God and the Laws of Thermodynamics Audio 40 min

Click on the X

Video 4 min

Listen +

Are You Listening?

IGNORING THE WARNINGS

"A West Virginia State Trooper, stopped a woman for going 15 miles over the speed limit. After he handed her a ticket, she asked him, "Don't you give out warnings?"

"Yes, ma'am," he replied. "They're all up and down the road. They say, 'Speed Limit 55.'" (from Readers Digest, "All In a Day's Work", by Patricia Greenlee)

This story reminds me that one day we will stand before the great Judge. There are many people who expect they will receive merely a "warning" and then they will be given an opportunity to try again. The response on that day will be, "I gave out plenty of warnings -- all through your life -- but you ignored them all."

Remember the rich man in Luke 16 who died and went to Hades? He begged for a messenger to be sent back as a warning to his brothers. The response he got was this:

"They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them....If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead." (Luke 16:29,31)

The warnings are there, all over the road. If we ignore the warnings and live the way we want to live rather than for the glory of God, then we shouldn't be surprised when the punishment is issued on the Last Day.

The warnings are there -- listen and heed them.

Have a great day!

Alan Smith

Science Video very good

Click Here

Believe

What should we Believe?

Sam Harris, Christ’s Resurrection, and the Nature of Belief
by Kyle Butt, M.A.


Sam Harris has helped lead the new brigade of militant atheists in their charge against God. His bestseller, The End of Faith, attempts to persuade the reader that all religions, including Christianity, are not only useless, but often quite harmful. In truth, he does an outstanding job showing some of the problems with false religions like Islam, and he also effectively repudiates perversions of Christian doctrine that attempt to pass themselves off as authentic. What he fails to do, however, is accurately assess true, New Testament Christianity, a fault that lies at the heart of much modern, atheistic writing.

As a case in point, Harris asked the question: “What should we believe?” He answered:

We believe most of what we believe about the world because others have told us to.... In fact, the more educated we become, the more our beliefs come to us second hand. A person who believes only those propositions for which he can provide full sensory or theoretical justification will know almost nothing about the world (2004).

Harris then proceeded to discuss how to assess the validity of what we should or should not believe that other people tell us. He gave three sources of information and analyzed the validity of each. First, he proposed the scenario of an anchorman on the evening news claiming that a fire in Colorado had burned 100,000 acres.

 Second, he listed as a source of information numerous biologists who claim that DNA is the “molecular basis for sexual reproduction.” And the third source of information he listed was the Pope, who claims that Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, and was resurrected bodily after death.

After some discussion, Harris concluded that the first and second sources of information are reliable and should be trusted, but the third, the Pope, is not. What is interesting about Harris’ discussion is why he concluded that the story about the fire on the evening news is trustworthy. He elaborated:

Given our beliefs about the human mind, the success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings, and the degree to which we all rely on the news, it is scarcely conceivable that a respected television network and a highly paid anchorman are perpetrating a hoax, or that thousands of firefighters, newsmen, and terrified homeowners have mistaken Texas for Colorado.

 Implicit in such commonsense judgments lurks an understanding of the causal connections between various processes in the world, the likelihood of different outcomes, and the vested interests or lack thereof, of those whose testimony we are considering. What would a professional news anchor stand to gain from lying about a fire in Colorado? We need not go into the details here, if the anchor on the evening news says that there is a fire in Colorado and then shows us images of burning trees, we can be reasonably sure that there really is a fire in Colorado (2004).

It is not surprising that Harris follows this explanation with his statement about mistrusting the words of the Pope pertaining to the resurrection of Christ. In this regard, he is right: the Pope’s “word” on the resurrection is no more authoritative than the word of Sam Harris. 

But notice the straw man Harris has built. He rightly attacks the false belief of the Pope’s infallibility, but he does not address the real evidence that validates Jesus’ resurrection. Were we to put the evidence for the resurrection beside that of the news story, the resurrection would have unquestionably more “commonsense judgments” to commend it, making it much more “reasonably sure” than a modern news story.

