Did God Condone Rape? Video 6 min

https://video.wvbs.org/video/challenging-bible-verses-genesis-198/ 

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Did God Allow Human Sacrifice? Video 7 min

https://video.wvbs.org/video/genesis-222-did-god-allow-human-sacrifice-challenging-bible-verses/ 

Click on the link and follow the path provided.

 

Test All Things

Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Bulletin Articles

The United States government is in the process of issuing new designs for all of its paper currency. In light of this change, cashiers in banks, grocery stores, gas stations, and countless other retail shops have been placed on a heightened alert regarding the possibility of counterfeit bills being circulated. In fact, many of these cashiers have a special pen at their cash register with which they mark every bill that is larger than $10. If the pen leaves a clear mark, the bill is genuine, but if the mark turns black, the bill is counterfeit. This pen is designed to test each bill that passes through the hands of the cashier.

 

Interestingly, the Word of God admonishes each of us to do the same thing concerning ideas and actions. In 1 Thessalonians 5:21 the inspired apostle Paul wrote: “Test all things, hold fast what is good.” The Greek word he used for test is dokimazo, which was used in former times to describe the process that a person would use to melt down coins made of gold and silver to determine whether they were real or fake. Paul wanted the Thessalonians to test every idea and action to determine whether it was the truth, or whether it was demonic quackery sent to leave them spiritually bankrupt.

Today, the world is a chaotic place that is similar in many ways to the ancient city of Athens, whose citizens spent their time doing nothing else but seeking something new to discuss. Ideas slide across the checkout line of our minds at alarming rates. Atheism, euthanasia, prayer, worship, stem-cell research, polytheism, love, sex, drugs, and the New Age Movement, are just a few of the concepts that bombard the average citizen. What are we to do with each of these varied concepts? We are to have the counterfeit-checking pen of God’s Word in hand and use it to “mark” every idea that is presented to us. If the mark is clear, welcome that concept into our cash register drawer, rejoicing in its truthfulness. But if God’s Word black-marks any concept, reject it as the evil, useless counterfeit that it is.

---

Copyright © 2001 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Bible Bullets” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may not be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites (although links to articles on the Apologetics Press Web site are permitted).

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

“Fornication” (Porneia) Defined in New Testament Greek Lexicons

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersSexual Immoralit

In one’s efforts to study the Word of God and make certain that God’s originally intended meanings are being accessed, it is imperative that the reader set aside all preconceptions, biases, and preferences and allow the Bible to define its own meanings. One important tool for achieving this goal is to make certain that the meanings of the words that the Holy Spirit selected to express Himself are derived from the original language through which He conveyed His message. After all, God did not choose to communicate His words via the English language. While lexicographers and linguistic experts are not perfect—all are susceptible to error—nevertheless, a careful study of the original language, together with an equally careful assessment of the inspired text, will inevitably yield arrival at the truth as God intended.

Considerable confusion has existed over the years in various religious circles concerning Bible teaching about marriage, divorce, and remarriage. On one occasion, Jesus declared forthrightly in His response to inquiring Jews the sole grounds for legitimate divorce: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9, NKJV).1 A number of English translations render the word that Jesus used as “sexual immorality.”2 A number of others render the word “fornication.”3 Still others render it “unchastity,”4 “whoredom,”5 “unfaithfulness,”6 “immorality,”7 or “adultery.”8 Observe that while this diversity of rendering is subject to some confusion, they are in general agreement that the ground for divorce centers on sexual sin. In English, the exact nature of this “immorality” is imprecise.

