Cuttlefish Video 4 min

 Wonders of Creation: Cuttlefish (apologeticspress.org)

Click on the link above

Dinosaurs Part 1 Very interesting read about DRAGONS

 

Historical Support for the Coexistence of Dinosaurs and Humans [Part I]

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This two-part article is the fruit of Eric’s in-depth analysis of the historical evidence that demonstrates man and dinosaurs lived together on the Earth in the not-too-distant past. Look for Part II next month.]

No animal, extinct or living, captures the attention of people more than dinosaurs. For decades, they have mesmerized children and entertained adults. Dinosaurs are pictured on television, in books, classrooms, movies, magazines, and on all sorts of paraphernalia. Advertisers use them to sell everything from oatmeal to hamburgers and board games to piggy banks.

 This animal is so popular with children that it often has its own section in bookstores. Unfortunately, dinosaurs also play a major role in teaching evolutionary theory.

We at Apologetics Press feel compelled to write about these extinct reptiles occasionally because they are the poster children for the theory of evolution. 

What the gecko is to Geico®, dinosaurs are to evolution. Consider an example of their “poster child” status. In the widely used, 100-page middle school science textbook titled Evolution—Change Over Time (published by Prentice Hall), attempts are made to establish evolution as a fact by using a variety of alleged proofs. 

One piece of “evidence,” however, that appears on nearly one out of every three pages, centers on dinosaurs. The first two chapters in this three-chapter textbook begin with pictures and text about dinosaurs. 

In several sections of the book (in which the main thrust is not dinosaurs), students are asked to participate in reading or writing activities that focus on dinosaurs. Truly, the authors and editors of this “science” textbook (which recently was used throughout the United States) have attempted to indoctrinate young minds with the “truths” of evolution by using dinosaurs more than anything else.

 Indeed, these animals are so entwined with evolutionary thinking that in his anti-creationist book titled Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted that solid evidence for the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans would “shake the foundations of evolutionary theory, because, of course, the dinosaurs are supposed to have been long extinct by the time the hominids arrived on the scene” (1982, p. 121, emp. added).

What does history have to tell us about these extinct creatures? If dinosaurs and humans once walked the Earth together (as the Bible implies—Exodus 20:11), it is logical to conclude that humans would have left behind at least two different types of evidence. 

First, similar to how we take pictures of places we visit and wildlife we see in modern times, people living hundreds or thousands of years ago (before the invention of cameras) likely would have drawn or carved pictures of dinosaurs, as well as many other animals. As we have noted previously in Reason & Revelation, such ancient drawings actually exist (see Butt and Lyons, 2005). 

Second, just as we tell stories today of interesting things that we have seen and heard, the ancients would have told stories about dinosaurs, if they ever encountered these creatures. Do such stories exist? Is there historical support for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans? You be the judge.

LEGENDS

Often, people refer to stories of the distant past as legends. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “legend” as “1a. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical. b. A body or collection of such stories. c. A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times” (2000, p. 1000).

Although sometimes told in a believable fashion, many legends, no doubt, are pure fantasy. They are filled with imaginary people and animals performing all sorts of unbelievable, magical, mythical deeds. Santa Claus flying through the air with his reindeer on the eve of December 25 delivering gifts all over the world; Rip Van Winkle sleeping for 20 years under a shade tree; or Paul Bunyan and his blue ox creating Minnesota’s lakes with their giant footprints—all could be categorized as legendary characters performing imaginary feats. Legends of mermaids, sphinxes, and centaurs also can be safely classified as pure fantasy.

Other legends, however, are not so fanciful. Stories that are ubiquitous, included in reputable, historical writings as factual, and supported by science cannot reasonably be disregarded as “just unbelievable legends.” 

Take, for example, the legend of a worldwide flood. Stories have surfaced in hundreds of cultures throughout the world that tell of a huge, catastrophic flood which destroyed most of mankind, and that was survived only by a few individuals and animals (Perloff, 1999, p. 167). 

The Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese, Aztecs, Toltecs, and many others have variations of the flood story. According to evolutionary geologist Robert Schoch, “Noah is but one tale in a worldwide collection of at least 500 flood myths” (2003, p. 249). 

Canadian geologist Sir William Dawson wrote about how the record of the Flood “is preserved in some of the oldest historical documents of several distinct races of men, and is indirectly corroborated by the whole tenor of the early history of most of the civilized races” (1895, pp. 4ff.). 

Even the most well-preserved book of antiquity, the Bible, which Christians believe to be the truthful, inspired Word of God, testifies repeatedly that a worldwide flood engulfed the Earth in the days of the patriarch Noah (Genesis 6-8; Isaiah 54:9; Matthew 24:36-39; Luke 17:26-27; 1 Peter 3:20). What’s more, much scientific evidence exists suggesting the occurrence of a universal flood sometime in the past. 

