Has Life Been Made From Scratch? by Joe Deweese, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3597

Has Life Been Made From Scratch?

by	Joe Deweese, Ph.D.

Some news sources are making the claim of creating life from scratch. They assert that scientists have been able to make life from “four bottles of chemicals” (Sanders, 2010). The statements are made in reference to the work of Dr. Craig Venter and colleagues at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) when the team announced the success of efforts to replace the chromosome of a bacterial cell with a “chemically synthesized genome” (Gibson, 2010). The transplantation of a bacterial genome is an impressive accomplishment, one that may mean very little to most people, but did the scientists truly make life from scratch?
In order to answer the central question, it is important to understand the process for design, synthesis, and assembly of the genome. First, the DNA sequences that encode the genome of the bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides were manipulated on a computer. The changes made in the genome included deleting some nonessential DNA sequences, inserting a few extra genes, and inserting “watermark” sequences that would be used to verify that the transplant was successful and DNA in the organism was the modified DNA. Interestingly, these watermarks include coded sequences with names and e-mail addresses, a creative step that provided a unique tracking capability for the procedure.
Second, the team partnered with a company to synthesize the DNA in ~1080 base-pair sequences. (DNA consists of two complementary strands of bases that “pair up” to make a double-stranded or duplex molecule.) It took 1000 of the sequences to make the entire set of DNA that ultimately would be required to provide the instructions for asexual reproduction of the bacteria. Additionally, the scientists were challenged with the complex task of assembling the DNA fragments into a much larger one million base-pair (Mbp) synthetic chromosome. (By comparison, there are three billion base pairs of DNA in one copy—23 chromosomes—of the human genome). The ~1000 fragments of ~1000 base pairs each were “stitched” together inside yeast cells through a process of DNA recombination which is inherent to the cell. The team first constructed ~10,000 base pair DNA sections and then ~100,000 base pair sections before stitching the final ~1 Mbp chromosome together. Clearly, the recent publication chronicles a complex series of events that results in the reporting of the design, synthesis, and assembly of the requisite information for controlling continuous self-replication.
The assembly of the final artificial bacterial chromosome with the imbedded natural genes and the “watermark” sequences was confirmed using several molecular techniques, and the chromosome ultimately inserted into a bacterial cell of a closely related yet distinctive species (Mycoplasma capricolum) where the original DNA had been expunged. The recipient bacterial cell (M. capricolum) had intact proteins and RNA molecules, which included all of the required, preformed, and functional enzymes to support self-replication once the new chromosome was inserted. Researchers grew the cells through a number of cell divisions, which eventually diluted out, degraded, and replaced the original M. capricolum proteins. Thus, the researchers were left with a “synthetic” cell from M. capricolum that was now producing proteins from a “synthetic” DNA molecule coding for genes originally from M. mycoides.
Overall, the technical expertise demonstrated in the report is quite an impressive accomplishment. DNA synthesis, cloning, and recombination techniques are frequently used but have never been applied on the scale of millions of base pairs. Furthermore, the experiment demonstrated that there is a minimal set of genes that can be used to run a basic bacterial cell. The researchers from JCVI had previously demonstrated that there is a “minimal gene complement” that would sustain the life of another bacterium, Myscoplasma genitalium (Fraser, 1995). In the Fraser report, the researchers deleted ~100 of M. genitalium’s ~480 genes one at a time and found it could still survive (but could not survive when multiple genes were deleted simultaneously). The recent work of JCVI helps to support the concept that there is a minimal set of genes that can support life resulting in the interesting question: how could “simpler” life exist (much less develop) with fewer genes than the “minimal gene complement”? A question that is controversial—and, to say the least, has enormous implications for whether life could develop from nonlife.
There are several important considerations to bear in mind when considering the impact of the study, namely: 1) the DNA sequences for all of the genes were already designed and synthesizers were used to generate the actual DNA; 2) the recipient cell contained preformed enzymes and other factors needed to support life—the cell was not “made from scratch”; 3) the sole replaced component in the recipient cell was the “instructions,” that is, the DNA; and 4) the researchers relied on living systems to help assemble the chromosome into its final form through the stitching process in yeast described above.
The JCVI experiment is similar to what happens when an egg is fertilized. The proteins and other factors are already present in an unfertilized egg, just as they were in the recipient bacterial cell. Upon fertilization, the DNA from the mate is joined together with the DNA already in the egg, allowing growth and development to begin. The important thing in both cases is that it is not simply the DNA alone that is needed. Instead, a new living cell requires many preformed proteins and RNA molecules in order to support and sustain life.
One overly simplistic yet accurate analogy compares the JCVI process to that of taking the hard drive out of one computer and replacing it with a second hard drive that was set up separately (“News to Note,” 2010). In the hard drive analogy, the computer and all of its components already exist, and only the hard drive is replaced. In the case of the JCVI experiment, the cell and its components already exist, and only the DNA is replaced. While simple in its description, it is important to note that the experiment overcame numerous technically difficult steps before finding success. Moreover, it is important to remember that even the DNA was adapted from a living organism. In other words, the “hard drive” was “programmed” using pre-existing “software.”

