Thursday, February 9, 2017

The Temple of Israel

<
by Robert Cornuke
There is no place that is considered a more significant as well as volatile, piece of real estate than the Temple Mount. Some say that World War III will erupt there. More blood has been shed over disputes of ownership and control of the traditional temple platform than any other location on earth. But some now believe the temple of Solomon was never even there at all, and that the legend of it being at that spot has gone unchallenged for so long now that tradition seems to have sealed reality into a long forgotten tomb.
Like so many, I thought that the location for the temple of Solomon had been proven to be on the traditional Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But, I became suspicious after reading the work of the late archaeologist and author, Dr. Ernest L. Martin. My research efforts would not have been possible without his ground-breaking insights. However, I hope that my own personal research presented herein offers a bold new chapter in this potentially history-adjusting subject.

LET THE DEBATE BEGIN!

Jesus warned His disciples of the coming destruction of the temple and that not one stone of the temple would be left on top of another. Matthew 24:1–2 says, “Then Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said to them, ‘Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Christ’s words clearly state that the entire temple, each and every stone, would be dug up, dislodged, and tossed away. It is interesting to note that there are massive stone blocks by the thousands set in the wall supporting the Temple Mount platform. Was Jesus wrong in His prophesying that not one stone would remain standing?

Historian Flavius Josephus wrote that the entirety of the temple was indeed in total ruin and destruction after 70 AD. He went on to say that if he had not personally been in Jerusalem during the war and witnessed the demolition by Titus of the temple that took place there, he wouldn’t have believed it ever existed. Josephus (Jewish Wars, VII, 1.1) speaks of widespread destruction in all Jerusalem as well.

So, if the Temple was completely destroyed to the last stone being toppled over, what is, and was, the huge stone fortress we see today rising over Jerusalem? I believe, as do others, that it once was the Roman fort occupied by the mighty Tenth Legion (Legio X Fretensis). I also believe that the true site of Solomon’s temple is about a thousand feet south of the temple mount in the City of David. This would mean that Jesus was correct in His prophetic words and that each and every stone, to the last one, was thrown down.

Where Was The Temple?

The garrison of Fort Antonia in Jerusalem was as big as several cities, according to Josephus, housing approximately 6,000 men plus the needed support staff. All told, as many as 10,000 personnel served there. But this huge fort has never been found in Jerusalem by archaeologists. I feel that the reason archaeologists have not found the mighty Roman fort is because the tradition of the Temple Mount complex being the temple site has blinded them.

City of David

Three thousand years ago, the City of David was about 12 acres in size and had an estimated population of only around 2,000 people. It is a finger of land just south of the present traditional Temple Mount. As a former policeman, I would like at this point to lay out a linear case for the City of David as the one and only place for the temple, but first must present a brief history. The Jebusite fortification was a fortress, albeit a small one, but it had what David wanted. It was strategically situated, with a high walled castle-looking complex rising majestically from the Kidron Valley. A spring flowed abundantly inside with clear, pure water, which made it even more desirable.
The Bible tells us that while David and his army were outside looking up at the Jebusite stronghold, there, standing defiant on the top of the walls were men hollering down mockingly. 2 Samuel 5:6–10 describes it this way:

“You shall not come in here; but the blind and the lame will repel you,” thinking, “David cannot come in here.” Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion (that is, the City of David). Now David said on that day, “Whoever climbs up by way of the water shaft and defeats the Jebusites (the lame and the blind, who are hated by David’s soul), he shall be chief and captain. “Therefore they say, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” Then David dwelt in the stronghold, and called it the City of David.
— 2 Samuel 5:6–10 NKJV
David took control of what the Bible calls the Stronghold of Zion (Metsudat Tsion), that is, the City of David. These last two locales (Stronghold of Zion and the City of David) are the huge keys to solving the riddle as to where the true temple is located. But to keep on a straight path regarding the true temple site, let’s go back to David capturing the City of David from the Jebusites. After he was in his newly taken fortress, David was visited by an angel of the Lord that pointed out the desired patch of real estate within the city walls that David was to purchase from Araunah (Ornan) the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24:18–25). This land purchase was for a threshing floor—usually comprised of a level area paved with flat stones where grain is tossed in the air and the wind carries away the lighter chaff (worthless husks of broken straw) and leaves the heavier kernel of wheat to fall on the threshing floor. It is interesting, that David had captured the 12-acre fortress by force, yet God was now ordering David to pay money to the Jebusite owner for a threshing floor. But this comment in Scripture is a huge clue for the temple location. In 2 Chronicles 3:1 we read: “Now Solomon began to build the temple at the house of the Lord at Jerusalem…at the place that David had prepared on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.” This verse conclusively says that the temple will be built in the strict boundary of the City of David at the place of the threshing floor bought from the Jebusite. That can only be in the City of David, and this makes it impossible for the Temples to have been on the Temple mount.

A City Lost

Over time, the temple was built by Solomon in the City of David, but it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC, only to have other successive temples rebuilt with far less grandeur, finally ending with Herod building his temple which Christ actually visited on many occasions. Herod’s temple was destroyed, just as Jesus predicted, down to the very last stone. As time passed, no one knew where the completely destroyed temple really was. And since the Stronghold of Zion was in the City of David, Zion had vanished as well. For almost two millennia, Zion and the City of David laid silently together, buried in a forgotten tomb of earth.
Zion, the City of David, and the temple all intersect as one. 

 I offer the following synopsis of Biblical clues:
When the City of David was missing, and respectively so was Zion, scholars and worshipers in the middle ages looked to the most attractive feature in Jerusalem as a potential candidate site for their lost temple. The impressive high-walled fortress of the Dome of the Rock was the most impressive structure that was still standing in Jerusalem, so some assumed it must have certain historical prominence—and that prominence was the temple itself.
Even though many still argued as to where the true temple site was, a Benjamin Tudela (1169) proclaimed emphatically that the Muslim Haram al- Sharif, the current traditional Temple Mount platform, was the proper placement of Solomon’s temple.



 Eusebius, from the third and fourth century, was curator of the Library at Caesarea. He was a renowned scholar who is still regarded with distinction today. He wrote, “The hill called Zion and Jerusalem, the building there, that is to say, the temple, the Holy of Holies, the Altar, and whatever else was there dedicated to the glory of God have been utterly removed or shaken, in fulfillment of the word.” So here we have the prominent Eusebius clarifying with narrow and crystal certainty where the temple was located. He tells us that Zion is the temple site as mentioned in his writings and further notes only a few lines later that sadly, after the ruin of Zion (City of David), the very stones from “the temple itself and from its ancient sanctuary” were scavenged from the temple site in Zion and used for the construction of “idol temples and of theatres for the populous.”