In their book The Genesis Flood, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris spent nearly 100 pages presenting such data (1961, pp. 116-211). Worldwide stories of a worldwide flood? Preserved in some of the oldest historical documents, including the Bible? Corroborated by an assortment of scientific facts? Though various details in the hundreds of worldwide flood legends have been tainted over time with multiple errors and contradictions (e.g., the Aztecs’ legend that indicates only two people survived the global Flood rather than eight), there are logical reasons to believe that the general outlines of flood legends are true and testify to the Bible’s reliability (see Lyons and Butt, 2003).

DRAGON LEGENDS

But what about dinosaurs? Is there any evidence from history that humans lived with these giant reptiles from the past? Are there stories of humans interacting with large reptilian creatures that possessed massive tails, fearsome teeth, hefty legs, horned heads, and spiked backs?

 

Indeed, a wide variety of stories of large reptiles have been passed down through the ages from cultures all over the world. Many of these creatures sound very much like dinosaurs, or dinosaur-like (marine or flying) reptiles (e.g., plesiosaurus and pterodactyl). However, these animals never are called dinosaurs in the stories. 

Since the term “dinosaur” (from the Greek words deinos, meaning “fearfully great,” and sauros, meaning “lizard” or “reptile”) was not coined until the early 1840s (when fossilized dinosaur bones were first discovered and reconstructed in modern times), stories told previously of “fearfully great reptiles” could not have included the word “dinosaur.” Instead, the name attached to these creatures was “dragon.” 

Have some dragon legends been embellished over time? Of course. Just as people today tend to embellish the size of fish they catch or the size of a dog that nips their leg, people in the past said things about dragons that undoubtedly were exaggerations. Such inaccuracies, however, do not negate the overriding truth that “fearfully great reptiles” of many different shapes and sizes once lived with humans—anymore than the differences in worldwide flood legends mean we must discount the idea of a universal flood.

THE UBIQUITY AND ANTIQUITY OF DRAGON LEGENDS

Were legends of large dinosaur-like reptiles only to appear late in the histories of a handful of cultures around the world, one might well argue for their dismissal in legitimate historical discussions. After all, what is a smattering of strange animal descriptions and fairy-tale-like stories interspersed in only a few places on Earth? Such similar stories of unique reptilian creatures in only a handful of places on the globe might reasonably be passed off as just coincidence. The “coincidence card,” however, looks rather weak in light of the vast amount of testimony regarding the longstanding, widespread nature of dragon legends.

Many authors are adamant that dragons were purely mythical creatures. Yet, interestingly, these same writers testify to the ubiquity of dragon legends. Take, for example, Carl Lindall, contributing writer for World Book Encyclopedia. He believes “[d]ragons did not really exist,” even though “[e]very country had them in its mythology.

 In Greece dragons were slain by Hercules, Apollo, and Perseus. Sigurd, Siegfried, and Beowulf killed them in Norse, German, and English legend” (1996, 5:265-266, emp. added). In his brief book on Chinese Dragons, Roy Bates, like Lindall, suggested that the dragon “was never a real beast” (2002, p. 15). Yet, Bates similarly confessed: “No other creature in the world has had such a far-reaching influence on the minds of so many people” (p. vii, emp. added).

 A 1981 Science Digest article, titled “The Spread of Dragon Myths,” informed readers, “as myth they [dragons—EL] are among the most...persistent and widespread in the world. From millennium to millennium and over all the earth’s continents, dragon and serpent lore shows remarkable similarity” (1981, 89:103). Still, Science Digest was adamant that “[d]ragons, of course, are myth” (89:103).

Several others also have testified to the widespread nature of dragon legends. The famed twentieth-century evolutionist, Carl Sagan, noted: “The implacable mutual hostility between man and dragon, as exemplified in the myth of St. George is strongest in the West.... But it is not a Western anomaly. It is a worldwide phenomenon” (1977, p. 150, emp. added). Militant evolutionist and LiveScience.com staff writer Ker Than admitted: “Dragons are...found in the myths and legends of cultures all around the world” (2007). James Perloff wrote:

The Flood is not the only common remembrance of the world’s cultures. They also remember “dragons.” From England to China, these were a long part of national “mythologies.” The Indians of North and South America had legends about them. They were written of in Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Persia, Russia, India, and Japan (1999, p. 181).

On the inside front dust jacket of his book, Dragons: A Natural History, Dr. Karl Shuker noted that dragons “have been found in an astounding number of places. Dragons and their near relatives have found niches in every ecosystem on the planet—from the mountains of Greece to the forests of northern Europe to the volcanic plain of Mesoamerica to the river valleys of China—and have, as a consequence, become deeply embedded in human culture” (1995). Shuker even included a world map showing the existence of dragon legends in cultures on every continent except Antarctica (pp. 6-7). Daniel Cohen called the dragon “the most common monster in the world.... People all over the world have believed in dragons” (1975, p. 97).

 “A thousand years ago dragons were such familiar creatures that what they looked like and how they behaved was common knowledge to every man, woman, and child,” wrote Dr. Peter Hogarth and Val Cleary in their book Dragons (1979, p. 12). They continued: “No matter where they lived, everyone could describe dragons and dragon behavior...” (p. 12). 