That’s where Greek lexicons and other linguistic authorities are helpful. The following chart provides a general survey of how numerous Greek lexicographers have defined the underlying term porneia (in Matthew 19:9) and its derivatives over the past 200+ years:9

[Click for better visibility]

Three Observations

Three important observations are in order. First, when the lexicographers note that porneia is fornication “of every kind,” “in general,” or “a class of crimes,” they are not referring to various types of sexual activity like touching, caressing, or kissing. Rather, they are referring to multiple forms or types of sexual intercourse, including homosexuality, bestiality, and adultery. “Fornication,” therefore, is a generic or “umbrella” term that encompasses different forms of sexual intercourse. See Figure 1, which illustrates the connection between the broad term “fornication” and more narrow terms that identify specific forms of fornication.

Notice, then, that “adultery” is simply a narrower term than “fornication.”10 All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery. The eight terms listed in Figure 1 share in common the fact that each one involves actual sexual intercourse.

A second observation concerns the lexicographers’ use of terms to define porneia that are either archaic, or with the passing of time, have changed meaning. By examining older dictionaries that clarify the meanings of those English words, we can see that they further verify the intended meaning of porneia. Noah Webster’s 1848 An American Dictionary of the English Language defined “lewd” as “addicted to fornication or adultery” and “harlotry” is defined as “the trade or practice of prostitution; habitual or customary lewdness.”11 To act as a “whore” is “to have unlawful sexual commerce; to practice lewdness,” “to corrupt by lewd intercourse,” and “whoredom” is defined as “lewdness; fornication.”12 A “brothel” is “a house of lewdness; a house appropriated to the purposes of prostitution.”13 To “fornicate” is “to commit lewdness,” “fornication” is defined as “the incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female; also, the criminal conversation of a married man with an unmarried woman” as well as “adultery” and “incest,” and a “fornicator” is “a lewd person.”14 “Unchaste” is defined as “not continent; not pure; libidinous; lewd.”15 “Continency” is defined as “the restraint of the passion for sexual enjoyment; resistance of concupiscence, forbearance of lewd pleasures; hence, chastity.”16 The underlying Greek term in Romans 13:13 rendered in various English translations as “lewdness” (NKJV), “chambering” (KJV), “sleeping around” (CEB), “beds” (DLNT), “sexual promiscuity” (MOUNCE), “debauchery” (RSV), and “sexual immorality” (ESV) is koitais from koitai, referring to the conjugal bed, and is defined as “sexual intercourse, whoredom.”17

A third observation concerns the claim by some that “fornication” refers exclusively to sexual activity between unmarried persons. It is certainly true that over time, words take on different meanings than they once conveyed. But, as we have seen, the meaning of the Greek term rendered “fornication” is decisive in its import. Even without that linguistic information, the English reader can know that the allegation is incorrect. Several passages make this fact plain. For example, the man in the Corinthian church who married his father’s wife was guilty of porneia (1 Corinthians 5:1). Likewise, John the baptizer condemned the incestuous (porneia) marriage of Herod the Tetrarch to his brother’s wife (Mark 6:17). According to Jude 7, the men of Sodom were guilty of porneia. As we have seen, homosexuality is one form of porneia. The Israelites committed porneia (ekporneusai—LXX) with the Moabite women, some of whom were undoubtedly married since they were leaders of the people (Numbers 25:1,4; 1 Corinthians 10:8). What’s more, it is evident from Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that married people can commit porneia. To summarize, Figure 2 illustrates the broad application of the word “fornication” in Scripture.

Conclusion

The host of Greek authorities verify the fact that the Bible uses the term porneia to refer to physical sexual intercourse. Various derivatives of the word only further confirm this fact.

The older lexicons occasionally use English terms that today may not convey this singularly precise meaning. But by consulting both the drift of the context in which the terms are used as well as the English dictionaries that were contemporaneous with those Greek sources, one can conclude that those terms were intended as synonyms for physical sexual intercourse.

These synonymous terms include: “lewdness,” “unchastity,” “debauchery,” “whoredom,” “uncleanness,” “impurity,” “commerce,” “incontinence,” and “sexual immorality.”

