Luke’s “Orderly Account” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1486

Luke’s “Orderly Account”

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the prologue to Luke’s gospel narrative, he informed his readers that he sought to write “an orderly account” of the life of Christ (Luke 1:3). Based upon this statement, some tend to believe that everything in Luke’s narrative must have been recorded chronologically. Others have come to the conclusion that this statement must also mean that Luke’s account avoided the omissions that the other writers made from time to time. The evidence suggests, however, that though Luke’s account should be understood as being orderly to a degree, it is erroneous to contend that everything in Luke’s narrative is arranged in a precise chronological sequence.
One indication of Luke’s “orderly account” not being a strict sequence of events is found in Luke 3. Immediately following the record of John the Baptizer teaching the Jews about the coming of the Christ, Luke wrote: “And with many other exhortations he preached to the people. But Herod the tetrarch, being rebuked by him concerning Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done, also added this, above all, that he shut John up in prison” (3:18-20, emp. added). Had Luke already covered everything that John the Baptizer accomplished before his imprisonment and subsequent death, this statement might still be considered sequentially in order with everything else in the life of Christ. The fact is, however, the very next paragraph clearly indicates that Luke sometimes strayed from a normal chronology. Luke proceeded to inform his readers of Jesus’ baptism, saying, “When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized” (3:21). John baptized Jesus prior to his imprisonment (cf. Matthew 3:1-17; 4:12; John 1:29-34), yet Luke places John’s imprisonment before Jesus’ baptism. Although Luke does not indicate why he mentioned this event earlier than one might expect, Luke’s account is still very much characterized as being “orderly” and logical. It seems clear that Luke simply wanted to move John off the stage before focusing on the ministry of Christ. Luke did mention John a few more times in his narrative (cf. 5:33; 7:18-35; 9:7,9,19; 11:1; 16:16; 20:4,6), but “the story of John’s active ministry as a free man ends here” (Hendriksen, 1978, pp. 212-213).
A second indication that Luke’s “orderly” narrative should not be understood as being a strict chronological order of everything that Jesus ever did or spoke comes from Luke 4. In the first thirteen verses of this chapter, Luke recorded how Satan confronted Jesus and tempted Him three times: first, to turn stones to bread; second, to worship him; and third, to throw Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple. Interestingly, Luke’s order of the temptations is different than that found in Matthew’s gospel account. Matthew recorded that Satan’s second temptation involved him trying to persuade Jesus to throw Himself down off of the temple, while the third temptation was Satan’s attempt to get Jesus to worship him. Some might assume that because Luke had earlier professed to write an “orderly account” that his specific arrangement of the temptations of Christ must be the correct order. Most biblical scholars, however, believe that Matthew was concerned more with the order of events in this story because of his use of words like “afterward” (4:2, Greek husteron), “then” (4:5, Greek tote), “again” (4:8, Greek palin). These three adverbs strongly suggest that Matthew recorded the precise order of the temptations. Luke merely links the events by using the Greek words kai and de (4:2,5,6, translated “and”). [NOTE: The NKJV’s translation of kai as “then” in Luke 4:5 is incorrect. It should be translated simply “and” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASV, and RSV)]. Similar to the English word “and” not having specific chronological implications, neither do the Greek words kai and de (Richards, 1993, p. 230). In short, the evidence suggests that Matthew’s account of the temptations of Jesus is arranged chronologically, whereas Luke’s account is arranged in some other orderly fashion—perhaps thematically, or possibly climactically.
A final example indicating Luke’s “orderly account” is not as chronological and all-encompassing as some might initially think, appears near the end of his narrative. Luke began his final chapter “on the first day of the week” when Jesus rose from the grave (24:1). He concluded this chapter (and the narrative as a whole) informing the reader of Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Of interest, is that Luke never indicated that the events of chapter 24 covered any more than one day. Someone might read the entire chapter and assume that Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to His disciples, and ascended into heaven all on the same day, when actually what Luke recorded in this final chapter covered a period of more than five weeks (cf. Acts 1:3). Luke simply omitted most of what Jesus and the apostles did during this time, including the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee mentioned by both Matthew (28:16) and John (21:1ff.). Luke chose to focus most of his attention on what happened in (and around) Jerusalem on the day of Jesus’ resurrection. In order to get a more comprehensive chronological view of what occurred after Jesus’ resurrection and before His ascension, a person must consult the other gospel accounts.
Luke’s narrative certainly is an “orderly account.” It begins with the announcement, birth, and ministry of John the Baptizer—the forerunner of Christ, and then proceeds to focus on the life and teachings of Christ—from birth to death, and from resurrection to ascension. Luke’s account is not confused or haphazard, but “orderly.” Nevertheless, one must be careful not to force his orderly account into a strict arrangement in which every single detail falls into chronological order. In fact, according to Greek lexicographer Frederick Danker, the Greek word Luke used for “orderly” (kathexas) can refer to “sequence in time, space, or logic” (2000, p. 490, emp. added). Thus, similar to modern-day history books that are arranged chronologically, yet occasionally include nonsequential discussions of people, places, and events in order to accomplish a specific, intended purpose, Luke obviously wrote certain portions of his inspired account of the gospel in more of a thematic or climatic order.

