This was my first trip to Asia and my first trip to the Philippines. The flight from Nashville to San Francisco was about five hours. Interestingly, I was providentially seated by an atheist on this leg of the trip who lived in a Muslim country. We talked for almost four hours about God and the Bible. In the course of the discussion, he brought up the idea of a loving God and slavery in the Bible. I happened to have an Always Be Ready book that deals with that topic in chapter eight, which I pulled out of my carry-on bag and showed him. We had a great conversation, and I was able to get his contact information, and we are in communication.  After that, the flight from San Fransico to Manila took about 15 hours, with another quick flight from Manila to Ilagan. All the travel went smoothly, and I arrived in Ilagan on Friday evening, prepared to speak on Saturday at the national singing. On Friday night, however, we learned that the super typhoon Fung-Wong was coming in. Thankfully, the national singing still took place, and I spoke to several hundred members of the Lord’s Church on Saturday morning. Because the Filipinos study English from an early age in school, I did not need a translator. The Byrums had shipped over Truth Be Told and Always Be Ready books to distribute at the event. Many of the attendees came from long distances. One young man drove a motorcycle about 10 hours to attend.

After speaking Saturday morning, Dale Byrum and I flew back to Manila to get to the capital before the typhoon hit. I preached twice on Sunday morning at the Metro South church of Christ in Manila and got back to my hotel room that evening before the storm hit. While there was damage in several places in the Philippines, we were safe in Manila and the Lord answered many prayers. On Tuesday, I spoke at an Always Be Ready seminar at the Metro South congregation. Groups from numerous congregations came, some riding buses for more than six hours to be there, and then riding them back when the event ended that night. Because of some geo-fenced advertising that AP did before I got there, we had several visitors who were not associated with the Lord’s Church at all. The local brethren were rather surprised and excited to make these new contacts. We had a book signing, meal, and I preached two lessons: “The Problem of Evil,” and “Hell and a Loving God.” The event lasted from about 3:00 pm to 10:00 pm.

Overall, the trip was eye-opening for me. I had no idea that people in the Philippines access our Apologetics Press materials to the extent they do. Many of the Christians had watched countless hours of our videos (as well as those of GBN and World Video Bible School). The Bible schools and training schools used our materials in their instructions. And the local church members used our articles and written material for Bible study and evangelism purposes. It turns out about 10% of our Facebook followers are from the Philippines, and over 40,000 Filipinos have visited our website this year.

Furthermore, I was impressed by the sincerity and strength of the local Christians and congregations, the work being done by Dale and Karen Byrum, the hospitality and kindness of the Filipino people in general, the lengths the Christians would travel to be a part of spiritual activities and Christian fellowship, and the care that God continues to provide His people as they strive to further the borders of His Kingdom. The trip reminded me that God is working all over the world, and He uses the generosity and kindness of so many people to provide for the spiritual and physical needs of His Church. It was such a privilege to get to see what God is doing through AP, and the work of so many others, in the Philippines.

The post AP in the Philippines appeared first on Apologetics Press.

More troubling than even these tactics is the seemingly widespread acceptance of the idea that a mere accusation constitutes adequate proof of guilt. The longstanding, bedrock adage of “innocent until proven guilty” has fallen by the wayside in the minds of many. Many individuals appear so deluded by their political and moral ideology that they have literally come to redefine the meaning and nature of “justice,” “fairness,” and “impartiality.” They have jettisoned any sense of what it means to be dispassionate, emotionless, and evenhanded in assessing truth. Indeed, if an accusation is accompanied by the presence of tears, the accusation becomes more credible and the likelihood of its veracity becomes certain. Tears carry more weight than truth. “Due process” is defined as giving a hearing to the accusation and then accepting it at face value as true.

The concept of “presumed innocent until proven guilty”¹ is inherent in just law and self-evidently true. The accuser has the obligation to prove the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. In the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case Coffin vs. United States, writing the opinion of the Court, Justice White included the following observation:

Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the Governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, “a passionate man,” seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, “Oh, illustrious Caesar, if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?” to which Julian replied, “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?”²

The American Founders agreed with this assessment of the presumption of innocence and often quoted the highly respected English jurist William Blackstone on the matter: “all presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously, for the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”³

Apart from the legal system that has characterized American civilization from the beginning, the Bible speaks definitively regarding presumption of innocence. Indeed, the notion of “innocent until proven guilty” is inherent in the nature of God. Giving credence to an accusation without proof is evidence of blind prejudice and irrational human emotion rather than logic and reason. One wonders if those women who are quick to believe an unsubstantiated accusation made against a public official would react the same way if their own teenage sons were the recipients of similar allegations.

The bedrock truth that undergirded God’s law for Israel regarding criminal behavior centered on the presence of multiple witnesses:

Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty (Numbers 35:30).

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness (Deuteronomy 17:6).

These verses are adamant in their insistence that no one should be convicted on the basis of a single witness. This principle is carried over into church law in the New Testament (Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28; Revelation 11:3; Cf. Matthew 26:60; John 5:31; 10:37).

It is important to understand that the minimum two witnesses did not refer to a single witness who passes along his observations to another individual who then acts as a second witness. Rather, these verses require two or more independent witnesses, i.e., they were personal eye-witnesses to the alleged event. Nor do these verses justify bringing forward multiple witnesses to separate incidents (“me too”). The fact that a bank robber robs three separate banks on different occasions does not qualify a single witness from each bank robbery to serve as the “two or more witnesses.” There must be two or more eyewitnesses to the same event. God was so adamant on this point that He prescribed harsh penalties for violations of it:

One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you. And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you (Deuteronomy 19:15-20).

One wonders if this legislation were in effect in America today, would we have so many accusers speaking out without adequate evidence. Indeed, God declared: “Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked” (Exodus 23:7).

Under the Law of Moses, a woman subjected to sexual assault was under obligation to scream so that she could be rescued by those nearby. Otherwise, she was a consensual participant. The only exception to this requirement was if the sexual assault occurred in a secluded place (outside of town) where no witnesses or rescuers were available or able to come to her aid (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).

Also under the Old Law, Cities of Refuge were established to facilitate a person’s avoiding vengeance implemented by the kinfolk of the person he may have killed. He was permitted to flee to the city where he would be protected until guilt or innocence could be established. Hence, he was innocent until proven guilty. If he was assumed guilty at the outset, there would have been no reason to provide a city of refuge to determine otherwise.

Observe that with the advancement of scientific criminology, specifically the discoveries pertaining to DNA evidence, many convicted individuals have been exonerated. Oftentimes, they were originally convicted solely on the testimony of a single witness—a circumstance that violates God’s directives for ascertaining guilt. If God’s thinking had been employed, the innocent individual never would have been convicted in the first place.

But these principles imply that those guilty of heinous crimes will occasionally, perhaps even often, be allowed to go free. Nevertheless, in God’s sight, accusing and convicting an innocent person is a great miscarriage of justice. Recall the words of Blackstone and Emperor Caesar Julian: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”; “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?”

ENDNOTES

The post Presumption of Innocence appeared first on Apologetics Press.

On September 14, 2018 Hurricane Florence made landfall just south of Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. Like most hurricanes throughout history, this one left death and destruction in its wake. As shocking and heart-rending as such natural phenomena may seem, many other natural disasters have occurred in human history that exceed Florence, Harvey, Katrina, and even the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in their toll of death and destruction. For example, throughout China’s history, extensive flooding has occurred countless times as a result of the mighty 3,000-mile-long Hwang Ho River. Several of the most terrible floods, with their ensuing famines, have been responsible for the deaths of more than a million people at a time. The southern levee of the river failed in Hunan Province in 1887, affecting a 50,000 square mile area.¹ More than two million people died from drowning, starvation, or the epidemics that followed.²

In reality, such events have occurred repetitiously throughout the history of the world, and continue to do so—constantly: hurricanes, cyclones, earthquakes, tornados, floods, tsunamis, droughts, and volcano eruptions. In fact, natural disasters kill one million people around the world each decade, and leave millions more homeless, according to the United Nation’s International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction.³

This circumstance inevitably elicits the pressing question: “WHY?” “Why would God allow such suffering and loss of life, inflicted on countless numbers of seemingly innocent people?” Regarding Florence, a five-year-old boy asked: “‘Daddy, where is God during the hurricane?’”⁴ Indeed, the number one argument marshaled by atheists to advocate their disbelief in God is the presence of widespread, seemingly purposeless suffering. They insist that if an infinite Being existed, He would exercise His perfect compassion and His omnipotence to prevent human suffering.⁵ Even for many people who do not embrace formal atheism, the fact that God apparently seems willing to allow misery and suffering to run rampant in the world, elicits a gamut of reactions—from perplexity and puzzlement to anger and resentment.

THE BIBLE HAS THE ANSWERS

But the Bible provides the perfect explanations for such occurrences. Its handling of the subject is logical, sufficient, and definitive. It sets forth the fact that God created the world to be the most appropriate, suitable environment in which humans are enabled to make their own decisions concerning their ultimate destiny (Genesis 1:27; Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). We humans have been provided with the ideal environment in which we may freely accept or reject God’s will for our lives. Natural disasters and nature’s destructive forces are the result of specific conditions that are necessary to God’s providing humanity with this ideal environment.

God is not blameworthy for having created such a world, since He had a morally justifiable reason for having done so. Human existence on Earth was not intended to be permanent. Rather, the Creator intended life on Earth to serve as a temporary interval of time for the development of one’s spirit. Life on Earth is a probationary period in which people are given the opportunity to attend to their spiritual condition as it relates to God’s will for living. Among other purposes, natural disasters provide people with conclusive evidence that life on Earth is brief and uncertain. God has even harnessed natural calamities for the purpose of punishing wickedness.⁶

Christians understand that no matter how catastrophic, tragic, or disastrous an event may be, it fits into the overall framework of soul-making—preparation for one’s departure from life into eternity. Likewise, the Christian knows that although the great pain and suffering caused by natural disasters may be unpleasant, and may test one’s mettle; nevertheless, such suffering is not intrinsically evil. Nor is it a reflection on the existence of an omnibenevolent God. The only intrinsic evil is violation of God’s will. What is required of all accountable persons is obedience to God’s revealed Word (given in the Bible)—even amid pain, suffering, sickness, disease, death, and, yes, hurricanes.

[NOTE: For further study on this thorny issue, see Thomas Warren (1972), Have Atheists Proved There Is No God? available at https://warrenapologetics.org/bookstore/have-atheists-proved-there-is-no-god and AP’s book Why People Suffer available at http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=247.]

ENDNOTES

¹ “Hwang Ho” (2004), LoveToKnow 1911 Online Encyclopedia, http://32.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HW/HWANG_HO.htm.

² “Huang He, or Hwang Ho” (2004), Britannica Student Encyclopedia, http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=9274966.

³ “Disasters: A Deadly and Costly Toll Around the World” (1997), FEMA News, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/stats.pdf.

⁴ Bruce Ashford (2018), “‘Daddy, where is God during the hurricane?’” Fox News, September 16, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/15/daddy-where-is-god-during-hurricane.html.

⁵ E.g., Roy Jackson (2001), “The Problem of Evil,” The Philosopher’s Magazine Online, http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/rel_six.htm; Jeffery Lowder (2004), “Logical Arguments From Evil,” Internet Infidels, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evil-logical.html.

⁶ See Dave Miller (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/305.

The post Where Was God During Hurricane Florence? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff writer, Kevin Cain, who holds degrees from Freed-Hardeman University (B.S., M.Min.) and the Doctor of Jurisprudence from South Texas College of Law. A former Briefing Attorney of The First Court of Appeals, his current practice focuses on litigation at the trial and appellate levels in both State and Federal Courts.]

Justice Kennedy (who authored the 5-4 Obergefell opinion recognizing constitutional protections for gay marriage) strikes again authoring the majority opinion on the long-awaited Colorado baker and gay wedding cake case.¹ While many were looking forward to the Supreme Court addressing the issue of conflicting interests (gay rights versus free exercise of religion), the Supreme Court side-stepped this issue and resolved this particular case in such a way that it will have little impact on other cases in the future. Justice Kennedy was joined by six other justices with two justices dissenting, making the opinion a 7-2 split.

This case involved a Colorado baker who refused on religious grounds to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The gay couple filed a charge against the baker alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The Commission found that the baker discriminated based on sexual orientation. Justice Kennedy recognized that this case raised a difficult issue regarding the balance of the protection of “the rights and dignity of gay persons” versus “the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment.” Unfortunately, the Court did not resolve this dilemma. Yes, the ruling was a big win for a Colorado baker, but not a big win for the conservative right or liberal left as some had hoped.

The Court held that the Commission’s treatment of the baker violated the State’s duty to refrain from enforcing laws with hostility toward religion. The Court focused on hostile statements made toward the baker during the State Commission’s formal hearing to determine if the baker had discriminated against the gay couple in violation of Colorado law. The commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere. Another commissioner suggested that the baker can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs “if he decides to do business in this state.” This hostility was contrasted with the Commission’s inconsistent treatment allowing other bakers in Colorado to refuse service to patrons who wanted wedding cakes with an anti-gay message. As such, the Court held “the Commission’s treatment of [the baker’s] case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”

The unfortunate result of this ruling is that the Court found unconstitutional conduct in the manner in which the Commission implemented the law as opposed to the law itself. Rather than decide whether First Amendment rights must give way to the right to not be discriminated against based on sexual orientation, the Supreme Court focused on the manner in which the Commission implemented this law. While this focus is disappointing, it is not surprising from a legal standpoint. Courts of appeal throughout this nation will frequently resolve an issue using the path of least resistance principle. For example if there is a threshold procedural issue (Did the party timely file their appeal?) and a substantive issue (Was their evidence to support the verdict of murder?), most courts will resolve the entire appeal on the threshold procedural issue without addressing the substantive issue. It is the simplest and cleanest way to resolve this appeal, and it would not be out of the ordinary for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this gay wedding cake appeal the way it did. Disappointing—yes; unusual—no.