If I take the words of Eusebius and assemble them into a paraphrased short paragraph it would read as follows: Zion is the place of the temple, the Holy of Holies as well as the Altar. Everything there was shaken down and subsequently ruined. The scattered stones from the ancient destroyed sanctuary (in Zion/City of David) were all carried away and made into secular structures demeaning to God.

Alexander the Great, known as Hecateus of Abdera, testified that the temple was not only in Zion, but located “nearly in the very center of the City of David.”

What Does The Bible Say?

  • 2 Samuel 5:7: “Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion (that is, the City of David).” Zion is undoubtedly within the City of David.
  • Joel 3:17: “So shall you know that I am the Lord your God, dwelling in Zion My holy mountain.” “My holy Mountain,” (temple) is, without question, in Zion within the City of David.
  • Joel 2:1: “Blow the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain!” “My holy mountain” is the temple in Zion.
  • Psalm 132:8,13: “Arise, O Lord, to Your resting place, You and the ark of Your strength…For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His dwelling place.” The “ark of Your strength” is the Ark of the Covenant. The temple will house the ark in prophecy and Zion is God’s chosen place for that, as well as the temple placement.
  • Psalm 2:6: “Yet I have set My King on My holy hill of Zion.” The word King is for Christ in this verse, and holy hill is the temple location in Zion.
  • Psalm 102:16,19: “For the Lord shall build up Zion…For He looked down from the height of His sanctuary; from heaven the Lord viewed the earth.” Zion and sanctuary/temple are the same location.
  • Isaiah 2:3: “Come let us go up to the mountain of the Lord. To the house of the God of Jacob…For out of Zion shall go forth the law…” Mountain of the Lord,” is the temple at Zion.
  • Isaiah 24:23: “For the Lord of hosts will reign on Mount Zion…” This is Christ reigning in the temple at Zion.
  • Psalm 20:2: “May He send you help from the sanctuary and strengthen you out of Zion.” Sanctuary is the temple at Zion.
  • Psalm 9:11: “Sing praises to the Lord, who dwells in Zion!” The Lord dwells in the temple at Zion.
  • Joel 3:21: “For the Lord dwells in Zion.” He resides in the temple at Zion.
  • Psalm 65:1,4: “Praise is awaiting you, O God, in Zion… We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, of Your holy temple.” The holy temple is at Zion.
  • Isaiah 66:20: “‘…to My holy mountain Jerusalem,’ says the Lord, ‘as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord.’” “My holy mountain” is connected to “the house of the Lord’s temple” (see Joel 3:17 previous page). The temple is self-evident as being in Zion.
  • 2 Chronicles 3:1: “Now Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem…at the place that David had prepared on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.” This verse conclusively says that the temple will be built in the strict boundary of the City of David which was the same boundary of the Jebusite city. Zion is the place which links everything together. It is the flaming arrow of all clues that flies directly at the heart of the City of David and the true temple location.
  • 1 Kings 1:38–39: “So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the Cherethites and the Pelethites went down and had Solomon ride on King David’s mule and took him to Gihon. Then Zadok, the priest took a horn of oil from the tabernacle and anointed Solomon….” The Bible is actually saying here that Solomon was taken to the Gihon Spring and at that very spot the priest enters the tabernacle that held the Ark of the Covenant and gets oil to anoint the newly crowned king.” The tabernacle, with the ark in its hold, was at Gihon Spring in the City of David at Zion. I believe this event happened at the same Gihon Spring where David set the tent tabernacle in very close proximity to the threshing floor area.
David’s tent stood for some 38 years housing the Ark of the Covenant until Solomon moved the ark up to his newly built temple, which was more than likely located side by side with the Ophel mound area at the Gihon Spring. The Ophel is translated in the King James Version as the stronghold, the same word used in 2 Samuel 5:7.

God’s “Holy Mountain”

The City of David was rediscovered in the later 1800s and its walls begin at about 600 feet south of today’s traditional Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock. I found that the Bible further states, “So shall you know that I am the Lord your God, dwelling in Zion My holy mountain” (Joel 3:17). This is reflective of the verse which reads, “My holy mountain Jerusalem…as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord” (Isaiah 66:20).

These verses indicate that “My holy mountain” is the same as “the House of the Lord,” which is synonymous with the temple. Since the threshing floor is the site of the temple, which is in the City of David, as well as the true place of Zion, it seems all three converge and solidify in logical summation, as well as logical submission, that the true location of the temple needs to shift to its proper and original site—south of the traditional Temple Mount. Micah 4:2–13 gives a further prophetic picture of the temple being located on the threshing floor in the City of David. From the Oxford Study Bible (OSB), let me seam several verses together to make that point: In the days to come, The mountain of the Lord’s house Will be established higher than all other mountains; The Lord will bring their King on Mount Zion They do not know the Lord’s thoughts or understand His purpose; For He has gathered them like sheaves to the threshing floor; Start your threshing you people of Zion.



 The “Lord’s house” (as referenced above) is the temple itself. So we have another non-retractable connector with the temple, Zion, and the threshing floor. Once again, the threshing floor (see 2 Chronicles 3:1) is all important in identifying the temple location. Its connection to Zion, in the City of David, adds to the corroborative evidence of the true temple location.

Many ancient historians site a spring at the true temple location. The Roman historian Tacitus recorded that the temple at Jerusalem had a natural spring of water that welled from its interior. Again, these references could only be describing the Gihon Spring. It is located close to what is referred to as the Ophel, which is a bulge of the earth abutting the City of David (Zion) laying just to the south, and roughly about 1,000 feet, from the Temple Mount. There are no springs, however, on top of the Temple Mount. A spring is crucial for the true temple locale. “A fountain shall flow from the house of the Lord…” (Joel 3:18). In Ezekiel it reads,

“Then he brought me back to the door of the temple; and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the temple faced east; the water was flowing from under the right side of the temple, south of the alter. He brought me out by way of the north gate, and led me around on the outside to the outer gateway that faces east; and there was water running out on the right side.”
— Ezekiel 47:1–2 NKJV
There are other Hebrew writings cited in a book by Zev Vilnay that also mention by name the Gihon Spring area as the place for the future temple. “…At that time a great stream shall flow forth from the Holy Temple and its name is Gihon.”