Analyzing the resurrection of Christ in light of Harris’ filter of evidence, it is “scarcely conceivable” that several hundred eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:6) of the resurrected Christ simply concocted the story to further their agenda. What would ordinary fishermen, farmers, or businessmen and women stand to gain from perpetuating such a hoax? 

The reward for their testimony was that many of them were stoned, killed with the sword, tortured, or imprisoned for nothing more than saying that they knew Jesus came back to life. Thousands of their peers listened with interest to their evidence, assessed the value of the witnesses and other information, such as the empty tomb of Christ, and were forced to conclude that the resurrection had, indeed, occurred (Acts 2:41).

 Many among the most educated classes, including the priests, who would have had numerous reasons to deny the validity of the evidence, were convinced of the truth of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 6:7). The many “infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3) offered for the resurrection are recorded in the most reliable documents ever to come down to modern man from any historical repository (see Butt, 2004). 

In fact, so powerful are the various evidences for the resurrection (see Butt, 2002), that, knowing what we know “about the casual connections between various processes” and humanity’s “success of our widespread collaboration with other human beings,” it is inconceivable that the resurrection of Christ is a hoax. The Pope is an easy target. The real evidence for the resurrection is not.

REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2002), “Jesus Christ—Dead or Alive?” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/121.

Butt, Kyle (2004), “Archaeology and the New Testament,” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2591.

Harris, Sam (2004), The End of Faith (New York: W.W. Norton).

Death +

Could There Have Been Any Death Before the Fall?

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

If the Bible is from God (and it is¹), then we can know that it is accurate when discussing historical science. In order to interpret properly the natural evidence, then, one must know what the Bible teaches about the history of the Earth.

 There certainly are differing views about some of the particulars of the biblical Creation model, based on how one interprets certain passages. Some Scriptures are not explicit about precisely what happened at various times in Earth history (e.g., during the Creation week or during and immediately after the Flood). But the Creation scientist understands the importance of not contradicting Scripture when attempting to develop a comprehensive scientific model or framework within which all scientific disciplines must fit.

That said, the question of when death on the Earth began can have implications that affect our understanding of various questions in Creation science.

It is clear, biblically, that humans would not have died had they not sinned (Genesis 3:22), but what of the rest of the Creation? If animal death could occur before the Fall (i.e., before Adam and Eve’s first sin), for example, then we would have to assume that death was a design feature of the planet from the beginning, rather than being a part of the Curse placed upon the Earth as a result of the Fall (Genesis 3:17-19).

And if that is the case, one cannot argue against theistic evolution by claiming that there was no pre-Fall animal death. Pre-Fall animal death could also affect creationists’ attempts to understand cases of so called “natural evil,” where, for example, various living things seem to have been designed to kill (e.g., parasitoids, pathogens, and phages).

If all death was solely a result of the Fall, then we would assume that such cases of “natural evil” were not part of God’s original design, but were part of the Curse. If death could, in fact, occur prior to the Fall, then a different response to some forms of “natural evil” might be more relevant (e.g., microevolution and/or diversification, displacement from intended habitat, or degeneration), although some forms of “natural evil” still might have been directly due to the Curse.

Also, if death could occur before the Fall, there might be implications of that fact when we examine the fossil record. Creationists generally interpret the bulk of the fossils that are found at the base of the fossil record to be a result of the Flood, since it is thought to be the first major catastrophic event in Earth history.

 It is thought that only local catastrophes happened in the 16 centuries up to the Flood. If death could occur prior to the Fall, however, then there may be another catastrophic event of global proportions that could be relevant when studying the fossil record as well: day three.

According to Genesis chapter one, prior to day three of the Creation week, the Earth was covered with water. On day three, God created the dry land and then created grass, seed-bearing herbs, fruit trees—the plants.

 Swimming and flying creatures were created on day five, and finally, land life on day six. It is easy for us to read through this simplified narrative of what God did on those four days without stopping to consider the possible geologic implications of His activity.