CONCLUSION

It is true that this experiment is very impressive, and the challenges that were overcome should not be dismissed lightly. In fact, the results provide evidence for the complexity of life. The JCVI researchers started with the genome of an organism that is among the smallest known to man. It contains as few genes as possible to sustain life. Yet, it was a long (over 10 years) and very expensive (~$40 million) process to copy the genome of this simple organism, assemble the copy into an intact chromosome, and insert this chromosome into an already living cell (Pennisi, 2010). It is fascinating how much effort went in to this procedure—which really did not create new life; rather it simply modified existing molecular machinery that is required for life.
While there are many who fear that the JCVI process may open the door to great and terrible power in the hands of scientists, it is likely an unwarranted fear for what will happen with the technology. Similar to all of nature, in the right hands and with pure motives, it may at some point be used for good or, at the whim of corrupt goals, could generate evil results. Ultimately it must be acknowledged that God is in control, and the evidence of His handiwork is apparent in even the simplest of microorganisms.

REFERENCES

Gibson D.G., Glass J.I., Lartigue C., Noskov V.N., Chuang R.Y., Algire M.A., Benders G.A., Montague M.G., Ma L., Moodie M.M., Merryman C., Vashee S., Krishnakumar R., Assad-Garcia N., Andrews-Pfannkoch C., Denisova E.A., Young L., Qi Z.Q., Segall-Shapiro T.H., Calvey C.H., Parmar P.P., Hutchison C.A. 3rd, Smith H.O., Venter J.C (2010), “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome,” Science, May 20, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719.
Fraser C.M., Gocayne J.D., White O., Adams M.D., Clayton R.A, Fleischmann R.D., Bult C.J., Kerlavage A.R., Sutton G., Kelley J.M., Fritchman R.D., Weidman J.F., Small K.V., Sandusky M., Fuhrmann J., Nguyen D., Utterback T.R., Saudek D.M., Phillips C.A., Merrick J.M., Tomb J.F., Dougherty B.A., Bott K.F., Hu P.C., Lucier T.S., Peterson S.N., Smith H.O., Hutchison C.A. 3rd, Venter J.C. (1995), “The Minimal Gene Complement of Mycoplasma Genitalium,” Science, October 20, 270(5235): 397-403.
“News to Note” (2010), Answers in Genesis, May 22, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/22/news-to-note-05222010.
Pennisi, E. (2010), “Synthetic Genome Brings New Life to Bacterium,” Science, May 21, vol. 328, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/328/5981/958.
Sanders, Laura (2010), “Genome from a Bottle,” Science News, May 20, http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/59438/title/Genome_from_a_bottle_.

Sodom--Inhospitality or Homosexuality? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=614

Sodom--Inhospitality or Homosexuality?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The social forces behind the present-day “politically correct” agenda have been significantly successful in reversing the historically universal rejection by American civilization of the legality, political legitimacy, and social propriety of homosexuality. As a result of changing social norms and the pressure of an emerging politically active “gay” community in the United States, in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association deleted homosexuality from its official listing of mental disorders, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (see American Psychiatric Association..., 2002). The American Psychological Association followed suit in 1975 (Herek, 2002). In the midst of this reshaping of societal sensibilities, those who wish to retain some “attachment” to the Bible insist that the Good Book itself shares their viewpoint that same-sex relations are not inherently sinful. They argue that the Bible, in fact, approves of homosexuality in the same way and to the same extent that it approves of heterosexuality.
In order to sustain this treatment of Scripture, several passages have been reinterpreted and given new explanations. One classic passage that has received a “revisionist interpretation” is the account of the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, recorded in Genesis 19. Traditionally, this passage has been understood to represent a denunciation of homosexuality. This understanding has been so universal, in fact, that the word “sodomy” was incorporated into English vernacular as referring to “any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000, p. 1651). How may the Sodom account be reinterpreted to place same-sex relations in a favorable light? Two explanations have been offered in an attempt to confer biblical legitimacy on homosexuality.

INHOSPITALITY OR HOMOSEXUALITY?

