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.

The Silencing Of God (Session 3) - Dr. Dave Miller Video 55 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpvGfD565Y0 

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

 

“Everybody Knows the Bible Contradicts Itself”

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Alleged Discrepanci

If my memory serves me correctly, it was 1969. I was a sophomore at Camelback High School in Phoenix, Arizona sitting in a social studies class. Our regular teacher was absent that day. In her place was a college student-teacher who was fulfilling his college requirements for a degree in secondary education from Arizona State University. We were in the midst of a class discussion when a young lady interjected her comments, prefaced by the words, “The Bible says….” She was abruptly interrupted by the teacher with these words: “Everyone knows that the Bible contradicts itself. In one place it says ‘an eye for an eye’, while in another place it says ‘turn the other cheek.’ So we won’t be using the Bible in this discussion.”

Looking back on that event over 50 years later, I shudder to imagine the extent to which destructive seeds of doubt were sown in the hearts of numerous young people regarding the divine authenticity of the Bible and Christian morality. Such a dismissive, cavalier attitude on the part of a person placed in a position of authority no doubt wielded a monumental impact on juvenile minds. Yet his surface, superficial treatment of Scripture betrayed an abject ignorance of the Bible as well as what can only be described as extreme prejudice. “Prejudice” is defined as “an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge.”1 The teacher had pre-judged the Bible, having come to a conclusion that was based on inadequate evidence. It was the Sixties—a time when sinister forces were operating to overthrow the founding principles of America. As Bob Dylan’s 1964 song declared: “The Times They Are a-Changin’.”2

Since that time, attacks on the Bible and the Christian religion have intensified and become common place throughout the public educational system of the nation. For decades now, many professors, instructors, and teachers at every level of schooling have been brazen and fearless in their relentless assault upon the religious and spiritual moorings of America. Their hostility toward God, the Bible, and Christianity have come to thoroughly permeate and dominate public education. Their skepticism has burgeoned into acceptance of ideologies that forthrightly reject the Christian worldview, including atheism, Marxism, and eastern religion. In the meantime, no telling how many millions of Americans—from childhood to adulthood—have lived their lives since then, having rejected Christianity based on such flimsy misinformation foisted upon them via the flawed beliefs of their mistaught teachers.

But “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Legion have been the skeptics over the last 2,000 years who have maintained that the Bible contradicts itself. An innumerable host of alleged discrepancies have been brought boldly forward and foisted upon an unsuspecting audience. Yet, scores of volumes have been written over the centuries that provide logical, decisive refutation of all such allegations leveled at the Bible. They have all been adequately answered and the Bible fully exonerated—providing yet additional proof of its own divine origin.3

The nature of human existence is such that all human beings are under obligation to weigh the evidence and arrive at the truth. All are fully capable of doing so—and all will be held accountable for doing so. Those who lack the will or interest to do so will be judged accordingly. Jesus stated forthrightly: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). Paul enjoined: “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). And as John insisted: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Whether that young student-teacher realized it or not, he functioned as a false prophet that day in that Phoenix school classroom. It was the responsibility of all who listened to him to do as the noble Bereans who “searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

By the way, what about the alleged contradiction touted by the student-teacher before the classroom filled with vulnerable, naïve youth? Even a casual, surface analysis of the Bible shows that the “eye for an eye” allusion refers to the Lex Talionis4 of the Old Law which were designed to limit the amount of punishment by making it fit the crime (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Hence, these laws were built into the Hebrew civil law code for the purpose of regulating civil society in 1500 B.C. The latter allusion, “turn the other cheek,” is a reference to Jesus’ remark in the Sermon on the Mount in which He was teaching the necessity of not being vengeful or retaliatory when a person is mistreated by another person (Matthew 5:38-42). Incredibly, the two references have nothing to do with each other, apply to completely different circumstances, and in no way constitute a biblical contradiction. Using them to level such a lame accusation demonstrates, to say the least, gross rhetorical incompetence.

Endnotes

1 Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/prejudice.

2 Bob Dylan (1963/1964), “The Times They Are A-Changin’,” Bob Dylan Newsletter, https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/times-they-are-changin/.

3 See the three volumes in The Anvil Rings series at https://store.apologeticspress.org/collections/books/products/apbkel0001.

4 “The lex talionis gave permission for mutual injury”—Edward Young (1964), An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 111; See also Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, eds. (2001), The Oxford Guide to Ideas & Issues of the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press), p. 543; William Miller (2006),  Eye for an Eye (New York: Cambridge University Press), p. 65.

---

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.

Has the Bible Been Faithfully Copied Over the Centuries? Video 10 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/has-the-bible-been-faithfully-copied-over-the-centuries-5937/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Dating Dinosaur Fossils Video 10 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/dating-dinosaur-fossils/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.