REFERENCES

Danker, Fredrick William (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition of Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich.
Hendriksen, William (1978), Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House).
Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).

Jesus, the Syrophoenician Woman, and Little Dogs by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=317

Jesus, the Syrophoenician Woman, and Little Dogs

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Any honest student of the Bible must admit certain biblical episodes seem to be problematic when encountered for the first time. Upon further investigation, however, the apparent difficulties in the text vanish and the meanings become increasingly clear. One episode in the life of Jesus that historically has been misunderstood by some Bible believers and misrepresented by the skeptic is Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman. Mark records the episode as follows:

For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him [Jesus—KB], and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed (7:25-30; see also Matthew 15:21-28).

Based on a cursory reading of the text, one may be startled that Jesus referred to this Gentile woman as a “little dog.”
Jesus’ statement in this context certainly has not escaped the notice of the skeptical community. The prolific infidel Steve Wells documented hundreds of cases of alleged intolerance in the biblical text. Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician women is number 421 on his list. Of the episode, Wells wrote: “Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman’s daughter, calling the woman a ‘dog’. After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil” (2006).
Even many religious writers and speakers view Jesus’ statements to the woman as unkind, intolerant, racially slurred, and offensive. Dean Breidenthal, in a sermon posted under the auspices of the Princeton University Office of Religious Life, said concerning Jesus’ comment: “I suspect we would not be so bothered by Jesus’ unkind words to the Syrophoenician woman if they were not directed against the Gentile community. Those of us who are Gentile Christians have less trouble with Jesus’ invectives when they are directed against the Jewish leadership of his day” (2003, emp. added). Please do not miss the implication of Breidenthal’s comment. If the statement made by Jesus actually could be construed as unkind, then Jesus would be guilty of violating one of the primary characteristics of love, since love “suffers long and is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4), which would cast doubt on His deity. Is it true that Jesus exhibited an unkind attitude in His treatment of the Syrophoenician woman?

To the Jews First and Also to the Greeks

In order for one to understand Jesus’ statement, he or she must recognize the primary purpose of the comment. Jesus was passing through the land of the Gentiles (Greeks) and was approached by a woman who was not a Jew. While Jesus’ message would eventually reach the Gentile world, it is evident from the Scriptures that the Jewish nation would be the initial recipient of that message. In his account of Jesus’ encounter with the Syrophoenician woman, Matthew recorded that Jesus said: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (15:24). When Jesus sent the twelve apostles on the “limited commission,” He told them: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:5-6).
Just before Jesus ascended to heaven after His resurrection, He informed the apostles: “[A]nd you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). The sequence of places where the apostles would witness manifests the order in which the Gospel would be preached (i.e., the Jews first and then the Gentiles). In addition, the apostle Paul, in his epistle to the church at Rome, stated: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek” (1:16). Jesus’ statement to the Syrophoenician woman indicated that the Jewish nation was Jesus’ primary target for evangelism during His earthly ministry.