The Threshing Floor—Past and Future

According to the Bible (as referenced previously in 2 Chronicles 3:1), the threshing floor is, in effect, the anchor point for the temple. It was in the area of the Gihon Spring. It also seems to be close to where the angel of the Lord stepped in to abort Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice his son. A future judgment will occur on this ancient, missing threshing floor where a new temple will be built. It is where Jesus will rule and reign. This judgment will be the separating of the wheat (those who are forgiven) and the chaff (those who are not forgiven). In Matthew 3:12 we read a chilling foretelling of this fact: “His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” In this verse, the barn represents heaven—a perfect destination. However, according to Scripture, if you are a person who rejects the Lord, then you are essentially…toast!
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute and exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video taped or video discs, without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use”, and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news, reporting, teaching, and parody. This articles is written, and any image and video (includes music used in the video) in this article are used, in compliance with this law: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.



on No comments:

Wednesday, February 8, 2017

The Crusades






Introduction

At the Council of Clermont in 1095 Pope Urban II called upon Christians in Europe to respond to an urgent plea for help from Byzantine Christians in the East. Muslims were threatening to conquer this remnant of the Roman Empire for Allah. The threat was real; most of the Middle East, including the Holy Land where Christ had walked, had already been vanquished. Thus began the era of the Crusades, taken from the Latin word crux or cross. Committed to saving Christianity, the Crusaders left family and jobs to take up the cause. Depending on how one counts (either by the number of actual crusading armies or by the duration of the conflict), there were six Crusades between 1095 and 1270. But the crusading spirit would continue on for centuries, until Islam was no longer a menace to Europe.
There is a genuine difficulty for us to view the Crusades through anything but the eyes of a 21st century American. The notion of defending Christianity or the birthplace of Christ via military action is difficult to imagine or to support from Scripture, but perhaps a bit easier since the events of September 11th.
So when Christians today think about the Crusades, it may be with remorse or embarrassment. Church leaders, including the Pope, have recently made the news by apologizing to Muslims, and everyone else, for the events surrounding the Crusades. In the minds of many, the Crusades were an ill-advised fiasco that didn’t accomplish the goals of permanently reclaiming Jerusalem and the Holy Lands.
Are history books correct when they portray the Crusades as an invasion of Muslim territories by marauding Europeans whose primary motive was to plunder new lands? What is often left out of the text is that most of the Islamic Empire had been Christian and had been militarily conquered by the followers of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th and 8th centuries.
Islam had suddenly risen out of nowhere to become a threat to all of Christian Europe, and although it had shown some restraint in its treatment of conquered Christians, it had exhibited remarkable cruelty as well. At minimum, Islam enforced economic and religious discrimination against those it controlled, making Jews and Christians second-class citizens. In some cases, Muslim leaders went further. An event that may have sparked the initial Crusade in 1095 was the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre by the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim.{1} In fact, many Christians at the time considered al-Hakim to be the Antichrist.
We want black and white answers to troubling questions, but the Crusades present us with a complex collection of events, motivations, and results that make simple answers difficult to find. In this article we’ll consider the origins and impact of this centuries-long struggle between the followers of Muhammad and the followers of Christ.

The Causes

Historian Paul Johnson writes that the terrorist attacks of September 11th can be seen as an extension of the centuries-long struggle between the Islamic East and the Christian West. Johnson writes,
The Crusades, far from being an outrageous prototype of Western imperialism, as is taught in most of our schools, were a mere episode in a struggle that has lasted 1,400 years, and were one of the few occasions when Christians took the offensive to regain the “occupied territories” of the Holy Land.{2}
Islam had exploded on the map by conquering territories that had been primarily Christian. The cities of Antioch, Alexandria, and Carthage had been the centers of Christian thought and theological inquiry for centuries before being taken by Muslim armies in their jihad to spread Islam worldwide. Starting in 1095 and continuing for over four hundred years, the crusading spirit that pervaded much of Europe can be seen as an act of cultural self-preservation, much as Americans now see the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
One motivation for the Crusade in 1095 was the request for help made by the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I. Much of the Byzantine Empire had been conquered by the Seljuk Turks and Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world, was also being threatened. Pope Urban knew that the sacrifices involved with the call to fight the Turks needed more than just coming to the rescue of Eastern Christendom. To motivate his followers he added a new goal to free Jerusalem and the birthplace of Christ.
At the personal level, the Pope added the possibility of remission of sins. Since the idea of a pilgrim’s vow was widespread in medieval Europe, crusaders, noblemen and peasant alike, vowed to reach the Holy Sepulcher in return for the church’s pardon for sins they had committed. The church also promised to protect properties left behind by noblemen during travels east.
The Pope might launch a Crusade, but he had little control over it once it began. The Crusaders promised God, not the Pope to complete the task. Once on its way, the Crusading army was held together by “feudal obligations, family ties, friendship, or fear.”{3}
Unlike Islam, Christianity had not yet developed the notion of a holy war. In the fifth century Augustine described what constituted a just war but excluded the practice of battle for the purpose of religious conversion or to destroy heretical religious ideas. Leaders of nations might decide to go to war for just reasons, but war was not to be a tool of the church.{4} Unfortunately, using Augustine’s just war language, Popes and Crusaders saw themselves as warriors for Christ rather than as a people seeking justice in the face of an encroaching enemy threat.

The Events

The history books our children read typically emphasize the atrocities committed by Crusaders and the tolerance of the Muslims. It is true that the Crusaders slaughtered Jews and Muslims in the sacking of Jerusalem and later laid siege to the Christian city of Constantinople. Records indicate that Crusaders were even fighting among themselves as they fought Muslims. But a closer examination of the Crusades shows the real story is more complex than the public’s perception or what is found in history books. The fact is that both Muslims and Christians committed considerable carnage and internal warfare and political struggles often divided both sides.
Muslims could be, and frequently were, barbaric in their treatment of Christians and Jews. One example is how the Turks dealt with German and French prisoners captured early in the First Crusade prior to the sacking of Jerusalem. Those who renounced Christ and converted to Islam were sent to the East; the rest were slaughtered. Even Saladin, the re-conqueror of Jerusalem was not always merciful. After defeating a large Latin army on July 3, 1187, he ordered the mass execution of all Hospitallers and Templars left alive, and he personally beheaded the nobleman Reynald of Chatillon. Saladin’s secretary noted that:
He ordered that they should be beheaded, choosing to have them dead rather than in prison. With him was a whole band of scholars and Sufis . . . [and] each begged to be allowed to kill one of them, and drew his sword and rolled back his sleeve. Saladin, his face joyful, was sitting on his dais; the unbelievers showed black despair.{5}
In fact, Saladin had planned to massacre all of the Christians in Jerusalem after taking it back from the Crusaders, but when the commander of the Jerusalem garrison threatened to destroy the city and kill all of the Muslims inside the walls, Saladin allowed them to buy their freedom or be sold into slavery instead.{6}
The treachery shown by the Crusaders against other Christians is a reflection of the times. At the height of the crusading spirit in Europe, Frederick Barbarossa assembled a large force of Germans for what is now known as the third Crusade. To ease his way, he negotiated treaties for safe passage through Europe and Anatolia, even getting permission from Muslim Turks to pass unhampered. On the other hand, the Christian Emperor of Byzantium, Isaac II, secretly agreed with Saladin to harass Frederick’s crusaders through his territory. When it was deemed helpful, both Muslim and Christian made pacts with anyone who might further their own cause. At one point the sultan of Egypt offered to help the Crusaders in their struggle with the Muslim Turks, and the Turks failed to come to the rescue of the Shi’ite Fatimid Muslims who controlled Palestine.
Human treachery and sinfulness was evident on both sides of the conflict.