In her book, British Dragons, Jacqueline Simpson mentioned how in Great Britain alone some 80 dragon legends have been uncovered (1980, p. 10). “Over 70 villages and small towns [in Great Britain—EL] still have a tradition about a local dragon, or can be shown on good evidence to have had such a tradition in the past” (p. 9).

In 2005, Animal Planet aired a program (later released on DVD) titled Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real. The film incorporated legend, alleged scientific facts, various theories (including, and especially, evolution), state-of-the-art CGI animation, and the voice talent of Patrick Stewart. It was a highly publicized film that once again put a spotlight on dragons. Although it was far from a legitimate documentary, several statements from the film reinforce the ubiquitous nature of dragon stories. Within the first minute of the program, the viewer learns:

There is one creature remembered in the legends of almost every human culture that’s ever existed. A creature depicted with remarkable similarity by the Chinese, the Aztecs, even the Inuit who live in a frozen land where no reptiles are found—even they have stories of this animal: the dragon. Cultures from different continents, people who had no contact with one another yet all of them have stories describing the same mythical animal (Dragons: A Fantasy..., 2005a).

The dragon is “a creature that burns bright in the memory of all humankind” (2005a). “People that could have never spoken to one another shared visions of the same creature”—the dragon (Dragons: A Fantasy..., 2005b). On the back cover of the Dragons DVD, Animal Planet highlighted how “[t]hroughout human history, people have been fascinated with dragons, which have appeared in the myths and legends of almost every world culture” (2005a). 

Although, admittedly, Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real was more “docu-fantasy” than documentary, the repeated comments about the world’s immersion in dragon lore are backed by an enormous reserve of testimony. All historians and dragon lovers seem to be in agreement on at least this one point: reports of dragons are universal.

Dragon legends also are characterized by their longstanding tradition. According to The New Encyclopedia Britannica, “From ancient times, it [the Chinese dragon—EL] was the emblem of the Imperial family, and until the founding of the republic (1911) the dragon adorned the Chinese flag” (“Dragon,” 1997, 4:209, emp. added; see also Bates, 2002, p. vii).

 In his book, History Begins at Sumer, Dr. Samuel Kramer observed how “the dragon-slaying theme was an important motif in the Sumerian mythology of the third millennium B.C.” (1959, p. 170, emp. added). “[F]our thousand years ago,” Hogarth and Clery wrote, “sightings of dragons seem to have been almost as frequent as sightings of whales today” (1979, p. 13). 

Dragons are anything but new. Unlike new breeds of dogs and other animals which seem to pop up every few years, the dragon seems always to have been in the mind of man. Animal Planet admitted: “This is the animal about which humankind has throughout our history been most compelled by” (Dragons: A Fantasy..., 2005a, emp. added). Though we would disagree highly with Science Digest’s extended, evolutionary timetable, notice what the journal suggested about the antiquity of dragon legends: “[T]he earliest dragonlike [sic] myths may have originated as long as 100,000 years ago.... As myth they [dragons—EL] are among the most ancient.... Dragon legends have been with humanity since the dawn of recorded history...” (“The Spread...,” 1981, 89:103). Dragon legends are not just cute stories that our ancestors began telling only in the last few centuries. They have been told all over the world for millennia. Such antiquity and ubiquity deserves an adequate explanation.

THE VARIETY OF DRAGONS

The English word “dragon” is derived from the Greek word drakonvia the Latin draco, which “was used originally for any large serpent” (“Dragon,” 1997, 4:209) or reptile (Hogarth and Clery, 1979, p. 80), whether real or mythological, aquatic, aerial, or terrestrial. [NOTE: The Greek legend of Medea flying through the air in a chariot pulled by dragons indicates that even in Greek culture something more than just large snakes often was implied by the use of drakon.] 

In English, “dragon” came to mean a creature that was “basically reptilian,” though with a variety of possible features, such as wings, legs, claws, horns, etc. (cf. Simpson, 1980, p. 14). The forms of dragons “varied from the earliest of times,” but its reptilian traits were always dominant (“Dragon,” 4:209).

In his book, Dragons: A Natural History, Dr. Shuker observed: “For although the winged, four-legged, flame-spewing horror of classical mythology may well be the most famous type of dragon in the Western world, it is far from being the only type on record” (1995, p. 9). Daniel Cohen agreed, saying, “[T]here are many kinds of dragons” (1975, p. 97).

 Tiamat of ancient Babylon was said to have a scaly body, four legs, and wings (“Dragon,” 4:209). Sirrush was depicted in Babylon with four legs, scales, a horned head, and a snake-like tongue. Chinese dragons have “a long, scaly, serpentine neck and body,” as well as four legs, but they are mostly wingless (Rose, 2000, p. 279). 

According to Hogarth and Clery, Chinese dragons were said to have resembled each other in nine ways, more or less: “The horns resemble those of a stag, his head that of a camel, his eyes those of a demon, his neck that of a snake, his belly that of a clam, his scales those of a carp, his claws those of an eagle, his soles like those of a tiger, his ears those of a cow” (1979, p. 53). Western dragons, like the oriental dragons, had large, scale-covered, elongated bodies with two or four legs, and tails. Unlike most of the Eastern dragons, however, many of the Western dragons had “vast wings like those of a bat” (Rose, p. 104), and some with crested heads.