On day three, God said, “‘Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear’; and it was so” (Genesis 1:9). This passage may be saying that God, in essence, scraped the surface of the ocean floor, piling up a massive amount of Earth to cause some of it to be exposed from the water, forming land.²

If so, it seems likely that mudslides would have occurred over the next several hours and possibly days, due to the wet material from the ocean floor being raised in elevation and water rapidly running off the continental surface.

 This activity could have begun the fossilization process of some of the plants and aquatic creatures created on days three and five, respectively. There are other options that would not have caused such mudslides,³ but the point is that the Creation scientist must at least consider the possibility that the earliest fossils in the record were a result of day-three activity.

So could there have been death prior to the Fall? And if so, are there theological implications? First, we know that plants were certainly able to die before the Fall, because they were to serve as food for humans and animals throughout the Earth (Genesis 1:30).

 Nobody seems to dispute that truth. It is argued, however, that plants are not thought to be “alive” in the same sense as animals. Unlike animals and humans, plants are never described as being “living creatures” (nephesh chayyah).⁴

 God seemed to be making a distinction between kinds of life in Genesis 1:30 when He said, “Also, to every beast of the Earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the Earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food” (emp. added). While that is true, it is also true that plants can die in some sense (Job 14:7-12; John 12:24),⁵ which tells us that not all death must necessarily be regarded in a negative light.

It is true that Adam, Eve, the flying creatures, and the land animals were told by God originally to be herbivores (Genesis 1:29-30).⁶ So it is clear that it was not part of God’s original design plan for there to be bloodshed by the hand of another, at least among humans, birds, creeping things, and the “beast of the Earth” (apparently the land animals created on day six, Genesis 1:24-25,29-30).

But that does not mean that catastrophic activity, natural disasters, or natural death could not have still killed animals. Some argue that God’s creation could not have been “very good” (Genesis 1:31) if animals could suffer and die, since the creation was perfect.⁷

 But this assumes (1) that animals, which are soul-less beings,⁸ can truly suffer in the same way humans can; and (2) that the creation could not still be “very good” and there be death. We have already seen that due to the occurrence of pre-Fall plant death, the creation could still be deemed as “very good” by God, even with death occurring simultaneously.

So the question then becomes, what did God mean by calling the creation “very good,” and what kind of death, if any, would not have been considered “very good” to God? It seems logical to infer that a “very good” creation simply meant that the created order was exactly as God intended for it to be, whatever that might be—death or no death.

As one Creation scientist acknowledged concerning the pre-Fall world, “Although the pre-Fall world was ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31), it was not ‘perfect’ (i.e., it did not exhibit every meaning of ‘perfect’).”⁹ What kind of death was a part of that “very good” creation must be gleaned, if possible, from the text.

It is argued that “Death is ‘the last enemy’ (1 Corinthians 15:26) which Jesus Christ came and died to defeat. And this would include animal death.”¹⁰ In the context of 1 Corinthians 15, however, Paul is not including animals in referencing the defeat of death, but rather, humans—those capable of sin (vs. 17).

Isaiah 11:6 is sometimes quoted as evidence that there was no animal death prior to the Fall.¹¹ “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.” The claim is that in the end, God will restore on Earth the conditions that were in effect in the Garden, where animals were not violent towards one another.

 Once again, however, in context we see that Isaiah 11 is a Messianic prophecy (cf. vss. 1-5), discussing the coming of Jesus and His kingdom in the first century using highly figurative, not literal, terminology. As evidence, consider that in Romans 15:12, Paul quotes from Isaiah 11 and applies Isaiah’s prophecy to the first century, noting that the prophecy had already been fulfilled at that time.¹² Isaiah may have simply been referring to the peace and harmony that would exist in the coming Church.

 In Christianity, for instance, those once viewed as predators—ferocious wolves, leopards, and young lions—are often found dwelling peaceably with those who would have once been their prey. If we understand Isaiah 11 to refer to the coming of Christ and the Christian dispensation, therefore, we could reasonably conclude that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled when the Kingdom (i.e., the Church¹³) was established in Acts 2.¹⁴

It is also argued that God’s Curse after the Fall included the animals according to Genesis 3, and by implication, humanity’s death curse would have applied to the animals at that point as well.¹⁵ But that assertion is an assumption—the text does not say that was the case.