The Results

On May 29, 1453 the city of Constantinople fell to the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II. With it the 2,206-year-old Roman Empire came to an end and the greatest Christian church in the world, the Hagia Sophia, was turned into a mosque. Some argue that this disaster was a direct result of the Crusaders’ misguided efforts, and that anything positive they might have accomplished was fleeting.
Looking back at the Crusades, we are inclined to think of them as a burst of short-lived, failed efforts by misguided Europeans. Actually, the crusading spirit lasted for hundreds of years and the Latin kingdom that was established in 1098, during the first Crusade, endured for almost 200 years. Jerusalem remained in European hands for eighty-eight years, a period greater than the survival of many modern nations.
Given the fact that the Latin kingdom and Jerusalem eventually fell back into Muslim hands, did the Crusaders accomplish anything significant? It can be argued that the movement of large European armies into Muslim held territories slowed down the advance of Islam westward. The presence of a Latin kingdom in Palestine acted as a buffer zone between the Byzantine Empire and Muslim powers and also motivated Muslim leaders to focus their attention on defense rather than offense at least for a period of time.
Psychologically, the Crusades resulted in a culture of chivalry based on both legendary and factual exploits of European rulers. The crusading kings Richard the Lionheart and Louis IX were admired even by their enemies as men of integrity and valor. Both saw themselves as acting on God’s behalf in their quest to free Jerusalem from Muslim oppression. For centuries, European rulers looked to the Crusader kings as models of how to integrate Christianity and the obligations of knighthood.
Unfortunately, valor and the ability to conduct warfare took precedent over all other qualities, perhaps because it was a holdover from Frankish pagan roots and the worship of Odin the warrior god. These Germanic people may have converted to Christianity, but they still had a place in their hearts for the gallant warrior’s paradise, Valhalla.{7} As one scholar writes:
But the descendants of those worshippers of Odin still had the love of a warrior god in their blood, a god of warriors whose ultimate symbol was war.{8}
The Crusades temporarily protected some Christians from having to live under Muslim rule as second-class citizens. Called the dhimmi, this legal code enforced the superiority of Muslims and humiliated all who refused to give up other religious beliefs.
It is also argued that the crusading spirit is what eventually sent the Europeans off to the New World. The voyage of Columbus just happens to coincide with the removal of Muslim rule from Spain. The exploration of the New World eventually encouraged an economic explosion that the Muslim world could not match.

Summary

Muslims still point to the Crusades as an example of injustice perpetrated by the West on Islam. An interesting question might be, “Had the situation been reversed, would Muslims have felt justified in going to war against Christians?” In other words, would the rules in the Qur’an and the Hadith (the holy books of Islam) warrant a conflict similar to what the Crusaders conducted?
You have probably heard the term jihad, or struggle, discussed in the news. The word denotes different kinds of striving within the Muslim faith. At one level, it speaks of personal striving for righteousness. However, there are numerous uses of the term within Islam where it explicitly refers to warfare.
First, the Qur’an permits fighting to defend individual Muslims and the religion of Islam from attack.{9} In fact, all able bodied Muslims are commanded to assist in defending the community of believers. Muslims are also given permission to remove treacherous people from power, even if they have previously agreed to a treaty with them.{10}
Muslims are encouraged to use armed struggle for the general purpose of spreading the message of Islam.{11} The Qur’an specifically says, “Fighting is a grave offense, but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque. . . .”{12} Warfare is also justified for the purpose of purging a people from the bondage of idolatry or the association of anything with God. This gives the Muslim a theological reason to go to war against Christians, since the Qur’an teaches that the doctrine of the Trinity is a form of idolatry. Had the situation been reversed, the religion of Islam provides multiple rationalizations for the actions of the Crusaders.
But is there a Christian justification for the Crusades? The only example of a Christian fighting in the New Testament is the apostle Peter when he drew his sword to protect Jesus from the Roman soldiers. Jesus told him to put the sword away. Then He said, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” The kingdom that Jesus had established would not be built on the blood of the unbeliever, but on the shed blood of the Lamb of God.
The Crusader’s actions should be defended using Augustine’s “just war” language rather than a holy war vocabulary. Although they did not always live up to the dictates of “just war” ideals, such as the immunity of noncombatants, the Crusades were a last resort defensive war that sought peace for its people who had been under constant assault for many years.
If one of the functions of a God-ordained government is to restrain evil and promote justice, then it follows that rulers of nations where Christians dwell may need to conduct a just war in order to protect their people from invasion.
Notes

1. John Esposito, ed. The Oxford History of Islam, (Oxford University Press, 1999), 335.
2. Paul Johnson, National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/johnson101501.shtml.
3. Thomas F. Madden, A Concise History of the Crusades, (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 1999), 10.
4. Ibid., 2.
5. Ibid., 78.
6. Ibid., 80.
7. Zoe Oldenbourg, The Crusades, (New York: Pantheon Books, 1966), 33.
8. Ibid, 32.
9. Qur’an 2:190, 193.
10. Ibid, 8:58.
11. Ibid, 2:217 (also see www.irshad.org/islam/iiie/iiie_18.htm published by The Institute of Islamic Information & Education, P.O. Box 41129, Chicago, IL 60641-0129).

