Silencing of God (Session 4) - Dr. Dave Miller Video 54 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69m_BgQDvco 

Please click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Babylon the Great Has Fallen

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Deity of ChristInspiration of the BibleProphecy

Babylon was one of the richest cities in the world during the years 740 B.C. to 680 B.C. During these “glory days,” the city prospered like it had the Midas touch; everything it touched seemed to turn to gold. It was located between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers—a strip of land so agriculturally productive that today it is known as the “fertile crescent.”

But its agriculture and well-watered plains were not the reason it was famous. Babylon gained its reputation because of its high, massive walls and its strong defensive battlements. In fact, ancient writers described walls that were 14 miles long on all four sides of the city and that reached heights of over 300 feet—taller than most building today. Not only were the walls long and high, but in some places they also were 75-feet thick. But the wall was not the only form of defense. The Euphrates River surrounded the city, making a perfect moat that ranged anywhere from 65 to 250 feet across. This wall/moat combination appeared to make the city unconquerable.

Yet in spite of the strong military and defensive strength of the city, God’s prophets foretold its destruction. In Jeremiah 50:9, the prophet declared that God would “raise and cause to come up against Babylon an assembly of great nations from the north country.” This prediction probably seemed unfounded at the time it was made, because none of the countries in the north came close to having enough strength to defeat Babylon. But years after the prophecy, Cyrus, king of the Medo-Persian Empire, mounted a huge force of many different nations and marched southward against Babylon.

The details of the fulfillment are amazing. Jeremiah recorded that God had declared: “I will dry up her sea and make her springs dry” (51:36). Again the prophet foretold: “A drought is against her waters, and they will be dried up. For it is a land of carved images” (50:38). Also, the prophet promised that the Lord had spoken: “I will prepare their feasts; I will make them drunk, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep and not awake” (51:39).

Now listen to the story as history unfolds. The Euphrates River ran underneath the great walls of Babylon. After a siege of two full years, Cyrus was able to divert the river to make it flow into a huge marsh on the western side of the city. By doing this, he “dried up the rivers” of Babylon and provided an easy way for his soldiers to enter under the city walls where the water used to flow. But the Babylonians inside the city had no idea what was taking place. They could have defended the city, but instead they were feasting and getting drunk. Cyrus ordered his men to act like drunken revelers, and by the time the Babylonians knew what had hit them, the city was filled with enemy troops and who ultimately conquered it.

Even though the above circumstances would be enough to prove the accuracy of the prophecy of Jeremiah (and thus the Bible), the prophet’s predictions do not stop there. Chapters 50-51 of Jeremiah’s book are filled with more futuristic condemnations of Babylon, all of which were fulfilled in the smallest detail. Truly, the words spoken by the prophet did come to pass.

Time after time, the Bible has been “dead on” when it has predicted the future. Secular records document the facts about Babylon. So what does this prove? It proves one simple thing—that God Himself inspired the words written between the covers of the Bible. And because that is the case, every human being should welcome the Bible “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

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.

5 Reasons Atheism Fails Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/5-reasons-atheism-fails/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

What If Someone Dies Just Before Baptism? Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/what-if-someone-dies-just-before-baptism/ 

Click on the link above and follow the path provided.

Cancel Culture Facebook post

 (15) Facebook

test 2

 (15) Facebook

 

There Will Be No Signs!

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersEnd Times

It is not uncommon to hear people discussing the end of time and delineating the “signs” that, they say, are proof that Christ’s return is imminent. These signs include “wars and rumors of wars,” “earthquakes,” and various political/military events that one observes on the evening news. These loud proponents of gloom claim to be representing the Bible in their calculations and forecasts. Of course, to date, every attempt to pinpoint the date of Christ’s return has failed.

The fact is that earthquakes could not have been intended by God to be a sign of the end of the world. Since 1900 alone, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that several million earthquakes occur in the world each year. Many go undetected because they hit remote areas or have very small magnitudes. The National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) now locates about 50 earthquakes each day, or about 20,000 a year (NEIC Web Team, 2003). Since earthquakes have been fairly constant for the last 2,000 years, and occur on a daily basis, they would be completely useless in attempting to recognize the end of the world. However, if Jesus intended them to be immediate signs, contemporaneous with the first century, they would have served a useful purpose.