This unresolved legal issue means it may be constitutional for a state to find that a baker discriminated by refusing on moral grounds to bake a cake for a gay wedding so long as the state commission does not use “hostile” language in reaching its conclusion. Simply put, this opinion from the Supreme Court has very limited future application, especially when the state commission is smart enough to reach the religiously hostile outcome it desires without using religiously hostile language. The Court recognized the limited precedential impact of this opinion when it stated, “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.” This is just another way of saying, “Sorry, folks. The decision you were waiting for was not reached. Feel free to try again and bring us another case in a few years.” However, the outcome of the next similar case that makes its way back to the Supreme Court may very likely be decided based on the justice who replaces Justice Kennedy.² And, the next time a similar case makes it back to the Supreme Court on a similar issue where the Court ultimately reaches the critical substantive issue, you can expect a 5-4 split.

Justice Kennedy definitely left the impression that this type of case would have a different outcome so long as the state does not use language that is hostile toward religion, while concluding that a business owner’s religious practices must give way to gay rights. For example, the Court stated that “any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying ‘no good or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,’ something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”

There was one final concerning statement from the opinion in the gay wedding case opinion. Justice Kennedy commented that “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” Notice that religious “views” or beliefs are always protected (for now), but the “expression” of these views is protected in “some instances.” This is reminiscent of the language in Obergefell where Justice Kennedy similarly wrote that it “must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”³

This statement from the Supreme Court in Obergefell was pure dicta. “Dicta” is a statement made in a judicial opinion that is completely unnecessary to the resolution of the case. Therefore, it should be asked why this statement was made in light of the fact that it has no precedential value and was completely unnecessary to the resolution of the legal issues on appeal. It appears that Justice Kennedy was not trying to reassure the “religious right” that their First Amendment rights remain fully intact. Rather, this statement appears to be a veiled warning that simply holding religious views may be the only right remaining for those who oppose gay marriage, but don’t push it. In other words, the court is subtly telling those “religious” types out there to keep your opinions out of the public arena and don’t act on this belief that gay marriage is sinful. That is not just this author’s interpretation of Justice Kennedy’s dicta, but also that of Justice Alito.

Justice Alito, in his dissent in Obergefell, interpreted this dicta from Justice Kennedy with the following statement:  “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”⁴ This is consistent with Justice Kennedy’s comment in the Colorado baker case implying that religious beliefs may not be protected by the First Amendment when they transition from sincere convictions to external teaching and doctrine. This latest opinion from Justice Kennedy may mark the beginning of this shift in First Amendment thinking from the Supreme Court eroding the protections of the Free Exercise clause. This thinking highlights, yet again, the importance of the nomination of the justice who eventually replaces Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court justice who is often the swing vote in many controversial cases that impact our culture.

Here is a simple response that every follower of Christ can put into action today. As Paul instructed Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.”

ENDNOTES

The post Let Them Eat Wedding Cake: The Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker (But Only Him) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: The following article was written by A.P. auxiliary staff writer, Kevin Cain, who holds degrees from Freed-Hardeman University (B.S., M.Min.) and the Doctor of Jurisprudence from South Texas College of Law. A former Briefing Attorney of The First Court of Appeals, his current practice focuses on litigation at the trial and appellate levels in both State and Federal Courts.]

Rumors are flying again (this time from U.S. Senator Dean Heller) that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire this summer.¹ This is not the first time rumors have circulated about the elusive retirement of Justice Kennedy. The topic seems to come up at least once or twice a year lately. His retirement is of particular interest because he is the second oldest justice sitting on the United States Supreme Court (Ginsburg is 84, Kennedy is 81, and Breyer is 79). He has also been serving longer than any other justice on this bench. However, his retirement has been of particular interest because he has been what is frequently referred to as the “swing vote” on the Supreme Court—meaning, he often decides the outcome of many Supreme Court cases which people often ascribe to “conservative” or “liberal” ideologies.

Kennedy was appointed to the United States Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1988. While it was initially thought that he would be a solid conservative on the bench, his rulings have waffled back and forth on the conservative-liberal spectrum. His vote is often the deciding vote between four Supreme Court liberals and four Supreme Court conservatives to determine the outcome of that case.

Here is a brief overview of some of the more noteworthy cases where Justice Kennedy sided with the left:

• Kennedy joined the plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey² reaffirming Roe v. Wade and the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause.
• Kennedy authored the 6-3 majority opinion in Romer v. Evans³ invalidating a Colorado Constitutional provision denying homosexuals the right to bring discrimination claims.
• Kennedy authored the 6-3 majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas⁴ invalidating criminal laws against homosexual sodomy under the Due Process Clause.
• Kennedy authored the 5-4 majority opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana⁵ holding that the Eighth Amendment (“cruel and unusual punishment”) bars the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death, because the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim’s life was not taken.
• Kennedy authored the 5-4 majority opinion in United States v. Windsor⁶ holding Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (defining marriage as a union between a man and woman) was unconstitutional.
• Kennedy authored the 5-4 majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges⁷ which holds that all states must allow same-sex couples to marry.

The following are some prominent cases where Justice Kennedy sided with the right:

• Kennedy joined the 5-4 majority in Hodgson v. Minnesota⁸ upholding a law requiring both parents to be notified when their minor daughter wanted an abortion.
• Kennedy joined the 5-4 majority in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale⁹ upholding the Boy Scouts right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters.
• Kennedy joined the 5-4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller¹⁰ striking down the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia.
• Kennedy authored the 5-4 majority opinion in Florence v. County of Burlington (2012)¹¹ holding that people admitted to the general jail population may be subjected to strip searches even when there is no reason to suspect contraband.

Ever since the Obergefell opinion on gay marriage, people are beginning to wake up to the belief that the judiciary (and the Supreme Court in particular) may be the most powerful and influential branch of the U.S. government. The exclusive right to interpret the laws and Constitution of the United States is a powerful tool. For example, Congress can pass a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but the U.S. Supreme Court can strike down that law as unconstitutional. In fact, that is just what Justice Kennedy did in United States v. Windsor. The only recourse the public has in that situation is to petition Congress to amend the Constitution, which is a very rare occurrence. The last two amendments to our Constitution took place in 1992 and 1971. In other words, when the Supreme Court says something is unconstitutional, that is usually the end of the matter. Simply put, a U.S. Supreme Court justice may not be a high profile position, but it is a very powerful one nonetheless.

With a stroke of the pen, Justice Kennedy changed the history of the United States by holding that all states are forced by the Constitution to recognize same-sex marriages. The homosexual community has been emboldened and the pressure is on. People are losing their jobs and are being shouted down and physically intimidated for having the conviction to stand by the Bible when it comes to calling sin “sin.” Have you noticed more and more TV shows and movies where homosexual characters are more prominent than ever? If you just followed the pseudo-reality of TV shows and movies, one would think that nearly half the population is homosexual. Have you noticed how businesses are subtly interjecting homosexual couples into their commercials? A company selling homes shows a quick montage of scenes depicting the joys of home ownership, including kids playing in a park, a mom and dad holding up a baby, two men holding hands, and grandparents going for a walk. It is quick and subtle, but this sin is all around us, and the United States Supreme Court says it is sanctioned and protected by the Constitution—all because one man who stands between an ideologically splintered court decided to swing to the left.

This is why so many are talking about and interested in when Justice Kennedy will retire. If Justice Kennedy were to retire soon, it would allow President Trump to fill a second Supreme Court seat after nominating Neil Gorsuch to replace Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. It would be hard to overestimate the importance of the role of the President when he nominates the next Supreme Court justice, a justice who does not serve for a term, but is appointed for life. And the role of a Supreme Court justice is an incredibly powerful position. No disrespect intended, but when someone has the exclusive ability to interpret the law for all, that can (it shouldn’t, but it can) unfortunately turn into the role of creating the law as well. Therefore, please pray for your government and political leaders that they will make decisions that will allow us to lead quiet and peaceful lives (1 Timothy 2:2).

ENDNOTES

The post Justice Kennedy: You Will Hear of Retirement and Rumors of Retirement appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Silva and his evolutionary colleagues subscribe to the notion that “science” only allows natural, observable, experimental phenomena²—no supernatural realm with a God Who miraculously created the Universe allowed. The problem with such thinking, as we have noted elsewhere,³ is that it is impossible to explain the Universe without resorting to supernatural activity—and even many naturalists acknowledge that fact.⁴ The origin of the laws of science, the matter/energy of the Universe, life, and genetic information, for example, have no rational explanations from a purely naturalistic perspective. They require a supernatural Cause.⁵ So Silva and any other naturalists who agree with him in their belief that science should only allow for natural phenomena must inevitably contradict their own position when attempting to explain several characteristics of the Universe.

Bottom line: if the scientific evidence demands the existence of a supernatural Creator, why would scientists define science in such a way that a Designer/Creator is precluded? And further, why would acknowledging that the evidence points to an intelligent Designer of the Universe “endanger” children? There are certainly answers to those questions—but it is certain that they are not rational answers, because they cannot be, according to the evidence. “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4).

Endnotes

¹ Heslley Machado Silva (2017), “Intelligent Design Endangers Education,” Science, 357[6354]:880.

² Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

³ Jeff Miller (2012), “The Atheistic Naturalist’s Self-Contradiction,” Reason & Revelation, 31[5]:53.

⁴ Jeff Miller (2017), “Atheists’ Design Admissions,” Reason & Revelation, 37[12]:134-143.

⁵ Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Apologetics Press: Montgomery, AL), revised and expanded.

Suggested Resources

The post “Only Science” Should be Taught in Science Classrooms appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Regardless of the specific approach, evangelistic efforts must focus on encouraging people to study the Bible, obey the Gospel, and remain faithful.  Colossians 3:2 tells us: “Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.” Mark 8:36 states: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?” Acts 2:38 reads: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Topics that are easy to understand can often be effective in encouraging people to consider the Bible with an open mind. For example, most individuals will agree that they can make choices. The most important choice we will ever make is discussed in Joshua 24:15, which states:

[C]hoose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

But how could we make even the simplest of choices if God had not given us a spirit? The answer is, we could not.  From science we know that chemical and physical reactions follow the natural laws that God established. If humans were nothing more than a collection of several thousand trillion trillion (octillion) atoms undergoing a sophisticated chemical reaction (as atheists allege), then we could have no free will whatsoever. Acknowledgment that we can make choices is an acknowledgement of God, which can be an excellent first step in our efforts to evangelize. Once a person acknowledges God, we can then focus on helping them realize that the Bible is God’s inerrant Word, and that we need to live our lives accordingly.¹

From science we know that life cannot make itself from non-living material.² The fallacy of “spontaneous generation” can be discussed at any technical level desired. Perhaps the simplest way to initiate a conversation would be to point out that hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent in the field of biotechnology, with extremely sophisticated laboratories, and highly intelligent researchers. Yet, no one has ever come close to making life from non-living material.  Even attempts to make simple, self-replicating molecules in highly contrived environments continue to fail. Given a few billion dollars, mankind was able to create the space shuttle. Does that somehow add credence to the idea that space shuttles can create themselves? Obviously not. Claiming life (which humans cannot make) could somehow create itself is vastly less scientific than claiming cell phones, cars, airplanes, or rockets (all of which humans can make) could make themselves.

Science has also shown us that information is being lost from the genome—not gained³—further refuting religions based on Darwin’s theory of evolution. Organs and structures once thought to be “vestigial” have been shown to have useful functions,_⁴ and the whole concept of vestigial organs and structures is now viewed as nothing more than an example of scientific ignorance that was overcome by advances in real science. Homologous and analogous physical structures are exactly what Christians would expect given that God created all life.  As the Bible states, it is the spiritual difference between humans and animals that make humans completely unique (Genesis 1:26-27). Ideas that contradict the Bible in areas related to the age of the Earth or the origin of the Universe have also been shown to be seriously flawed and based on arbitrary assumptions.⁵ In short, there are numerous areas of science that Christians can simply and effectively use in evangelism.

But what about topics that are difficult to discuss with individuals who are skeptical about everything? Many agnostics are committed to the idea that nothing can be known for certain. While our primary concern should be the effect that idea has on the agnostic’s willingness to study the Bible and obey the Gospel, the idea that “nothing can be known” can also affect secular conversations that we may have. Those conversations can, in turn, affect our ability to establish the trust necessary for effective evangelism.

Two contemporary examples include the idea of a “flat Earth” and the idea that the U.S. never landed astronauts on the Moon. While a person’s views on those subjects are unimportant compared to their view of Christ, useful conversations can still be had. Calm, logical discussions on secular topics can often lead to calm, logical discussions on spiritual topics.

Moon Landing

Interesting parallels can be drawn between the methods that are used in attempts to convince people that the U.S. did not land on the Moon and the methods that are used in attempts to convince people that the Bible is not God’s inerrant Word. For example, one argument used against the Moon landing is that there is a “geographical dependence” on whether or not a person believes we landed on the Moon. A Gallup Poll taken in 2001 showed that 5% of Americans believed the Moon landing was faked, and 6% did not know. At the same time 28% of Russians believed the landings were faked, and up to 75% of people in Cuba and in countries that were heavily influenced by Cuban teachers believed the landings were faked. If a person grew up near Cape Canaveral, knew people who worked on the Apollo program, witnessed Saturn V launches firsthand, and believed the U.S. landed on the Moon, his belief could be dismissed as a “geographical dependence.” The observation is made that if that same person had grown up in Cuba, he likely would not have believed in the Moon landing.  But even if that suggestion were true, does it have any bearing at all on whether or not the U.S. actually landed on the Moon? Obviously not. Likewise, atheists will often observe that if a person grows up in an area where knowledge of the Bible is strong they are much more likely to become a Christian than a person who grows up in an area where there is no knowledge of the Bible, and where becoming a Christian is punishable by death. But does that “geographical dependence” have any bearing at all on whether or not the Bible is true? Again, obviously not.

Moon-landing skeptics and agnostics often ask that if we were able to land on the Moon, why have we not returned to the Moon? One answer could be that the initial goal was achieved (land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth) and that additional goals (such as establishing a lunar outpost) will be achieved in the future. In the same vein, people often ask, “If Christ came to Earth once, why has He not returned?” The Bible gives very clear answers, such as 2 Peter 3:9 which states: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

Skeptics and agnostics also point out that the Moon landings seemed too perfect. The U.S. first landed on the Moon with only six months to spare (to meet the stated objective), and the final Moon landing occurred just before the Soviet Union allegedly deployed technology that could prove the landings were fake. (The Soviet Union actually had adequate technology throughout the program.) All of the landings also occurred under the Nixon administration.

Similar accusations are also made against the Bible. Christ perfectly fulfilled all Old Testament prophecies, and the Bible (written by 40 different authors over a period of 1,600 years) is perfectly consistent. The obvious answer for this perfection is given in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Numerous other methods are used to instill doubt concerning the U.S. Moon landing, but perhaps the most popular is “with all of the inconsistencies with the Moon landing claim, how can anyone still believe we landed on the Moon?”  Numerous examples are then typically presented, including cross hatches in front of photographed objects, odd looking (non-parallel) shadows, a flag that appears to be “waving,” no blast craters from landers, no visible flame from ascent stages, high radiation levels in the Van Allen belts (how could the astronauts survive?), no stars visible in photographs, footprints in Moon dust are too well preserved, etc.⁶ Direct evidence of fraud is also mentioned.  For example, in 2009 the Moon rock at the Rijkmuseum in Amsterdam was examined and found to be petrified wood. There is missing data (Apollo 11 telemetry), and a woman in Perth, Australia even claims to have seen a soft drink bottle in the frame while watching the Moon landing.

In an analogous fashion, the “numerous inconsistencies” approach is often used against the Bible.⁷ Questions include: “How could a loving God allow pain and suffering?” “How can God simultaneously be omniscient and give us free will?” “How can the Earth be less than 10,000 years old and the Universe appear the way it does?” “How could a virgin give birth?” “How could Jesus be resurrected from the dead?” In both cases, a good approach is to ask the skeptic which alleged inconsistency troubles him the most, and then spend whatever time is necessary fully addressing his concern. Logically sound explanations exist for all alleged contradictions with the Moon landing, just as logically sound explanations exist for all alleged contradictions within the Bible. In two extensive volumes, Eric Lyons examines and refutes many of the most popular allegations against the Bible.⁸

From the standpoint of positive evidence, there are also many analogies between belief in the Moon landing and belief in the Bible. Developing and launching a 7.8-million-pound thrust, 363-foot-tall rocket (the Saturn V) was a key aspect of the Moon landing, and millions of people saw the Saturn V launch with their own eyes. Likewise, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection are a key aspect of Christianity, and hundreds of people saw the risen Christ with their own eyes (1 Corinthians 15:6). Hundreds (likely thousands) of people both inside and outside of the U.S. were involved in the preparations where they could have easily shown the Moon landing to be a hoax (if the landings had been), but no one did. Likewise hundreds (if not thousands) of people were in a position where they could have refuted Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection had it not occurred, but they did not. In fact, those closest to Jesus (and those who would have needed to be involved in any type of fraud) were willing to die for their knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God.

One final analogy can be made relative to discussions about Moon landings. Just as the Moon landings will be reconfirmed when mankind returns to the Moon, the Bible will be reconfirmed when Christ returns to the Earth (Philippians 2:9-11).

Flat Earth

A similar subject of interest is the recent surge in belief in a flat Earth, seemingly led by a handful of professional athletes and others. As with discussions related to the Moon landing, it is important to keep our minds set on things above. While Romans 14:15 speaks specifically about food, the same sentiment applies to other subjects as well. We should not risk destroying “one for whom Christ died” over a disagreement related to a secular idea.

Two recent articles provide numerous facts and observations related to refuting the idea of a flat Earth—biblically and scientifically.⁹ If an agnostic or skeptic is committed to a belief, though, a “rescue mechanism” can almost always be devised to claim that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, their belief is true. Ironically, the same techniques used to garner support for a flat Earth have been used to gain acceptance for the Big Bang, an equally false but more widely accepted cosmology. Observations that contradict either the flat Earth or the Big Bang theory are typically explained away through the use of sophisticated fudge factors, or by framing the theories in a way that any observation or piece of experimental evidence can be accommodated.¹⁰

First Corinthians 9:22 states “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” Along those lines, it is important that we be able to discuss virtually any subject in a non-confrontational manner. Three ideas related to flat Earth discussions can involve contacting a friend, purchasing (or borrowing) a telescope, and working with a local university.

For instance, the mobility of 21^st-century society and the ability to affordably travel and communicate over long distances have allowed many people to develop friendships around the world.  If a person has a friend living a few time zones away (i.e., a few thousand miles east or west of him) and at roughly the same latitude, then a simple text or phone call can provide good evidence for a spherical Earth. For example, a call could be made near sunset, and the friend could be asked about the Sun’s position in the sky at his location. The spherical Earth model would exactly predict the response, which would be either “the Sun set a few hours ago” (if the friend lived to the east) or “the Sun won’t be setting for a few hours” (if the friend lived to the west). While there might be a set of “fudge factors” that could be applied to certain flat Earth models to allow for the same response, the use of those factors would show the models to be highly contrived at the very least. A friend living at very high latitudes (e.g., Fairbanks, Alaska; Iceland; Greenland; etc.) could also add to the discussion based on the extreme differences in solar position between winter and summer. A friend living in the opposite hemisphere (e.g. New Zealand, Tasmania, etc. for people living in the U.S.) could be used to obtain other useful data. All of the observations and discussions would show the consistency of a spherical Earth model, and present extreme difficulties for a flat Earth model.

Buying or borrowing a telescope can also be useful in many ways.  Not only do telescopes allow detailed observation of God’s creation from Earth, but they also allow us more fully to appreciate Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

From the standpoint of a flat Earth discussion, a telescope can (given clear skies) allow us to view objects on the horizon where the lower portion of the object is blocked because of the curvature of the Earth. A classic example is a ship traveling out to sea. As the ship gets further away, a greater portion of the ship “disappears” below the horizon. This effect is again exactly what is expected on a spherical Earth, and very difficult to explain in a flat Earth model.

Universities are often involved with the launch of high altitude balloons. While the curvature of the Earth is much more obvious from orbit, it can still be discerned from altitudes that can be attained by balloons. If a skeptic or agnostic feels that all international space programs are somehow “covering up” evidence for a flat Earth, perhaps more personal involvement with a local university would encourage them to think otherwise. Some universities have also begun launching experiments on sub-orbital and even orbital flights, which could provide even more opportunity for first-hand observations that the Earth is spherical.

Although beliefs—such as the U.S. never having landed on the Moon or the Earth being flat—are typically attributed to agnostics and skeptics, it is important to remember that both non-Christians and Christians alike can have inaccurate beliefs on secular topics. When discussing any secular topic, we need to remember to keep our mind set on things above. We should focus on spiritual issues and not worry too much about correcting false secular beliefs that have little bearing on eternity. However, it is also important to note that vigorously promoting a false secular belief can have a negative influence on our ability to evangelize. Christians should be very careful about accidentally losing influence by endorsing a secular fad that, while popular in certain circles, is ultimately incorrect.

Another observation concerning both belief in a faked Moon landing and belief in a flat Earth—no matter what the evidence—people can still choose to believe what they want to believe. Likewise, regardless of the evidence, an atheist or agnostic can, ironically, still choose to believe they have no free will, choose to believe that life somehow made itself, choose to believe that all of the information in the genome somehow created itself, and choose to believe the many other falsehoods required to deny God.

While science is an excellent tool for evangelism, we also know that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17). We need to stay focused on encouraging people to read God’s Word, obey the Gospel, and remain faithful. Our ultimate commission is summarized in Matthew 28:19-20—

Go thereforeand make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

ENDNOTES

¹ Additional discussion concerning “free will” is given in Kyle Butt (2016), “Atheism and Free Will,” Reason and Revelation, 36[10]:110-118, October, http://apologeticspress.org.

² Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), second edition.

³ J.C. Sanford (2014), Genetic Entropy (FMS Publications).

⁴ Jerry Bergman and George Howe (1990), “Vestigial Organs” are Fully Functional (Creation Research Society).

⁵ Alex Williams and John Hartnett (2006), Dismantling the Big Bang (Master Books); Don DeYoung (2005), Thousands… Not Billions (Master Books).

⁶ “Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories” (2017), Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories.

⁷ Kyle Butt (2013), A Christian’s Guide to Refuting Modern Atheism (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

⁸ Eric Lyons (2003/2005), The Anvil Rings: Volumes 1 & 2 (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

⁹ Branyon May and Alana May (2017), “Flat or Spherical Earth?  Evaluating Astronomical Observations,” Reason and Revelation, 37[8]:86-95, August, http://apologeticspress.org; Justin Rogers (2017), “Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth,” Reason and Revelation, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=5428&topic=24#.

¹⁰ Additional discussion in Mike Houts (2015), “Assumptions and the Age of the Earth,” Reason and Revelation, 35[3]:26-34, March, http://apologeticspress.org.

The post Science as a Tool of Evangelism appeared first on Apologetics Press.

There are several scientific problems with Big Bang Theory that illustrate that it is an unscientific, irrational theory that amounts to a blind faith in naturalism. Some of the problems include:

• the origin of the laws of science;²
• the origin of matter/energy;³
• the smoothness problem;⁴
• the lack of evidence for dark energy⁵—a fudge factor added to the Big Bang model to try to explain space observations in light of the Big Bang; and
• the lack of evidence for inflation⁶—an imaginary, but necessary, process at the beginning of the Big Bang that was invented to try to solve other Big Bang issues, including the horizon and flatness problems.

Those significant obstacles are not the extent of the problems with the Big Bang, as was highlighted yet again in major science magazines. The Fermi Paradox is the name given to the concept that if cosmic evolution (i.e., the Big Bang coupled with Darwinian Evolution) is true, it would be inconceivable that other life—even advanced life—does not exist somewhere in the Universe with its billions of stars and even more planets. Writing in New Scientist, University of Sydney astrophysicist Geraint Lewis explains: “The size of the universe suggests advanced alien civilisations, or at least evidence of them, ought to be out there. Signs in the shape of transmissions or megastructures should be obvious. Instead, we find nothing. This ‘eerie silence,’ as cosmologist Paul Davies [Arizona State University—JM] puts it, inspired physicist Enrico Fermi to ask: ‘Where are they?’”⁷ How is the naturalist to explain the Big Bang Theory’s blatant contradiction with the evidence? The response: maybe the aliens are sleeping. Lewis explains: “What if aliens are indeed out there, but are sleeping, awaiting a glorious future when the universe provides the right conditions for them to fulfil their ultimate ambitions?”⁸

It is shocking how far science has drifted from a reliance on being rational—only drawing conclusions warranted by the evidence. At least Lewis admits that “[e]voking sleeping aliens is a very long shot to solve Fermi’s paradox”⁹ and “is little more than guesswork” and “speculation” that “should be taken with a suitable pinch of salt”¹⁰—highlighting the fact that the Big Bang is still directly and hopelessly in contradiction to the observable evidence.

Add to Fermi’s Paradox another problem that still plagues Big Bang Theory: the missing antimatter in the Universe.Energy can be transformed into matter, according to the 1^st Law of Thermodynamics,¹¹ but when it happens, an equal amount of antimatter (basically normal matter with a reversed charge on its particles) is always produced—without exception according to the laboratory evidence. So if the Big Bang is true and energy was transformed into all of the matter of the Universe at the beginning, there should have been an equal amount of matter and antimatter produced—but there clearly was not, or else when the two touched, they would have been immediately destroyed, releasing their energy. Today the Universe is virtually completely composed of regular matter. Elizabeth Gibney, writing in Nature, explains the dilemma for Big Bang believers: “As far as physicists know, matter and antimatter should have been created in equal amounts in the early Universe and so blasted each other into oblivion. But that didn’t happen, and the origin of this fundamental imbalance remains one of the biggest mysteries in physics.”¹²

Do not these many and diverse problems with the best model put forth by naturalists effectively constitute a falsification of modern naturalism? It seems apparent that the evidence is pointing in a totally different direction than a naturalistic model. But if naturalism does not fit the evidence regarding the origin of the Universe, then what does? Something supernatural.

Endnotes

¹ Branyon May, et al. (2003), “The Big Bang—A Biblical Critique,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=56.

² Jeff Miller (2012), “The Laws of Science—by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[12]:137-140.

³ Jeff Miller (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2786&topic=336.

⁴ J.V. Narlikar and T. Padmanabhan (1991), “Inflation for Astronomers,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 29:325-362, September.

⁵ David N. Spergel (2015), “The Dark Side of Cosmology: Dark Matter and Dark Energy,” Science, 347[6226]:1100-1102, March.

⁶ Jeff Miller (2015), “Big Bang Inflation Officially Bites the Dust,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:62-65.

⁷ Geraint Lewis (2017), “Dream On,” New Scientist, 235[3137]:24, emp. added.

⁸ Ibid., p. 24.

⁹ Ibid., p. 24.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 25.

¹¹ Miller, 2013.

¹² Elizabeth Gibney (2017), “The Antimatter Race,” Nature, 548[7665]:20, emp. added.

Suggested Resources

The post Big Bang Problems Highlighted by the Evidence Again appeared first on Apologetics Press.

WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church. WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God.

And:

WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness. WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

Sadly, many people who call themselves Christians are actively denouncing the truths found in the statement and contending that homosexuality and transgenderism are God-affirmed behaviors. Brandan Robertson, an LGBTQ activist and “pastor” helped put together a response to the statement called “Christians United.”¹ That response, endorsed by hundreds of people calling themselves Christians, states:

WE AFFIRM that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God and that the great diversity expressed in humanity through our wide spectrum of unique sexualities and gender identities is a perfect reflection of the magnitude of God’s creative work.

It includes other statements that claim that active participation in homosexual behavior is in-line with God’s will.

As could be expected, the Nashville Statement is being slammed by those in the LGBTQ community, along with many “religious” people who approve of such behavior, as being hate-filled, vicious, mean-spirited, evil, and unloving. These accusations, however, could not be further from the truth. The Nashville Statement is saturated with sentiments about God’s love and acceptance of all people, but not sinful behavior. Article 11 of the statement reads:

WE AFFIRM our duty to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to or about one another as male or female. WE DENY any obligation to speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design of his imagebearers as male and female.

And article 14 reads as follows:

WE AFFIRM that Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners and that through Christ’s death and resurrection forgiveness of sins and eternal life are available to every person who repents of sin and trusts in Christ alone as Savior, Lord, and supreme treasure. WE DENY that the Lord’s arm is too short to save or that any sinner is beyond his reach.

In truth, the Bible explains that homosexual and transgender behaviors are sinful.² Since that is the case, the only truly loving approach is to kindly and gently, yet boldly and clearly, explain to our culture that such behaviors are sinful. Jesus Himself gave us this very example. In Mark 10:17-22, we read the story of the rich young ruler. He came to Jesus wanting to know how to be saved. Unfortunately, the young man loved money. The Bible explains, “then Jesus, looking at him, loved him.” Our society would claim that means Jesus must have changed His message to accommodate the young man’s behavior and accepted him regardless of his actions. That is not at all what Jesus did. He told the young man that if he wanted to be right with God, then he would have to give up his sinful behavior. The young man left Jesus with a sorrow-filled heart because he was not willing to give up his sin.

The story gives us a clear picture of the only truly loving approach. When people involve themselves in sinful behavior, if we love them, we will explain to them what God’s Word says they must leave behind in order to be right with God. If we really love people, we will gently tell them what the Bible says is right and wrong, regardless of how they respond. This was Jesus’ approach and He hung on the cross for it. We should expect to experience the same types of negative responses He experienced when we follow His example. As He said, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

Endnotes

The post Nashville Statement on Sexuality: A Loving Appeal to Truth appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: In the July issue of Reason & Revelation, Hebraist Dr. Justin Rogers addressed the matter of whether the Bible gives any credence to the notion of a flat Earth. In this month’s R&R, we consider whether science supports a flat Earth. AP scientist Dr. Branyon May holds a Ph.D. degree in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama. Alana May, his wife and co-author, holds an M.S. in Astrophysics from the University of Alabama.]

While the idea of a flat Earth is not a new one, it has been recently resurrected into mainstream pop culture. For a variety of reasons, many have adopted this view, or have begun looking toward it as a viable option. For some, the arguments contrasting a spherical versus a flat Earth are confusing and have caused frustration. This frustration has then led to a sense of doubt towards many previously accepted beliefs and facts. Such doubt towards authority has even caused some Christians to question their faith in God’s Word.

So what about humanity’s understanding for the shape of the Earth? Is the Earth spherical or flat? The best way to work through this discussion is to consider the observational evidences. One of the most definitive ways to directly see the spherical nature of Earth is through the images taken from space by various space agencies. However, because many people who hold to a flat Earth have also expressed concern about government conspiracy theories, we wish to present the space-based observations after we discuss some simple backyard-type observations. When considering new ideas, a bit of healthy caution is good, but can become unhealthy when conspiracy and paranoia consume the conversation over the facts and observations. Using the laws of nature and physics that God set in place, let’s investigate how we can know the Earth is, in fact, spherical.

Evaluating Observations of the Sun and Moon

Between Flat-Earth and Globe models, the Sun and the Moon have drastic differences in physical characteristics and scale dimensions. The Sun’s generally accepted location places it toward the center of Earth’s orbit at a distance of approximately 93 million miles, with a physical diameter of 864,600 miles. In contrast, Flat-Earth models describe the Sun as being 32 miles in diameter and orbiting above the surface of the Earth at a height of approximately 3,000 miles.¹ Since by observation the Sun and Moon have equivalent angular sizes,2 Flat-Earth models must also place the Moon in an orbit coinciding with the Sun’s orbit at a distance of 3,000 miles and having the same 32-mile diameter.3 Such scales for the Moon are vastly different than the Moon’s generally accepted location in space, where it orbits the Earth at a distance of 238,900 miles and has a physical diameter of 2,160 miles. We should also note that between these two views there is a vast contrast in distance between the positions of the Sun and Moon. In the Flat-Earth model the two objects share similar planes of orbit, circling above Earth parallel to the ground. Therefore, their physical distances from each other would fluctuate substantially depending on where in their orbits they were. At least once during every month’s cycle the two would be physically very near to each other. By contrast, the standard heliocentric and spherical context describes the Moon’s position in orbit around the Earth, where its distance from the Sun would keep approximately the same 93-million-mile-physical-distance as Earth.

With such vast differences in scale these models must also describe vastly different physical characteristics for the Sun and Moon and, in fact, they do. Flat-Earth models describe the Sun and Moon in terms similar to spotlights moving above the Earth’s surface, illuminating in such a way as to produce periods of day and night. Resulting from this description, Flat-Earth models hold that the Moon is not reflecting the Sun’s light, but must instead be producing its own light. The physical characteristics of the Moon are therefore vastly different from the solid, rocky body and sunlight-reflecting surface usually discussed.

Eclipses

One means of testing these contrasting parameters is by evaluating eclipse events, where the Sun, Moon, and Earth experience well-defined and observable changes. First, the most obvious type of eclipse is a solar eclipse. In this type of eclipse the observed effect is for the New Moon to pass in front of the Sun eclipsing some or all of our view of the solar body. Due to the Sun and Moon having similar apparent sizes in the sky, a total solar eclipse can occur when the Moon’s path precisely crosses the Sun. A total solar eclipse causes a daytime period of dramatic darkening, allowing the less bright outer regions of the Sun’s atmosphere, including the chromosphere and corona, to become visible to observers. While these portions of the Sun’s atmosphere are always producing light, their levels of emission are much less than the extremely bright photosphere. Solar eclipses do not usually result in the total eclipse orientation, but rather will occur more often as partial eclipses where only part of the Sun is obscured by the Moon. What information do eclipse observations provide? Eclipses demonstrate several important facts, which we will expand on below, including: (1) the apparent sizes of the Sun and Moon are approximately equal, (2) the distances from Earth to the Sun and Earth to the Moon are not equal, and (3) the spherical shape of Earth.

Eclipses provide for us an important understanding about the positioning of the Sun, Moon, and Earth. We see from the fact that the Moon passes in front of the Sun that the two bodies must be at different distances. During a solar eclipse when the Moon obscures the Sun, the Moon’s distance is closer to Earth than the Sun’s. When we couple this with the first important fact mentioned, that the apparent sizes are approximately equal, then we are able to also understand that the Sun and Moon must be different in their true physical sizes. If two objects were the same true physical size, then placing one of them farther from you would cause it to appear smaller. Thus, since the Sun and Moon appear the same size, then the Sun (which is farther away) would have to be larger than the Moon (which is closer) in order to appear equal in size. As we consider a difference in distance between the more distant Sun and less distant Moon to be greater and greater, the necessary size of the Sun must be larger and larger to result in an observed equivalent, apparent size.

Now that we have established they are not at the same distance, we can also explore how solar eclipses also help provide evidence for the distance factors of the Sun and Moon. A total solar eclipse occurs when the observer is located within the shadow cast by the Moon blocking the Sun’s light. Consider the shadow cast on a wall  by placing an object in front of a light source. What happens to the shadow as the distance between the object and light source is decreased? The shadowed area becomes larger, and a viewer within the shadowed region would have to move farther to leave the shadowed area and lose this precise alignment. If the distance between the light source and object becomes larger, then the shadow that is cast on the wall will become smaller and subsequently the observer’s location in the shadow for an eclipse alignment must become more precise (i.e., since the shadow is smaller, there is less area located within the eclipse shadow region).

Total solar eclipses are very rare events to see on Earth, which tells us that the alignment of such an event requires certain precision. It first requires precision for the orbits and locations of the three bodies to be exactly aligned. Second, it requires that an observer be located within the area of the Moon’s shadow cast on Earth. This second requirement increases the rarity of seeing a total solar eclipse, because the area of the Moon’s shadow resulting in totality is small, at most only about 165 miles in diameter.⁴ The casting of a small shadow means there must be a significant distance between the Sun and Moon. In addition, the path of totality, which is the track that the Moon’s shadow takes as it moves across the Earth’s surface, is a very narrow strip. When seeking to see a total solar eclipse event, the location where you go to observe must be very precisely chosen within the track.

If we focus on the second major type of eclipse, a lunar eclipse, then we see, not only further evidence for distances and orientations matching the heliocentric view, but also evidence for the spherical nature of Earth. Lunar eclipses occur when Earth is positioned between the Sun and Moon, and its shadow is cast across the Moon’s surface causing a darkening of the Moon. While solar eclipses only occur during the New Moon phase, lunar eclipses similarly occur only during the Full Moon phase. The precise alignment of the Sun, Moon, and Earth is emphasized by the fact that while lunar eclipses only occur during Full Moon phases, they do not occur every cycle and are quite rare. In contrast to a solar eclipse that involves one body, the Moon, obscuring the more distant Sun, a lunar eclipse involves the Earth’s shadow progressing across the Moon’s surface until it becomes completely engulfed. The evidence for a spherical Earth comes from the fact that as the lunar eclipse event begins the curvature of the Earth’s shadow can be seen advancing across the Moon’s surface. This provides direct observation for the circular shape of the Earth’s body, as well as the required orbit of the Moon to go around to the opposite side of Earth from the Sun. Both of these observable facts are contrary to Flat-Earth models, some of which postulate Earth as an indefinite plane5 or as a circular inhabitable region set in a rectangular block.6

Observing Objects Outside of Earth

As we consider the shape of our own planet, we can gain perspective by making direct observations of other celestial objects. By comparison of the physical features we observe in other objects, we can make application to the features we observe on Earth. A good starting place is to consider the planets in our own Solar System, objects that are generally the easiest to observe: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Each of these planets is conventionally described as being spherically round, so let’s discuss the observational evidence.

The planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are the four easiest of the planets to observe with simple backyard telescopes or even binoculars. With these tools the casual observer can see that each of these objects has dimensions and shape, showing more than the spot of light seen with the naked eye. In a simple description, the planets are obviously round; but are they three-dimensionally round objects? During short times of observing, we are able to capture short picturesque views of the planets; but what happens as we continue our observations? If we simply make the effort to add repeated observations, we will be able to see the snapshot characteristics begin to show their dynamic and varying nature. With observations over a matter of days and weeks (even better over months), you will see Venus’ phase change, Mars’ apparent size and surface features change, Jupiter’s rotation, and Saturn’s ring orientation change.

Let’s begin making a few specific observations. Beginning with the planet that has the largest average apparent size, we find Jupiter to be a beautifully banded planet. The roughly horizontal striations of Jupiter have varying colors from white to brownish-red. Overlapping the middle bands, you might see one of the most well-known features of Jupiter: the “Great Red Spot.” This feature serves as a good landmark and is one of Jupiter’s most fascinating features. Named for its appearance, this giant, oval-shaped region in Jupiter’s atmosphere has existed for several hundred years and is similar to features described by Galileo Galilei and Giovanni Cassini as far back as the 1600s. In fact, Giovanni Cassini used careful observations to track the movement of spot features, seemingly similar to the Great Red Spot, in order to conclude that Jupiter was indeed rotating about its axis. From the measurements, Cassini calculated a rotation speed for Jupiter of approximately 10 hours.⁷ Even with Cassini’s very primitive equipment, his calculation matches the currently measured rotation period of 9.925 hours.⁸

The next planet has captivated astronomers’ attention as far back as the telescope: the red planet Mars offers intriguing observations. In a similar fashion to his calculations of Jupiter’s rotation, Giovanni Cassini also calculated the length of Mars’ rotation by measuring how long it took for surface features to make it back around to the same spot. Both Cassini and Dutch astronomer Christiaan Huygens independently calculated the rotation period of Mars to be similar to Earth’s at just over 24-hours.⁹ The similarity between Earth and what we see when observing Mars is much more than just a similar period of rotation. Mars has surface features such as large plains, expansive ravines, and elevated mountains. White regions aligned with its axis of rotation are similar to Earth’s icy polar regions. Mars also has varying atmospheric changes, which most notably include huge dust storms that can obscure large regions. As we consider a round, rotating planet with mountains and canyons, polar ice caps, and an atmosphere that at times is clear and other times is congested with dusty storms, we cannot help but think about days on Earth with beautiful sunny days and about camping excursions in quiet valleys, or maybe cloudy days that often bring sudden storms while hiking in the mountains. If Mars exists as a rotating, spherical planet with diverse landscapes, then so can Earth.