12. Qur’an 2:217.
©2002 Probe Ministries.

Copyright/Reproduction Limitations
This document is the sole property of Probe Ministries. It may not be altered or edited in any way. Permission is granted to use in digital or printed form so long as it is circulated without charge, and in its entirety. This document may not be repackaged in any form for sale or resale. All reproductions of this document must contain the copyright notice (i.e., Copyright 2016 Probe Ministries) and this Copyright/Limitations notice.
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute and exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video taped or video discs, without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use”, and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news, reporting, teaching, and parody. This articles is written, and any image and video (includes music used in the video) in this article are used, in compliance with this law: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.



on No comments:

Systematically Understanding the Bible Better


By Eric Lyons, M.Min.
Never in world history has as much information been as easily accessible to as many people as in the 21st century. If you want to know the name of Alexander the Great’s father, you can search for the answer on the World Wide Web using, for example, the Google search engine, which can search over 60 trillion Web pages at any given moment.1 If you want to master the Rubik’s cube, you can begin by searching one of several thousand Rubik’s cube tutorial videos at YouTube.com. If you want to read 10 different English translations of Genesis 1:1, you can do so on-line at one of countless Bible-study Web sites in a matter of minutes (or perhaps seconds). The fact is, more people have the opportunity to acquire more knowledge than ever before in human history.
Although we live in the information age, and though Bibles and Bible study aids are more readily available to more people, tragically, Americans are increasingly ignorant of the Word of God. According to a 2014 study conducted by the Barna Research Group and published by the American Bible Society, 88% of households in the U.S. own at least one copy of the Bible.2 Furthermore, 82% of adults consider themselves at least moderately, if not highly, knowledgeable about the Bible.3 Yet, 46% of Americans (and 61% of American millennials) are “non-Bible readers.”4 What’s more, nearly 60% of Americans cannot correctly identify the first five books of the Bible, even within a multiple-choice question.5 In 2013, over 50% of Americans either did not know if John the Baptist was one of the 12 apostles or actually thought (incorrectly) that he was.6 That same year, nearly 50% of American millennials indicated that Sodom and Gomorrah were (or might have been) married.7 We may live in the age of information, but sadly, Americans’ general knowledge and understanding of the Bible—the most important Book on Earth—could aptly be described as the age of ignorance. The simple fact is, Americans are increasingly unaware of the contents of the Bible and unprepared to rightly divide it.
Given these facts, Apologetics Press would like to help Christians and non-Christians systematically understand the Bible better. In this article, we concisely highlight several vital truths and preliminary principles of Bible study that everyone needs to know. Think of these principles as helpful tips to remember as we seek to treat the Bible fairly and interpret it accurately. Christians who are familiar with these principles may find a review of them refreshing and an organized collection of them in one place helpful in teaching others. We hope that those who are less familiar with the Bible will find the following systematic statements and principles helpful in coming to a correct understanding of the precious, soul-saving, life-enriching truths of the Book that has blessed more lives than any other book in history, and that students will soon be reading the Bible for all that it is worth as they systematically “search the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11).

#1—BE FAIR WITH THE BIBLE

Everyone wants to be understood. We want others to be able to comprehend what we attempt to communicate to them. Though different ages, languages, cultures, personalities, education levels, etc. can make communication among human beings difficult at times, people want to “be heard,” and they want their messages to be heard in the way in which they intend for them to be understood.
When a cashier at the grocery store says, “That will be $34.32,” he reasonably expects the customer to understand the exact cost of the groceries and to take appropriate action. When a teacher instructs her students to complete the pop quiz to the best of their ability, she rightly expects her students to comprehend her instructions and at least attempt to answer the questions before them. When a journalist writes a review of a book for a newspaper, he has realistic expectations that people will attempt to be as fair with his article as his readers should expect him to be with the book that he reviewed.
The Bible, likewise, deserves to be handled fairly. It deserves to be interpreted in a reasonable manner. The Bible, in fact, repeatedly warns of those who “keep on hearing, but do not understand” and who “keep on seeing, but do not perceive” (Isaiah 6:9).8 Paul wanted his readers to imitate his “simplicity and godly sincerity” and to “read” and “understand” (2 Corinthians 1:12-13). He wanted them to be “careful” and “wise,” and “understand what the will of the Lord is” (Ephesians 5:15,17, NASB). 
Many through the centuries have treated the Bible unjustly, but common decency demands that we attempt to interpret it fairly. We should not assume the worst about the Bible writers anymore than we should assume the worst about anyone whom we are genuinely attempting to understand. If a person or a document eventually is shown to be incorrect about one or more matters, we certainly should take note of such error and respond appropriately to it. However, a person’s communications (in whatever form they may be) are to be presumed truthful and consistent until it can be shown conclusively that they are false and contradictory. This unbiased approach has been accepted throughout literary history, and is still accepted today in most venues. After all, you cannot expect to have a coherent ancient history class using Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus, etc. if you presume that they were all liars. Respected 19th-century Harvard law professor, Simon Greenleaf, dealt with this principle in his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence:
The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule: “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.”9
It is universally honorable to draw justifiable, coherent conclusions and to make “righteous judgments” (John 7:24) about people and the things they communicate.10 So why not apply the Golden Rule to our efforts at understanding any and all communication, including the Bible itself? “Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). Since everyone wants to be understood in a fair manner, let’s be sure to be fair with the Bible.

#2—THE BIBLE CLAIMS TO BE DIVINELY INSPIRED

Tens of millions of books have been written throughout history, but the fact is, the claim of inspiration at the hand of God is extremely rare. Many books assert special importance, while others claim to be a kind of “creed book.” However, as Kenny Barfield noted in his book, Why the Bible is Number 1, apparently only seven documents are known to exist in the entire world that openly claim divine inspiration.11 Sadly, misguided devotees of various religions clamor about, defending books and various writings as allegedly being “inspired of God” when, in fact, the books themselves do not even make such a claim. Take, for instance, the many Hindu writings. Of some of their most notable “sacred” texts, including the Vedas, the Laws of Manu, and the Puranas, only the section of the Vedas known as the Rig Veda claims inspiration.12 Similarly, the Christian Science group has led many to believe that the writings of Mary Baker Eddy are inspired. Yet, even though her writings claim special importance, they never openly claim divine inspiration.13 Why would anyone want to follow a creed book and claim it is from God when the book itself does not even make such a claim?
Indeed, the written claim of inspiration at the hand of God is extremely rare. For this reason, one of the fundamental facts to remember in any Bible study is that the Bible claims to be, not the will of man, but “of God,” Who “carried along by the Holy Spirit” His oral and writing prophets (2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV). This claim of divine inspiration is found, not just once or twice in the Bible, but hundreds of times. The phrase “The Lord spoke/said to Moses” is found 35 times in Leviticus alone (NKJV). King David claimed, “The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue” (2 Samuel 23:2). Paul wrote, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
If God exists (and there is ample evidence that He does),14 then it is reasonable to conclude that God (1) could freely choose to communicate to His human creation, (2) would have the ability (as the omnipotent Creator) to communicate to man, (3) would choose to reveal important information to His human creation if He expected anything from them (e.g., faith, commitment, obedience, worship, etc.), and (4) would reasonably inform humanity that the message was, indeed, from Him. (That is, He would not leave it up to mere guesswork as to whether or not He had ever communicated to mankind.) Indeed, unlike 99.999995% of the books on Earth,15 the Bible claims (many times) that it is from the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:10-16).
There is one all-important reason for Bible students to acknowledge the Bible’s claim of divine inspiration: the only reason that the Bible has any right to govern a person’s life in any way is if it is actually from the Creator of the Universe and the Judge of all mankind. Think about it: the Bible tells its readers how they should live. It instructs people what not to do (e.g., lust, hate, lie, commit sexual immorality) and what to do (e.g., be kind, loving, humble, forgiving), and then it pronounces eternal damnation on those who do not obey the words of the Bible (Galatians 5:21; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Revelation 21:8). No mere human being or mere human-authored book has the authority to tell someone the things that the Bible teaches. A rational person’s response to “do this or else” is, “Who exactly are you to tell me that I must obey what you are saying?” Published works that tell people to “do X, Y, and Z because I said so,” are logically met with immediate resistance. Simply put: it matters who says what—and why.
In truth, the Bible is crystal clear about why a person should seriously read, study, meditate upon, believe, and eventually obey its words: the Bible is not a mere man-made book, but a supernaturally inspired document—at least, that is its repeated claim. And such a spectacular claim must be acknowledged and digested early on in one’s attempt to understand the Bible correctly. After all, if the Bible is not the Word of God, then it was written by pompous charlatans who should be exposed as frauds.