 Second, the serpent was, indeed, “cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field” (Genesis 3:14), implying that the animals were all cursed, though not as much as the serpent. But it is also true that the plants were included in the Curse as well (vss. 17-18), and we have already seen that they were capable of death prior to the Fall.

Arguments have been made from various passages that tell us death was a result of sin (Romans 5:12-21), that shedding blood is necessary for the remission of sin, but would not have been necessary, by implication, without sin (Hebrews 9:22), and that Christ’s physical death and resurrection made it possible for physical death, initiated by Adam and Eve, to be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:21,22,26).¹⁶

 Such passages, however, contextually, are talking about mankind, not animals, which are not imputed with sin. It is argued that Romans 8:19-22 indicates that the “whole creation”—which is thought to include the animals—suffers, groans, labors, and is under a bondage of corruption (vss. 21-22) due to man’s sin, and therefore, that the whole creation would not have so suffered prior to man’s sin—i.e., animals would not have suffered death.¹⁷

 In the end, however, “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (vs. 21, ESV), apparently returning to a pre-Fall state. Understand that there is considerable argument over the meaning of the word “creation” in Romans 8—whether or not it is referring to all of the created order, or merely humans.

To base an entire argument on such a disputed passage would be unwise, to say the least. It could be argued from the context, that “creation” is referring to humans—the only ones who can “eagerly wait for the revealing of the sons of God” (Romans 8:19).

More specifically, the “whole creation” (vs. 22) could be referring to mankind in general (which “labors with birth pangs,” referring back to the punishment which female humans would have due to Eve’s sin), while “creation” (vss. 19,20,21) could be referring to Christians—i.e., the “sons of God” whom Paul has been discussing in the preceding verses.

After all, “whole creation” is used in precisely that way—to mean mankind in general—elsewhere in Scripture. In Mark 16:15 (ESV), for example, Jesus tells the apostles to go preach the gospel to the “whole creation,” which is another way of saying to “all nations” (Matthew 28:19) and does not include animals. Regardless, Romans 8 cannot be used as conclusive evidence that animals did not die prior to the Fall.

The hallmark passage that seems to be used to try to sustain the idea that death did not occur prior to Adam and Eve is Romans 5:12-19:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses…). Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous (emp. added).

Notice that, contextually, while this passage does discuss death as being a result of sin, it is clearly referring to humans and the effect of sin with regard to mankind, not animals. It was humans, not animals, that were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), giving them the capacity to sin.

A passage that provides weight to the viewpoint that animals could die prior to the Fall is Genesis 3:22-24. After Adam and Eve sinned and God confronted them, pronouncing their punishments and making modest clothes for them, the text says:

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever”—therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden…and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the Tree of Life (emp. added).

Notice from this text that man’s ability to live forever was not a direct miraculous act by God, or something inherent in the physical body of mankind (i.e., part of God’s  original design of the human body), but rather, was coupled with his eating from the Tree of Life, which apparently possessed miraculous healing qualities (cf. Revelation 22:2).

The implication is that Adam and Eve could have still lived forever, even after sinning, if they were able to access the Tree of Life and eat from it. That is the very reason why God used cherubim and a flaming sword to guard Eden and the tree.

A further implication is that physical death was always possible from the beginning for anyone (and apparently, anything) that did not eat of the Tree of Life—i.e., entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics was in place from the beginning, governing the Earth. Adam and Eve were able to eat from the anti-entropy tree and not be subject to the effects of the Second Law; but without it, the effects of God’s natural laws would have taken their course.

With that understanding in mind, what are the implications for the rest of the living beings on the planet? A straightforward reading of the text in Genesis 2:9 and 3:22,24 leads us to believe that God made and placed in the Garden a single fruit tree that, unlike the other fruit trees throughout the Garden that humans and living creatures could eat from, had physical life-giving qualities tied to it.

 Any living being that did not eat from that Tree would apparently eventually suffer physical death—hence, the name given to it: “the Tree of Life.”¹⁸ If so, could the animals which were created throughout the Earth, which could not reach the Tree of Life to eat it, live forever?

