that God’s rest from creative activity continues to this very hour, it is not correct to say that His Sabbath continues. That was not the point the Hebrew writer was making, and to suggest that it was represents either a misunderstanding or misuse (or both) of the passage.
God was not saying, via the Hebrew writer, that He wanted to share a literal Sabbath Day’s rest with His creation. Rather, He was saying that He intended to enjoy a rest that was typified by the Sabbath Day’s rest. The Israelites who rebelled against God in the wilderness were not able to share either a “rest” by entering into the physical presence of the Promised Land or a “rest” by entering into the eternal presence of God. R.C.H. Lenski commented on the text as follows:

The point lies in taking all these passages together. The rest from which the Jews of the Exodus were excluded, into which we are entering, is God’s rest, the great Sabbath since the seventh day; of course not of the earthly days and years that have rolled by since then and are still continuing, but the timeless, heavenly state that has been established and intended for men in their glorious union with God.

These are not different kinds of rest: the rest of God since creation and a future rest for his people; or a rest into which men have already entered and one that has been established since the redemptive work of Jesus, into which they are yet to enter; or a rest “at the conclusion of the history of mankind.” The seventh day after the six days of creation was a day of twenty-four hours. On this day God did not create. Thus God made the first seven-day week (Exod. 20:8-11; 31:12-17), and the Sabbath of rest was “a sign” (v. 17) so that at every recurrence of this seventh day Israel might note the significance of this sign, this seventh day of rest being a type and a promise of the rest instituted for man since the days of creation. Like Canaan, the Sabbath was a type and a promise of this rest (1966, pp. 132-133, emp. added).

Additionally, even if it could be proven somehow that the seventh day of creation was longer than the others (which it cannot), that still would establish only one thing—that the seventh day was longer. It would say absolutely nothing about the length of the other six days. And concerning those days, the Bible could not be any clearer than it is in explaining their duration of approximately twenty-four hours. Genesis 1 defines them as periods of “evening and morning” (1:5,8,13,19,23,31). While God’s activity within each literal day may have been miraculous, there is nothing miraculous about the length of the days themselves. They were, quite simply, the same kinds of “days” that we today enjoy. Attempts to reinterpret the message of Hebrews 4 do not alter that fact.

REFERENCES

Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1979), The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Geisler, Norman L. and Ronald M. Brooks (1990), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1966), The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Pilgrim, James (1976), “Day Seven,” Gospel Advocate, 118:522, August 12.
Ross, Hugh (1994), Creation and Time (Colorado Springs, CO: Navpress).
Van Bebber, Mark and Paul S. Taylor (1996), Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross (Gilbert, AZ: Eden Communications).
Whitcomb, John C. (1973), “The Days of Creation,” And God Created, ed. Kelly L. Segraves (San Diego, CA: Creation-Science Research Center), 2:61-65.
Woods, Guy N. (1976), Questions and Answers: Open Forum (Henderson, TN: Freed-Hardeman University).

Did Jesus Perform Miracles Or Not? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=3747

Did Jesus Perform Miracles Or Not?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

A gentleman who was struggling with his beliefs in the inerrancy of the Bible recently contacted our offices questioning why Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that “no sign shall be given to this generation” (Mark 8:12; cf. Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29). Since other scriptures clearly teach that Jesus worked “many signs” (John 12:37; 20:30-31; 3:2; Acts 2:22), how could Jesus truthfully and consistently say, “no sign shall be given to this generation”? According to certain Bible critics, Jesus was a false prophet since His “prediction that no sign would be given to that generation is clearly false” (McKinsey, 1995, p. 114; cf. Wells, 2010). How can a Christian reasonably and biblically respond to such an assertion?

Sadly, Bible critics (and some Christians) are fond of disregarding the context in which biblical statements are found. Yet, no statement can be understood properly without some kind of background or contextual information. Words mean different things depending on how, when, and where they are spoken. Figures of speech abound in all cultures around the world (cf. Lyons, 2010). Truthful people, for example, have been joking, exaggerating, and using sarcasm for millennia (cf. Job 12:2; Psalm 58:3), all the while rightly expecting their listeners to interpret their language accurately, and without accusation of lying. Unfortunately, skeptics of the Bible’s inspiration often ignore much of the necessary information needed to properly understand Scripture.