#3—THE BIBLE POSSESSES THE ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE INSPIRATION

Even though we would expect to find that any book produced by God would claim divine inspiration, any rational person knows that such a claim does not prove anything in and of itself. It is a necessary trait of inspiration, but it is not a sufficient trait. Simply because a book or writing claims divine inspiration is not positive proof of its inspiration. Any person could stand in front of an audience and claim to be the President of the United States. In fact, he could make that claim hundreds of times. But his many claims to the presidency would fail to prove his case unless he could provide adequate and sufficient evidence.
Those who penned the Bible did not expect the world to receive their writings as God’s Word simply because they claimed divine inspiration (anymore than Jesus expected people to believe that He was the Messiah simply because He claimed to be—John 5:31; 10:37-38). The Bible writers insisted that their writings were not based on imaginary, unverifiable people and events, but instead were grounded on solid, verifiable facts. The apostle Peter wrote: “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16). In his introduction to the book of Acts, Luke stated that Jesus “presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3, emp. added). The Bible writers understood and insisted that the information they penned was accurate and factual, and should be accepted, not based on a lack of evidence or a “leap in the dark,” but on an abundance of verifiable proof.
So what is the proof that the Bible is of supernatural origin? Why should an honest truth-seeker come to the conclusion that the Bible is the special revelation from the Creator of the Universe? While it is beyond the scope of this article (and especially this brief section) to detail the many evidences for the Bible’s inspiration, we can certainly summarize the evidences for you. In short, the main, overarching reason that the Bible is demonstrated to be of divine origin is because the Bible writers were correct in everything they wrote—about the past, the present, and even the future.16
Eighteenth-century English poet Alexander Pope succinctly noted in “An Essay on Criticism” what every rational person knows all too well—“to err is human.”17 Even though we may set high standards for ourselves and learn all that we can, and even though we may put as many safeguards in place as is humanly possible, mistakes will be made; ignorance will be revealed; errors will occur. It simply is humanly impossible to be correct about everything a person says or writes. “With God,” however, “all things are possible” (Mark 10:27).
If an all-knowing, all-powerful God exists, then such a God could produce written revelation for His human creation that was flawless in its original production. He could guide uneducated men to write about events that occurred hundreds or thousands of years before their time with complete accuracy. He could “move” (otherwise) ordinary men to write flawlessly about any number of contemporary people, places, and things. He could even guide man to write about future events with perfect accuracy—a humanly impossible feat. In truth, the all-encompassing reason that a person can come to the rational conclusion that the Bible is “given by inspiration of God” is because the writers of the Bible were amazingly accurate about everything. The very existence of the Holy Scriptures cannot be explained in any other way except to acknowledge that they are the result of an overriding, superintending, guiding Mind.
Consider how coming to the realization that the Bible is the Word of God impacts our treatment of it. If, as stated earlier, we strongly desire for our own words to be treated fairly, and if we can reasonably conclude that we should handle the communication from others with integrity, then revelation from the supreme Creator and Ruler of the Universe should be treated with the utmost integrity and reverence. If Shakespeare and Hawthorne are highly respected by readers, treated almost with reverence by some, how much more should we carefully and respectfully handle the Word of God?
Is there any wonder why the psalmist loved Holy Writ “more than gold, yes, than fine gold” (119:127)? Is there any question why he said, “my heart stands in awe of Your word” (119:161)? Are we surprised to find out that when Ezra and other Jewish leaders read from the Law of Moses “from morning until midday,” that “all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law” and respectfully listened to the teachers who “gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:3,5,8)? And why did the “fair-minded” Bereans take the time and effort to “search the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11)? For the same reason we all should: The Bible is divinely inspired and deserves to be interpreted fairly, carefully, and with the utmost respect.

#4—THE NEED FOR A RELIABLE BIBLE TRANSLATION


The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.18 So unless you can read and understand these languages, a good Bible translation is essential to a proper understanding of the Scriptures. Everyone understands the importance of translation work in international travel, business, and politics. No serious, sane person visits a foreign country and asks for the worst translators possible. If people have a choice, they will always choose the best translators that they can afford for their particular purposes. When two international companies meet to discuss a partnership or merger, language cannot be a barrier to understanding the minute details of the terms of agreement.19 When the leaders of two countries on the brink of war meet to discuss the possibility of peace, the translation work is critical. In a very real sense, life and death are in the hands of the translators, and they are expected to perform their work as honestly and flawlessly as humanly possible.
In the Bible, God has set before His readers, as He did before the Israelites, “life and death, blessing and cursing” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Jesus said, “[H]e who hears My word and believes in Him Who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (John 5:24). The fact is, the immortal soul of every accountable human being depends upon his or her understanding and faithful acceptance of the Gospel of Christ. However, for most people, a proper reading of the Gospel in one’s own language is required. Thus, translations matter!
Some translations are more literal20—a more word-for-word translation, which “attempts to follow the form of the original document very closely in verbal and grammatical order.”21Other translations are less literal,22 but are often more reader friendly. Such a translation “attempts to reproduce in the English reader the same understanding of meaning and degree of impact and challenge that the original Hebrew and Greek audiences experienced when the Scriptures were first produced. This is accomplished through a thought-for-thought, meaning-for-meaning, translation style.”23 Still other translations24 (which we do not recommend) are “almost colloquial or paraphrastic in places,” and “free in word choice.”25 Thankfully, as Dave Miller noted, “generally speaking, most translations do not differ on the essentials. Most English versions convey these essentials: (1) what one must do to be saved and (2) what one must do to stay saved. As imperfect as translations might be, most still convey this basic information.”26 That said, we would recommend that Bible students use a more literal word-for-word translation as their primary study Bible and a somewhat less literal, thought-for-thought translation as a secondary Bible, which one might use and consult as he would a good commentary or other helpful study aids.