While sinful in their own right, neither the viewing of pornography nor those sinful actions that precede sexual intercourse—which are embodied in such Bible terms as “lust” and “lasciviousness”—fall within the purview of the meaning of “fornication” in the New Testament.

Endnotes

1 Some scholars have challenged the textual legitimacy of the “exceptive” clause in this verse, but the point is moot since the clause occurs also in Matthew 5:32 where its textual legitimacy is firm. See Bruce Metzger (1994), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: United Bible Society, second edition), p. 38.

2 CSB, CJB, DLNT, EHV, ESV, EXB, HCSB, ISV, LEB, MEV, MOUNCE, NASB, NIV, NKJV, TLV, WEB. The CEB has the equivalent expression “sexual unfaithfulness.” The CEV has “some terrible sexual sin.” The ERV has “the problem of sexual sin.” The EXB and NCV have “his wife has sexual relations with another man.” The ICB has “his first wife has been unfaithful to him.” The NLV has “sex sins.” The RGT has “promiscuity.”

3 ASV, BRG, DARBY, DRA, JUB, KJV, TLB, MNB, OJB, WYC.

4 AMPC, NRSV, RSV.

5 GNV, YLT.

6 GW, GNT, PHILLIPS, NOG.

7 NASB1995, NET, NTE, TPT.

8 MSG, VOICE, WE.

9 Frederick Danker (2000), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago), third edition, pp. 854-855; William Mounce (2006), Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), pp. 126,268,638-639,1251; Joseph Thayer (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: American Book Company), p. 532; James Moulton and George Milligan (1930), Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982 reprint), p. 529; F. Wilbur Gingrich (1965), Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press), p. 180; James Donnegan (1836), A New Greek and English Lexicon (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.), p. 1031; Edward Robinson (1836), A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (Boston, MA: Crocker & Brewster), pp. 690-691; Thomas Green (1896), A Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (Boston, MA: H.L. Hastings), p. 152; Henry Liddell and Robert Scott (1901), A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 1256; E.A. Sophocles (1914), Greek Lexicon of the Roman & Byzantine Periods (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), p. 911; W.J. Hickie (1977 reprint), Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 157; Heinrich Meyer (1881), Critical & Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark), 2:26; John Parkhurst (1804), Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament (London: G.&J. Robinson), pp. 554-555; John Pickering (1832), A Greek and English Lexicon (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, Little, & Wilkins), p. 741; Hector Morgan (1826), The Doctrine and Law of Marriage, Adultery, and Divorce (Oxford: J. Parker), 2:398; George Berry (1897), A New Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament (New York: Hinds & Noble), p. 82; G. Abbott-Smith (1922), Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons), pp. 373-374; J.H. Bass (1844), A Greek & English Manual Lexicon to the New Testament (London: I.J. Chidley), p. 185; Charles Hudson (1892), A Critical Greek & English Concordance of the New Testament (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons), p 339; Cornelius Schrevelius (1826), The Greek Lexicon of Schrevelius (Boston, MA: Cummings, Hilliard, & Co.), p. 692; John Jones (1825), The Tyro’s Greek & English Lexicon (London: Longman, et al.), p. 1040; Charles Robson (1839), A Greek Lexicon to the New Testament (London: Whittaker & Co.), p. 387; Samuel Loveland (1828), A Greek Lexicon Adapted to the New Testament (Woodstock, VT: David Watson), p. 259; Greville Ewing (1827), A Greek & English Lexicon (Glasgow: James Duncan), pp. 714-715; Wesley J. Perschbacher, ed. (1990), The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 340; Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz (1982 reprint), “pornai, pornos, porneia, porneuo, ekporneuo” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 6:579-595.

10 Hauck and Schulz agree: “moicheuo is narrower than porneia and refers solely to adultery” (6:581).

11 Noah Webster (1848), An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York: Harper & Brothers), pp. 593, 478.

12 Ibid., pp. 1136-1137.

13 Ibid., p. 129.

14 Ibid., p. 424.

15 Ibid., p. 1067.

16 Ibid., p. 222.

17 Thayer, p. 352; Samuel Bagster (no date), The Analytical Greek Lexicon (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons), p. 227.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

The "Days" of Creation

Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Misc.