When Jesus first made the statement, “no sign will be given” to this generation (Matthew 12:39; Luke 11:29), He had just healed a person who was blind, mute, and demon-possessed (Matthew 12:22; Luke 11:14). Notice that, rather than acknowledging that the great miracle Jesus worked was proof of His deity (John 20:30-31), the hard-hearted Pharisees alleged that His power came from the devil (Matthew 12:24). They did not simply turn away from Jesus; they turned 180 degrees away from the direction that such miracles led the honest and good-hearted truth-seekers. And Jesus’ enemies had not simply seen one miracle. Earlier in Matthew 12, Jesus had healed a man with a withered hand (vss. 9-13). How did the Pharisees react then? Rather than acknowledge the power of Christ, they “plotted against Him, how they might destroy Him” (vs. 14). The fact is, by this time in Jesus’ ministry He had already worked a number of miracles (Matthew 11:4-5), and many of the scribes and Pharisees absolutely refused to believe in Him (cf. Matthew 9:32-34). Regardless of what Jesus did or said, some of His enemies would never be convinced (cf. Matthew 12:31-32; see Butt, 2003).

So what did Jesus mean when He said on two different occasions that “no sign” would be given to “this generation” except “the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:12; Luke 11:29)? Jesus was responding to the Pharisees’ desire to see a sign. But they had already witnessed and heard about many of Jesus’ miracles. They wanted something “more.” They sought “a sign from heaven” (Luke 11:16; Matthew 16:1; Mark 8:11, emp. added). Exactly what Jesus’ enemies meant by this, we may not know. What we do know is that while on Earth Jesus manifested His power over nature, disease, demon, and death (see Lyons and Butt, 2007), yet the Pharisees said they wanted more. It seems, as Burton Coffman noted, they “meant some spectacular wonder without moral value but which would appeal sensationally to man’s curiosity” (Coffman, 1984, p. 179). Jesus, however, always rejected doing such miracles. He refused to turn stones to bread or to jump from the temple’s pinnacle simply because Satan challenged Him to do so (Matthew 4:1-7). Jesus could have performed any miracle that He wanted—whether when tempted by Satan, prodded by Herod (Luke 23:8-12), or tested by the Pharisees. He could have pulled rabbits from hats for the sole purpose of amusing people. He could have turned His Jewish enemies into stones or given a person three eyes. He could have commanded that it literally rain cats and dogs. He could have lit the robes of the Pharisees on fire with the snap of his fingers and told them that hell would be ten times as hot. He could have done any number of wonders. But the insincere Pharisees would see none of that (i.e., “no sign [like these] will be given”).

What sign would be given? Other than the kinds of miracles that Christ’s enemies had already rejected, the only other sign Jesus prophesied was “the sign of the prophet Jonah” (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29)—Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection.

Most certainly, Jesus performed miracles. And though Jesus “humbled himself...taking the form of a bondservant” (Philippians 2:7-8), He refused to get on the lowly, perpetually defiled spiritual level of His enemies. He worked no miracle of the kind that the Pharisees wished to see. But make no mistake, He worked plenty of the kind that provide honest-hearted people sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that He is, indeed, “the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:30-31).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit—The Unpardonable Sin,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2272.

Coffman, Burton (1984), Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Lyons, Eric (2010), “The ‘Twelve,’” http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/177.

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2007), “The Very Works that I Do Bear Witness of Me,” Reason & Revelation, 26[3]:17-23, March, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2857.

McKinsey, Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Wells, Steve (2010), “Did Jesus Perform Many Signs and Wonders?” http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/signs.html.

Frauds in Science by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=312

Frauds in Science

by	Wayne Jackson, M.A.

With a cultic-like aura surrounding them, these men and women are seen as the paragons of virtue in the intellectual community. They are a priesthood, arrayed in white apparel, tinkering with test tubes and peering through microscopes in a sophisticated “holy of holies.” I am speaking, of course, of the twentieth century scientist. He is not to be questioned as he pontificates upon matters that have baffled the intellects of the ages. His dogmatic theories are sacrosanct, and never are his motives suspect. Though this is quite a common notion in today’s world, it is woefully inaccurate. While it is true that there are many honest people working in the various fields of science, it also is only fair to point out that there have been, and likely will continue to be, some real charlatans in the scientific community. Consider, for example the following.