Wales, whose national flag predominately displays a red dragon (an animal associated with the country for centuries), reportedly once had many reptiles occupying its airspace. According to Marie Trevelyan:

The woods round Penllyne Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike.... Some of them had crests sparkling with all the colours of the rainbow. When disturbed they glided swiftly...to their hiding places. When angry, they flew over people’s heads, with outspread wings bright...like the features in a peacock’s tail (as quoted in Simpson, 1980, p. 34).

After being wounded, one of these “winged serpents” was said to have begun beating its assailant about the head with its wings” (p. 34).

In the English epic Beowulf, more than 1,000 years old, the hero is said to have encountered a “fearsome earth-dragon.” It was described as a “crooked, coiled worm” that “flies through the night, enveloped in flame,” causing men to “fear him greatly.” As the story goes, Beowulf killed the beast, but not before its venomous bite ultimately led to his own doom (see Simpson, pp. 28-29).

Two well-known ancient historians documented that flying reptiles and humans were contemporaries more than 2,000 years ago. Herodotus, respected Greek historian who lived in approximately 450 B.C., once wrote:

There is a place in Arabia...to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of a water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat (n.d., emp. added).

Herodotus recognized that such creatures were not birds, mammals, or insects—but reptiles with wings. In the first-century A.D. the Jewish historian Josephus wrote about Moses and the Israelites having a difficult time passing through a particular region because of the presence of flying reptiles.

When the ground was difficult to be passed over, because of the multitude of serpents (which it produces in vast numbers...some of which ascend out of the ground unseen, and also fly in the air, and do come upon men at unawares, and do them a mischief)....

[Moses] made baskets like unto arks, of sedge, and filled them with ibes [i.e., birds], and carried them along with them; which animal is the greatest enemy to serpents imaginable, for they fly from them when they come near them; and as they fly they are caught and devoured by them (1987, 2:10:2, emp. added).

Although these two historians did not mention the extremely large flying reptiles, they did record snake-like winged creatures that could fly.

In the 1200s, Italian explorer Marco Polo wrote of seeing long, two-legged reptiles (called “lindworms”) while passing through Central Asia (n.d., 2:49). Time-Life reported how one ancient Chinese emperor of the Sung Dynasty (c. A.D. 1000-1300) is said to have raised a dragon in his palace (Dragons..., 1984, p. 57). According to a chronicle in Canterbury Cathedral, around A.D. 1449, Englishmen reported seeing “two fire-breathing dragons engaged in a fierce, hour-long struggle.” One was black, while the other was “reddish and spotted” (Folklore..., 1973, p. 241). In her book British Dragons, Jacqueline Simpson brings to light several dragon legends, including one that in 1866 was reported to have originally occurred in 1405.

Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail, extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep. There came forth in order to shoot at him with arrows the workmen of the lord on whose estate he had concealed himself, being Sir Richard de Waldegrave, Knight; but the dragon’s body, although struck by the archers, remained unhurt, for the arrows bounced off his back as if it were iron or hard rock. Those arrows that fell upon the spine of his back gave out as they struck it a ringing of tinkling sound, just as if they had hit a brazen plate, and then flew away off by reason of the hide of this great beast being impenetrable. Thereupon, in order to destroy him, all the country people around were summoned. But when the dragon saw that he was again about to be assailed with arrows, he fled into a marsh or mere and there hid himself among the long reeds, and was no more seen (p. 60, emp. added).

[to be continued]

REFERENCES

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.

Bates, Roy (2002), Chinese Dragons (Oxford: University Press).

Butt, Kyle and Eric Lyons (2005), “A Trip Out West—To See the Dinosaurs,” Resources, 4[3]:9R-11R, March, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2705.

Cohen, Daniel (1975), The Greatest Monsters in the World (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Company).

Dawson, John William (1895), The Historical Deluge in Relation to Scientific Discovery (Chicago, IL: Revell).

“Dragon” (1997), The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica).

Dragons: The Enchanted World (1984), (Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books).

Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real (2005a), Animal Planet (Silver Spring, MD: Discovery Communications).

Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real (2005b), “Trailer: Dragon Culture,” Animal Planet, [On-line], URL: http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/dragons/dragons.html.

Folklore, Myths and Legends of Britain (1973), (London: Readers’ Digest).

Herodotus (no date), The History of Herodotus, trans. George Rawlinson, [Online], URL: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/mirror/classics.mit.edu/ Herodotus/history.2.ii.html.

Hogarth, Peter and Val Clery (1979), Dragons (New York: Viking Press).

Josephus, Flavius (1987 edition), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

Kitcher, Philip (1982), The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Kramer, Samuel Noah (1959), History Begins at Sumer (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).

Lindall, Carl (1996), “Dragon,” World Book Encyclopedia (Chicago, IL: World Book).

Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2003), “Legends of the Flood,” Reason & Revelation, 23[11]:102-103, November, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/40.