An Example of a Potentially Perilous Bible Translation

The New World Translation (NWT) of the New Testament was first published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 1950. It is a translation by Jehovah Witnesses and largely for Jehovah’s Witnesses. (In fact, I’ve never met anyone who is not a Jehovah’s Witness who uses the NWT as their primary Bible.) Although Jehovah’s Witnesses are some of the nicest, most zealous, religious people in the world, they advocate some very dangerous doctrines, including and especially the idea that Jesus is not divine and thus not worthy of man’s worship.27
For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has attempted to circumvent the obvious references to Jesus accepting worship by changing the word “worship” in their translation of the New Testament to “obeisance” every time the Greek word proskuneo (the most prominent word for worship in the New Testament) is used in reference to Jesus. Over 30 times in the NWT proskuneo is correctly translated “worship” when God the Father is the recipient of glory and praise. This Greek word occurs 14 times in the New Testament in reference to Jesus, yet not once does the NWT render it “worship;” instead, every time it is translated “obeisance.” Allegedly, Mary Magdalene, the apostles, the blind man whom Jesus healed, etc., never worshiped Jesus (which would imply His deity); rather, they only paid “obeisance” to Him (cf. John 9:38).
In a section in which the writer of Hebrews exalted Jesus above the heavenly hosts, he affirmed that even the angels worship Christ. He wrote: “Let all the angels of God worship (proskuneo) Him.” The KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, RSVand a host of other translations render proskuneo in this verse as “worship.” How does the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT render this passage? Unfortunately, as with all other times in the NWT when Jesus is mentioned as being the object of proskuneo, the word is translated “do obeisance,” not “worship.” Hebrews 1:6 reads: “Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him” (NWT).28
Although no Bible translation is perfect,29 and although the Truth of God’s Word can be learned from most translations, there are some translations (such as the NWT) that Bible students should be strongly discouraged from using as their primary Bible.30 Indeed, the choice of one’s Bible translation is a serious matter. There may not be a perfect one, and there certainly is plenty of room for a variety of translations from which we may study and learn, but we should definitely take the choice of translations seriously.

#5—BREAK DOWN THE BIBLE IN ORDER TO BUILD UP UNDERSTANDING

Recently I spoke with an intelligent young man who had just left a college class that he had never taken, taught by a professor he did not know, who used terminology the student had never heard and a textbook he had never read. (He didn’t even understand the title of the textbook.) The student was “lost” and appeared as if he was about to have a panic attack. Why? Because of his unfamiliarity with the subject matter and the scholarly language with which it was presented.
Having an awareness of this young man’s Christian character, intellectual abilities, as well as his work ethic, I assured him (what I’ve been told at various times in my life) “everything was going to be okay.” He just needed to slow down, start from the beginning, and take “baby steps.” He needed to break down the intimidating terminology and concepts in order to start slowly building up a reasonable understanding of the subject matter.
If 46% of Americans are “non-Bible readers” and nearly 60% of Americans cannot correctly identify the first five books of the Bible, even within a multiple choice question, do you think that there may be more than a few Americans who, upon being handed a Bible and asked to read it, may be as puzzled by the Bible as the aforementioned college student was by his first day of class? Likely tens of millions of Americans would be lost on the first day of “Bible class.” However, they can learn the Gospel! They can come to “the knowledge of the Truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). They just need (a) an open heart, and (b) to begin by learning some foundational, fundamental truths about the Bible itself.

Breaking Down the Bible

The Bible is composed of two major sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is composed of 39 books31 penned by approximately 32 different men32over a period of about 1,100 years (from approximately 1,500 B.C. to about 400 B.C.). The Old Testament covers over 3,500 years of human history (from the Creation to the Jews’ return to Jerusalem following 70 years of Babylonian captivity) and may be divided into five parts: (1) Books of the Law of Moses (Genesis-Deuteronomy); (2) Books of History (Joshua-Esther); (3) Books of Poetry (Job-Song of Solomon); (4) Books of the Major Prophets (Isaiah-Daniel); and (5) Books of the Minor Prophets (Hosea-Malachi).
The Old Testament refers to two major law systems: (1) the Law of Moses (which was given only to the Israelites—and to those Gentiles, called proselytes, who converted to Judaism), and (2) the law that governed all men from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, and only Gentiles (non-Jews) from Adam until the Christian dispensation began. Although the Bible does not give this law a “proper name,” it has come to be known as “the Patriarchal Law.”33
The New Testament is composed of 27 books penned by eight different writers over a period of about 50 years (from approximately A.D. 50-100). The New Testament can be broken down sensibly into four parts: (1) The Life of Jesus (Matthew-John); (2) A history of the first 30 years of the church of Christ (Acts); (3) Letters (Romans-Jude); and (4) Prophecy (Revelation).
The New Testament is “the Law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2) under which all men (Jews and Gentiles) live today (Ephesians 2:11-22). This law is universal in scope; it is addressed to “all nations” and is to be obeyed by both Jews and Gentiles (Matthew 28:19-20; Luke 24:47; cf. Acts 1:8; Acts 17:30). Bible students should still read, meditate upon, and learn from the Old Testament (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11; 2 Timothy 3:16-17), but we must all recognize that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6) for all men everywhere. Jesus fulfilled the Law (Matthew 5:17), and ever since He died in about A.D. 30, His Will (not the Old Law of Moses nor Patriarchal Law) has been in force (Hebrews 9:14-17he Old Testament and the New Testament are different, and the books that make them up are distinctive. Understanding these differences will help the Bible student get a better initial and overall grasp of the Bible. Yet, the student of the Scriptures must always keep in mind that one central theme runs throughout Holy Writ—God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.34 From the first messianic prophecy in Genesis 3:15 to Malachi’s prophecy (3:1; 4:5) of the one who would come to prepare the way for the Messiah, the Old Testament tells us through promises, prophecies, and word pictures that “the Savior is coming.” Then, some four hundred years after the close of the Old Testament, the first four books of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were written to testify to the truth that, indeed, “Jesus, the Savior, came,” while Acts-Revelation testify to the fact that “Jesus will come again.” And, in light of such a day, God calls all people to humble themselves and submit to His Will (1 Peter 5:5-7) while we still have an opportunity (Revelation 22:17).
[to be continued]