The first claim maintains that the men of Sodom were guilty simply of inhospitality. The text says that the men of Sodom insisted on Lot bringing the angelic visitors out to them, “that we may know them” (Genesis 19:5). It is suggested that “know” refers to their intention to meet, greet, get to know, or become acquainted with the visitors. However, contextual indicators exclude the feasibility of this interpretation.
First, the Hebrew verb translated as “know” (yada) does indeed possess a wide range of meanings, including “to get to know, to become acquainted.” For the most part, the nuances of the Hebrew verb parallel the corresponding English verb. However, Hebrew, in common with other ancient languages, also used “know” as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (Genesis 4:1; 19:8). Other Semitic euphemisms similarly used include “lie with” (2 Samuel 11:4), “uncover the nakedness of ” (Leviticus 18), “go in unto” (Genesis 16:2; 38:2) and “touch” (Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29; 1 Corinthians 7:1). Ancient languages that shared this figurative use of “know” included Egyptian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic (Botterweck, 1986, 5:455-456,460), as well as Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek (Gesenius, 1979, p. 334). When Hebrew scholars define “know” as used in Genesis 19:5, they use terminology like “sexual perversion” (Harris, et al., 1980, p. 366), “homosexual intercourse” (Botterweck, 5:464), and “crimes against nature” (Gesenius, p. 334).
Second, if “know” means simply “to get acquainted,” why does the Bible repeatedly use forms of the word “wicked” to refer to the actions of the Sodomites? Lot pleaded, “Do not do so wickedly!” (Genesis 19:7, emp. added). Moses, by inspiration, already had given God’s assessment: “But the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinful against the Lord” (Genesis 13:13); “their sin is very grievous” (Genesis 18:20). Peter referred to the “filthy conduct of the wicked” and their “lawless deeds” (2 Peter 2:7-8). But “getting acquainted” is not “wicked”! In fact, if the men of Sodom were nothing more than a group of friendly, civic-minded neighbors who sought to make the visitors welcome to their city, God surely would have commended them—not condemned them!
Third, if “know” simply means “to get to know,” why did Lot offer his daughters to the men? He would not have offered his daughters for the purpose of the men “getting to know” or “become acquainted” with them. The daughters already were residents of Sodom, and thus would have been “known” to the men. Lot was offering his daughters to the men as sexual alternatives. Lot said, “I have two daughters who have not known a man” (Genesis 19:8). “Known” is another reference to sexual intercourse. Lot referred to their sexual status for the very reason that these men were interested in sexual impropriety. As astonishing and objectionable to us as it may seem for a father to sacrifice his own daughters in such a fashion, it verifies the fact that the unnatural lust of homosexuality was considered far more repugnant than even illicit heterosexuality. In addition, scholars have further noted that in antiquity, a host was to protect his guests at the cost of his own life (Whitelaw, 1950, 1:253).
Fourth, the men of Sodom threatened Lot with the words, “we will deal worse with you than with them” (Genesis 19:9). If their intention was simply to “get to know” the visitors, what would “dealing worse” with Lot entail? Did their threat imply that they would become so thoroughly acquainted with Lot that they perpetually would remain in his presence and make a pest of themselves? Maybe they intended to impose on Lot’s hospitality to the point that they monopolized his house, ate his snack foods, and refused to vacate his home at a courteous hour?
In a further effort to achieve sanction for homosexuality, attention has been directed to the words of Jesus in His commissioning of the Seventy. He instructed them, in their evangelistic travels, to enter into those cities that would receive them, and to feel free to partake of the hospitality they offered (Luke 10:7-8). However, should a city fail to receive them, they were to shake the dust off their feet against the city (vss. 10-11). Jesus then declared: “It will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city” (vs. 12). Defenders and practitioners of same-sex relations claim that Jesus simply was drawing a comparison between the inhospitality of the cities that the disciples would encounter, and the ancient city of Sodom. They claim that the inhospitality of a city that would reject Christ’s own emissaries would be a greater evil than Sodom’s inhospitable treatment of the angelic visitors.
As previously noted, if “hospitality” were the issue at stake in Sodom, the Sodomites should have been commended, since they only wanted to “get to know” and be hospitable to the visitors. In fact, Lot should have been the one condemned since he attempted to deter the hospitable overtures of the “Welcome Wagon.” In reality, the words of Jesus in Luke 10 were not directed against the cities’ refusal to be hospitable toward the disciples. Rather, He condemned them for their refusal to accept the teaching of the disciples. Jesus pinpointed their task when He declared, “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus placed Sodom at the top of the list of the most notoriously wicked cities of antiquity. He stressed the fact that as the New Testament era was about to explode into history, and Palestinian peoples were soon to be the recipients of the greatest message ever divulged to the world, to reject Christ and the Gospel would be a far greater offense than what the most wicked city in human history ever did! What the inhabitants of Sodom did was repulsive, repugnant, incredibly depraved, and disgusting. But to reject the antidote to sin is the ultimate insult, and represents the final infraction against God.
Yet another argument marshaled in an effort to justify homosexuality concerns the allusions in the prophets to Sodom. Isaiah (3:9), Jeremiah (23:14), and Ezekiel (16:49) all referred to the sinfulness of Sodom, but none explicitly mentioned homosexuality as the problem. In fact, Ezekiel pinpointed the specific sins of “pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness,” and Sodom’s unwillingness to aid the poor and needy. In response, we would suggest that we hardly should be surprised that a city that was guilty of sexual perversion likewise would be guilty of additional violations of God’s will.
As a matter of fact, Isaiah did not specify a particular sin, but merely noted how brazen and open the Sodomites were with their sin: “The look on their countenance witnesses against them, and they declare their sin as Sodom; they do not hide it.” Interestingly, this depiction is very apropos of the “in-your-face” attitude of those who seek to advance the homosexual agenda in our day. Jeremiah made essentially the same point in his comparison between Judah and Sodom when he wrote: “No one turns back from his wickedness.” He, too, was noting the blatant, unbending, determined intention to proceed with their sin. Ezekiel, though mentioning the additional sins listed above, nevertheless referred repeatedly to Sodom’s “abomination” (16:50; cf., vss. 43,47,51,52,58). Moses connected “abomination” with homosexual activity (Leviticus 18:22).