Perloff, James (1999), Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism (Arlington, MA: Refuge Books).

Polo, Marco (no date), The Travels of Marco Polo, [On-line], URL: https://www.nauticus.org/ebooks/TheTravelsofMarcoPoloVolume2.pdf.

Rose, Carol (2000), Giants, Monsters, and Dragons: An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend, and Myth (New York: W.W. Norton).

Sagan, Carl (1977), The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House).

Schoch, Robert M. (2003), Voyages of the Pyramid Builders (New York: Jeremy P. Parcher/Putnam).

Shuker, Karl (1995), Dragons: A Natural History (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Simpson, Jacqueline (1980), British Dragons (London: B.T. Batsford).

“The Spread of Dragon Myths” (1981), Science Digest, 89:103, May.

Than, Ker (2007), “Top 10 Beasts and Dragons: How Reality Made Myth,” LiveScience.com, [On-line], URL: http://www.livescience.com/animals/top10_dragons.html.

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian & Reformed).

---

Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

godwwit video 5 min

https://video.wvbs.org/video/wonders-of-creation-godwit/#:~:text=Wonders%20of%20Creation:%20Consider%20God's%20Creation.%20In%20the,to%20meditate%20on%20the%20greatness%20of%20our%20Creator. 

Click on the link above

Sabbath video 5 min

https://bibleproject.com/explore/video/sabbath-video/ 

Please click on the above link

Article reprint

You must click on the article to enlarge to read

 

 

Six Days

 

Six Days of Creation, or Revelation?

by	Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.

Through the years, many attempts have been made to reconcile biblical chronology with modern geological time scales. Some have argued that the days of Genesis 1 represent vast eons of time, while others sandwich millions of years within the first two verses of this chapter. Still others inflate the time span between the genealogies in Genesis to find this coveted time. All of these approaches meet with insuperable difficulties when the biblical data are accepted as historical.

In 1977, the late P.J. Wiseman introduced a novel interpretation of the days of Genesis in an attempt to bridge the chronological chasm between the Bible and modern geology. This theory, which recently was resurrected by Donald Wiseman (1991), suggests that the six days in Genesis 1 refer to the time period God took to reveal what He already had accomplished, rather than the time frame of His actual creative work. This approach offers the best of both worlds. It does not deny a literal understanding of the days in Genesis 1, and it allows for the time needed to accommodate the evolution model or an ancient Universe.

Advocates appeal to extrabiblical and biblical evidence to support this view. Certain ancient Near Eastern myths refer to pagan gods instructing rulers in the arts, crafts, agriculture, etc., for six days. Since Genesis is similar in literary structure and vocabulary to such ancient myths, we are asked to concede the possibility that Genesis 1 also chronicles six tutorial classes delivered by God to man (see Wiseman, 1991, 3[1]:31). 

To further bolster this theory, P.J. Wiseman suggested the following translation of Genesis 2:3-4: “And God blessed the seventh day and set it apart, for in it he ceased from all his business which God did creatively in reference to making these the histories of the heavens and the earth, in their being created in the day when the Lord God did the earth and the heavens” (Wiseman, 1977, pp. 201-202). 

This translation draws a subtle distinction between the creation of the Earth and heavens, and the activity from which God ceased on the seventh day, i.e., revealing the histories of the heavens and Earth.

This theory, however, does not do justice to the biblical text. First, it is improper exegesis to force the concepts of pagan creation myths into the Genesis narrative simply because it manifests some similarities in literary style and vocabulary to such ancient Near Eastern compositions. 

While mythical texts occasionally illuminate our understanding of obscure words and practices mentioned in the Bible, they should not serve as the controlling factor of biblical exegesis (see Brantley, 1993). Genesis has the right to be interpreted by its own context, just as any other literary work. And, a candid reading of the text indicates that the divine action during the six days was that of creation, not revelation (cf. Genesis 1:1,7,21, et al.).

Second, Wiseman’s translation is inconsistent with the structure of the Hebrew text. The Masoretes inserted the Hebrew letter peh between Genesis 2:3 and 2:4, suggesting that verse four began a new paragraph. Wiseman ignored this ancient textual notation, and forced them into one ambiguous sentence. 

Unlike Wiseman’s translation, however, Hebrew scholars generally recognize that verses two and three are linked syntactically in such a way that they emphasize the actual completion of creation (see Keil,1:67-68). Further, verse four is isolated grammatically from the preceding narrative. Hence, Wiseman’s translation is a forced, unnatural reading of the text.

Theories of this kind demonstrate how much the biblical text must be bent to accommodate evolutionary time scales. Yet, such interpretations challenge the credulity of Bible students much more than would a literal understanding of the text.

REFERENCES

Brantley, Garry K. (1993), “Pagan Mythology and the Bible,” Reason & Revelation, 13:49-53, July.

Wiseman, Donald (1991), “Creation Time—What does Genesis Say?,” Science & Christian Belief, 3[1]:25-34.