Exalted views of the objectivity of science and scientists were shattered recently when the New Scientist reported in its November, 1976 issue on the results of a survey it conducted on the subject of “Cheating in Science.” Out of 204 scientists replying to the journal’s questionnaire, 197 reported they were aware of cheating by their colleagues. They judged that 58% of the cheating was intentional, and they reported that only 10% of these intentional cheaters were dismissed; most of them, in fact, were promoted (Koshy, 1977, p. 86).

Two of the more notorious instances of scientific fraud provide an interesting and valuable case study in this regard.

THE EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION HOAX

Ernst Heinrich Haeckel (1834-1919) was a German biologist and philosopher who asserted that the entire Universe (including the human mind) was the result of solely material processes—a mere machine in motion. He was a devoted follower of Charles Darwin—so much so, in fact, that he was dubbed “the apostle of Darwinism in Germany.”
Haeckel received most of his fame as a consequence of his popularization of the so-called “theory of embryonic recapitulation.” This is the now-defunct notion that successive stages of individual embryonic development repeat the evolutionary stages of one’s animal ancestry. The argument is entirely specious, as even evolutionists have admitted. Famed Harvard evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson wrote, for example: “It is now firmly established that ontogeny [development of the individual—WJ] does not repeat phylogeny [development of the race—WJ]” (1957, p. 352).
In any case, Haeckel had a passion for promoting the recapitulation theory, which he termed “the fundamental biogenetic law.” And, as one writer has noted:

To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit “to show their similarity” (Bowden, 1977, p. 128).

Haeckel was exposed by professor L. Rutimeyer of Basle University. He was charged with fraud by five professors, and ultimately convicted in a university court. During the trial, Haeckel admitted that he had altered his drawings, but sought to defend himself by saying:

I should feel utterly condemned and annihilated by the admission, were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge. The great majority of all morphological, anatomical, histological, and embryological diagrams are not true to nature, but are more or less doctored, schematized and reconstructed (as quoted in Bowden, 1977, p. 128).

Not only did Haeckel misrepresent evidence in his own drawings, but even “went so far as to alter pictures of embryos drawn by others. A professor Arnold Bass charged that Haeckel had made changes in pictures of embryos that he (Bass) had drawn. Haeckel’s reply to these charges was that if he is to be accused of falsifying drawings, many other prominent scientists should be accused of the same thing...” (Davidheiser, 1969, p. 76).
Evolutionist H.H. Newman of the University of Chicago said that Haeckel’s works “did more harm than good to Darwinism” (1932, p. 30). Yet in spite of the fact that Haeckel’s drawings proved to be an embarrassment to the evolutionary establishment, they still are employed in some modern writings as a “proof” of the accuracy of the theory of evolution (e.g., see Asimov, 1981, p. 83).

THE PILTDOWN HOAX

In December of 1912, Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist, and Sir Arthur Smith-Woodward of the British Museum of Natural History, announced that they had discovered a man-like skull in a pit near Piltdown, England. Along with the skull was a jawbone that appeared to be very ape-like except for the teeth—which were more flattened, as would be expected in humans. Working with Dawson and Smith-Woodward was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest in his late 20s who labored incessantly to harmonize evolution and the biblical record of creation.
Although a few scientists questioned the association of the skull with the jaw, most evolutionists were convinced that Eanthropus dawsoni (or, as he was more commonly known, “Piltdown Man”) was an authentic link in human evolution. It has been estimated that some 500 publications appeared on this subject. It is a curious thing, however, that the bones were kept under tight security—even from evolutionists. Sir Arthur Keith, an eminent British authority in this field, was allowed to view the fossils for only twenty minutes, and was forced henceforth to work with plaster casts of the originals (see Weiner, 1955, p. 121). The famous anthropologist, L.S.B. Leakey also complained that he was denied access to the fossils (Leakey, 1960, p. vi.).
By 1950, a dating method [that employed fluorine] had become available for assigning a relative age to fossil bones. In 1953, after a series of tests, it was determined that the Piltdown skull and jaw were of completely different ages. The skull was a few thousand years old (not one million as formerly alleged), and the jaw bone was that of a modern ape! As a consequence of this startling revelation, a careful study of the bones was begun. Eventually, it was discovered that the teeth had been ground down artificially to appear human—and that it had been a sloppy job at that. Abrasion marks were still evident, the surfaces were flattened at different angles, etc. Moreover, as a result of chemical tests, it was determined that the jaw bone had been stained chemically with potassium bichromate and iron salts for the purpose of making it appear ancient. Actually the “fossil” turned out to be nothing more than a human skull with an ape’s jaw attached. Someone had really been “monkeying” (forgive the pun) with the evidence.
But who was the perpetrator of this elaborate fraud? S.J. Weiner of Oxford University, who was instrumental in the exposure of the hoax, suggested (without making any formal accusation) that the weight of the evidence pointed in the direction of Dawson—although he did allow that perhaps Dawson himself was a victim of this devious scheme. The renowned United Nations scientist, A.E. Wilder-Smith, though again making no formal charge, commented:

It does strike one as remarkable that Professor Smith-Woodward allowed very few other scientists to study the original skull or even to handle it. Plaster casts were always made and the studies carried out with their aid. Plaster casts, however, do not give the very fine details needed for study, nor can one determine with their help whether a find is a fossil or not. Even more important, no one can analyze a skull chemically with only a plaster cast to work with! (1968, p. 133).

More recently, in a scholarly investigation of the available data, Malcolm Bowden concluded that Teilhard de Chardin was likely the culprit (1977). Teilhard certainly had the motive because, as far as he was concerned, all views should bow to evolution which he viewed as “the light illuminating all facts” (1963, p. 44). Moreover, he had the the opportunity, since several of the fake finds were “discovered” by him. Also, he had the technical expertise to pull off such an elaborate ruse. He had taught chemistry (a knowledge of which would be essential in staining the fossils) at Cairo University.
Perhaps as embarrassing as the fraudulent nature of the Piltdown affair, however, was the fact that a number of the world’s leading evolutionary experts were fooled by the hoax for over 40 years. Dogmatic, sweeping statements that had been made with an air of absolute confidence ultimately required public retraction. Such was the concern in England that a motion was made (and tabled) in the House of Commons “that the House has no confidence in the Trustees of the British Museum...because of the tardiness of their discovery that the skull of the Piltdown man is a partial fake” (see Bowden, 1977, p. 8). Duane T. Gish no doubt expressed the sentiments of many when he wrote: “The success of this monumental hoax served to demonstrate that scientists, just like everyone else, are very prone to find what they are looking for whether it is there or not” (1973, p. 92).
There is an important lesson that many Christians need to learn from situations such as these. There is no need to be intimidated by the so-called “discoveries” of an unbelieving world. Not all these discoveries are fraudulent, of course, but they nevertheless are subject to the interpretation placed on them by the discoverer. This, at the very least, should suggest caution in accepting the claims that evolutionists make from time to time.

REFERENCES

Asimov, Isaac (1981), “The Genesis War,” Science Digest, 89[9]:82-87, October. [NOTE: This is a written debate with creationist Duane T. Gish.]
Bowden, Malcolm (1977), Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications).
Davidheiser, Bolton (1969), Evolution And Christian Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed).
de Chardin, Teilhard (1963), Saturday Evening Post, October 12.
Gish, Duane T. (1973), Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (San Diego, CA: Creation-Life Publishers).
Kosh, George (1977), A Challenge to Biology (Minneapolis, MN: Bible-Science Association).
Leakey, L.S.B. (1960), Adam’s Ancestors (New York: Harper & Brothers).
Simpson, George Gaylord (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.).
Weiner, S.J. (1955), The Piltdown Forgery (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).
Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1968), Man’s Origin: Man’s Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw).

Schoolbooks, Easter Eggs, and Homosexuality by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1858