Could the swimming creatures that God had created on day five eat from the tree? If not, then how could they live forever? What about all of the animals that God created, surely spread out over the Earth, playing the crucial roles for the Earth for which God designed them? Were they able to access the Tree of Life and live forever? Surely not.

 If we suppose that perhaps animals could live forever apart from the Tree of Life prior to the Fall, we would be going beyond the clear message of the text regarding the nature of the Tree. God seemed to want to emphasize in Scripture the fact that He tied eternal life to the Tree of Life.¹⁹ One would need more biblical evidence before arguing that the animals received eternal life apart from the Tree. If humans needed the Tree to live forever and were denied access to it after the Fall, it seems logical to conclude that the animals were affected in the same way.

Summary

The implication of the text seems clear on the matter: animals throughout the Earth, not made in the image of God, were never intended to live forever. They always had the ability to die, from the beginning. They were designed to die. Like plants, they were not made in the image of God. Their deaths are not in the same category of importance as that of humans.

 No wonder God, Himself, killed animals in order to clothe Adam and Eve properly (Genesis 3:21), even though there is no indication that those animals did anything to deserve death. It seems that animal death, like the “death” of a plant, is not a moral evil, but rather is part of God’s plan for animals. Notice God’s words to Noah and his sons after the Flood.

After sanctioning the killing of animals as food for humans, God highlighted an important distinction: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for [i.e., because] in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6, emp. added). Human death is said to be significant, because we, unlike animals, are like God.

With this understanding about life and death in place, it becomes important to consider various implications. Arguing that theistic evolution is not biblical on the grounds that it would require billions of animal deaths prior to the Fall is not a valid argument.

Theistic evolution (and related old Earth options) are false for several biblical and scientific reasons, but not that one.²⁰ Creation geologists must also consider the possibility that some of the fossils in the record could have been from day-three activity.

 We can also see that some cases of “natural evil” among the animals may have been in place from the beginning. Calling such cases “natural evil” is, therefore, not appropriate. It cannot be said to be “evil” at all, if it was part of God’s design for those creatures all along.

The world was designed to serve as a “vale of soul-making”²¹ for humans. It was intended to prepare them for the afterlife, giving them an opportunity to make their choice about where they will spend eternity. A fundamental component of that design for the Universe is life and death.

 As part of our studies on Earth, while preparing for the afterlife, God seems to want us to understand life and death and their ramifications. We simply cannot escape death. Everywhere we look, whether by the naked eye or when studying bacteria under a microscope, we are reminded of mortality.

It is clearly important to God for humans to acknowledge the reality of death. It appears that even before their first sin, Adam and Eve were capable of observing the evidence around them that death was a real thing—that God knew what He was talking about.

hey could know, by His mercy, they were not being subjected to death. They could understand the concept about which God was warning them: “in the day that you eat of it, you [also—JM] shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). When they sat on an ant, it could die. When a sauropod dinosaur stepped on a snake, the snake was not protected from death by a force field. Rather, the dinosaur’s weight would most certainly crush it, in harmony with God’s natural laws.

A wise man certainly “regards the life of his animal” (Proverbs 12:10), but he also understands that humans are different from animals. According to Jesus, we are “of more value” than them (Matthew 6:26; 10:31; 12:12; Luke 12:24). Those who submit to the will of God in faith will be able to live forever, spiritually (John 3:16); but not the animals. They were never intended to live forever. They serve as a reminder that we should seek life (John 10:10).

Endnotes

¹ Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

² NOTE: This is, no doubt, an oversimplification of what could have actually occurred on day three if God created land from sea floor material. God could have used basaltic rock from the base of the ocean to form the granitic rock that comprises much of the land continents today. Granitic rock is less dense, causing it to float higher in the mantle (exposing land), while the basaltic rock of the ocean floor tends to float lower in the mantle, lowering the sea level.