HOMOSEXUAL RAPE?

The second explanation offered to justify homosexual relations is that the men of Sodom were not condemned for their homosexuality, but for their inhospitable intention to engage in homosexual rape. Proponents of this position suggest that rape, being nonconsensual, is wrong and worthy of condemnation—whether homosexual or heterosexual. However, this extension of the inhospitality quibble is likewise contextually indefensible. First, if gang rape were the issue, why did Lot offer his daughters in exchange for the visitors? Rape would have been at stake in both cases. Lot’s offer of his daughters indicated his concern over gender and same-sex relations. Second, the men of Sodom were declared wicked and guilty of “very grievous” sin—before the visitors ever came to town (Genesis 18:20)!
Third, Jude cinched the matter in his allusion to the sin of Sodom. He said that Sodom and her sister cities had “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (Jude 7). “Given themselves over to sexual immorality” is a translation of the compound word ekporneusasai, which combines the verb porneuo (to commit illicit sexual intercourse) with the preposition ek (out of). The attachment of the prepositional prefix indicates intensification, i.e., that the men of Sodom possessed “a lust that gluts itself ” (Thayer, 1977, p. 199). Their sexual appetites had been permitted to take them beyond the range of normal sexual activity. The idea of force or coercion is not inherent in the word. “Strange” refers to “one not of the same nature, form, class, kind” (Thayer, p. 254), and so pertains to the indulgence of passions that are “contrary to nature” (Barnes, 1949, p. 393)—“a departure from the laws of nature in the impurities practiced” (Salmond, 1950, 22:7). The frequent allusion to “nature” by scholars is interesting in view of the fact that Scripture elsewhere links same-sex relations with that which is “against nature” (Romans 1:26-27) or unnatural, i.e., out of harmony with the original arrangement of nature by God (e.g., Genesis 1:27; 2:22; Matthew 19:4-6). Summarizing, Jude asserted that the sin of Sodom was homosexual relations—not homosexual rape.
Fourth, homosexuality itself is condemned in Scripture. Under the Law of Moses, for example, God made homosexuality a capital crime that evoked the death penalty. He stipulated that both parties to the illicit sexual activity were to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). God would not have required the innocent victim of homosexual rape to be executed along with the rapist.
Current culture may well reach the point where the majority approves of homosexuality as acceptable behavior. Those who disapprove may well be accused of being “politically incorrect,” intolerant, or “judgmental” (even as Lot was!—Genesis 18:9). However, the objective, unbiased reader of the Bible is forced to conclude that God destroyed the men of Sodom on account of their sinful practice of homosexuality.

REFERENCES

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
American Psychiatric Association Public Information (2002), “Gay and Lesbian Issues,” [On-line], URL: http://www.psych.org/public_info/homose-1.cfm.
Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint), Barnes’ Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren (1986), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Gesenius, William (1979 reprint), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Herek, Gregory (2002), “Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health,” [On-line], URL: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html.
Salmond, S.D.F. (1950), The Pulpit Commentary—Jude, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1977), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Whitelaw, Thomas (1950), The Pulpit Commentary—Genesis, ed. H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Was Moses Ineloquent or "Mighty in Words"? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=4640&b=Exodus