Wiseman, P.J. (1977), Clues to Creation in Genesis (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1983 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

---

Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ark

 

"Contradictions" Regarding the Ark of the Covenant

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

How does the “20 years” reference in 1 Samuel 7:2 harmonize with the fact that the ark was not brought from Kirjath-jearim until 2 Samuel 6:4—more than 40 years later?

Even though God’s Word can be substantially communicated from one language to another, the translation process is sufficiently complex to the extent that many of the subtleties of the parent language are lost in translation. 

These subtleties rarely, if ever, involve matters that are critical to the central purpose of revelation. However, apparent discrepancies on minor details can surface that require a careful re-examination of the actual linguistic data of the parent language (in this case Hebrew) in order to dissolve the apparent discrepancy.

The individual clauses of 1 Samuel 7:2-3 are linked in Hebrew by “waw consecutives” that bring the statements into close logical and temporal connection. The three verbs of verse two are a continuation of the infinitive, which points to the main sentence being resumed in verse three (“and Samuel spoke”). 

The gist of these grammatical data is that the writer is informing us that after the ark’s capture, the people endured Philistine oppression for the next twenty years. Though all Israel “lamented after the Lord,” He allowed the Israelites to continue their suffering at the hands of the Philistines for 20 years—at which time Samuel called upon the nation to put away its idols.

First Samuel describes the final years of the period of the judges. The reliance upon the ark as a sort of mystical talisman brought swift military tragedy, precipitating yet another period of foreign oppression by Israel’s enemies due to their own apostasy. 

This period of Philistine preeminence went on for twenty years before the lamentations of God’s people were finally heard. At the end of the twenty years, Samuel called on them to couple their lamentations with genuine penitence (1 Samuel 7:3). When they put away their idolatry (vs. 4), they once again enjoyed the services of the judge (vs. 6), who assisted them in throwing off Philistine oppression by military defeat (vss. 10ff.).

Thus the twenty years refers—not to the total number of years that the ark remained in Kirjath-jearim—but merely to the number of years the ark was in Kirjath-jearim before the Lord chose to hear the people’s lamentations and provide them with intervention through Samuel.

---

Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ancient Nitwits

 

Ancient Nitwits or Knowledgeable Ancestors?

by	Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Were our forefathers the ignorant, unlearned nitwits that many evolutionists today make them out to be? Did they resemble the brutish, club-carrying cavemen that Hollywood movies show—savages who communicated by using grunts and groans rather than real language? Absolutely not!

Research shows that many of our ancestors were very intelligent. Take, for instance, the ancient Egyptians. More than 4,000 years ago, they built great pyramid-shaped “tombs” in which to bury their dead kings. 

One of these tombs, known as the Great Pyramid, stood nearly 500 feet high (almost as tall as the Washington Monument—the tallest stone structure in the world!) The Great Pyramid was made of over two million blocks of stone that had to be cut, transported, and assembled to create the almost six-million-ton structure. To this day, modern man still does not know exactly how the Egyptians built these great pyramids.

The ancient Mayans are another example of our “finely tuned” forefathers. More than one thousand years before astronomers found that the length of a year was precisely 365.2422 days, the Mayans (without computers or modern measuring devices) calculated it to be 365.2420 days long. They also figured the orbit of Venus to be 584 days, when current science shows it at 583.92 days. Without question, the Mayans were an intelligent people.

As you would expect, the Bible verifies these types of historical facts. By reading just the first six chapters of Genesis, we learn that:

 (1) Adam was created with the ability to speak a language (naming all of the animals God brought to him the very day of his creation—2:19); 

(2) Jubal, one of Cain’s descendents, “was the father of all those who play the harp and flute” (4:21); 

(3) Tubal-Cain, Jubal’s half-brother, formed tools out of bronze and iron (4:22); 

(4) Noah built an ark bigger than many modern-day cruise ships.

 Furthermore, Job chapter 28 indicates that our early forefathers were capable of tunneling through rock, and mining precious metals from deep within the Earth. All of these things were accomplished without modern-day power tools or lightening-fast computers.

Truth be told, our ancestors were no dummies; man has been intelligent since the beginning of time. God made us that way. He created us in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27), and crowned us with glory and honor (Psalm 8:5).

---

Copyright © Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Faith and Reason Video 8 min

https://apologeticspress.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?media=5820 

Please click on the link above

Compassion

https://bibleproject.com/explore/video/character-of-god-compassion 

Click on the link above

Imperialistic Church

 

An Imperialistic Church?

by	Brad Bromling, D.Min.

The ecumenical goal of uniting humanity sounds honorable. Surely all who profess faith in Jesus Christ want to see the unity for which He prayed realized on Earth (see John 17). So, how is that unity attained? Not upon a common faith in Christ, according to Letty Russell, a professor of theology at Yale. She has written:

When we universalize the Christian story of God in Jesus Christ as the only message of salvation for all people, we deny the power of God to work through all the poor and through all creation. To universalize our very concrete and particular faith is a form of imperialism over people of other faiths and ideologies (1993, p. 130).

To Russell, the Christian message is fine for Christians, but it is not the only way to approach God (1993, p. 129). This view is not uncommon. Society says: “Don’t judge!” And we cringe. 