³ It is possible that the Earth was completely made of water to this point, and God created the infrastructure of the Earth on day three, including the core, mantle, and crust, from that water (2 Peter 3:5), rather than raising material from the sea floor. There would likely be no mudslides if He chose to create land in this way.

⁴ Ken Ham (2014), “Was There Death Before Adam Sinned?” Answers in Genesis On-line, April 25, https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/was-there-death-before-adam-sinned/.

⁵ Jeff Miller (2012), “Did Jesus Contradict the Law of Biogenesis in John 12:24?” Apologetics Press, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=106&article=1590.

⁶ Kenneth Ham (1991), “Adam and Ants,” Acts & Facts, 20[9].

⁷ Avery Foley (2015), “Did Adam Step on an Ant Before the Fall?” Answers in Genesis On-line, December 4, https://answersingenesis.org/death-before-sin/did-adam-step-on-an-ant-before-fall/.

⁸ Bert Thompson (2001), The Origin, Nature, & Destiny of the Soul (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), http://apologeticspress.org/pdfs/e-books_pdf/onds.pdf.

⁹ K.P. Wise (2014), “Spectra of Perfection: A Case for Biological Imperfection before the Fall,” Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences, 4:28, emp. added.

¹⁰ Foley.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Bible scholar Homer Hailey highlighted that Isaiah 1l:10 is quoted by Paul “and applied to the present time under Christ in which the Gentiles hope in Him (Rom. 15:12). If the prophecy is not now fulfilled, the Gentiles have no hope. But they abound in hope at this present time (Rom. 15:13); therefore, the passage is now fulfilled.” (2006), Prayer and Providence (Las Vegas, NV: Nevada Publications), pp. 177-178.

¹³ Matthew 16:18-19; Daniel 2:31-44.

¹⁴ Mark 9:1; Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:9; Matthew 3:2; 4:17; 10:7.

¹⁵ Foley.

¹⁶ Ibid.; Ham (1991).

¹⁷ Foley.

¹⁸ Why would God give it that name if its purpose was not to sustain life? Further, if living beings could live forever without the Tree of Life, what would be the point of the Tree? 

¹⁹ Genesis 2:9; 3:22,24; Revelation 2:7; 22:2,14.

²⁰ cf. Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), 2nd edition.

²¹ John Keats (1895), The Letters of John Keats, ed. H. Buxton Forman (London: Reeves & Turner), p. 326.

Suggested Resources

---

Copyright ©  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

no Bible

Bible or no Bible 

Quran Okay—but not Bible by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

You are aware of the systematic cleansing of America’s public schools and government buildings by the elimination of references to God and the Bible. This conspiratorial departure from the nation’s origins has been illustrated once again—but in a rather unexpected place: the detention center for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The politically correct crowd saw to it that every Muslim had access to a Quran. Oh, yes, inmates who want a Quran are carefully accommodated. But when a Pakistani Muslim inmate (detained for alleged ties to Osama bin Laden) requested a copy of the Bible—no can do.

Though the Quran is preeminent to the Muslim, Islam nevertheless acknowledges the Bible as Scripture from God. So, when he requested that his lawyer ship him a copy of the Bible, prison officials promptly confiscated the package. U.S. government lawyers said the detainee had not shown that the practice of his religion had been “substantially burdened” by being deprived of a Bible.

Unbelievable! Our own people no longer see the Bible as necessary, or its unavailability as adverse and creating a hardship. Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, an honest Muslim would have the opportunity to see the stark difference between the Bible and the Quran. He might repent of his terrorist bent and pursue “the peace that passes understanding” (Philippians 4:7). But we can’t have that!

We live in a time warp far removed from America’s origins. The Founders clearly believed that the initial existence and future survival of the Republic was heavily, if not exclusively, dependent on the successful diffusion of the Bible throughout society. 

While abundant evidence for this assertion exists, consider just one example. A year after declaring independence from England, the Colonies began to feel the effects of the British embargo. Consequently, the Continental Congress directed a committee to investigate ways by which Bibles could be secured. The committee made its report on September 11, 1777, stating “that the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great...your Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different ports of the States of the Union.” Congress promptly ordered the importation (Journals of..., 1907, 8:734-745).