Schoolbooks, Easter Eggs, and Homosexuality

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The vigorous culture war being waged in America over homosexuality and same-sex marriage is escalating. One by one, the dominoes continue to fall, softening attitudes and creating more acceptance for behavior that the Founders and the bulk of the American population once deemed morally deplorable. Two cases in point: dozens of homosexual and lesbian couples with children crashed the annual White House Easter egg hunt—a tradition held each year on the White House lawn since 1878. To identify themselves, the couples wore rainbow colored leis around their necks. Their stated purpose was “to make their presence felt in American society” (“Gay Parents...,” 2006). The organizing entity, Family Pride Coalition, explained that they were helping the President to “understand that gay families exist in this country and deserve the rights and protections that all families need” (“White House...,” 2006).
Another case in point: A second grade teacher at Estabrook Elementary in Lexington, Massachusetts recently read a fairytale book to her class. The fairytale book was not the Grimm brothers’ Cinderella or Hansel and Gretel. Nor was it Hans Christian Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes or The Princess and the Pea. No, not hardly. It was King and King—a book about two princes who marry each other, acquire children, and are shown kissing on the last page. The book targets children ages six and older. The Lexington Superintendent of Schools boasts that the school system is committed to “diversity and tolerance” and maintains that he has no legal obligation to notify parents when children are being exposed to such material since same-sex marriage is now legal in Massachusetts (Jan, 2006). Of course, the Left Coast 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had already ruled that parents do not have a fundamental right to control when, where, and how their children are taught about sex (Parker, 2005).
Most Americans are unaware that the public school system is being inundated with educational materials that promote the homosexual agenda, materials that are specifically designed to prepare the next generation to embrace homosexuality. The public school system is being systematically rearranged to eliminate parents from the loop so that they will cease “interfering” with educators who seek to indoctrinate children with their anti-Christian values. The books appearing in various school libraries around the country are legion, including And Tango Makes Three; Heather Has Two Mommies; Daddy’s Roommate; Jack and Jim: Picture Book; One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads; The Sissy Duckling; Who’s in a Family?; Molly’s Family; It’s Perfectly Normal; Best, Best Colors; and My Two Uncles. Imagine what America is going to be like 10 to 15 years from now when the children nurtured by such books are adults. (Parents may want to give more consideration to homeschooling).
Christians and others who continue to oppose homosexuality will remain the objects of abuse, ridiculed as “homophobic,” “intolerant,” and “judgmental.” But “we ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The Bible is still the inspired Word of God. The Creator has said that same-sex relations are sinful (Romans 1:24-28). The spread of such behavior will result in national destruction, as recognized by the great English jurist, William Blackstone (who exerted a profound influence on the Founding Fathers and American jurisprudence):

[T]he infamous crime against nature...is an offence of so dark a nature.... THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of God, determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept (1769, 4.15.215-216).

[NOTE: As soon as funds are available, Apologetics Press plans to publish an outstanding children’s book that counters the onslaught of the homosexual’s war on America’s youth titled: Does God Love Michael’s Two Daddies?]

REFERENCES

Blackstone, William (1769), Commentaries on the Laws of England, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch15.htm.
“Gay Parents Quietly Crash White House Easter Party” (2006), Yahoo News, April 17, [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060417/ts_alt_afp/u spoliticseaster_060417200009.
Jan, Tracy (2006), “Parents Rip School Over Gay Storybook,” Boston Globe, April 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/20/parents_rip_school _over_gay_storybook/.
Parker, Kathleen (2005), “Parents Take Another Hit in the Culture Wars,” Orlando Sentinel, G3, November 6, [On-line], URL: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/orlandosentinel/access/922392231.html?dids= 922392231:922392231&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+6%2C+2005&author=Kathl een+Parker%2C+Sentinel+Columnist&pub=Orlando+Sentinel&edition=&startpag e=G.3&desc=Parents+take+another+hit+in+the+culture+wars.
“White House Easter: Gay Friendly?” (2006), CBS News, April 13, [On-line], URL: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/13/national/main 1496408.shtml.

Where Did All of the Flood Waters Go? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=901&b=Genesis

Where Did All of the Flood Waters Go?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

According to evolutionist Bill Butler, “The greatest geologic fiction that the Creationists adhere to is Noah’s Flood” (2002). The idea that water ever covered the entire Earth, including the highest hills and mountains (Genesis 7:19-20), supposedly is unthinkable (and impossible). Evolutionists propose several questions when expressing their unbelief in the Noahic Flood. One such question was raised by Butler in his article, “Creationism = Willful Ignorance.” He asked: “If the earth’s surface were covered by an additional 29,000+ feet of water, how do you get rid of it?” If Mt. Everest reaches a height of over 29,000 feet, then the Bible allegedly indicates that the Flood waters reached even higher—approximately 23 feet higher than the peak of Mt. Everest (Genesis 7:20). If such is the case, where did all of the water go?
First, the Bible is more specific about who caused the waters to subside, than where exactly all of the waters went. Genesis 8:1,3 says, “God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters subsided…. And the waters receded continually from the earth.” Years later, the prophet Isaiah recorded how Jehovah compared a promise He made to Israel with His promise “that the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth” (Isaiah 54:9). Although these passages do not tell us exactly where the waters went, for the Christian who believes that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, such revelation should be adequate—God did something with the Flood waters.
Second, the skeptic’s assertion (that there presently is not enough water on the Earth for there ever to have been the kind of flood described in Genesis 6-8) is based upon invalid assumptions. The truth is, we are unaware how high the mountains were in Noah’s day, nor do we know the depth of the ocean valleys. Thus, one cannot know how much water was on the Earth during the Noahic Flood. Psalm 104:6-8 indicates that, at some time in the past, God established new heights and depths for the Earth’s mountains and valleys. While directing his comments to Jehovah, the psalmist proclaimed:

You covered it [the Earth—EL] with the deep as with a garment; the waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, at the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which You established for them” (NASU, emp. added).

Just as God miraculously altered the Earth’s topography during the creation week (Genesis 1:9-13), and just as He miraculously sent flood waters upon the Earth, it appears that God miraculously caused the waters to subside. In all likelihood, the antediluvian world was vastly different from the Earth of today (cf. 2 Peter 3:6). It seems probable (and reasonable to believe) that the mountains of Noah’s day were much smaller than, say, such peaks as Mt. Everest or Mt. McKinley that are so well known to us. Thus, the Flood did not have to rise to levels of 29,000+ feet to cover everything on the Earth. We know, according to the Scriptures, that the waters rose above the mountaintops; however, we simply cannot know the heights reached by the antediluvian mountains. (Interestingly, marine fossils have been found near the top of Mt. Everest.)
Where did all of the Flood waters go? The most logical answer in light of the Scriptures appears to be that God made room for the waters by adjusting the Earth’s topography. Much of the water from the Flood likely has retreated into the deeper ocean trenches—valleys that, in places, are over seven miles deep.

REFERENCES

Butler, Bill (2002), “Creationism = Willful Ignorance,” [On-line], URL: http://www.durangobill.com/Creationism.html.

Prayer: Power from God by Joe Andrasik

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Andrasik/Joseph/1947/pray.html

Prayer: Power from God

Prayer has the power to move mountains. This is certainly so if our prayer is to the God of Ages. Yes, there are many examples of prayers in the Bible which have literally changed the world. Moses parted the Red Sea and Israel vanquished great armies, and many other events are examples of the power of prayer.
The power of prayer lies in the power of the God of Ages and His willingness to listen to our requests and to respond in a powerful way because He cares about us. Prayer is powerful because our God is powerful.
Recognizing God as our Lord

All prayer must begin with our recognition of God as our omnipotent, sovereign Creator and Lord. Even though we might not say it directly in our prayer, our attitude must recognize God as our sovereign Lord whenever we approach Him in prayer. Without recognizing God as preeminent in our lives we cannot expect that God would even listen to our requests. God will listen to us because faithful prayer is a part of a two way relationship with God which God preordained. Prayer must come as a direct result of faith. Prayer is our voice of faith. We are affirming that we believe God's Word when He tells us He is our Father, Creator and benefactor and that He will listen to His faithful children. Therefore we pray as a natural extension of this faithful relationship with God. Then God makes it possible through faith for Him to remember His original intended relationship with His children. God remembers His original promise to Abraham that he would bless His offspring.
Genesis 22:18 - "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

Righteous prayer

A prayer that God will listen to and answer in a positive way comes from a humble, obedient and contrite heart. Isaiah 57:15 - "For thus says the High and Lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: 'I dwell in the high and holy place, with him who has a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.'" When we are humble in our attitude, God shows His loves us and has compassion for us and our needs. This includes listening to our requests.

Unrighteous prayer

It is possible for our prayer to be such that God will not answer in a positive way. Do you remember the story of the wicked prophet Balaam the son of Beor? Joshua 24:9-10 - "Then Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, arose to make war against Israel, and sent and called Balaam the son of Beor to curse you. 'But I would not listen to Balaam; therefore he continued to bless you. So I delivered you out of his hand.'" If our attitude is not right and we do not have the proper attitude towards God and others, God tells us He will not listen to an unrighteous prayer. But when our attitude properly recognizes God as our sovereign Lord and we ask for help in anything according to His will, He promises to answer our prayers in a positive way.

The disciples of Jesus understood the importance of prayer. I am sure they often saw our Lord and Savior Jesus in prayer to the Father. The disciples asked Him in
Luke 11:1 - "Now it came to pass, as He was praying in a certain place, when He ceased, that one of His disciples said to Him, 'Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.'" Jesus was steadfast and continuously in prayer to the Father. If Jesus the Son of God needed to pray regularly and often, should we not recognize prayer as absolutely necessary for a healthy and significant relationship with our Father in heaven? Is it not wonderful that God, the Creator of heaven and earth is willing to listen to our needs and wants and in most instances answers our prayers in a positive manner? Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount taught that the Father loves us and hears us when we ask His favor. Matthew 7:7-11 - "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!"

Using God's gift

And yet it is possible that prayer is the most under-utilized gift our Father in Heaven has given to us. We might look back at own life and see the many missed opportunities when we could have exercised prayer and the power that God extends to us through prayer and be sadden by it. Prayer is the key to utilizing God's power to change this world for the better.

One might say to ones self, I am a sinner. I have not been faithful. How can God hear my prayer? And yet these are the very word's God wants to hear from us.

Luke 18:10-14 - "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men -- extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Each Person is important to God

Many often underestimate the importance of their own prayers. We might think it is enough that the elders and minister prays for the needs of the congregation. God does not need our prayers. We are forgetting that God looks at each one of us as His child. Each one of us is personally important to God. The truth is that you might be the humblest person praying for someone's needs. Matthew 18:1-4 - "At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, 'Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, 'Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.'" God does not view greatness the way we do.

Greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven?

Who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? It is the humble child. Are you a humble child of God? God will listen to you. But you must ask him. God wants a two way relationship with you. Our own prayers are an untapped source of power for us and the Kingdom of God if we will just pray with faith. John 15:15-16 - "No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you."

When you pray to Him you are responding in faith and God promised to bless you when you are faithful. He will also bless those we extend our prayers to as well, if it is His will.

Joe Andrasik

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

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

Feelings and fellowship with God by Gary Rose

Like you, I am a mere human being. I do the things you do, feel the same things you do. I live and someday (a far day, I hope) I will die. God is different: He is eternal, all powerful, perfect in every way and the creator of Human beings like myself. God has expressed his will in the Bible and we must listen to what it says. If not, we distance ourselves from Him and someday will answer for our disobedience.

Consider these Scriptures...

Isaiah, Chapter 44 (World English Bible)

  ⁶ This is what Yahweh, the King of Israel, 
and his Redeemer, Yahweh of Armies, says: 
“I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. (Emp. added, vs. 6b, GDR)
   

⁷ Who is like me? 
Who will call, 
and will declare it, and set it in order for me, 
since I established the ancient people? 
Let them declare the things that are coming, and that will happen. 

  ⁸ Don’t fear, 
neither be afraid. 
Haven’t I declared it to you long ago, and shown it? 

You are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? 

Indeed, there is not. I don’t know any other Rock.” 

Hebrews, Chapter 1 (World English Bible)

 ¹ God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,  ² has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.  ³ His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, who, when he had by himself purified us of our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high,

 Matthew, Chapter 17 (World English Bible)

 ¹ After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves.  ² He was changed before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. ³ Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him. 

  ⁴ Peter answered, and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you want, let’s make three tents here: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 

  ⁵ While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them. Behold, a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Listen to him.” (Emp. added vs. 5, GDR)
 

John, Chapter 12 (World English Bible)

  ⁴⁴ Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me, but in him who sent me.   ⁴⁵  He who sees me sees him who sent me.   ⁴⁶  I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in the darkness.   ⁴⁷  If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn’t believe, I don’t judge him. For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.   ⁴⁸  He who rejects me, and doesn’t receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke will judge him in the last day.   ⁴⁹  For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.   ⁵⁰  I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak.” (Emp. added vss. 44-50, GDR)

 Revelation, Chapter 22 (World English Bible)

   ¹²  “Behold, I come quickly. My reward is with me, to repay to each man according to his work.   ¹³  I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. (Emp. added vs. 13, GDR)  ¹⁴  Blessed are those who do his commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.   ¹⁵  Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.   ¹⁶  I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the assemblies. I am the root and the offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.” 

  ¹⁷ The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” He who hears, let him say, “Come!” He who is thirsty, let him come. He who desires, let him take the water of life freely.  ¹⁸ I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may God add to him the plagues which are written in this book.  ¹⁹ If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may God take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book. (Emp. added vss. 18, 19 GDR)

Why would a person argue with God? Why would someone place their own opinion above God stated desires? Why would someone purposely disobey God's plainly stated words? Why?

I can only guess the answer to these questions, but the consequences of disobedience are eternal.  Don't let your feelings keep you from being in fellowship with God. Love God, listen to what He has told you to do (before its too late) and enjoy the love of God now and forever!!!