Consider for a moment what the Bible actually teaches on this matter. In Matthew 24, Jesus pinpointed numerous signs by which His disciples and Jewish Christians could recognize the occasion of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The signs that Jesus mentioned included “wars and rumors of wars” (vs. 6), “famines and earthquakes” (vs. 7), the Gospel preached to the whole world (vs. 14), and the approach of the Roman armies (vs. 15; cf. Luke 21:20). These events functioned as signals by which the faithful could identify the “end” (vss. 6,14) of the Jewish commonwealth. Jesus provided descriptive detail in response to the disciples’ question concerning the destruction of the temple (vss. 2-3). Just as tender branches and fresh leaves signal the approach of summer (vs. 32), so the multiple signs that Jesus pinpointed would signal the coming of Christ in judgment on the Jewish nation (vs. 33) in A.D. 70.

Then, beginning in verse 36, Jesus turned His attention to the question of the end of time and His Second Coming. Notice the difference! Jesus went out of His way to stress the total absence of signs signaling the end of the world and the Second Coming. He declared that His final coming would be comparable to the Deluge of Noah’s day (vs. 37), in that it will be totally unexpected. Right up to the very day that Noah and his family entered the ark, life was going on as usual. No signs! Jesus said farmers will be in the field as usual (vs. 40); women will be involved in their activities as usual (vs. 41). Jesus even likened the unexpected nature of His final coming to the exploits of a thief (vs. 43). Both Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:2) and Peter (2 Peter 3:10) repeat this analogy. As the coming of a thief in the night is preceded by absolutely no signs, so the final coming of Jesus will be preceded by absolutely no signals.

Contrary to the prevailing notions of today concerning “the signs of the times,” the Bible asserts that there will be a total absence of signs to prepare the world for the end of time. The only hope of the entire world is to render obedience to the written revelation of the Bible (Matthew 24:46). Noah preached, apparently for many years, in hopes of alerting the world’s population to the coming judgment upon them. They refused to listen. Likewise, the only “tip off” available today is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that instructs every accountable individual what to do to be right with God. When one brings one’s life into compliance with those directives, “signs” by which to anticipate the return of Christ are completely superfluous.

REFERENCES

NEIC Web Team (2003), “Earthquake Facts and Statistics,” [On-line], URL: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html.

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.

 

How Humble Could Moses Have Been?

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Doctrinal MattersInspiration of the BibleDifficult PassagesDifficult PassagesDifficult Passages

In an attempt to discredit the idea that God inspired Moses to write the first five books of the Old Testament, many skeptics and liberal Bible scholars have taken it upon themselves to hyper-analyze any and all “questionable” statements in the Pentateuch. One of the statements frenquently used to bolster the idea that Moses could not have written these five books is found in Numbers 12:3, which reads: “Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth.” After reading this statement, the question arises: “How could Moses be the meekest or most humble man in the world, and proceed to tell everyone that he is?” According to Tod Billings, the president (in 1999) of the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, “if Moses really said this in reference to himself, he is vain and arrogant, not ‘very meek!’ ” (1999). Statements like those of Mr. Billings could be multiplied many times over from the pen of countless “freethinkers,” skeptics, and liberal Bible scholars. And, in all honesty, a cursory look at this statement might take even the sincerest Bible student somewhat by surprise.

Could Moses have been very meek, and still have written this statement about himself? Yes. First, if God was informing Moses what to write, then Moses had little choice in the wording of the description concerning himself. It is clear from the scope of the statement, which included “all the men that were upon the face of the earth,” that only God had the ability to know who was the meekest man living at the time of Moses (Coffman, 1987, p. 365). Does it not make sense that God would have chosen only the most humble man to bring His chosen people out of Egypt and through the wilderness?

Second, the phrase is added so that the reader can understand the narrative more fully. In the context, Moses’ brother Aaron, and sister Miriam, had spoken against Moses because he had married an Ethiopian woman. They said to Moses, “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also” (Numbers 12:1-2)? These statements amounted to a direct attack upon the authority that God had given Moses. Had Moses’ siblings been permitted to continue with such sentiments, the entire authoritative structure established by God (i.e., establishing Moses as the primary leader of the Israelites) might have been jeopardized. However, because Moses was such a meek and humble man, he refused to take it upon himself to squelch this rebellious attitude. Therefore, God had to step in and speak directly to Moses’ siblings, informing Miriam and Aaron that God had a special relationship with Moses, and that his brother and sister should have been “afraid to speak against My [God’s—KB] servant Moses” (Numbers 12:8). Without the statement concerning Moses’ meekness, this narrative is somewhat incomplete. With the statement included, however, we see that Moses refused to exalt himself and set his siblings straight, so God stepped in and exalted Moses.

Third, many of the Bible writers were inspired to make comments about themselves that sound arrogant to some, yet in actuality, they are not arrogant statements, but simply documentation of a fact that God wanted those who read the Bible to know. For instance, on several occasions in the gospel of John, we read a description about a particular disciple “whom Jesus loved.” At the end of the book, the writer informs his readers that he is that disciple (John 21:20-25). Is it arrogant of John to single himself out more than the other apostles as one whom Jesus loved? Or is it the case that God wanted that information included for the benefit of the readers? Another example comes from the apostle Paul. When Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin to defend himself, he opened his speech with the statement, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day” (Acts 23:1, c.f. Mark 13:11). Because Ananias, the high priest, considered this statement to be out of line, he commanded one of the soldiers who stood by Paul to strike him on the mouth. Paul’s statement, however, was a simple statement of fact that contained neither arrogance nor conceit.

During Moses’ life, God considered him to be the meekest man living. God wanted the readers of the Bible to know this fact; therefore He inspired Moses to record it. The fact helps the reader understand God’s action in Numbers 12, and it is congruent with similar statements recorded by other Bible writers. The statement cannot legitimately be used to argue against the inspiration or Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

REFERENCES

Billings, Tod (1999), “Moses Wrote the Torah?” [On-line], URL: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/billings_torah.html.

Coffman, James Burton (1987), Commentary on Leviticus and Numbers (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

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.

 

Whoever Digs a Pit Will Fall Into It

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Creation vs. EvolutionExistence of GodReligious Nature of ManSecular Humanism

One of the most outspoken atheists of the past couple of decades is a man named Dan Barker, who wrote his most recognized work, Losing Faith in Faith, after he “deconverted” from a form of evangelical Christianity to naturalistic atheism. In 1992, he was the public relations director for the Freedom From Religion Foundation. In his book, Baker uses a host of arguments to attack religious people who have attempted to “reconvert” him. In a chapter titled Why I Am An Atheist, Barker lists several reasons that religious people have offered to explain his “deconversion.” Sadly, many of those people attacked Barker’s character. The following is a brief list of some of the allegations they made against Barker.

• “You are arrogant and hate God.”
• “Your heart is in the wrong place.”
• “You are cold, empty, and pessimistic.”
• “You are an angry person.”
• “You are too stupid, limited, or afraid to see what is obvious to everyone else.”

After denying these allegations, Barker stated: “A strong clue that a person is arguing from a position of weakness is when character, rather than content, is attacked. Bertrand Russell pointed out that ad hominem is a last-ditch defense of the losing side” (1992, p. 88). Therefore, according to Barker (who agrees with Russell), a person who uses arguments that attack character is a person who is fighting desperately on the losing side.

While the truth of Russell’s statement may be questioned (since there are many ill-informed ad hominem arguers who happen to be on the right side), it nonetheless is quite interesting that Barker falls headlong into his own pit by repeatedly attacking character rather than focusing on real evidence.