Was Moses Ineloquent or "Mighty in Words"?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In one of the more well-known scenes of Scripture, the Lord, in the midst of an unconsumed burning bush, appeared to Moses on Mount Horeb. He revealed to Moses that it was time to deliver the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage. It was time to give the descendants of Abraham the land of Canaan, which He had promised to his descendants more than 400 years earlier (cf. Genesis 12:1,7; 13:15; 15:13). It was time for Moses to lead God’s people out of Egypt (Exodus 3:10).
Moses, however, was not convinced that he was the one to go to Pharaoh and make such demands. “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh…?” Moses asked the Lord (Exodus 3:11). “O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant; but I am slow of speech and slow of tongue” (4:10). “Behold, I am of uncircumcised lips, and how shall Pharaoh heed me?” (6:30).
Some wonder how Moses could be ineloquent, if Stephen, in his speech to an angry mob prior to his death, described Moses as one “mighty in words and deeds” (Acts 7:22, emp. added). According to Bible critic Steve Wells, author of the The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, Acts 7:22 contradicts Exodus 4:10-16 and 6:12-30 (2013). R. Paul Buchman likewise lists these verses on his Web site “1001 Contradictions and Discrepancies in the Christian Bibles” (2011). Allegedly, Acts 7:22 is incompatible with what we learn about Moses in Exodus 3-6. How could Moses be “mighty in words,” yet also be ineloquent?
First, it is possible that Moses was not as ineloquent and “slow of speech” as one might initially think. The Bible student must keep in mind who made the statements about Moses’ speech in the book of Exodus. God did not say that Moses was incapable of speaking effectively—Moses did. Moses made these statements about himself. What’s more, Moses made the statements about himself after God had instructed him (1) to go back to the land where he had fled 40 years earlier for fear of his life (Exodus 2:15), (2) to present himself before the most powerful king on Earth (3:10), and (3) to tell the king of Egypt to let hundreds of thousands of Israelite slaves go free (Exodus 3:10; cf. Numbers 1:46). Moses was obviously afraid and doubted if he could do what God commanded. “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh…?” Moses asked (Exodus 3:11). He said: “Suppose they will not believe me or listen to my voice; suppose they say, ‘The Lord has not appeared to you’” (4:1). Even after seeing two amazing miracles (4:3-8), Moses still offered excuses (4:10). Moses was so troubled over the entire matter that he finally pleaded with God saying, “O my Lord, please send someone else” (4:13, ESV, emp. added).
What was God’s response to Moses? According to Exodus 4:14, “[T]he anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses.” In addition to Moses being “very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3), Moses appears to have been so alarmed by the thought of going back to Egypt and making demands of Pharaoh that he highly exaggerated his ineloquence. Could it not be said that Moses stated fairly eloquently his case for being “ineloquent”? What’s more, when he wrote all of these events (and others) down by inspiration years later (in the Pentateuch—Joshua 8:32; John 5:46), he was equally as “eloquent.” [NOTE: Simply because God spoke of Aaron as one who “can speak well” (Exodus 4:14), does not necessarily mean that Moses was not an eloquent speaker, or that God thought that Moses was not up for the task at hand. Obviously, God had more confidence in Moses’ abilities than Moses did. It was Moses’ fear and hesitancy, not his alleged ineloquence, that led our longsuffering God to elevate Aaron as His spokesman.]
If the skeptic refuses to accept that Moses was much more eloquent than the prophet claimed in his meeting with God on Mount Horeb, the Bible student might also point out that Stephen’s reference to Moses being “mighty in words and deeds” was (in context) in reference to Moses during the first 40 years of his life in Egypt (Acts 7:22). In Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, he reminded his Jewish audience that Pharaoh’s daughter brought Moses up “as her own son. And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds” (Acts 7:21-22). Stephen then stated: “Now when he [Moses] was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren, the children of Israel…” (7:23). It was after another “forty years had passed” (7:30)—after Moses had become a shepherd and had dwelt in the land of Midian for 40 years—that, at the age of 80, Moses made excuses before God of being ineloquent. Thus, in context, these statements were made about a man at two very different periods of time in his life. And, as everyone should know, two different statements cannot rationally be said to contradict each other if they are referring to two different time periods. How many of us were better at something in our younger years? Could Moses have not been a more eloquent speaker at 40 than at 80 (after spending four decades as a shepherd in a foreign land)?
[NOTE: Some might argue that since Moses said to God, “I am not eloquent, neither before nor since You have spoken to Your servant” (Exodus 4:10, emp. added), this means that Moses was never “mighty in words,” neither at 40 nor 80. Keep in mind, however, (1) it was Moses making this assertion, not God, and (2) we cannot be certain how far back in the past Moses meant for this statement to apply. He just as easily could have been referring to a time just before God appeared to him from the burning bush. What’s more, the events recorded in Exodus 3-4 could very easily have lasted days or weeks (cf. 4:14,27-28). Commentator Albert Barnes believes that this statement in Exodus 4:10 “seems to imply that some short time had intervened between this address and the first communication of the divine purpose to Moses” (1997).]
Sadly, skeptics not only ignore who made these statements, as well as the different time periods under discussion in the related passages, they also ignore the fact that different words are used, which do not necessarily mean the same thing. Even if Moses was not exaggerating about his ineloquence, and even if the statements in Exodus 3-6 and Acts 7:22 were referring to the same period of time in Moses’ life, being “slow of speech and slow of tongue” is not necessarily incompatible with being “mighty in words” (Acts 7:22). In fact, the phrase “mighty in words” (dunatos en logois) immediately follows Stephen describing Moses as “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.” How could Moses, an (alleged) ineloquent speaker, be “mighty in words”? Asking this question a little differently could help us answer it much easier. Could a man (1) of royalty, (2) who was very well educated, and (3) whose actions were described as “mighty,” ever be considered “mighty in words,” even though he may not be the greatest of orators? Most certainly. How many first-class athletes and coaches have given extremely motivating speeches to their teams and fans (e.g., Tim Tebow), and yet they may not be viewed as “eloquent” speakers? How many statesmen have risen to the occasion and delivered stirring addresses at crucial times in history (e.g., President George W. Bush’s speech at Ground Zero three days after the 9/11 attacks), though the statesmen generally were not viewed as great orators? How many people throughout history have been “mighty in words” as a writer, but not as a speaker? How many gospel preachers have I heard in my lifetime, who (1) knew the Scriptures extremely well, and (2) had done amazing things in their lifetime, and yet although they may not have been considered “great orators,” could truly be said to be “mighty in words”? Considering that “the gospel of Christ…is the power of God to salvation” (Romans 1:16), many stirring sermons have been preached the past 2,000 years by rather weak men. Even one of the greatest gospel preachers this world has ever known (the apostle Paul), stated to the Corinthians: “And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom” (1 Corinthians 2:1).
Skeptics’ criticisms of Exodus 3-6 and Acts 7:22 should only further confirm how superficial and manipulative their accusations against the Bible writers really are. The fact is, Bible critics have no proof that these passages contradict each other; yet, as with so many alleged discrepancies they champion, skeptics seem to care little about making false, unprovable allegations. In other arenas, such individuals would be ostracized for such blatant carelessness and dishonesty.