 Four years later, as the shortage continued, importation became sufficiently impractical that Congress was again petitioned for approval, this time to print Bibles in America rather than purchase them abroad. The request was approved and upon completion of the printing, on September 12, 1782, the full Congress not only approved the edition, but their endorsement was given in the front of the Bible: “Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled...recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States” (Journals of..., 1914, 23:574). Who today would believe that the original Congress of the United States considered the Bible so important to national existence that they would expend effort—even in wartime—to make certain that Bibles were available to the American population? The present widespread loss of respect for and interest in the Bible, if continued, will spell our national doom.

By the way, government lawyers representing prison officials at Guantanamo Bay also argued that letting the Islamic detainee have a Bible would “set off a chain reaction among the other 170 detainees” and “incite them” (Serrano, 2005). Oh, but don’t you see? That’s precisely what needs to be done.

REFERENCES
Journals of the Continental Congress (1904-1937), (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office).
Serrano, Richard A. (2005), “Guantanamo Bay Prisoner Sues U.S. to Get a Bible,” Los Angeles Times, November 22, [On-line], URL: http://www.algeria-watch.org/pdf/pdf_en/press_21_27_11_05.pdf.
Copyright © 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may be copied, on the condition that it will not be republished in print unless otherwise stated below, and will not be used for any commercial purpose, 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) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (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 be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original written content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. Further, documents may not be copied without source statements (title, author, journal title), and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as listed below.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

New Tiny Babies

This item is available on the Apologetics Press website at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3280AP Content :: In the NewsTiny Babies

Abortionists Would Rather We Forgetby Eric Lyons, M.Min.

When Samuel Armas was a 21-week unborn baby, USA Today photojournalist Michael Clancy snapped what arguably would become the most famous pre-natal photograph ever. On August 19, 1999, Dr. Joseph Bruner, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, performed spina bifida surgery on Samuel while he was in utero. During the surgery, Samuel, who was only about half way through the normal gestation period, was pictured with his tiny hand resting on one of the doctor’s fingers. Samuel was born 15 weeks later.
When Samuel’s surgery was first reported more than seven years ago, many eyes were opened to the preciousness and humanity of early unborn children. More recently, however, another baby who further testifies to the humanity of unborn children has captured the headlines. Her name: Amillia Sonja Taylor. She was born on October 24, 2006 in south Florida. What makes Amillia so special? Doctors believe she “spent less time in the womb than any other surviving infant” (“World’s Youngest...,” 2007). Amillia’s mother, Sonja, carried Amillia for less than 22 weeks. At delivery, she was only 9½ inches long and weighed less than a can of soda. But, she was a living human being. Four months later, Amillia weighed 4½ pounds, was 15½ inches long, and was almost ready to go home for the very first time (“Doctors Extend...,” 2007).
Amillia did not turn into a human 15 to 18 weeks later—when most babies are delivered—she was a human at 22 weeks, and had been human since she was conceived. She was not lifeless matter—a blob of tissue. She was not a plant. She was not an animal. She was a living, growing human being.
How can anyone look at pictures of an unborn child such as Samuel Armas, or a 10-ounce baby such as Amillia Taylor, and justify the hideous sin of abortion? The fact that doctors in the United States and other countries legally can rip unborn babies to pieces with plier-like forceps, chop them up with knife-like devices or puncture their skulls with a pair of scissors before removing the babies’ brains, is simply atrocious. What could be more inhumane? Indeed, “hands that shed innocent blood” are “an abomination” to the Lord. To be sure, God “hates” abortion (Proverbs 6:16-17).
“...[P]ut away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, learn to do good;...defend the fatherless” (Isaiah 1:16-17).
“Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9).


REFERENCES
“Doctors Extend Hospital Stay of Tiniest Premature Baby” (2007), Associated Press, February 20, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252878,00.html.
“World’s Youngest ‘Miracle Baby’ Beats Odds” (2007), Associated Press, February 20, [On-line], URL: http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/worlds-youngest-miracle-baby-beats-odds/ 20070220071609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001.
Copyright © 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.