In fact, only a few pages earlier, Barker wrote an entire chapter titled “Ministers I Have Known,” in which he proceeded to attack the general character of ministers he has known. On page 78, Barker commented, “When I think of ministers I have known…I picture the overweight perspiring Foursquare preachers, waving their hankies, shouting and prancing about the stage, ruling their churches like little kingdoms.” Just one paragraph later, he included in this list the “skinny Mexican pastor in Nogales whose second wife was pregnant with his twelfth child!… And the televangelist I know who ran off with his secretary and was back on the air in less than two years.” The rest of the chapter consists of the same attack on the general character of ministers, as Barker views them. Near the end of the chapter, Barker wrote: “I have a friend who says if you were to take all the preachers in the world and lay them end to end, it would be a good idea just to leave them there.”

Now, let us apply Barker’s own reasoning to his chapter on ministers. The entire chapter attacks the character of ministers, and thus would be classified as an ad hominem argument (from the Latin meaning “to attack the man”). But, according to Barker, those who use such arguments are using “a last-ditch defense” and are on “the losing side.” In this instance, I agree wholeheartedly.

Again, in his treatment of those who are against abortion, Barker stated: “This is the real drive behind the antiabortionists: misogyny [hatred of women—KB]. I don’t believe that any one of them cares a hoot for a fetus” (p. 213, emp. added) Such a statement is definitely a bold, ad hominem attack on the motive and character of those who disagree with abortion. I, for one, can say with certainty that I do not hate women. However, I also can say with certainty that an unborn baby is innocent, and that God hates the shedding of innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17). It is on this basis that I must stand as an antiabortionist. Once again, using Barker’s own thoughts, he must be “arguing from a position of weakness.”

Please note that this article has not attacked Barker’s character. He is not referred to as a misogynist or anything of the kind; nor are any moral indiscretions alleged in an attempt to discredit his arguments. On the contrary, his own words have been used to show that, if his thinking is indeed correct about ad hominem arguments, then he is arguing from “a position of weakness rather than content,” and such an argument is a “last ditch defense of the losing side.”

REFERENCES

Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith—From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).

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.

 

Water is Thicker than Blood

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Doctrinal Matters

The human relationships that exist between individuals who are physically kin to each other can, indeed, be precious and beautiful. In fact, God was responsible for creating the family framework (Genesis 2:24). Ideally, He intends for people to experience the warm, tender ties of blood kin and the multiple blessings associated with such ties.

Perspective is lost, however, when physical ties are permitted to interfere with obedience to God. God’s point is missed when a higher premium is placed on physical family than on spiritual family, when a Christian fails to relish to a greater degree association with the family of God—the church. The Bible teaches that Christians should not hesitate for a moment to relinquish fleshly relationships if it becomes necessary to do so in order to put God first (Luke 14:20,24).

Commenting on the status of His own blood relatives, Jesus declared: “Whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:50). He recognized that the stringency of His teaching would disrupt family relationships, and so He stated that “a man’s foes will be those of his own household” (Matthew 10:36). He even went so far as to relegate physical ties to the comparative level of hatred when contrasted to the priority of spiritual ties: “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). [For a discussion of the meaning of “hate” in this verse, see Butt, 2003.]

Such explains why, during the Mosaic period of Bible history, Aaron was not permitted to mourn the deaths of his two sons (Leviticus 10:6). Such explains why the wives, and even some children, perished along with Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, as they apparently were unwilling to oppose the blood ties of kinfolk who sinned (Numbers 16:27,32-33). Such explains why the people were to show no pity for their relatives who promoted false teaching, but were to lead the way in the execution process (Deuteronomy 13:6-11).

Yes, the family ties of blood kin can be extremely wonderful, providing unending security and acceptance, and frequently fulfill an important, divinely intended function. But these same blood ties can be the very thing that diverts a Christian from the strait and narrow, discouraging one from standing strongly and firmly on the solid bedrock of truth and right. It is imperative that God’s church be put first—even above family (Matthew 6:33). First allegiance and loyalty must be given to those who have been cleansed by the blood of Christ by passing through the waters of baptism (Ephesians 5:6; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22). For with God, water is thicker than blood.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Hate Your Parents—or Love Them?” [On-line], URL: https://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/601.

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.