CREDIT: NASA and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA); Acknowledgment: R.G. French (Wellesley College), J. Cuzzi (NASA/Ames), L. Dones (SwRI), and J. Lissauer (NASA/Ames)

One of the most recognizable planets, the ringed-world of Saturn, provides an interesting context to consider. With Saturn we find the geometries of both a flat disk for the rings and a spherical body for the planet. Saturn’s ring system is a collection of particles surrounding the planet, individually orbiting Saturn as evidenced from spectroscopic studies showing differential rotation of ring material.¹⁰ Even in commercially available telescopes, Saturn and its beautiful rings can be readily seen. However, as we make repeated observations from year to year, we can watch as the ring orientation changes in its tilt with respect to our perspective from Earth.

In some years, Earth’s view is edge-on with Saturn’s ring plane, causing the rings to be barely visible, while other years, such as late 2017, the rings reach a tilt angle of 27° allowing the outermost A-ring to be visible in its full circumference. The changing tilt-angle of the rings is a regular cycle, oscillating in such a way that both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres of Saturn’s body will be directed towards Earth during the cycle. What this comparison provides is a single view contrasting a spherical versus flat geometry in space. If all of the planets were simply flat circles, then we should see the same type of drastic visual differences from their changing orientations that Saturn’s rings demonstrate, since Saturn’s rings are understood, even in the heliocentric model, to be approximately flat circles. Additionally, the fact that the ring-tilt observations are consistent for every observer on Earth shows that Saturn is a very distant object, so that even observers separated by great distances on Earth will have comparable views.

The more distant planets of Uranus and Neptune are harder to observe with smaller amateur equipment. However, with diligence and larger telescopes, their round bodies can be observed in similar nature as the other planets. The fact that both Uranus and Neptune have their own systems of orbiting moons helps us to understand their relative size and gravitational dominance in their regions of space. The brightest of Uranus’ moons, Titania and Oberon, have been studied for well over 200 years. Titania, the largest and brightest moon, completes an orbit every 8.7 days, while Oberon takes 13.5 days.¹¹  The largest moon of Neptune, Triton, has been observed for over 150 years and has an orbital period of 5.9 days.¹² Thus, when we compare our observations of Uranus and Neptune to those of Jupiter and Saturn, we see many similarities and, by extension, can understand Uranus and Neptune as large spherical bodies.

Simple observations of the Moon and Sun in the sky clearly show a circular body. Couple this simple observational fact with a few additional observations and we can understand them as three-dimensionally round, as well. For instance, in similar fashion to some of the planets, the Sun can easily be monitored over several days tracking visible photosphere features called sunspots, progressing across its surface. Sunspots are dark areas in the brightly visible layer of the Sun, called the photosphere. As we track a sunspot feature across the Sun’s apparent surface, we find that shape and orientation of their entire context shows its movement to be caused by the Sun’s overall rotation and not large atmospheric motion. Even small backyard telescopes with proper solar filters can be used to monitor the presence and movement of sunspots.

For the second brightest object in the sky, the Moon, our regular observations can be done even easier than trying to safely view the Sun. The most obvious observation of the Moon is that it progresses through a regular cycle of phases each month. As this cycle occurs, there is an obvious curvature seen in the visibly bright portion of the Moon. The shape of the Moon’s phase, defined by the dark and light regions, is not caused by any shadowing from Earth. Instead, the obvious curved shapes of a Gibbous or Crescent Moon are due to the overall spherical curvature of the Moon itself. As the Moon’s position relative to the Sun’s location changes, our view of the Moon’s sunlit portion changes, and we see the side of the Moon facing away from the Sun. The direct relationship between lunar phases and the Sun can be seen by how each phase corresponds with the Sun’s position, noting also that the phase of the Moon is approximately the same for every observer—evidence for the Moon having a large distance from Earth. Flat-Earth models have the Moon located quite close, and as such, the Moon’s phase would be dramatically different based on where the observer is located. Instead, a Full Moon is always found opposite the Sun in the sky for every observer. When the Sun is setting below the horizon, the Full Moon is rising above the horizon, and when the Full Moon is setting, the Sun will be rising. Conversely, when the lunar phase is a New Moon, both the Sun and Moon will be seen in the same direction. The sunlit portions and the oppositely shadowed regions of the Moon are the visible results of the spherical shape of the Moon.

Even further, as we gaze at the Full Moon, its varying surface features are obvious by the contrasting light and dark regions. Employ binoculars or a small telescope and you will have immediate access to a wealth of topographic variation: rough and smooth areas, large and small craters, elevated peaks and depressions. Focusing on the surface features, we find that the shadowing effect that the phases provide enhances our understanding of the three-dimensional aspect of the Moon. The boundary line produced by the curved shadow across the Moon’s surface (during the Gibbous or Crescent phase) is called the terminator. You will find as you observe the Moon that the terminator is a region of excellent viewing. “Why?,” you might ask. There is a subtle decrease in the brightness of this region, allowing it to be somewhat easier on the eyes. The brightness difference is caused by the fact that the shadows of visible features along the terminator become lengthened as the terminator line approaches them. First, this is one piece of evidence toward the Moon not producing its own light, as some Flat-Earth proponents suggest,¹³ but rather reflecting light from an outside source (the Sun). Second, the shadows become extended when features are near the terminator, showing to a greater degree a contrast in height above the lunar surface. Here we can begin to identify the differences between elevated and depressed features by where their shadow is cast. The Moon is a distant, three-dimensional body with a variety of topographic landscapes.

Evaluating Observations of the Constellations

As we view the night sky and trace out familiar patterns in the stars, we can begin to map out the constellations. It is these consistent arrangements of stars that allow us to map and chart the heavens. We can use the positions of constellations relative to other stars and constellations to help us determine, not only where lesser-known and less-obvious celestial objects are located, but to help us on Earth to navigate our own geography.

Similar to how Earth’s geography has been mapped through history to provide our current knowledge of how the major landforms are oriented, the entire sky has likewise been mapped to give us a relation for how each constellation is oriented and located relative to the others. Following the same process for how Earth’s maps were compiled, requiring not only exploration but a combining of knowledge from many diverse groups across the world, the constellation map of the sky has been compiled from astronomical observers from different regions of the Earth over long periods of time. This process of combination was not only a good arrangement but was necessary for a complete map, since the available view of the sky is dependent on your location on Earth. Observers in different locations will have different views, not only for similar times of night or seasons, but also may have access to view constellations not available to other regions.

First, the view of a single observer varies seasonally. The visible constellations follow a regular cycle throughout the period of a year, and then repeat the same exact cycle the next year, and every year after that. What this seasonal cycle illustrates is that for any single location, there will be constellations that can be viewed during the winter months but that are not visible during the summer months, and vice-versa. This variation means that the Sun’s position in the sky is independent of the star and constellation positions, and thus there must be two motions in process to account for the Sun’s position and the constellation positions. The fact that there are seasonal variations seen in the East to West changing of visible constellation positions supports the spherical curvature of Earth and its rotational axis motion that impacts the star’s positions.

Second, there are constellation variations based not only on seasonal changes but on the geographical locations of observers. If we consider different observers located in the midwest United States, in central Africa, and in Australia, we find that each will have dramatically different observations. The set of constellations visible will be very different for locations with large North-to-South separations, where many constellations will not be visible from the opposite location. Constellations that may be visible from two locations with smaller North-to-South separations will still have very different apparent positions in the sky. Thus the stars and constellations visible at a particular location correspond directly to an observer’s latitude, where observers located at dramatically different latitudes will have unique views. These variations show us that there is a North-to-South curvature of Earth, which is aligned with a preferred axis of East-to-West rotation. A Flat-Earth model is not able to describe these observations, where a spherical Earth provides a simple description for how they occur.

These observable facts make clear sense for a spherical Earth, as the relative positions on the globe would determine your outward facing view of the sky. Other regions of the sky are obscured by the curved body of Earth. The reason that some constellations may be completely unique based on your location, results from Earth’s globe having a rotating motion about its axis. Where an observer is located on the surface, relative to the axis of rotation, will define what regions of the sky may or may not be visible and which stars are circumpolar (meaning they circle the celestial pole and are continuously above the horizon). The nearer you are to one of Earth’s poles (North or South), the less of the total sky you are able to see. A person South of the Equator will never see the North Star, Polaris (located at the North Celestial Pole). A person North of the equator at latitudes greater than about 26 degrees will never see the Southern Cross (near the South Celestial Pole).¹⁴ This location-dependent view is why Australia and New Zealand have this prominent group of stars on their nation’s flags, but Northern Hemisphere nations do not.

Flat-Earth models have huge complications when trying to describe how the visibility of constellations varies based only on an observer’s latitude. Problems are further compounded when addressing the observations of completely different constellations visible to those located at far Northern and far Southern latitudes, and that there are not one but two celestial poles around which stars rotate.

(to be continued)

Endnotes

¹ Eric Dubay (2014), The Flat–Earth Conspiracy (Self-published), p. 89; See the phrase “under 4,000 miles” in Samuel Rowbotham (“Parallax”) (1865), Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe! (Bath: S. Hayward), p. 74.

² Both the Sun and Moon have an angular size of 0.5 degrees. “Angular size” measures how large in angular units, such as degrees, an object appears. Angular size is not a measure of the true physical size, but rather an apparent size based on the object’s distance.

³ See “The Moon” at the Flat Earth Society Web site: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Moon.

⁴ http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/eclipses.html. The August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse will only be about 70 miles in diameter, as measured from the NASA map projections. See https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/interactive_map/index.html.

⁵ “The Flat Earth Society, along with previous notable flatists such as Samuel Shenton and S. Rowbotham, believe there is no end to the Earth and that it continues indefinitely. The only edge to the earth is the one you are standing on.” Seehttps://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/faq#173818.

⁶ See the flat Earth map on the cover of this issue of R&R created by Orlando Ferguson in 1893. Also at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map.jpg.

⁷ Thomas Hockey (1999), Galileo’s Planet: Observing Jupiter Before Photography (Bristol, PA: IOP Publishing), pp. 31-32; C.A. Young (1886), “Rotation Time of the Red Spot on Jupiter,” The Sidereal Messenger, 5:289-293, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1886SidM….5..289Y.

⁸ C.A. Higgins, T.D. Carr, and F. Reyes (1996), “A New Determination of Jupiter’s Radio Rotation Period,” Geophysical Research Letters, 23:2653-2656.

⁹ “All About Mars” (no date), NASA, https://mars.nasa.gov/allaboutmars/mystique/history/1600/; Jim Plaxco (1999), Mars Timeline of Discovery: 1570 BC thru 1799, http://www.astrodigital.org/mars/timeline1.html.

¹⁰ Helen Sawyer Hogg (1963), “Out of Old Books: James Keeler and the Rings of Saturn,” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 57:269, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963JRASC..57..269S.

¹¹ David Williams (2016), “Uranian Satellite Fact Sheet” (Greenbelt, MD: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uraniansatfact.html.

¹² David Williams (2016), “Neptunian Satellite Fact Sheet” (Greenbelt, MD: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/neptuniansatfact.html.

¹³ Dubay, pp. 78-81.

¹⁴ Bruce McClure (2017), “Northerners’ Guide to Southern Cross,” EarthSky, http://earthsky.org/favorite-star-patterns/the-southern-cross-signpost-of-southern-skies.

The post Flat or Spherical Earth? Evaluating Astronomical Observations [Part 1] appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: AP auxiliary writer Dr. Rogers serves as an Associate Professor of Bible at Freed-Hardeman University. He holds an M.A. in New Testament from FHU as well as an M.Phil. and Ph.D. in Hebraic, Judaic, and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.]

Earlier this year, basketball star Kyrie Irving drew headlines for advocating a flat Earth.¹ The sports media lampooned Irving for several days until he finally admitted he was wrong.² While Irving initially defended the “science” behind his claim, many others defend the flat Earth position because of what they read in the Bible. But what does the Bible really say about the shape of the Earth? For those with a high view of Scripture, the Bible stands as an unquestioned authority. If the Bible teaches the Earth is flat, then we must believe it, regardless of what pseudoscience says. Indeed, a number of theorists insist a spherical Earth is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Are they correct?

Respect the Genre

Flat-Earth theorists marshal a number of biblical passages to defend their assertion (e.g., Joshua 10:12-13; 1 Chronicles 16:30; Psalm 93:1; 96:10; 104:5). One notices instantly that almost every passage cited in favor of the flat-Earth position occurs in a poetic context.³ To be responsible readers of the Bible, we must respect the genre of literature we are reading. Poetry is to be read differently than prose; it is more expressive, emotional, and metaphorical. In fact, taking biblical poetry literally would, in some cases, pervert clear scriptural teaching elsewhere, leading to the belief that there are many gods instead of one God (Exodus 15:11; Psalm 86:8), that humans are really gods (Psalm 82:6), that thunder is the voice of God (2 Samuel 22:14), that God slays sea monsters (Psalm 74:12-14), and that God has wings (Psalm 61:4). Obviously, these passages cannot be understood for what they literally say. So, a common-sense understanding of how poetry functions prevents us from making erroneous interpretive deductions. To insist that metaphorical language must be interpreted literally is to contradict the original authorial intent.

Respect the Audience

In addition to respecting the author’s intent, we must also respect the audience’s understanding. We often hear cosmic complexities expressed in phenomenological language. In other words, the world is explained as it appears on Earth, or in terms we can understand. Even today, we speak of the Sun “rising and setting,” even though virtually every fourth-grade science student knows that, scientifically, this is not the case. Thus, it should not surprise to find the Bible speaking in similar terms (Genesis 28:11; Joshua 10:13; the Hebrew idiom is the Sun “going”). We also describe rain as falling from the sky even though the truth of the water cycle is basic to any elementary ecology. So also Scripture describes rain as though it is contained in a storage compartment above the sky (Genesis 1:7; Psalm 148:4). For God to teach modern scientific astronomy and meteorology to an ancient Hebrew audience would do little good. We know God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and He always speaks truth (Titus 1:2), but He condescends to express truths in terms humans can understand (e.g., Job 38-41). To hold the Bible’s language to modern scientific standards is a failure to appreciate the original audience of Scripture. The authors were divinely inspired, but the audience was not.