We remember that it was our Master who spoke those words; so we feel ashamed when we are accused of judging. However, before we allow ourselves to be shamed into abandoning our faith in the Christian system, let us do some serious reflection.

Jesus taught that trees are known by their fruit, and that “righteous judgment” is a Christian responsibility (Matthew 7:15-20; John 7:24). He also said: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Lines must be drawn. Judgments must be made.

 Is Christianity, then, imperialism? In a sense it is. As envoys of King Jesus, Christians are calling people out of “the power of darkness” into the “kingdom” of God’s Son (Colossians 1:13). Unity attained by alliances that overlook the kingdom is spiritual treason.

REFERENCES

Russell, Letty M. (1993), The Church in the Round (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press).

---

Copyright ©  Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Sanctification

 

The Bible Doctrine of Sanctification

By Wayne Jackson

The Greek terms that are rendered into English by “sanctification,” “holy,” and “saints” convey important biblical truths. Unfortunately, in the world of “Christendom” many erroneous ideas have grown up around these expressions. 

Some interpret “sanctified” as the equivalent of “saved.” Practically speaking, the saved and the sanctified represent the same class of people, but the terms have different points of emphasis.

Others allege that sanctification refers to the process by which the original “carnal nature with which every human is born” is purged (Earle 2000, 324). This is not true, for human beings are not born with a “carnal” nature (Jackson 2009, 67-68). 

Some believe “sanctification” is a state of absolute, sustained perfection which some Christians attain in this life. This theory is similarly void of truth; not even Paul had achieved perfection (Phil. 3:12; cf. Rom. 7:18ff; see Cottrell 1996, 442ff).

Catholicism contends that the “saints” are an exclusive group of deceased holy people who now abide in heaven, who have passed through a “canonization” process (with papal validation). 

Supposedly these “saints” make intercession for the people of God on earth. This dogma is wholly foreign to the New Testament. In the Bible, “saints” are holy people who live on earth (cf. Acts 9:13, 32, 41; 1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1, etc.). The term is never used in the New Testament of heavenly beings.

The Word Family

In the New Testament words frequently appear in families. By this we mean that from an original root or stem various grammatical forms have developed. And though there is a common linguistic ancestry, different meanings in varying contexts are apparent. The careful student must note the grammatical differences along with their contexts, and thereby attempt to derive the correct meanings in diverse passages.

In this study we will examine the family of words that reflect the ideas of sanctification, holiness, and saints. This New Testament family of cognate forms is found in several grammatical modes more than 275 times. Consider the following breakdown which indicates renditions as found in the King James Version. Variations will be reflected in other English translations.

1. Hagiazo (a verb; found twenty-eight times) is rendered by such terms as “sanctify” (Eph. 5:26), “hallow” (Mt. 6:9), or “be holy” (Rev. 22:11).
2. Hagiasmos (noun; ten times) may be “holiness” (Rom. 6:19) or “sanctification” (Heb. 12:14, ASV).
3. Hagios (adjective; 233-234 times) may be rendered “holy” (Acts 2:38), “saints” (Phil. 1:1), “holy one” (Mk. 1:24), or “holy thing” (Lk. 1:35).
4. Hagiotes (noun; two times) is “holiness” (Heb. 12:10).
5. Hagiosyne (noun; three times) is found as “holiness” (Rom. 1:4).

In its historical development the basic word form passed through several stages. Initially hagios referred to that which elicited a sense of reverence or awe. Later it came to signify something cleansed of contamination. Eventually, the term connoted those who, as a result of their cleansing, have been set aside, as dedicated to the service of God. An appreciation of this latter connotation would drastically change the lives of some church members. Let us consider some basic Bible facts regarding sanctification.

Sanctification

Since the Bible teaches that no accountable person can enter heaven without sanctification (Heb. 12:14), it is paramount that those desiring eternal life understand and appreciate the importance of this theme. Consider the following dimensions of this exalted topic.

Divine Source

There is an ultimate sense in which only God sanctifies a person. On behalf of his disciples, Christ addressed his Father: “Sanctify them” (Jn. 17:17a). The verb is an imperative form, suggesting a strong petition. The sanctification of this text is not salvation; the disciples were saved already. This request was that they be set apart and fortified for the rigorous work that would be required of them after their Master’s departure.

The same in principle, however, is true of Christian sanctification. The process must originate with God (Rom. 1:7). Sanctification cannot be achieved apart from salvation, and forgiveness cannot occur by means of any plan or mode of operation that results from human genius. Redemption is not “of” (ek—“out of”) ourselves (Eph. 2:8b), nor by any “plan or course of action” involving a “good deed or noble action” initiated by men (Thayer 1958, 248, 526).

Basis of Sanctification

Apart from the death of Jesus, there could be no sanctification. By means of the new covenant, “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10). Those who seek pardon for their sins apart from the gospel of Christ search in vain. There is no other way (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12).