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Buchman, R. Paul (2001), “1001 Contradictions and Discrepancies in the Christian Bibles,” http://www.1001biblecontradictions.com/I2a%20-%20HOJ%20%5B76-103%5D.html.
Wells, Steve (2013), The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/moses_speaker.html.

Homosexual Propaganda by Tony Horton

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Horton/Tony/Earl/1957/wrongway.html

Homosexual Propaganda

I write this article in love, but I am sick to death of hearing homosexual propaganda. This lifestyle is a death sentence. It destroys your health (from AIDS) and brings eternal death of the soul unless one repents (turns away from it and turns to God).
The punishment for any sin (unforgiven) is eternal separation from God (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). Can a person change? God's word says he can. I have been out of that lifestyle for six years.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
"And such were some of you"! Yes, a person can change. And like other sinners, a homosexual can be sanctified by the blood of Christ. God tells us He loves us and wants everyone to be saved, and that He waits patiently for us to repent (1 Timothy 2:3,4 and 2 Peter 3:9). We are all free moral agents with a choice to live in sin or to live for God (Romans, chapter 6).
The bottom line is that homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of God unless they repent and turn to Christ.
I was homosexual and I know not to allow the media to fool me into believing it is a healthy alternative lifestyle. Most homosexuals have had so many sexual partners they have lost count. Many can say their number of partners is in the hundreds.
Even though AIDS is killing people (including me), the homosexual community continues to spread disease through frequenting bath houses disguised as health spa's, and having countless sexual encounters in one evening. They have sex in public bathrooms and in parks. They experience sexual acts that would make a decent person become sick at hearing about them. The sexual acts are so perverse, I can't put them in print here.
Activists will tell you that the homosexual lifestyle is not all about sex. I say this is a lie. It is all about sex, sexual perversion.
Most homosexuals realize how perverse their lifestyle is. But society no longer has enough convictions to push good morals, so not enough of society cares to do anything about this plague. People fear backlash from the activists. The homosexual lifestyle has become politically correct due to a lack of courage to stand up to sin. It has become 'unfair' for anyone to say that it is wrong or unacceptable. In fact, this article will fall mostly on deaf ears, because when it comes to morals, many people no longer have any.
To portray the homosexual lifestyle as wholesome and acceptable, as the Media does, is simply to ignorantly parrot untrue homosexual propaganda. The truth is that the homosexual lifestyle is an alternative life of degrading and harmful sexual perversion.
Tony Horton

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)

Praise by Gary Rose

What is the otter doing? Praying, of course! Do animals really pray? I can't get inside their brains to know, but I am guessing YES! Why?