Is the Earth Flat? What the Bible Says

So how do these considerations relate to the shape of the Earth? Despite the preceding qualifications about reading and interpreting Scripture, we cannot locate a single verse in the Bible that teaches the Earth is flat. Neither in prose nor in poetry, neither by means of phenomenological language nor metaphor, do we find Scripture communicating a flat Earth. The flat-Earth theory is an interpretive deduction, usually based on poetic hyperbole. But is a flat Earth even an accurate interpretive deduction? As we will see, it is far from obvious that the Bible teaches the Earth is flat.

Isaiah 40:22: A Flat-Earth?

The golden text for a spherical Earth is Isaiah 40:22: God “sits upon the circle of the earth.” It has been long argued that a ball must be intended, for God could not possibly sit atop something flat. Of course, such a literal reading ignores the poetic context and the obvious anthropomorphism. However, flat-Earth theorists point out (correctly, we may add) that the Hebrew term for “circle” (חוג,chūg) does not necessarily refer to a sphere. Instead, they say, the term refers to a disc, thereby communicating a flat Earth. Indeed, the ancient Greek translation renders the term γῦρος (gūros), or “ring.” Further, the term “on” (על, ‘al)can also be translated “above,” without implying contact with an object (e.g., NASB, ESV). So this passage does not necessarily communicate a spherical Earth, but neither does it imply a flat Earth.

The only direct parallel to the language of Isaiah 40:22 is Job 22:14. Here God poetically “walks on the circle [חוג, chūg] of the heavens.” Most modern English translations render the term commonly translated “circle” as “vault” in this context (e.g., ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV). A vault provokes images of the Earth having a rounded top, as though a bowl. In other words, the Earth is conceived (albeit poetically) with a convex lid. Why “circle” appears in English translations of Isaiah 40:22 and “vault” in Job 22:14 is beyond my understanding, although the NKJV is consistent in both.⁴ The term חוג (chūg) is used in both passages, and should probably be translated identically. And a convex “vault” is probably the better option than “circle.”

Ancient Near Eastern thinkers typically conceived of the Earth as having a bowl-shape, with a solid, convex top (Job 37:18) that was covered by water (Job 26:10).⁵ God poetically “engraves a vault” (חק חג, chōq chāg) over the Earth, perhaps indicating the horizon, or perhaps referring to the bell-shaped vault over the top of the sky (Job 26:10; Proverbs 8:27). The point is that God separates the Earth from the store place of water (cf. Genesis 1:7), and thus carves out a channel above the sky to contain it. Again, these passages occur in poetic contexts, and it can be dangerous to impose a literal meaning on figurative language, as we have discussed. Unlike God, Job’s friends did not necessarily have a perfect scientific understanding, and are, in any case, speaking hyperbolically in Hebrew poetry. Their words simply reflect a popular expression of God’s complete sovereignty over nature. Nevertheless, one thing is sure: there is no thought of a flat Earth anywhere. The “circle of the earth” is a metaphor to be sure, but not even metaphorically is it understood as flat.

It should be noted that the Hebrew Bible does not have an equivalent for the term “sphere,” which in modern Hebrew is the loanword ספירה (s^efîrāh). The word “ball” (דור, dūr) occurs in English translations in Isaiah 22:18, but it is clear from Isaiah 29:3 (the only other place the noun occurs) that it refers to a “roll” of items that have encircled a central object. A related verb form is found one other time in the Bible to describe stacked and perhaps “bound” wood (Ezekiel 24:5). In other words, the shape of such an object is beyond the scope of the term. So, the authors of the Hebrew Bible simply lacked the vocabulary to describe a perfectly round object. We cannot expect them to say what they did not have the words to communicate.

Joshua 10:12-13: The Sun Stands Still

Flat-earth theorists also cite the interruption of the Sun to “prove” their theory. The passage reports, “The sun stopped [דמם, d-m-m] and the moon stood still [עמד, ‘-m-d] until the nation avenged its enemies…. The sun stood still [עמד, ‘-m-d] in the middle of the sky and did not hurry to go about an entire day” (Joshua 10:13). Flat-earth theorists, who apparently also defend a geocentric model of the solar system, argue this passage certifies their position. They argue that, according to the standard heliocentric model, the Sun’s standing still would not interrupt the day at all. The Earth, heliocentrists argue, revolves around the Sun. In order for the Bible and the heliocentric model to be true, the Earth would need to pause its rotation on its axis in order for the Sun to appear to stop. But the Bible does not say the Earth stops; it says the Sun stops. Therefore, flat-earth theorists, adopting a geocentric model, argue the Earth must be fixed, and the Sun revolves around it.⁶

This reasoning violates one of the principles we have discussed: a failure to account for the audience’s understanding. Joshua was not written to Israelites in outer space. From the point of view of those on Earth, the “day” (or “daylight,” the Hebrew יום, yōm meaning both) was extended. Since a day is measured by the Sun, the Sun must have stopped its “going” (בוא, bô’). Indeed, it appeared to them that “the sun stopped in the middle of the sky.” This is a clear use of phenomenological language, and it simply means this day was unusually long. Daylight was halted miraculously so as to allow God’s forces more time to conquer their foes. This is the simplest explanation, and was virtually uncontested until recent times.⁷ But even if this passage is used to defend a geocentric model of the Universe (wrongly, I believe), Joshua 10:13 still has no bearing on the shape of the Earth. Flat-Earth theorists will need to look elsewhere for evidence.

The “Immovable” Passages

A number of biblical passages assert the immovability of the Earth (e.g., 1 Chronicles 16:30; Psalm 93:1; 96:10; 104:5). These are often proposed as an “obvious” rationale for the Earth being flat. But they do not bear the weight loaded upon them. None of these passages necessarily implies a flat Earth, and even if they might be cited as evidence for geocentricity, note that each of them occurs in a poetic context. If we were to hold Bible-believing flat-Earth theorists to the literal implications of these passages, they would have to insist the Earth neither orbits the Sun nor rotates on its axis. And if the Earth is fixed immovably and permanently, God could never destroy it, for its dissolution would violate its immovability (2 Peter 3:10). But, of course, these poetic passages are not intended to be taken literally.

Since each passage employs similar language and is applied for the same purpose, we shall examine just one as representative. The relevant part of Psalm 96:10 states, “The world is fixed; it cannot be moved.” Two Hebrew words in particular deserve attention. One is the word “fix” or “establish” (כון, kūn). This term does not fundamentally refer to being fixed in position, but rather to being fixed in permanence. Such can be said of David’s kingdom being “established” forever (1 Samuel 20:31; 2 Samuel 7:16; 1 Kings 2:12), or of cities that are “established” (Habakkuk 2:12). These are acts of intended permanence.

In reference to the physical world, the term is not used of the Earth alone, but of the heavenly bodies as well. The Sun, Moon, and stars “are established” by God (Psalm 8:3), as are the “heavens” (Proverbs 3:19). Does this mean the Bible envisions no movement among the heavenly bodies? If one took these passages literally, he or she would be required to say there are no orbits or movements of any astral body anywhere in the Universe. This is, of course, untrue, for even the earliest astronomers could map the stars and motions of the various heavenly bodies, as they serve to mark “seasons, days, and years” (Genesis 1:14). So, if these poetic passages are pressed literally, the Bible teaches that the Earth and all cosmic bodies are static. Is this what the Bible intends to communicate? Of course not. In fact, Scripture elsewhere affirms the movement of heavenly bodies (Jude 13). The Bible simply means to teach that God has programmed His creation to act according to determined, reliable patterns; in that sense, he has “fixed” the world.

The other Hebrew term, מוט (mūt), is translated “be moved.” Because the Earth does not “move,” it must be flat, right? Well, the term does not fundamentally refer to movement of position. It is the opposite of being “fixed” as expressed by the term כון, (kūn). Scripture declares the righteous “shall not be moved” (Psalm 10:6; 21:7; Proverbs 10:30), not meaning, of course, that the righteous are paralyzed, but that they can feel secure in their life. To be movable in this sense is to be insecure, uncertain, and unreliable. The term מוט/(mūt) is often translated “slip” or “sway” (Psalm 66:9; 123:1), and can be used of poorly constructed objects that are destined to fall (Isaiah 40:20; 41:7).

The meaning of this term with regard to the world is understandable. The Earth is “set” in the sense that it is well-designed and well-constructed, and therefore functions without deviation, exactly as the Maker intended. It is secure, dependable, and reliable. The season for sowing and reaping, consistent rain, the course of the astral bodies—these are all evidence that the Earth is “immovable” in the author’s intended sense. Derek Kidner appropriately observes: “The first and last lines of verse 10 [Psalm 96] make it additionally clear that this is a prophecy of perfect government, not a pronouncement on—of all things!—the earth’s rotation.”⁸ The “fixed Earth” passages, when taken literally, do not make sense with the rest of Scripture. And even if one presses their literal meaning, they still do not teach the Earth is flat. The “fixed Earth” Scriptures are best read as poetic reflections on a world designed for the flourishing of life.

Conclusion

It seems that the typical passages cited in favor of the flat-Earth theory are drawn from a poetic context, and thus readers must be very careful about taking them literally. However, even if we choose to take every biblical passage literally, we still do not find a clear endorsement of flat-Earth theory. It should also be noted that even the supposed “spherical Earth” passages occur in poetic contexts, filled with metaphor and hyperbole. So, the Hebrew Bible has no official “position” on the shape of the Earth, whether round or flat. Descriptions of the shape of the Earth in the Bible must be classified with the Sun having wings (Malachi 4:2) or God having arms (Exodus 6:6; 1 Kings 5:3). These are obviously metaphors, and few rational readers would press them literally. But again, even if we take poetry literally, and ignore all hyperbole and metaphor in Scripture, we still find no clear statement that the Earth is flat.

Endnotes

¹ http://www.nba.com/article/ 2017/02/18/commissioner-adam-silver-all-star-press-conference.

² http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2017/02/kyrie_irving_admits_science_su.html.

³ See Justin Rogers (2016), “How to Read Biblical Poetry,” Gospel Advocate, September, p. 11.

⁴ The NKJV has “circle” in both verses, and the KJV has “circuit” in the Job verse.

⁵ See David J.A. Clines (2006), Job 21-37 in Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Nelson), p. 559.

⁶ On geocentricity, see B. Thompson and T. Major (1988), “Does the Bible Teach Geocentricity?” http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.asp x?category=11&article=1151.

⁷ For a history of discussion, see David M. Howard, Jr. (1998), Joshua in The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman), 5:238-249.

⁸ Derek Kidner (1975), Psalms 73-150: A Commentary on Books III-V of the Psalms in Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP), p. 349.

The post Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Sadly, many people will naively take Lawton at his word and assume, “He must be right. I guess we can’t prove that God exists.” The simple fact is, however, his “refutation” of the design argument is nothing of the sort. First, the design argument for God’s existence is an actual logical argument.

Premise 1: Anything that exhibits complex, functional design demands an intelligent designer.

Premise 2: The Universe exhibits complex, functional design.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe must have an intelligent Designer.

This argument for God is logically sound and observationally true. Even atheists frequently testify to the “design” in nature. For example, Australian atheistic astrophysicist Paul Davies has admitted that the Universe is “uniquely hospitable,” “remarkable,” and “ordered in an intelligible way.” He even confessed to the “fine-tuned properties” of the Universe.⁵ The simple fact is, to deny either premise of the design argument is to deny reality, while to deny the conclusion is to deny logic.

Second, “Evolution by natural selection, working over vast lengths of time, is [not!]⁶ all you need.” Certainly the fit adapt and survive, and pass along their advantageous genetic traits [example: longer legs in some animals] to their offspring, but such processes (1) cannot create complex, functional design from nothing, (2) cannot change non-design into design, and (3) do not (and cannot) change one kind of animal into another. The simple fact is, natural selection does not design anything. As evolutionist Hugo de Vries admitted long ago, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.”⁷ It cannot explain the arrival of the perfectly designed “bomb-producing” bombardier beetle anymore than it can rationally explain the communication skills of the “sophisticated,” “intelligent,” “tailor-made,” color-changing Cuttlefish.⁸

Atheistic evolution is simply inept to deal with the reasonable arguments for the existence of God, including the logically sound design argument. To say that the design argument has “turned out to be very refutable” is simply false. And to act as if natural selection over long periods of time is the answer to the design observed in nature is equally fallacious. Such talk may sound nice in theoretical circles, but the evidence on a real observational and philosophically sound level still points to design that demands a designer. In truth, regardless of what Lawton and New Scientist say, we can know that God exists.⁹

Endnotes

¹ Graham Lawton (2016), “Can We Ever Know If God Exists?” New Scientist, 231[3089]:39, September 3.

² An agnostic is “a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable”—Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary (2016), http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic, emp. added.

³ Lawton, p. 39, emp. added.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Paul Davies (2007), “Laying Down the Laws,” New Scientist, 194[2610]:30,34, June 30.

⁶ Parenthetical comment added.

⁷ Hugo De Vries (1905), Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal (Chicago, IL: Open Court), pp. 825-826, emp. added.

⁸ Eric Lyons (2008), “The Cause of the Cuttlefish,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2505&topic=328.

⁹ See the Existence of God section of ApologeticsPress.org for a plethora of articles on this subject: http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12.