Mode of Sanctification

The mode of sanctification is divine truth, embodied in God’s written word (Jn. 17:17b). This sacred consecration is not some esoteric influence sent directly from heaven independent of an initial verbal revelation (now embodied in the Scriptures). Nor is sanctification (holiness) a unique bestowal upon the “elect,” who supposedly were chosen by God before creation, as Calvin contended (1975, xxii.2). Instead, sanctification is a choice that human beings make. It is never forced upon them by some irresistible influence.

Human Responsibility

The process of sanctification begins with an attitude. Peter forcefully charged: “[S]anctify in your hearts Christ as Lord” (1 Pet. 3:15a). The verb “sanctify” is an aorist, imperative form—a sacred command suggesting urgent attention. The command format demonstrates that man is not wholly passive in his sanctification. Though the apostle was addressing Christians, the principle applies to the lost as well. 

The sense of Christian sanctification is a “setting apart” resolve, i.e., mentally submitting to Christ as the Master of one’s life. The “heart” is a person’s decision-making center. Jesus is to be the driving force in the exercise of a Christian’s volition. The phrase is somewhat analogous to that of the model prayer. “Hallowed hagiazo (imperative mood)] be your name” (Mt. 6:9). The obligation is to reverence God and “to glorify him by obedience to his commands” (Brown 1976, 229).

Accessing Sanctification

In a text that explicitly has to do with salvation, Paul declares that Christ gave himself up for the church that he might “sanctify” it, “having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word” (Eph. 5:25-26). Several vital truths are here contained:

• Christ’s death was necessary for both the cleansing and sanctification processes.
• Cleansing is preparatory to sanctification.
• The cleansing is accomplished by the “washing of water with en (i.e., accompanied by; cf. Moule 1953, 78)] the word.”

The terms “word,” “water,” and “cleansing” are the doctrinal equivalents of “Spirit,” “water,” and “kingdom” (Jn. 3:5), complemented elsewhere with “Spirit,” “washing of regeneration,” and “saved” (Tit. 3:5; cf. 1 Cor. 6:11). The references to “water” and the “washing of regeneration” are virtually conceded to be references to water baptism. No one who has neglected to obey the gospel of Christ can be sanctified (2 Thes. 1:8-9).

Sustaining Sanctification

“Follow [eagerly seek; a present imperative] after peace with all, and the sanctification, without which no one shall see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). Here sanctification is the consecrated life of holiness. Sanctification is not an irrevocable done deal; it’s an abiding obligation (cf. Rom. 6:19, 22; 1 Thes. 4:7; 1 Tim. 2:15).

Forfeiting Sanctification

Is it possible to forfeit one’s sanctification and be lost? Calvinists contend it is not; inspiration argues otherwise. Scripture warns if the Christian regresses into a life of willful, unrestrained sin (Heb. 10:26), he can expect a fierce judgment of fire that devours God’s adversaries. 

It will be a punishment worse than any merciless death, because he “has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified as an unholy thing” (v. 29). The apostate will fall into the hands of a judging God who will render well-deserved vengeance (vv. 30-31).

Conclusion

Sanctification (holiness) is a crucial Bible theme. Unfortunately it often has been neglected—both in study and application. One must constantly remind himself of the ancient, inspired admonition. “I am Jehovah your God: sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44; cf. 1 Pet. 1:16).

Related Articles

• Does the Marriage of an Unbeliever to a Believer Sanctify the Unbeliever?
• Does the Grace in Ephesians 2:8-9 Exclude Baptism?
• Teresa’s “Miracle” En Route to “Sainthood”
• The Intercession of the Spirit
• The Wages of Sin and the Free Gift of God
• The Old Testament and Incense
• The Crimson Flow
• The Righteousness of God Revealed
• A Common Faith and Common Salvation
• Exploring the Concept of Priesthood

Works Cited

• Brown, Colin. 1976. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: MI: Zondervan.
• Calvin, John. 1975. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
• Cottrell, Jack. 1996. Romans – The College Press Commentary. Vol. 1. Joplin, MO: College Press.
• Earle, Ralph. 2000. Word Meanings in the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
• Jackson, Wayne. 2009. Calvinism – Part 2. Christian Courier. April.
• Moule, C. F. D. 1953. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge, England: University Press.
• Thayer, J. H. 1958. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh, Scotland. T. & T. Clark.

Scripture References

Philippians 3:12; Romans 7:18; Acts 9:13, 32, 41; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Philippians 1:1; Ephesians 5:26; Matthew 6:9; Revelation 22:11; Romans 6:19; Hebrews 12:14; Acts 2:38; Mark 1:24; Luke 1:35; Hebrews 12:10; Romans 1:4; John 17:17; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 2:8; Hebrews 10:10; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Peter 3:15; Ephesians 5:25-26; John 3:5; Titus 3:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9; Romans 6:19, 22; 1 Thessalonians 4:7; 1 Timothy 2:15; Hebrews 10:26; Leviticus 11:44

Cite this article

Jackson, Wayne. "The Bible Doctrine of Sanctification." ChristianCourier.com. Access date: December 26, 2020. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1543-the-bible-doctrine-of-sanctification