It often has been suggested that perhaps the days discussed in Genesis 1 were not literal 24-hour periods. Maybe they were long eons of time during which evolution could have taken place. After all, the word translated “day” in Genesis 1 can have up to seven different meanings, and on rare occasions it can refer to a period of time longer than 24 hours. How long were the days of the creation week, really? Could it be the case the creation week was seven long eons of time that consisted of millions or billions of years each?

 

No. 

The author of Genesis wanted his readers to understand, in no uncertain terms, that the six days of creation were literal, 24-hour periods. Here are the reasons we know this to be true. First, the author defined the word “day” (Hebrew yōm) for the reader by saying that it was composed of “an evening and a morning” (Genesis 1:5). The exact rotation of the Earth is described by this phrase, which was the common way for Hebrews to describe a literal day.

Second, whenever a number comes before the word “day” in the Old Testament in non-prophetical literature like Genesis 1, it always means a literal, 24-hour period. Third, whenever the word “day” appears in the plural form (yamim) in non-prophetical literature, it always means a literal day. In fact, over 700 times the Old Testament uses the word yamim in such a manner, and it always means a literal day in its non-prophetic uses. Therefore, when Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days (yamim) the Lord made the heavens and the earth,” there can be absolutely no doubt that the text means six literal days.

Fourth, the author of Genesis had other ways to indicate to the reader that the “days” were long eons of time. He could have used the Hebrew word dôr, which means long periods of time. But he did not; instead he used the word day, modified it with the phrase “evening and morning,” put numerals before it, and in Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 made it plural. He used practically every means at his disposal to show that the days were not long periods of time, but instead were literal, 24-hour periods. Thus, the idea that the billions of years needed for evolution occurred during creation week simply cannot be defended.

But what about 2 Peter 3:8 which states that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” Isn’t this New Testament passage teaching that to God, a day could be a very long time? No, it is not. 

Let us consider the passage in its appropriate context. In 2 Peter 3:8, the apostle’s discussion has nothing to do with the length of the days in Genesis 1. Rather, he is discussing the “last days” (3:3; i.e., the Christian dispensation) and Christ’s Second Coming. Some, said Peter, would suggest that since Christ had not returned already, then He was not going to return—ever! But Peter reminded his readers that God is not bound by time. He can do more in one day than humans can do in a thousand years, or, conversely, He may wait a thousand years to do what humans wish He would do in a day. Nevertheless, God keeps His promises (3:9). It is interesting to note that, from a reading of the text, God Himself recognizes the difference between an earthly day and an earthly thousand years. It also is interesting to note that Peter did not say that a day is a thousand years or a thousand years is a day, but that a day is “as” a thousand years and a thousand years is “as” a day. God always has recognized the difference between an earthly day, month, and year. The passage in 2 Peter 3:8 proves that He is able to communicate the difference to human beings. What did He say the time periods in Genesis 1 were? Days!

---

Copyright © 2001 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Bible Bullets” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may not be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites (although links to articles on the Apologetics Press Web site are permitted).

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558

---

Published December 31, 2000

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Unalienable Rights and the Bible

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Culture WarGovernment and God

When the Founding Fathers of America issued their statement of justification for cutting ties to their Mother country in order to form a new nation, they alluded to the notion of “unalienable rights.”1 Where did they derive this notion? Did it arise from political philosophy to which they had been exposed? Did they believe in the theory of evolution, concluding that humans should receive no special, moral treatment based solely on their humanness?2 Or was the source of their thinking on this subject drawn directly from the Bible? FACT: It came from the Bible. Consider the following listing of unalienable rights affirmed, defined, and delineated from Scripture:

Affirmed:

“[A]ll men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”3

Defined:

“Those sacred rights which God himself from the infinity of his benevolence has bestowed upon mankind.”4

Delineated:5

Life—God gave us life; no one is permitted to take that life, except under conditions the Creator gives by which it might be done by duly constituted authority.