The post God, Design, and Natural Selection appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For over 40 years, a host of forces have worked vigorously to normalize homosexuality in American society—culminating in the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous ruling that stipulated homosexual marriage as a constitutional right. These same forces have most recently turned their attention to transgenderism.¹ As is always the case, when human beings decide that they want to pursue certain behaviors that have always been considered deviant and illicit (particularly in God’s sight), they will do everything possible to bully and intimidate the opposition (cf. Genesis 19:9). A careful analysis of history demonstrates that the tactics that have been used the past several decades to advance sexual aberration in America are reminiscent of propaganda schemes that have successfully transformed other societies, including Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes.²

For all the bombast, coercion, venom, and widespread ridicule marshalled by the left³ and directed against Americans who have steadfastly remained unmoved in their conviction that homosexuality and transgenderism are immoral behaviors, it is refreshing and encouraging to hear the truth declared by credible scientists. In a special report titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh divulged their startling findings.⁴ Consider their qualifications and credentials.

Lead author Dr. Mayer is an epidemiologist trained in psychiatry, a biostatistician, and a research physician, having trained in medicine and psychiatry in the U.K. and received the British equivalent (M.B.) to the American M.D. Currently a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, Mayer has been a full-time tenured professor for over 40 years, having held professorial appointments at eight universities, including Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, and the University of Michigan. He has also held research faculty appointments at several other institutions, including the Mayo Clinic. He has held appointments in 23 disciplines, including statistics, biostatistics, epidemiology, public health, social methodology, psychiatry, mathematics, sociology, political science, economics, and biomedical informatics, and has been published in many top-tier peer-reviewed journals. Co-author Dr. McHugh is arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century and one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He is the former chief of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital and is presently a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and was for 25 years the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital.⁵

These scientists found that the most frequently heard claims about sexual orientation and gender identity are not supported by scientific evidence. They found that the LGBT community suffers from “a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.”⁶ Regarding sexual orientation, they found: “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”⁷ “Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.”⁸

Regarding human sexuality as it relates to mental health and social stress, they discovered that, “compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes,” and are “estimated to have about 1.5 times higher risk of experiencing anxiety disorders than members of the heterosexual population, as well as roughly double the risk of depression, 1.5 times the risk of substance abuse, and nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.” Further, “members of the transgender population are also at higher risk of a variety of mental health problems compared to members of the non-transgender population” with “the rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.”⁹

Regarding gender identity, the research showed that “the hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.”¹⁰ What’s more:

Compared to the general population, adults who have undergone sex-reassignment surgery continue to have a higher risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. One study found that, compared to controls, sex-reassigned individuals were about 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.¹¹

In view of the finality of such drastic surgeries and their impact on mental health, the report insists that

nearly all children ultimately identify with their biological sex. The notion that a two-year-old, having expressed thoughts or behaviors identified with the opposite sex, can be labeled for life as transgender has absolutely no support in science. Indeed, it is iniquitous to believe that all children who have gender-atypical thoughts or behavior at some point in their development, particularly before puberty, should be encouraged to become transgender.¹²

Conclusion

You see, if the Bible is, in fact, of divine origin, i.e., if there really is a God, and He’s the God of the Bible,¹³ then the information given in the Bible can be counted on for its veracity. If it affirms explicitly that homosexuality is “against nature” and an “abomination” (Romans 1:26; Leviticus 18:22),¹⁴ then we can know that such a behavior is not genetic.¹⁵ Knowledge of the truth regarding human behavioral proclivities pertaining to a host of actions is available from the Creator who created the human body and infused it with a spirit, a personality, a mind. We can know what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral.

Hence, Christians were not at all surprised to see some years ago the invention of junk science to allege a genetic source for homosexuality; nor are they surprised finally to hear some honest, legitimate, reputable, credible, scientific investigation that harmonizes with the Bible viewpoint. One can imagine the hostile response with which this latest research has been received by the anti-Christian forces of political correctness. Nevertheless, may the rest of the scientific community heed the admonition of Dr. Mayer when he urges colleagues to maintain impartiality and not allow political controversy and culture to taint their research: “May they never lose their way in political hurricanes.”¹⁶

Endnotes

¹ Vice-President Joe Biden ludicrously labeled transgender discrimination “the civil rights issue of our time”—Jennifer Bendery (2012), “Joe Biden: Transgender Discrimination Is ‘The Civil Rights Issue Of Our Time’,” The Huffington Post, October 30, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/joe-biden-transgender-rights_n_2047275.html.

² William Allen (1965), The Nazi Seizure of Power (New York: Franklin Watts); George Mosse (1981), Nazi Culture (New York: Schocken Books), pp. 7ff.; J.P. Stern (1975), Hitler: The Führer and the People (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press), pp. 35ff.; Jacques Ellul (1965), Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes (New York: Vintage Books).

³ By “the left” I mean those who champion behaviors that throughout history have been deemed immoral by Christian standards. Sometimes alluded to as the “cultural aristocracy,” the primary instigators in America have been television networks and the leftist news media, university faculties, liberal mainline Protestant denominations, Hollywood, liberal judges, and various foundations that are dedicated to transforming the American way of life.

⁴ Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh (2016), “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences,” The New Atlantis, 50:10-143, Fall, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016. The authors explain their methodology: “This report offers a careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of many of the most rigorous findings produced by the biological, psychological, and social sciences related to sexual orientation and gender identity. We examine a vast body of scientific literature from several disciplines. We try to acknowledge the limitations of the research and to avoid premature conclusions that would result in over-interpretation of scientific findings…. [O]ur focus is on the scientific evidence—what it shows and what it does not show” (p. 10, emp. in orig.).

⁵ The reasons for recounting the lengthy and impressive credentials of the authors is to demonstrate (1) that they would be considered by the secular community to be highly qualified to discuss the subject, and (2) that they are not “right wing radical” Christians or religious fanatics who are biased in their appraisals of the scientific evidence. Indeed, Dr. McHugh describes himself as a “politically liberal” Democrat—Erica Goode (2002), “Psychiatrist Says He Was Surprised by Furor Over His Role on Abuse Panel,” The New York Times, August 5, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/05/us/psychiatrist-says-he-was-surprised-by-furor-over-his-role-on-abuse-panel.html?pagewanted=all.

⁶ Mayer and McHugh, p. 6.

⁷ Ibid., p. 7.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ p. 8, emp. added. The authors note: “The prevailing explanation in the scientific literature is the social stress model, which posits that social stressors—such as stigmatization and discrimination—faced by members of these subpopulations account for the disparity in mental health outcomes. Studies show that while social stressors do contribute to the increased risk of poor mental health outcomes for these populations, they likely do not account for the entire disparity” (p. 59, emp. added).

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 9, emp. added.

¹² Ibid., p. 6, emp. added.

¹³ Abundant evidence proves these facts. See apologeticspress.org.

¹⁴ For further discussion regarding the biblical view of homosexuality, see Dave Miller (2012), “The President and Homosexuality,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=689&topic=36.

¹⁵ Four reasons why we can logically know that homosexuality is not genetically based: (1) The God of the Bible would not forbid or condemn a behavior, holding an individual culpable, if the behavior is in-born, endemic to a person’s being, or an act that the person cannot control or from which he cannot refrain; (2) In referring to homosexuals, when Paul said to the Corinthians, “such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11), he demonstrated that practicing homosexuals can cease their illicit practice; (3) As a matter of fact, many practicing homosexuals have reformed, further proving that the practice is a choice; and (4) no scientific evidence exists demonstrating the presence of an alleged “gay” gene.

¹⁶ Mayer and McHugh, p. 6.

The post Homosexuality and Transgenderism: The Science Supports the Bible appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Every now and then I come across an article on modern “scientific” findings that absolutely stuns me, not necessarily because of the newest “findings,” but because of how casually information that was declared to be so scientifically accurate can be disregarded with a few computer keystrokes. Last week research was discussed that will forever change the way we look at the Universe (if you read the right article), and the irony is that you probably are not even aware of it.

For many years, cosmologists (scientists who study the Universe and its supposed origins) have explained to us that our Universe appears to be approximately 28 billion light years across. A light year is the distance light travels in one year. Since light travels at about 186,000 miles per second, the distance it covers in one year is about 5.9 trillion miles. That means if light were to start at one end of our Universe, travelling 186,000 miles per second, it would take 28 billion years to get to the other side. At least that is what we have been told for about a decade.

New studies, however, indicate that cosmologists have been wrong, on a grand scale, about the size of our Universe. Last week, Ed Oswald wrote an article for Yahoo! Tech titled, “How Big is the Universe? Attempting to Answer One of Astronomy’s Most Complex Questions.” In the article, he explained the complicated processes of how cosmologists attempt to measure the size of the Universe. Using the latest information, he wrote, “Physicists…now believe the radius of the observable universe is now roughly 46.5 billion light years away.”¹ That is much bigger than we were told it appeared in years past. But Oswald does not stop there. He goes on to make clear that the galaxies that we see at the edge of our Universe are too “well-formed” to have appeared immediately following the Big Bang. (He incorrectly assumes the reality of the Big Bang.)² That being the case, he mentions researchers at Oxford who believe that our Universe could be “as big as 250 times the size of our observable universe. Try to wrap your mind around that.”³

So what does all this mean? First, it shows us the serious limitations of science. We are often told to bow to the modern dating methods of the Universe, conform to the “real science” that proves the Bible false, and admit the validity of “current scientific findings.” Yet, we learn every day how limited and incorrect these often are. We are told that such is the nature of science; that it is a “self-correcting” endeavor, so that the most current material must be accurate. That simply is not the case. Many times, what passes for science in cosmology is not self-correcting, it is self-refuting. What we learn from situations in which the size of the Universe can greatly expand on paper is that those researchers who purported to present scientific facts about the Universe’s age, size, or composition were giving us nothing of the sort. They were wrong, the whole time. What happens, then, to the person who demanded that we shove the “modern scientific findings” into the biblical account and make it fit? He is left holding a battered Bible in one hand, and useless, “outdated” (read that as false) cosmology in the other.

Furthermore, the better we understand the Universe, the more we realize that atheistic, Big Bang explanations are not scientifically adequate to explain its origin. Before this latest “discovery,” the atheistic understanding of the origin of the Universe already had a real problem explaining how a tiny “singularity” could explode and bring into existence a 28-billion-light-year Universe. Now the problem has been further compounded, since the Universe appears to be much larger, maybe even 250 times bigger for all we know. Atheism’s conundrum is that to get a 93-billion-light-year Universe from a tiny singularity violates the Law of Cause and Effect that says for every material effect there must be a cause that was greater than it. What in the world is big enough to give us a 93-billion-light-year Universe? A tiny singularity smaller than the period at the end of this sentence is not a legitimate, scientific answer.

The apostle Paul wrote, “For since the creation of the world His [God’s] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.” The only plausible explanation for a Universe that is 93 billion light years across is an eternal, all-powerful Creator.

Endnotes

The post The Universe Just Got Much Bigger—On Paper appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Interestingly, Dr. Tyson recently made some outlandish comments at the 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate at the American Museum of Natural History about the nature of the Universe. According to Tyson, “the likelihood of the universe being a simulation ‘may be very high.’”³ News organizations reported that Tyson indicated “it’s not too hard to imagine that some other creature out there is far smarter than us” (emp. added).⁴ Perhaps we’re just “some sort of alien simulation.”⁵ Tyson went so far as to say, “[I]t is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity for their entertainment. I’m saying, the day we learn that it is true, I will be the only one in the room saying, I’m not surprised.”⁶

Isn’t it baffling what evolutionary agnostics and atheists will believe and what they won’t (or don’t) believe? Dr. Tyson is a very educated scientist who seems to have no problem imagining that god-like aliens made our Universe for their pleasure despite the complete lack of evidence for such a belief. Yet, at the same time, Tyson refuses to believe in God because he does not believe there is enough evidence to come to the conclusion that God actually created the Universe for His own glory (Psalm 19:1-4; Isaiah 43:7) and to be inhabited by His human creatures (Isaiah 45:18), who are made in His image (Genesis 1:26-27).

One thing that Dr. Tyson did allude to that everyone should freely admit based upon the evidence: “[I]t is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just the creation of some other entity” (emp. added). In truth, Creation makes sense.⁷ “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4, emp. added). “The heavens declare the glory” of the eternal, omnipotent Creator (Psalm 19:1), not some supposed alien civilization (who, in turn, would need an explanation for their existence if they really did exist).⁸ Sadly, men such as Dr. Tyson seem so open to the idea of “super” aliens, yet not to The Supernatural Creator, Who will judge our actions or lack thereof at the end of time (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

Endnotes

¹  See Michael Brooks (2006), “In Place of God,” New Scientist, 192[2578]:8-11. See also Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2007), “Militant Atheism,” Reason & Revelation, 27[1]:1-5, /APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2051&topic=296.

²  “Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic?” (2012), Big Think, April 25, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos.

³  Kevin Loria (2016), “Neil deGrasse Tyson Thinks There’s a ‘Very High’ Chance the Universe is just a Simulation,” Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.sg/neil-degrasse-tyson-thinks-the-universe-might-be-a-simulation-2016-4/#.VypZthVrjq0.

⁴  Ibid.

⁵  Michael Lazar (2016), “Could the Universe Be a Simulation? Nel deGrasse Tyson Thinks It Might,” Huffington Post, May 1, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-lazar/could-the-universe-be-a-s_b_9816034.html.

⁶  Ibid.

⁷  Eric Lyons (2010), “Science, Common Sense, and Genesis 1:1,” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3758&topic=93.

⁸  Cf. Bert Thompson (2004), “Is There Intelligent Life in Outer Space?” Apologetics Press, /apcontent.aspx?category=9 &article=1129.

The post "No Proof of God…But the Universe Might Just Be a Simulation"? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

This idea of choosing sin but calling it God’s way is not new, but it is being seen in our culture in more obvious and perverse ways than ever before. Take the case of Trey Pearson, the lead singer of the contemporary Christian rock band Everyday Sunday. He recently explained to his fans that he has been gay for 20 years. He married and had children, but will no longer live a heterosexual lifestyle. He hopes that his fans will continue to follow him and buy his music. He claims that his homosexuality is perfectly in-line with Jesus and His teachings. He stated, “There is absolutely no conflict with accepting who I am and following Jesus. God wants me to be healthy, authentic, whole, integrated, and my truest self” (Weber, 2016).¹

Trey Pearson is correct about one thing. God does want him to be healthy, authentic, whole, and his truest self. He is sadly mistaken in making the sinful, perverse claim that leaving his wife to fulfill his homosexual lusts is somehow the fulfillment of God’s plan for his life. Jesus and the New Testament writers absolutely did, in no uncertain terms, confine God-approved sex to a monogamous marriage between one man and one woman.² By defining marriage as between one male and one female, Jesus condemned all other arrangements, including but not limited to, one man and two women, one woman and two men, three men and one woman, three men and three women, one man and another man, one woman and one animal, etc. You can see the overwhelming logic of such. When He defined marriage between one man and one woman, He clearly showed that such an arrangement is the only one authorized by God.

Now to the main point. Homosexuality is a sin that people can choose if they so desire. They can even claim that their behavior is completely in-line with Jesus and His teachings. But the fact that they claim this to be the case, does not make it so. In truth, Trey Pearson and all others who claim to be following Jesus, but continue to practice their sinful, unnatural, perverse sexuality outside of a God-approved marriage are just like those to whom Jesus’ said, “Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people drew near to Me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me’” (Matthew 15:8). Again, Jesus cut to the heart of such illogical thinking when He said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

The only possible way for any of us to be true to ourselves and spiritually healthy is to repent of our sins, fall at the feet of our Lord, and obey His commands from the heart. Would to God that our culture would wake up to the reality and truth of the inspired apostle Paul’s statement, “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 sodimites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). No adulterer, homosexual, liar, or the like is beyond the power of Jesus’ blood to forgive if that person will repent and turn from his or her sin. If our culture continues to cling to such sinful lifestyles as homosexuality, claiming that Jesus approves, then Jesus’ bold words will echo from the pages of the New Testament as a haunting reminder of God’s love and justice, “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). People can choose to practice homosexuality, but they cannot be following Jesus if they do.

Endnotes

The post Can a Gay “Christian” Rock Star Follow Jesus? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

One on-line petition which seeks “Justice for Harambe,” calling for an investigation of the parents, has already received more than 500,000 signatures.⁴ Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer and animal rights activist Karen Dawn insist: “As animal advocates, we don’t automatically deem the life of a boy as exponentially more important than that of a fellow primate.”⁵ PETA was quick to scold the zoo even for having gorillas and other animals in captivity,⁶ where they are “exploited” and “gunned down.”⁷ PETA Primatologist, Julia Gallucci, chided: “This tragedy is exactly why PETA urges families to stay away from any facility that displays animals as sideshows for humans to gawk at.”⁸

For those whose minds have been shaped by the perspective of divine truth—as most American minds, for most of American history, once were—the confusion regarding the value of human beings in contrast with the animal kingdom are shocking, disturbing, and depressing. How can a civilization slump so far into outright animism, paganism, and atheism? Such should not be surprising since, once the Christian worldview is jettisoned from any society, the ideologies that will quickly fill the vacuum will inevitably be humanistic, heathen, irreligious, depraved, and idolatrous. Indeed, the half-century long descent into the abyss of moral and spiritual confusion that has characterized America is strongly reminiscent of the societal circumstances that prevailed in the Roman Empire during the first century:

[A]lthough they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man–and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen (Romans 1:22-25).

The passage proceeds to delineate the moral filth that ensues for such a people—a portrait of America’s own moral decline, including the acceptance and practice of homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality, covetousness, and haters of God, to name a few (vss. 26-32).

The substantial infiltration of academia by evolution and atheism has resulted in precisely the social conditions that now prevail in America with regard to the nonsensical and inflated sense of importance assigned to animals and the physical environment. Any individual, who would have even a split second of hesitation to kill a gorilla (or any other animal) to save a human child, has unwittingly become a victim to the massive inundation of humanist propaganda that fails to assign the proper value to animals.

For those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He literally left the heavenly realm and came to Earth to atone for sin, and that He now reigns in heaven itself, and will one day bring the entire physical Universe to a fiery conclusion (2 Peter 3:1-11), the value of Harambe the gorilla is a settled matter. Jesus spoke directly and definitively—several times—to the issue.

In Matthew 6, Jesus reassured His disciples that God’s care for them meant that they need not worry unnecessarily about acquiring food and clothes. His reasoning included this admonition: “Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?” (vs. 26, emp. added; cf. Luke 12:25—“Of how much more value are you than the birds?”).

On another occasion, Jesus challenged the disciples not to fear the hatred, intimidation, and opposition of those who would seek to deter their efforts to teach and preach His message. Why? He explained: “Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matthew 10:29-31, emp. added; cf. Luke 12:7). Observe that animals have some value in this world. God created them for specific purposes. However, there is literally no comparison when it comes to evaluating their status and their worth in relation to humans. Animals are expendable. But Jesus adamantly insisted that humans are much more valuable than even many animals.

On yet another occasion, Jesus answered those who sought to condemn Him for healing—on the Sabbath—a man whose hand was shriveled and deformed. The Lord’s logical prowess was piercing and penetrating: “He said to them, ‘What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?’” This question was a reflection of Deuteronomy 22:1-4. It was part of the Law of Moses designed to promote care and concern for one’s fellow man. In an agrarian society, the preservation of farm animals was a serious matter. A family’s survival was dependent on its animals for food and clothes. So Jesus reasoned, if it is proper to intervene to save the life of a farm animal so that human beings might be provided for, “of how much more value then is a man than a sheep?” (Matthew 12:11-12). Do sheep have some value? Certainly—they are vital to providing the basic necessities of humans. But they are mere animals—they do not have souls like humans, nor were they made in God’s image like humans (Genesis 1:26).⁹ Jesus’ point was poignant. He was, in essence, stressing an important contrast between animals and humans. He was essentially saying, “If you see the value of preserving the life of a dumb, soulless animal for the good of humans, why in the world would you question My action which will improve the life and well-being of a human?” Indeed, Jesus demonstrated that even His religious enemies were clear thinking enough to know that animals are not even to be compared to the value of human beings.

Whatever might be said about parental responsibility to discipline their children and train them to be obedient when parents warn children of the potential dangers that exist at zoos, and whatever might be said about the value of animals—from zebras and gorillas to tarantulas and boa constrictors—nevertheless, according to Deity, human beings are of much more value. As a nation, our depraved moral sensibilities are on display when our citizens show more concern for a 17-year-old gorilla than for the 56 million innocent human babies that have been slaughtered by abortion since 1973.¹⁰

REFERENCES

The post Are You Not Much More Valuable than an Animal? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Perhaps at some point, the politically correct crowd reconsider their flawed notion that “Islam is a religion of peace, and such behavior does not represent true Islam.” This naïve, inaccurate depiction is inexcusable and unbelievably bizarre in view of the 1,400-year-long history of Islam throughout the world. It is fashionable to refer to the terrorists as “extremists” and “radicalized”—implying that they do not represent true Islam and the Quran. They are characterized as being guilty of embracing a “literalist” interpretation of the Quran. But this allegation fails to face the fact that the Quranic texts that advocate violence and killing to advance Islam are clearly literal and have been so taken by the vast majority of Islamic scholars for the last 1,400 years.³ Setting aside the Hadith which forthrightly promote violence, the Quran itself is riddled with admonitions for Muslims to commit precisely the violent actions and bloodshed being committed by the Islamic terrorists.

Read Surah 47:4 from the celebrated translation by Muslim scholar Mohammed Pickthall:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).⁴

No one should be perplexed or surprised by the incessant practice of beheadings by ISIS and all terrorists, who are in a perpetual war with Christendom. The admonition to behead others comes straight from the Quran (cf. Surah 8:12). Abdullah Yusuf Ali makes the following comment on this passage in his widely reputable Muslim translation:

When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigour, and strike home your blows at the most vital points (smite at their necks), both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves (italics and parenthetical items in orig.).⁵

Many other verses in the Quran forthrightly endorse armed conflict and war to advance Islam (e.g., Surah 2:190ff.; 8:39ff.; 9:1-5,29; 22:39; 61:4; 4:101-104). Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns.⁶ Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight.”⁷

Islam stands in stark contrast to the religion of Jesus—Who never once took up the sword or encouraged anyone else to do so. The one time that one of His close followers took it upon himself to do so, the disciple was soundly reprimanded and ordered to put the sword away, with the added warning: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Indeed, when Pilate quizzed Jesus regarding His intentions, He responded: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36)—the very opposite of Islamic teaching and practice. Whereas the Quran boldly declares, “And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (Surah 2:194; cf. 22:60), Jesus counters, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:39,44). Indeed, New Testament Christianity enjoins love for enemies (Matthew 5:44-46; Luke 6:27-36), returning good for evil, and overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:14,17-21).

So why does the politically correct crowd seem intent on ignoring 1,400 years of historical reality and unmistakable declarations within the Quran itself? It would appear that such blatant disregard is rooted in a single reason: an irrational regard for pluralism and bitter disdain for Christianity’s moral principles.

Endnotes

¹ Annie Gowen, Shaiq Hussain, and Erin Cunningham (2016), “Death Toll in Pakistan Bombing Climbs Past 70,” The Washington Post, March 28, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/death-toll-in-pakistan-easter-suicide-attack-rises-to-72-authorities-vow-to-hunt-down-perpetrators/2016/03/28/037a2e18-f46a-11e5-958d-d038dac6e718_story.html.

² Ibid.

³ Nabeel Qureshi (2016), “The Quran’s Deadly Role in Inspiring Belgian Slaughter: Column,” USA Today, March 22, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/22/radicalization-isil-islam-sacred-texts-literal-interpretation-column/81808560/.

⁴ Mohammed Pickthall (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

⁵ Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1934), The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications), 2002 reprint, p. 1315.

⁶ cf. Martin Lings (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International), pp. 86,111.

⁷ p. xxvi.

Suggested Resources

The post The Quran and the Muslim Bomb Blast In Pakistan appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Though many of the predictions of Einstein’s general theory of relativity have been verified repeatedly over the years, making it one of the most evidence-supported theories in science, his prediction of the existence of gravitational waves was not observed for decades. According to the theory, the occurrence of certain cosmological events (e.g., “spiraling neutron stars”¹) should result in “ripples in the fabric of space and time”—gravitational waves.² Sure enough, what is thought by many to have been the collision of two black holes 1.3 billion light years away from us, “sent a shudder through the Universe” that reached Earth five months ago.³ This discovery is a great victory for science and cosmology, but what does it mean to the alleged Big Bang and the Creation model?

Essentially nothing. Some of those who have contacted us concerning the new discovery were under the impression that it overturned the verdict last year that Big Bang gravitational waves were not discovered, as had been supposed.⁴ Recall that Big Bang inflation (i.e., the violent, rapid expansion of the Universe immediately after the supposed Big Bang) was proposed by evolutionary cosmologists to try to fix the Horizon and Flatness problems in the cosmos, which effectively falsified the Big Bang. If Big Bang inflation was true, however, gravitational waves from the inflation event should have accompanied it, but no evidence for those waves has ever surfaced. In 2014 the claim was made that Big Bang gravitational waves were discovered,⁵ but within months, the claim was invalidated.⁶ The waves recently discovered are not said to be Big Bang gravitational waves as those from 2014 were, but rather, what we might call Black Hole Collision gravitational waves—waves from an event that is thought to have transpired, not 13.8 billion years ago at the alleged Big Bang, but rather, 12.5 billion years later. In other words, gravitational waves can come from various phenomena beyond merely a “Big Bang,” as the current discovery attests. [NOTE: We do not subscibe to the Big Bang Theory or the idea that the Universe is billions of years old. Neither are reconcilable with Scripture or science. We are just responding to the idea that the discovery of gravitational waves helps prove the Big Bang.]

While the discovery might help cosmologists more easily detect gravitational waves from the cosmos in the future, the discovery does nothing to help “Big Bangers” validate their theory. The Big Bang still stands under the dark shroud of blind faith—evidence-less conjecture. In the words of Paul Steinhardt, theoretical physicist and professor at Princeton, “the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests…. [T]he paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable…. [I]t is clear that the inflationary paradigm is fundamentally untestable, and hence scientifically meaningless.”⁷

Endnotes

The post Gravitational Waves Detected: What It Means to Us appeared first on Apologetics Press.

An exciting new discovery adds further weight to the case for the Bible’s accuracy and inspiration. In the Old Testament, we read about a king named Hezekiah. Second Kings 18:1 says that Hezekiah was “the son of Ahaz, king of Judah.” On December 2, 2015, a press release from Hebrew University in Jerusalem explained that a small clay seal was discovered near the Temple mount. The text on the seal reads, “Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz king of Judah” (Smith, 2015). This seal is called a bulla (bullae is the plural form). Clay bullae like this were used to seal documents. There are other such seals, but this one is the first of an Israelite or Judean king that has been discovered by professional archaeologists in situ (in the location where it was left) (Smith). Dr. Eilat Mazer and her team unearthed the bulla in a garbage heap, along with more than 30 other bullae.

The fact that the Bible is the inspired Word of God has long been a settled question (Butt, 2007). Finds like this one, however, add increasing weight to the ever growing mound of evidence that confirms the divine origin of the glorious book we call the Bible.

References

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://www.apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/Behold%20the%20Word%20of%20God.pdf.

Smith, Dov (2015), “First Seal Impression of an Israelite or Judean King Ever Exposed in Situ in a Scientific Archaeological Excavation,” PhysOrg, http://phys.org/news/2015-12-israelite-judean-king-exposed-situ.html.

Recommended Resources

The post Hezekiah Bulla: More Evidence for Bible Inspiration appeared first on Apologetics Press.