How Far Can an Animal Illustration Be Taken?

To our 21st-century ears, the idea that Jesus would refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” has the potential to sound belittling and unkind. When we consider how we often use animal terms in illustrative or idiomatic ways, however, Jesus’ comments are much more benign. For instance, suppose a particular lawyer exhibits unyielding tenacity. We might say he is a “bulldog” when he deals with the evidence. Or we might say that a person is “as cute as a puppy” or has “puppy dog eyes.” If someone has a lucky day, we might say something like “every dog has its day.” Or if an adult refuses to learn to use new technology, we might say that “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.” In addition, one might say that a person “works like a dog,” is the “top dog” at the office, or is “dog tired.” Obviously, to call someone “top dog” would convey no derogatory connotation.
For Jesus’ statement to be construed as unkind or wrong in some way, a person would be forced to prove that the illustration or idiom He used to refer to the Gentiles as “little dogs” must be taken in a derogatory fashion. Such cannot be proved. In fact, the term Jesus used for “little dogs” could easily be taken in an illustrative way without any type of unkind insinuation. In his commentary on Mark, renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski translated the Greek term used by Jesus (kunaria) as “little pet dogs.” Lenski further noted concerning Jesus statement: “In the Orient dogs have no owners but run wild and serve as scavengers for all garbage and offal.... It is an entirely different conception when Jesus speaks of ‘little pet dogs’ in referring to the Gentiles. These have owners who keep them even in the house and feed them by throwing them bits from the table” (1961, p. 304). Lenski goes on to write concerning Jesus’ statement: “All that Jesus does is to ask the disciples and the woman to accept the divine plan that Jesus must work out his mission among the Jews.... Any share of Gentile individuals in any of these blessings can only be incidental during Jesus’ ministry in Israel” (pp. 304-305). In regard to the non-derogatory nature of Jesus’ comment to the Gentile woman, Allen Black wrote: “The form of his statement is proverbial. And the basis of the proverb is not an antipathy for Gentiles, but the necessary Jewish focus of Jesus’ earthly ministry” (1995, p. 137).
So before people “dog” Jesus for the way He used an animal illustration, they might need to reconsider that “their bark is much worse than their bite” when it comes to insinuating that Jesus was wrong. It seems that they are simply “barking up the wrong tree” by attempting to call Jesus’ character into question. They need to “call off the dogs” on this one and “let sleeping dogs lie.”

REFERENCES

Black, Allen (1995), The Book of Mark (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Breidenthal, Dean (2003), “The Children’s Bread,” [On-line], URL: http://web.princeton.edu/sites/chapel/Sermon%20Files/2003_sermons/ 090703.htm.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Wells, Steve (2006), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com.

Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? (Update) by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4120

Higgs Boson—The "God Particle"? (Update)

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

[NOTE—For the original article, see HIggs Boson—The "God Particle"? ; for an updated article see HIggs Boson—The "God Particle"? (2nd Update)]

In June, we released an article discussing the elusive Higgs Boson particle (i.e., the “God Particle”) that is thought by many scientists to be the particle that could have given mass to matter after the alleged Big Bang—thus providing a critical function in the formation of the Universe (see Miller, 2011). This particle, though never observed, is necessary in order for Big Bang cosmology and the atheistic perspective to even be considered a possibility, much less a true account of the origin of the Universe. The non-existence of this theoretical particle would be added to the lengthy list of fatal flaws in the atheistic mindset and Big Bang Theory.
Recall that the Large Hadron Collider, located at the CERN research center, has been the focus in the search for the Higgs Boson particle. Recall further that an “unexpected ‘bump’ in emissions” was observed a few months ago, that some thought “may be proof of the long-sought particle” (“Has Quest for the Elusive…?” 2011). After further study, CERN admitted to a conference in Mumbai that “possible signs of the Higgs last month were now seen as less significant” (“‘God Particle’…,” 2011, emp. added).
Some scientists are now considering the possibility that “the mystery particle might not exist” (“‘God Particle’…”). CERN stated that their new results “show that the elusive Higgs particle, if it exists, is running out of places to hide” (“‘God Particle’…,” emp. added). If it does not exist, “[i]t remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation” as to how matter got mass (“‘God Particle’…”). CERN blogger Pauline Gagnon said, “We know something is missing, we simply don’t quite know what this new something might be” (“‘God Particle’…”).
There is much more missing in the quest to substantiate the Big Bang than a little particle, and the list of those missing entities continues to grow and will continue to do so until true science—science that is in keeping with the evidence—is allowed to flourish. Is it possible, perhaps, that such particles do not exist, because it would be impossible for mass to exist at all without a Creator having created it and written the natural laws to govern it? Is it possible that the “something” that is missing in the equation, is actually Someone?
The list of missing entities in the Big Bang equation is growing. Without their existence in space somewhere, Big Bang cosmology cannot be substantiated. Yet these necessary entities have not been observed and therefore, lie outside the realm of scientific truth. It has become increasingly popular for cosmologists to label many of these missing entities with the first word, “Dark.” It would be consistent for cosmologists to rename the Higgs Boson the “Dark Particle” and add it to the list of missing “dark” elements that prove the Big Bang theory to be inadequate as an explanation for our Universe.

REFERENCES

“‘God Particle’ May Be a Mirage, Scientists Hint” (2011), Fox News, August 23, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/23/god-particle-may-be-mirage-scientists-hint/?intcmp=obinsite.
“Has Quest for the Elusive ‘God Particle’ Succeeded?” (2011), Fox News, April 25, http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/25/quest-elusive-god-particle-succeeded/?test=faces.
Miller, Jeff (2011), “Higgs Boson—the ‘God Particle’?” Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=977&article=1500.

The Constitution Is—Unconstitutional? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=297

The Constitution Is—Unconstitutional?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

“It is unconstitutional for the government and the public schools to include endorsements of the Christian religion.” So goes the conventional propaganda that has gradually permeated much of the judiciary of the United States in the last half century. The result is an ongoing and systematic elimination of allusions to God, Christ, and the Bible in the public life of America. In order to see the falsity of this contention, all one need do is spend a little time examining the utterances of the Founders themselves. The indications of the Founders’ attachment to Christianity, and the necessary inclusion of its moral principles as the platform on which the Republic was deliberately situated, are voluminous, extensive, decisive, and undeniable (e.g., Miller, 2006).
Another way to ascertain the inaccuracy of the allegation that the Founders intended America’s civil institutions to be religiously neutral, is to examine the founding documents of both the federal and state governments. For example, immediately after Article VII, the federal Constitution closes with the following words:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.... (The United States...,” emp. added).

The Framers’ declared that their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” means “before Christ,” and “A.D.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words anno Domini, meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multicultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religiously neutral designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era—which already were in use (see “Common Era,” 2007; Hooper and Bielfeld, 1770, 3:105). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims for the commencement of the Islamic calendar. Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared.
What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, or the gods of Hinduism or Native American religion. Observe that the Constitution does not read “Year of the Lord”; it reads “Year of our Lord.” The Founders considered Jesus Christ to be their Lord—a concept flatly rejected by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Any attempt to soften the import of this inclusion is merely sidestepping this fact. Therefore, the Framers could not have believed that references to God or Christ should be excluded from the Constitution—since they did not do so! Yet, incredibly, on the basis of current judicial interpretation, their action was unconstitutional!
The same may be said for the constitutions of the respective states. The initial state constitutions contained many references to the essentiality and importance of the God of the Bible to civil society. Most of these allusions have since been expunged. Nevertheless, some remain. Consider, for example, the Preamble to the state constitution of Maine:

We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God’s aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same (emp. added).

The constitution of Massachusetts reads, in part:

We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other; and of forming a new constitution of civil government, for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, do agree upon, ordain and establish the following Declaration of Rights, and Frame of Government... (emp. added).

The Missouri Preamble reads:

We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the State (emp. added).

New Jersey’s Preamble reads:

We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution (emp. added).

North Carolina’s Preamble reads:

We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity, do, for the more certain security thereof and for the better government of this State, ordain and establish this Constitution (emp. added).

Many others could be cited (“State Constitutions,” n.d.). In fact, of the 46 state constitutions that contain Preambles, only Oregon has no reference to God. Hence, 45 of the 50 state constitutions refer to the God of the Bible. But wait! On the basis of today’s ludicrous, inane standard, 45 of the state constitutions are unconstitutional. So, according to the thinking of the ACLU and a host of liberal educators, politicians, and judges, the Constitution is unconstitutional! Go figure.

REFERENCES

“Common Era” (2007), Answers.com, [On-line], URL: http://www.answers.com/topic/common-era.
Hooper, William and Jacob Friedrich Bielfeld (1770), The Elements of Universal Erudition (London: G. Scott), [On-line], URL: http://books.google.com/books?id=gBETAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA105&dq= %22Common+Era%22+date:1-1800&as_brr=0&ei=aMzpRqzoMoz06gK06NFh.
Miller, Dave (2006), “America, Christianity, and the Culture War,” Reason & Revelation, 26[6]41-47, June, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2942.
“State Constitutions” (no date), The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/stateco.htm.
The United States Constitution, [On-line], URL: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html.

Seeing God “Face to Face” by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=2682&b=Exodus

Seeing God “Face to Face”

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the Kyle Butt/Dan Barker debate, Dan Barker alleged that He “knows” the God of the Bible cannot exist because “there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God that’s in this book [the Bible—EL] that rule out the possibility of His existence” (2009). One of the supposed contradictions that Barker mentioned was that God claims invisibility, yet has been seen. (His assertion is found 10 minutes and 55 seconds into his first speech.) Since biblical passages such as Exodus 33:20-23, John 1:18, and 1 John 4:12 teach that God cannot be seen, while other scriptures indicate that man has seen God and spoken to him “face to face” (Exodus 33:11; Genesis 32:30), allegedly “the God of the Bible does not exist.”
Although in modern times words are regularly used in many different senses (e.g., hot and cold, good and bad), Barker, like so many Bible critics, has dismissed the possibility that the terms in the aforementioned passages were used in different senses. Throughout Scripture, however, words are often used in various ways. In James 2:5, the term “poor” refers to material wealth, whereas the term “rich” has to do with a person’s spiritual well-being. In Philippians 3:12,15, Paul used the term “perfect” (NASB) in different senses. Although Paul had attained spiritual maturity (“perfection”) in Christ (vs. 15), he had not yet attained the perfect “final thing, the victor’s prize of the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus” (Schippers, 1971, 2:62; cf. Philippians 3:9-11). Similarly, in one sense man has seen God, but in another sense he has not.
Consider the first chapter of John where we learn that in the beginning Jesus was with God and “was God” (1:1; cf. 14,17). Though John wrote that Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us” (1:14), he indicated only four sentences later that “no one has seen God at any time” (1:18; 1 John 4:12). Was Jesus God? Yes. Did man see Jesus? Yes. So in what sense has man not seen God? No human has ever seen Jesus in His true image (i.e., as a spirit Being—John 4:24—in all of His fullness, glory, and splendor). When God, the Word, appeared on Earth 2,000 years ago, He came in a veiled form. In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul mentioned that Christ—Who had existed in heaven “in the form of God”—“made Himself of no reputation,” and took on the “likeness of men” (Philippians 2:6-7). Mankind saw an embodiment of deity as Jesus dwelt on Earth in the form of a man. Men saw “the Word” that “became flesh.” Likewise, when Jacob “struggled with God” (Genesis 32:28), He saw only a form of God, not the spiritual, invisible, omnipresent God Who fills heaven and Earth (Jeremiah 23:23-24).
But what about those statements which indicate that man saw or spoke to God “face to face”? Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face” (Genesis 32:30). Gideon proclaimed: “I have seen the Angel of the Lord face to face” (Judges 6:22). Exodus 33:11 affirms that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” First, although these men witnessed great and awesome things, they still only saw manifestations of God and a part of His glory (cf. Exodus 33:18-23). Second, the words “face” and “face to face” are used in different senses in Scripture. Though Exodus 33:11 reveals that God spoke to Moses “face to face,” only nine verses later God told Moses, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live” (33:20). Are we to believe (as Barker and other critics assert) that the author of Exodus was so misguided that he wrote contradictory statements within only nine verses of each other? Certainly not! What then does the Bible mean when it says that God “knew” (Deuteronomy 34:10) or “spoke to Moses face to face” (Exodus 33:11)? The answer is found in Numbers 12. Aaron and Miriam had spoken against Moses and arrogantly asked: “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?” (Numbers 12:2). God then appeared to Aaron and Miriam, saying: “If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; and he sees the form of the Lord” (Numbers 12:6-8, emp. added). Notice the contrast: God spoke to the prophets of Israel through visions and dreams, but to Moses He spoke, “not in dark sayings,” but “plainly.” In other words, God, Who never showed His face to Moses (Exodus 33:20), nevertheless allowed Moses to see “some unmistakable evidence of His glorious presence” (Jamieson, 1997), and spoke to him “face to face, as a man speaks to his friend” (33:11), i.e., He spoke to Moses plainly, directly, etc.
The Bible does not reveal “mutually incompatible characteristics of God” as Barker has alleged. His assertions in no way prove that the God of the Bible does not exist or that the Bible is unreliable. In truth, Barker’s comments merely reveal that he is a dishonest interpreter of Scripture. If Barker can work “side by side” with a colleague without literally working inches from him (Barker, 2008, p. 335), or if he can see “eye to eye” with a fellow atheist without ever literally looking into the atheist’s eyes, then Barker can understand that God could speak “face to face” with Moses without literally revealing to him His full, glorious “face.”

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Schippers, R. (1971), “Telos,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Speaking the Truth in Love by Richard Mansel

http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Mansel/Richard/Dale/1964/speaking.html

Speaking the Truth in Love

The Apostle Paul told Timothy, "Preach the Word, be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching" (2 Timothy 4:2). Paul later said of himself, "Woe unto me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Corinthians 9:16). If you combine Matthew 28:18-19 and 1 Peter 2:9 you see that we all are required to teach the gospel to the lost.
But how do we ensure effectiveness? There is not a guarantee on that. Ultimately, we plant the seed but God gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:6). One thing we can do is be certain we are speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).
If you look at the things we most often lie about, you see that, for the most part, we lie so people will not get offended. But it is still a lie.
If we change Biblical truth to appease the listener we have lied (Isaiah 30:8-14).
John 8:37 says the "truth will set us free." First, we must be uncompromising when we proclaim the truth of God's Word. However, we must be flexible concerning men's hearts. Matthew 7:12 says, "Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them." When we sit down to study with a prospect we must treat him with the same care and respect we would desire for ourselves.
Second, we must be persistent but patient. John 1:1-3 tells us that Jesus is the Word of God and Hebrews 13:8 adds that He is the "same yesterday, today and tomorrow." While the truth of Scripture never changes, our level of patience must continue to grow. Having someone overturn our core beliefs is a heart-wrenching process. When we study with someone we must be patient to allow them to go through the transformation and be understanding when it fails.
Third, we must be firm but factual. Our opinions and traditions should never dictate what we teach. Matthew 15:14 promises, "If the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."
Finally, we must hold the line but be helpful. The gospel is to win souls and not to win arguments. Ephesians 6:10-17 says we are in a spiritual war with Satan and his forces. We are not at war with the sinner, only the sin. He has a soul that needs love and guidance.
Richard Mansel

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

My best friend by Gary Rose

Just a little talk with Jesus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwA25X8mWw

(click on the link or past the address into your browser)

This is a simply adorable picture and the link is one of the best acapella renditions of the hymn I have ever heard!!!

Point is: Need HELP- have a little talk with Jesus!!!!

1 Thessalonians, Chapter 5 (World English Bible)

 ¹⁷ Pray without ceasing.

In other words, always have an attitude that could transform into a talk with God at anytime. Be Spiritual!!

Short post, but just think about it; it just may be the most important thing that you do today!!!!!