ENDNOTES

1 See Google Inside Search, September 27, 2016,https://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/thestory/.
3 Ibid., p. 20.
4 Ibid., p. 11. The Barna research group classifies “non-Bible readers” as those who read the Bible less than three times a year outside of a church service or event.
5 Ibid., p. 55.
6 “The State of the Bible” (2013), American Bible Society, p. 66,http://www.americanbible.org/uploads/content/State%20of%20the%20Bible%20Report%202013.pdf.
7 Ibid.
8 Cf. Isaiah 43:8; Matthew 13:14-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:26-27; Romans 11:8.
9 Simon Greenleaf (1995), The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics), p. 16, emp. added.
10 Even though some thieves, murderers, and other unruly individuals may brag about their unjust conduct, they still want to be understood and treated fairly.
11 Kenny Barfield (1997), Why the Bible is Number 1 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers), p. 186. 
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 See Eric Lyons and Kyle Butt (2014), “7 Reasons to Believe in God,” Apologetics Press,https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=5045&topic=93. See also the “Existence of God” section of ApologeticsPress.org.
15 If there are approximately 130 million books on Earth (as Google indicates; https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/you-can-count-number-of-books-in-world.html), and only seven of them claim divine inspiration, then only about 0.000005% of books in existence claim to be inspired of God.
16 For specific evidences on the inspiration of the Bible, see Kyle Butt (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press). See also the “Inspiration of the Bible” section of ApologeticsPress.org.
17 Alexander Pope (1709), “An Essay on Criticism,” http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/ldc/ling001/pope_crit.htm.
18 The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with only small portions penned in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek with an occasional Aramaic word.
19 That is, language must not be any more of a barrier than it already innately is.
20 E.g., the American Standard Version.
22 E.g., New International Version; New Century Version.
24 E.g., Today’s English Version; The Message.
26 Dave Miller (2015), “3 Good Reasons to Believe the Bible Has Not Been Corrupted,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=5196&topic=103, emp. in orig.
27 See Eric Lyons (2015), “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Worship of Jesus,” Reason & Revelation, 35[11]:122-125,128, November, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1206.
28 Interestingly, however, the NWT has not always rendered proskuneo in Hebrews 1:6 as “do obeisance.” When Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Watchtower Bible and Tract Society first printed the NWT in 1950, the verse actually rendered proskuneo as “worship” instead of “do obeisance.” Even the revised 1961 edition of the NWT translated proskuneo as “worship.” But, by 1971, Jehovah’s Witnesses had changed Hebrews 1:6 to read: “Let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”
29 The open and honest imperfections of man’s translation work should not disturb us so as to think that we must have an absolutely perfect translation in order to know the Truth and please God. As Dave Miller observed about the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament translated around 250 B.C., “Though considered by scholars as an imperfect translation of the Hebrew, most of the direct quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament are taken from the Septuagint. Hence, the Bible gives implicit divine endorsement to the use of imperfect, manmade translations, further implying that God’s Word has been adequately transmitted down through the centuries via translation” (Ibid.).
30 For a brief, balanced, non-technical study of translations, we recommend Wayne Jackson’s booklet titled, The Bible Translation Controversy (1995) (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
31 “The Hebrews divided their Scriptures, 24 books total, into three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings…. The order and numbering of the Hebrew Bible is different from the Old Testament, which explains why they list 24 books, while we list 39. The Law consisted of the five books of the Torah, exactly like our English Bible. The Prophets contained Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve [Minor—EL] Prophets, in that order. They considered these eight books, but we divide Samuel into two parts, Kings into two parts, and the Twelve Prophets into their respective parts—yielding a new number of twenty-one books out of the same set of the Prophets. [NOTE: Stephen, in Acts 7:42-43, quotes from Amos 5:25-27 and cites it as the Book of the Prophets, showing how the Minor Prophets were considered a single composite work.] Finally, the Hebrew Bible placed Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles in the Writings. Our Bibles divide Ezra into two books (Ezra and Nehemiah) and Chronicles into two books. This order in the Hebrew Bible follows a rough chronology of authorship, based on Jewish tradition” [“The Canon and Extra Canonical Writings” (2003), Apologetics Press,http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=968&topic=103%5D.
32 “The Authorship of the Bible” (2016), http://www.ukapologetics.net/12/authorship.htm.
33 The English term “patriarch” derives from the Greek patriarches, which actually is made of two words—pater, meaning “father;” and arches, meaning “head” or “founder.” A patriarch is “the head of a father’s house—the founder or ruler of a tribe, family, or clan” [“Patriarch” (1986), Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson)].
Other than Christianity and Judaism, there has been but one other law, through the ages, under which God accepted worship: This was the “patriarchal” system that had continued since commands were first given in Eden. Adam, Eve, and their non-Judean descendants were under some kind of law, for the apostle Paul stated, “where there is no law, neither is there transgression” (Romans 4:15). For the Gentiles to have been guilty of sin (which we know they were—Romans 3:10,23), they must have transgressed some law. What law was it? It was not the Law of Moses, because they were not amenable to that law (either because it had not yet been established or because they were not descendants of Abraham). What’s more, it was not the Law of Christ, because that Law did not come into effect until the first century A.D.
Although there still is much we do not understand about the Patriarchal Law (e.g., what direct revelations they received, what “laws” were passed down from generation to generation, etc.), we can know that the Gentiles were under a law (that was not the Law of Moses nor the Law of Christ), because they were guilty of “transgression” (Romans 4:15; 5:13), just as all men are. And if there is transgression, then there must be some law. Man has given this law a name—patriarchy.
34 In order to get a better overall understanding of the Bible, we highly recommend Frank Chesser’s book, Portrait of God: Viewing the Divine Through His Work of Redemption (2004), (Huntsville, AL: Publishing Designs), http://www.apologeticspress.org/store/Product.aspx?pid=260.

Copyright © 2017 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Doctrinal Matters” section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute and exhibit portions of copyrighted motion pictures, video taped or video discs, without authorization of the copyright holder. This infringement of copyright is called “Fair Use”, and is allowed for purposes of criticism, news, reporting, teaching, and parody. This articles is written, and any image and video (includes music used in the video) in this article are used, in compliance with this law: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.

Apologiaway.wordpress.com 




on No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)