Because of the following Psalm...

Psalm 148 (World English Bible)

 ¹ Praise Yah! 
Praise Yahweh from the heavens! 
Praise him in the heights! 
  ² Praise him, all his angels! 
Praise him, all his army! 

  ³ Praise him, sun and moon! 
Praise him, all you shining stars! 

  ⁴ Praise him, you heavens of heavens, 
you waters that are above the heavens. 

  ⁵ Let them praise Yahweh’s name, 
for he commanded, and they were created. 

  ⁶ He has also established them forever and ever. 
He has made a decree which will not pass away. 

  ⁷ Praise Yahweh from the earth, 
you great sea creatures, and all depths; (emp. added vs. 7)
  ⁸ lightning and hail, snow and clouds; 
stormy wind, fulfilling his word; 

  ⁹ mountains and all hills; 
fruit trees and all cedars; 

  ¹⁰ wild animals and all livestock; 
small creatures and flying birds; (emp. added vs. 10)

  ¹¹ kings of the earth and all peoples; 
princes and all judges of the earth; 

  ¹² both young men and maidens; 
old men and children: 

  ¹³ let them praise Yahweh’s name, 
for his name alone is exalted. 
His glory is above the earth and the heavens. 

  ¹⁴ He has lifted up the horn of his people, 
the praise of all his saints, 
even of the children of Israel, a people near to him. Praise Yah!

 I think its safe to say that all of God's creation should praise him (and praise is a form of prayer)!  How inanimate objects, angels and temporary things like lightening praise him is really beyond me, but the Bible says it- I just need to understand. For that matter, how creatures like the otter praise is beyond me as well. I only know that animals have feelings and perhaps their praise is just that, but again, I will continue to attempt understanding.

Right about now, some of you are crying- Photoshop, Photoshop!! In fact, the picture could be a manipulation, but does it really matter? After all I am not responsible for what the rest of creation does, just myself- and I will praise God as long as I have breath!!! I hope you can say the same!!!!!

ps. I have been sick lately and it is amazing to me how my dog "Pal" seems to know what's going on. Also, his efforts to comfort me are obvious and greatly appreciated. I wonder- has he been praying for ME???? 

ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION by Donald R. Fox

http://essaysbyfox.org/html/essays/

ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION

Donald R. Fox

Creation, and how all life came into being and the complex function of the universe may be the greatest of all mysteries. Our English dictionaries define mystery in part as: “One that is not fully understood or that baffles or eludes the understanding; an unexplained or inexplicable event, phenomenon, etc.”

Let us now note a scientist acknowledging an “acceptable explanation” or an understanding of creation and living matter. “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation, I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Reference: H. S. Lipson “Physics Bulletin”, vol 31, May 1980, page 138; extracted from “That Their Words May Be Used Against Them” Compiled by Henry M. Morris)

The word acceptable is defined in part as: “Worthy of being accepted; adequate to satisfy a need, requirement, or standard; satisfactory”. The word explanation is defined in part as: “The act or process of explaining; something that explains; a mutual clarification of misunderstandings; a reconciliation”.

Lipson also states that to accept creation would be “anathema to physicists”. Anathema is defined in part as: “A thing or a person accursed or damned; hence; anything greatly detested.” So here we have some in the scientific community stating, even though an “acceptable explanation” for the first cause is to be “greatly detested”. Lipson’s explanation is that the idea of God Almighty and creation must be “accursed, damned”. I thought that scientists were supposed to have an open mind? Is it not great to have such an open-minded scientific society? Pun intended!

Lipson, a physicist, rejects creation, “In the beginning God…” because it does not fit his evolution theory. With this example of rejection of creation, we should not conclude that all scientists reject God Almighty. There are countless brilliant people who believe in the God of the Bible.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good.” (Psalm 14:1 ASV)

“The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; But he that is wise hearkeneth unto counsel.” (Proverbs 12:15 ASV)

NOTE: For further study see essay titled “ALIENS AND CREATION”.

Is Freewill Scriptural? By Louis Rushmore

http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/1999/nov/page20.shtml

By Louis Rushmore

---

Is Freewill Scriptural?

Almost every single denomination I have heard of believes that all people have free will.  I haven't found a single verse in the Bible that teaches that people do have free will.  Why do Christians believe this unanimously without any Biblical text to affirm it? ~ Rick (Baptist), Springfield, OR.

Dear Friend, as much as you are amazed that myriads of people believe in “freewill,” I am equally amazed that you are unable to find “any Biblical text to affirm it.”  Further, simple observation should declare the existence of freewill in the human race. The first biblical indication that mankind possesses the capacity of freewill was immediately following the creation of Adam.

“And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.  And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him” (Gen. 2:19-20).

Through the capacity of freewill, Adam was prompted by God to name the animal creation.  This establishes the basic capability of mankind to employ “freewill.” The very existence of an orderly universe replete with design and implying a designer, implicitly calls out to intelligent life, man, to seek the Creator.  “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psa. 90:1).  “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).  “Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth” (Isa. 40:26).

“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the Lord: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast” (Psa. 33:6-9).

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Heb. 11:3). Job 38:4-41 lists numerous aspects of God’s creation over which mankind still ponders, and much of which also is little understood even today.  Truly, the created universe has the name of God written all over it, and it calls mankind to search out his Creator.  All of this, which is true, would be a cruel hoax by God if it were impossible to choose (exercise freewill) to seek the Creator (and find him through his divine revelation).
Both testaments of the Bible, beginning with Adam and Eve in the Garden, are filled with choices presented to mankind.  In order to choose, correctly or even incorrectly, as God exhorts mankind, humanity must possess the capacity of freewill.  Further, mankind, at God’s urging to make choices, has the obligation to make choices (use freewill).  Adam and Eve were presented with the choices of eating from the forbidden tree or not eating from that same tree.  They chose incorrectly, nevertheless, they exercised their capacity of freewill (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:3-6).
The great leader, Joshua, memorably called upon his fellows to exercise their freewill in accepting God as their Lord.  “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15).  Often, unfortunately, mankind has chosen to forsake God, nevertheless it was a choice (use of freewill):  “For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord” (Prov. 1:29).
The word “whosoever” appears 183 times in the King James Version of the Bible.  It is employed in all religious dispensations and applied variously to every representative of humanity.  Essentially, then, when ‘anyone’ does what he by God’s Word is forbidden to do, he sins; when ‘anyone’ does what he by God’s Word is commanded to do, he is acceptable to God.  The word “whosoever” in its sundry appearances in the Bible expresses the capacity and obligation of mankind to exercise his freewill.  Naturally, I cannot list 183 occurrences of the word “whosoever” here, but a couple instances spoken by Jesus should provide the necessary emphasis.  “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).  “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17).  What a cruel hoax it would be for the Lord to invite everyone to partake of living water, but it not be possible humans or some humans to make the choice to accept or reject of the offer of the Lord.
The invitation of the Lord himself appears also in other words:  “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).  Can humanity (through freewill) make the choice to accept or reject the invitation of our Lord, or did Jesus simply make an empty gesture?
Every command to do something implies the ability (freewill) with which man can either comply or not comply with divine direction.  “And we have confidence in the Lord touching you, that ye both do and will do the things which we command you” (2 Thess. 3:4).  “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord . . .” (Acts 10:48).  Often, people do not follow the directions of even God and many people defiantly have not obeyed God’s Word regarding, for instance, baptism.  Therefore, it is evident that through the exercise of freewill, some obey God and others do not.  Those who choose to obey are the recipients of redemption and those who do not obey God are not the recipients of God’s grace and mercy through which he proffers redemption.  Regarding Jesus, Scripture says, “he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him . . .” (Heb. 5:9).
Further, regarding “freewill,” the Bible uses that word 17 times in our English translation.  In those places, a distinction is made between mandatory tithes and the amount and character of additional offerings made at the discretion or choice of the giver.
The denial of “freewill” is not the product of biblical doctrine, but the product of the Reformation movement, to which Luther contributed and which was further crystallized and preserved in what is commonly called Calvinism.  We have shown in the short treatment above that mankind has not lost either his capacity or his responsibility since his initial placement in the Garden through the present to exercise his freewill.  The ability to choose, which mankind exercises numerous times daily in the profane and mundane affairs of life, is the identical capacity with which he can choose (or choose not) to digest and put into practice the exhortations of divine revelation.  As the Scripture says, we have no excuse (Rom. 1:20).  Each soul has personal responsibility for his or her eternal destination.

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life” (Deut. 30:15-16, 19).

Though the quotation immediately above includes both their spiritual and physical welfare, the principle regarding our spiritual welfare remains the same.  God places before each accountable soul choices regarding his redemption and pending eternity among which he is obligated to exercise his freewill.  Satan votes against us; God votes for us; and each of us casts the deciding vote as to where we will spend eternity.  To not make a choice (exercise freewill) is to make the worst choice of all! [The querist swiftly responded to the above with a brief and scornful dispatch in which he ignored every evidence offered and did not make even one allusion to Scripture.  Each soul needs to be acutely aware that by Scripture we must order our lives, for by it alone we all will be judged.  Jesus said, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John 12:48).]