Acts 17:25; 1 Timothy 6:13; Job 12:10; Isaiah 42:5; Daniel 5:23

Liberty—Freedom to make own decisions, control own actions, exercise own volition, change situations, move wherever one desires to move (under constraints of law)—the exercise of free will.[6]

Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15; Ezekiel 18:4ff.; 1 Corinthians 9:17; Revelation 22:17

Pursuit of Happiness—Right to pursue one’s own advantage and enjoyment (within moral limits), including selection of vocation, profession, trade, or business.

Joshua 1:15; Psalm 128:2; Ecclesiastes 2:24; 3:13; 5:18; 1 Timothy 6:17

Private Property—Acquired by one’s own lawful, moral labor.

Genesis 2:15; 3:17-19; Ecclesiastes 3:13; Isaiah 65:22; Matthew 20:13-15; Acts 5:4; 1 Corinthians 9:4-10; Ephesians 4:28

Family Relations—A scriptural marriage.

Genesis 1:27; 2:24; Matthew 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:1-2; 9:5

Family Relations—bear/rear/educate/care for one’s own children

John 9:23; Ephesians 5:31; 6:1; Colossians 3:20; Romans 1:30; Hebrews 13:4

Right to Worship—Pursue Christianity and worship God according to own understanding of the Bible—as long as not harmful or immoral.

Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 4:10; 2 Kings 17:36; 1 Chronicles 16:29; Psalm 96:9; John 4:23; Revelation 22:9

Self-Preservation—The right to defend/protect self, family, and property.

Genesis 9:6; 14:14-20; Exodus 22:2-3; Nehemiah 4:13-20; Esther 8:11; 9:5; Matthew 24:42-44; John 18:36; Hebrews 11:32-34; James 2:8

Endnotes

1 For more discussion of this topic, see Dave Miller (2017), God & Government (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), pp. 13-36.

2 Kyle Butt (2008), “Dawkins Does Not Believe ‘Men’ Have Unalienable Rights,” https://apologeticspress.org/dawkins-does-not-believe-men-have-unalienable-rights-2477/.

3 “Declaration of Independence: A Transcription,” National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript.

4 John Dickinson (1766), An Address to the Committee of Correspondence in Barbados. Occasioned by a Late Letter from Them to Their Agent in London (Philadelphia, PA: William Bradford), p. 4. John Dickinson (1732-1808) was a prominent Founder. He was homeschooled by a tutor and became an attorney/politician and served during the Revolution as a Militia Brigadier-General. He served as a member of the Continental Congress and a delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787. He served as Governor of both Delaware and Pennsylvania and was among the wealthiest men in the British American colonies. He wrote Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, and was a signer of the Constitution. Like Dickinson, a host of the Founders alluded to and expounded on the notion of “unalienable rights.” For example, Dan Foster (1775), A Short Essay on Civil Government (Hartford, CT: Ebenezer Watson), pp. 17,24; Thomas Jefferson (1774), A Summary View of the Rights of British America (London: G. Kearsly), p. 19; William Wells (1865), The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co.), 3:325; Bird Wilson (1804), The Works of the Honourable James Wilson (Philadelphia, PA: Lorenzo Press), 1:104; 2:454.

5 This listing is not intended to be exhaustive.

6 For a discussion of slavery as depicted in the Bible, see Kyle Butt (2005), “The Bible & Slavery,” Reason & Revelation, 25[6]:41-47, June; Dave Miller (2005), “Philemon & Slavery,” Reason & Revelation, 4[6]:21-R, June; Eric Lyons (2018), “Did Paul Endorse Slavery?” Reason & Revelation, 38[1]:2-4, January.

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed