Dark History of Evolution: Dr. Henry Morris
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
The 2nd law of thermonuclear dynamics: all matter is in a continual state of decay.
The 2nd law of thermonuclear dynamics says that all matter is in a continual state of decay.
We can find this principle in the Bible.
We can find this principle in the Bible.
"Of old hast Thou laid the foundations of the earth: and the heavens are the works of Thy hands. They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment, as a vesture shall thou change them, and they shall be changed. But Thou art the same, and Thy years shall have no end." (Psalm 102:25-27)
Dependability & Credibility
By Maria Fontaine
Download Audio (5.0MB)
I thought the following article by Ron White was very interesting and motivating. These are essential qualities for us to have as Christians, because of who we represent. We might be familiar with our responsibility to live with godly values, and not think much of it when we fail or fall short, but people see Christians as representatives and followers of Jesus, and integrity and dependability are qualities that they expect—and rightly so—to see in us.
Here’s the article:
It was a family get-together a few years ago, and in my absence my family began to speculate if I was going to show up. Some said, “Probably.” Others didn’t think so. Then my aunt chimed in, “He’ll be here.” Everyone turned and looked at my aunt because of her matter-of-fact tone. My grandmother said, “How do you know that?”
My aunt replied, “Because he said he would. Not only that … he will be on time!”
That was that, and the conversation shifted to other matters and preparing the food. The lunch was set to begin at 1:00, and at 12:57 there was no sign of me, yet the look on my aunt’s face was as relaxed as it could be. (She has nerves of steel—not a good idea to play poker with her.)
Then at 12:58 the door knob began to turn and I walked through the door. As soon as I stepped foot in the house, my aunt threw up her arms as if to signal the game-winning field goal and said, “What did I tell ya?!” My aunt has never been above gloating, and savors every opportunity.
I soon realized that her happiness was more than simply me joining them for lunch. That reaction from my aunt caused me to think that day. It forced me to pause and realize how valuable it is in life and business for others to trust what you say and feel comfortable depending upon you.
It is priceless when others are 100% confident that you will follow through on your word.
How do you garner that kind of trust? How do you become a person whom others know will be there or will do what you say you will? Simple, you do what you say you will do. It may seem elementary, yet if you do this day in and day out, people will begin to notice. You don’t have to advertise that you are a person who keeps their word. Others will just figure it out.
It is so rare and so uncommon that you will stand out like a red marble in a bowl of white marbles.
There is a truth that says, “He who is faithful in little will also be faithful with much.”1 There is no task, chore, or promise that is too small to be faithful with. It could be keeping a secret, a promise, or following through on a statement. It could be simply arriving on time or delivering your product when you said you would.
When you are faithful in a lot of little things, those little things end up meaning a lot over time. It has been said that a good name is more desirable than riches.
If you are not reliable and trustworthy when your friends have referrals they could give you, do you think that they would? If you don’t follow through on the simple matters of life, why would anyone trust you by referring business to you?
Hopefully one day someone will say about you, “Because they said they would!”
Action Points
1. When you say you will be there at 1:00, be there at 1:00.
2. When you promise to deliver your product on time, deliver your product on time.
3. If you say you will call, call.
4. Pay your bills on time; cut back on your expenses if you can’t do this.
5. Become trustworthy. It is very simple. It is about the little things.2
*
Can others say of you, “I know they’ll do it, because they said they would”?
The Lord depends on us to be His hands, His feet, His face, His love, His witness, and He’s counting on us to be dependable, just as He’s dependable. We’re His representatives, His face to the world, and that’s a big responsibility.
People can become disappointed with Jesus and turned off to His truth if someone who represents Jesus to them doesn’t keep their word, or because they do something that makes them lose respect.
It’s a wonderful testimony when a Christian does what they say they will, when they’ve said they’ll do it. Let’s be dependable, trustworthy, and credible, and it will aid us in being successful both in our witness and in life!
Originally published January 2009. Updated and republished June 2012.
Read by Bethany Kelly. copyright@thefamilyinternational
1 Luke 16:10.
2 Because He Said He Would, by Ron White, from http://www.memoryinamonth.com/ezine/pr06.htm, October 2005.
"I am like a pelican of the wilderness."
By Dennis Edwards:
Psalm 102: 6 "I am like a pelican of the wilderness."
Now what does that mean, "A pelican of the wilderness?" I remember one day watching a wildlife documentary of Africa. It showed how after the heavy spring downfall a lake would be created. The parent pelicans would come, nest and rear their young along this lake. But over the course of the summer, the lake would slowly start to dry up. The adult pelicans would eventually fly away with the young pelicans old enough to fly. However, those pelicans which were last to be born and still not so sure about flight would stay by the diminishing lake. Eventually they would starve to death as the lake turned to desert once again. Like verse 5 in the same psalm: "By reason of the voice of my groaning my bones cleave to my skin."[1] So the author is painting a picture of his desperation for God, like a dying pelican in desperate need of water and rescue, so do we look to God for help in the time of great affliction and distress.
These verses remind me of the first verses in Psalm 42 which say, "As the hart (deer) pants after the water brook, so pants my soul after thee, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God? My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where is thy God?"[2] Again we see the author comparing his desire and need for God like a deer who is panting in his search for a watery brook to drink from. We need God´s presence in our lives. We need His Spirit running through us to bring us happiness and to fill up that aching void in our heart which He has made for Himself alone to fill.
Are you searching for God´s presence in your life? Are you like a dying pelican needing rescue or a deer panting in need of a fresh drink from a cool mountain stream? The Lord says "Ye shall seek Me and find Me, when ye shall search for Me with all your heart."[3] Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount "They which do hunger and thirst after righteousness..shall be filled."[4] Are you hungering and thirsting after God and His goodness? Later on in the same sermon Jesus says, "...seek and ye shall find;..."[5] Are you seeking for Him and His will in your life?
If we go back to Psalm 42, the author keeps repeating how his soul is cast down. He says, "Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why are thou disquieted in me?"[6] Is your soul cast down? Has some personal problem been weighing on you so that you are weighed down with sorrow, or doubt or confusion that you have lost your joy in living? You have lost your direction. You find it hard to get up in the morning. There is a certain dryness in your life.
Though the author of the psalm is feeling that dryness of spirit, he does not stay there. He calls out to God for His mercy and help. He reminds God of His promises unto His children. He says, "...All thy waves and billows are gone over me."[7] Here he sounds like he feels like a drowning man going down for the last time. But he continues with, "Yet the Lord will command His loving kindness in the daytime, and in the night His song shall be with me, and my prayer unto the God of my life."[8] He reminds God of His loving kindness and he keeps God´s word as his song and prayer in the night season.
Finally, he reminds himself to not lose his hope in God. he says, "Hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise Him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God."[8] Please do not lose hope in God if you are feeling down and out and with no sunrise on the horizon. God loves you and will work things out as He always has before. Do not lose hope! Call upon Him with all your heart. He is not far from any of us as Paul has so wisely said."That they (all nations) should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being."[10]
So, lift up your hands in praise unto Him. God loves you and is going to take care of you. Meditate on His promises found in His word. Read His word and it shall be "a lamp unto your feet, and a light unto your path."[11] May God bless and keep you and make you a blessing to others, in Jesus´ name we pray.
Footnotes:
[1] Psalm 102:5
[2] Psalm 42:1-3
[3] Jeremiah 29:13
[4] Matthew 5:6
[5] Matthew 7:7
[6] Psalm 42:5
[7] Psalm 42:7
[8] Psalm 42:8
[9] Psalm 42:11
[10] Acts 17:27-28
[11] Psalm 119:105
Monday, June 11, 2012
The meaning of yôm in Genesis 1:1-24.
http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1
by Francis Humphrey
Some preliminary considerations
The question often arises as to the correct meaning of ‘day’ in the opening verses of Genesis. There are those who argue that the word signifies a long period of time (e.g. progressive creationists like Hugh Ross). Others contend that the passage in question (Genesis 1:1–2:4) is not meant to be an actual historical account of the creation but is rather a theological reflection on God’s creative power and His sovereignty over the created order (e.g. the ‘framework hypothesis’ of Meredith Kline, Henri Blocher et al.). In the latter case the text is seen as having no relevance in determining the sequence of events at the time of origins.
The traditional view has been that the text is meant to communicate a straightforward account of God’s creation of the universe. The account is, therefore, of six 24-hour days of creative acts followed by a seventh 24-hour day of divine rest.
Theological reflection approach
Regarding this approach it is important to note that it is not really a question of Hebrew textual exegesis but rather a hermeneutical conclusion driven by factors external to the text. Taking the ‘framework hypothesis’ as an example, at an initial glance, Days 1–3 seem to be showing the creation of three empty ‘realms’ or ‘domains’ and Days 4–6 showing the creation of their respective ‘kings’ or ‘rulers’. Even if this was true, it would simply inform us that God created the universe in a specific order of divine acts. It would not annul the historicity of the account unless the reader felt compelled for other reasons to see the pattern as purely literary.1 In fact the structure of Genesis 1:1–2:4 does not really lend itself fully to the schema. For further details the reader is invited to consider the analyses of Wayne Grudem2 and Jonathan Sarfati.3
Poetry or prose?
A question arises as to the genre of the passage: is it poetry or is it prose narrative? If it is poetry, then perhaps there is greater flexibility in the meaning of the words. If it is prose narrative, then it would be appropriate to read it as intending to give a historical account of the creation.
Regarding the issue of genre, even if it is poetry, the passage would not necessarily be overly flexible in its interpretation. Psalm 78 is clearly poetic and yet gives an accurate account of Israel’s history from the Exodus to the anointing of David.
In passages that are universally recognized as historical narrative there is a marked preponderance of preterites over the other three [verb] forms. In poetry there is a preponderance of imperfects and perfects. … Given the ratio of verbal forms, the statistical evidence for the text [of Genesis] being prose is overwhelming.
Furthermore, it can be easily demonstrated that Genesis 1:1–2:4 in fact is not a poem. Hebrew poetry is characterized by certain syntactical features. A thorough grammatical/syntactical treatment of Hebrew poetry is that of M. O’Connor.4A simple test is the use of parallelism where a second grammatical clause repeats the idea of the preceding clause either by way of rewording it, or further explicating it, or by expressing its antithesis. O’Connor’s analysis goes far beyond these simple observations but does not nullify them. Reading the Hebrew text shows that it lacks these requisite poetic markers. Therefore, the Hebrew text is most reasonably read as prose narrative.
Secondly (and more objectively), in prose narrative there is a different ratio of verbal forms than there is in poetry. This has long been recognized by Hebrew scholars and has most recently been exhaustively analyzed by Steven Boyd.5 By way of explanation there are four forms of the finite verb in biblical Hebrew: the preterite (vayyiqtol), the imperfect (yiqtol), the perfect (qatal) and thevav perfect (veqatal). To quickly summarize, in passages that are universally recognized as historical narrative there is a marked preponderance of preterites over the other three forms. In poetry there is a preponderance of imperfects (yiqtol) and perfects (qatal).
Boyd demonstrates that, given the ratio of verbal forms, the statistical evidence for the text being prose is overwhelming. Indeed it would be irresponsible to read it any other way.
The use of the word yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4 with particular reference to the use of the cardinal number echad in 1:5b
Regarding the word ‘yôm’ in Genesis 1:1–2:4, it is apparent that there are three different uses of the term in the passage. In 1:5a it denotes ‘daylight’ as opposed to ‘night’. In 1:5b it denotes the combination of the two. The word ‘echad’ is most probably to be read as a cardinal number (‘one’) as opposed to an ordinal (’first’) in contrast to many translations. Thus it appears that the text is in fact defining what a ‘day’ is in the rest of the Creation Week. Finally in Genesis 2:4, yôm is part of an anarthrous6 prepositional compoundbeyôm meaning not ‘in the day’ but simply ’when’.
The fact that for the bulk of the passage, the word yôm is accompanied by sequential numerical denotation and the language of ‘evening and morning’ gives a prima facie case that regular 24-hour days are in view.
Concerning the use of the cardinal as opposed to the ordinal in 1:5b, it will be helpful to examine this a little further. For a more detailed examination of echad in Genesis 1:5, the definitive study is that of Andrew Steinmann.7 After examining echad as an ordinal number in numbering units of time he concludes that it may be used in place of the ordinal r’ishon in only two idioms: namely to ‘designate the day of a month, the other the year of a reign of a king’.8
In addition, in a non temporal sense, the cardinal can stand for the ordinal when dealing with a small number of ‘countable’ items.9
In contrast it has sometimes (often) been claimed that when a list of ordinal numbers is given, the cardinal form ‘echad’ is to be rendered as an ordinal (‘first’).10 BDB under usage #7 states ‘as ordinal, first … ’11 and then cites Genesis 1:5, 2:11; Exodus 39:10;Ezekiel 10:14; Job 42:14 and then adds references to the first day of a month or first in a verbally compound ordinal number (thirtyfirst … ).
This claim, as noted in the preceding comments, can be challenged. The word echad occurs 960 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.12 In the AV it is rendered by the English ‘first’ a total of 32 times. The majority of these cases are part of a formulaic expression ‘day one of the nth month’. Another cluster of ordinal renderings of echad is found in compound numbers, e.g., ‘thirty-first year of Asa’ (1 Kings 16:23) (lit. ‘in year of thirty and one of year’). These two clusters of citations are the very exceptions noted by Steinmann.
Another distinction that may be noted is that between simple ‘countable’13 lists and ‘temporally sequential’ events. To illustrate this distinction I will consider as examples of the former category five lists where the cardinal form (echad, ‘one’) is followed by ordinals (‘second, third … ’) and can itself be considered as an ordinal.
1. Genesis 2:11: the list of the four heads of rivers flowing out of Eden follow this pattern.
2. Exodus 28:17: the same pattern is used to denote the four rows of jewels on the High Priest’s breastplate.
3. Exodus 39:10–13: the same pattern appears, again in reference to the same article of clothing.
4. Ezekiel 10:14: the four heads of a cherub are enumerated in this way.
5. Job 42:14: the three daughters of Job are designated using this convention.
There are six other lists which share this same pattern.14 Furthermore, in each of these cases the article is included. Steinmann concludes:
‘The description of the use of echad as an ordinal number for the first element in a small number of countable items should state:With a definite noun, echad serves (as an ordinal) to count the first of a small number of things. In this construction the noun may be elided after a recent mention,[but] the article is never omitted from the adjective or its governing noun. The following items are counted with ordinal numbers.’15
In effect, this means that when echad is unaccompanied by the article and used adjectively it is reasonable that it be considered as a cardinal (‘one’). Some may challenge this conclusion claiming that it may be an example of ‘denying the antecedent’ but it does seem to have merit.16
Another observation is that in lists, which particularly stress sequential events, the ordinal r’ishon (‘first’) is used. I consider six such occasions:
1. Numbers 7:12–89 gives the offerings of the twelve tribal leaders on succeeding days. The first day uses the ordinal r’ishon. This text illustrates another feature, namely that once you reach the compound Hebrew numbers (11 and up) the terms are in the cardinal form.17
2. Numbers 28:16: r’ishon is used to describe the first day of unleavened bread. In verse 25 the text refers to the seventh (ordinal) day of the feast. Intervening ordinals are not present in verses 17–24.
3. 1 Chronicles 24:7–18: the sequence of 24 lots is cast for the divisions of the priesthood who serve in successive order. Again the ordinal r’ishon is used to begin the sequence.
4. 1 Chronicles 25:9–31 gives a similar sequential ordering of the 24 families of temple singers and r’ishon is used to commence the list.
5. 1 Chronicles 27:2–15 gives the monthly rotation of David’s 12 army divisions (24,000 men per division) who served in sequence throughout the year. The ordinal r’ishon is used for the first division.
6. Zechariah 6:2–3 lists the four angelic chariots are listed but it appears from the text that they are coming out from between the two mountains, possibly in temporal order. This latter point depends on whether they are pictured as emerging in single file and not coming out four abreast. I would tend to opt for the former since r’ishon is used instead of echad. Nevertheless, certainty eludes us in this case.
From this survey it does appear that a list emphasizing a temporal sequence of events tends to commence with the ordinal r’ishon as opposed to the cardinal echad which we found employed in the five lists of ‘countable items’ (plus the further six cited in the endnote).
Given that Genesis 1 is describing a sequence of creative acts one would expect to find the first day designated by the ordinalr’ishon. Instead, we find the cardinal form echad. From the preceding overview of lists it would seem clear that this initial appearance of the cardinal form is in fact signifying a cardinal meaning.
Furthermore, both echad and yôm are without the article indicating that the expression denotes ‘one day’. In fact the article does not appear until the sixth day—yôm hašišiy.
Steinmann comments:
‘But even here the grammar is strange, since there is no article on yôm, as would be expected. This would indicate that the sixth day was a regular solar day, but that it was the culminating day of creation. Likewise, the seventh day is referred to asyôm hašebi‘iy (Gen. 2:3), with lack of an article on yôm. This also, the author is implying, was a regular solar day. Yet it was a special day, because God had finished his work of creation.’18
An additional comment to Steinmann’s which I believe reinforces his point is that the prefix beth attached to yôm in Genesis 2:2aand 2:2b is both times pointed by the Massoretes with the pathach, implying the presence of the article. He is quite correct that in the concluding use of ‘day the seventh’ in Gen. 2:3b that yôm is anarthrous. Thus the pattern is actually:
Gen. 1:31: ‘day the sixth’
Gen. 2:2a: ‘in the day the seventh’
Gen. 2:2b: ‘in the day the seventh’
Gen. 2:3: ‘day the seventh’
This pattern highlights the peculiar nature of the concluding citation. Since the two prepositional phrases employ the expected use of the article, the fact that in the final reference the article is absent from yôm we are alerted to its uniqueness
it is clearly preferable to read 1:5b as defining a yôm for the following sequence of ordinals-namely one cycle of evening and morning, signifying a complete 24-hour day embracing both the period of darkness and the period of light. Having used the cardinal echad to establish that definition of yôm, the chapter then goes on in the expected ordinal sequence.
Further emphasizing the special nature of the seventh day is the fact that it is the only one to have the day + ordinal occurring more than once.
In light of the preceding, it is clearly preferable to read 1:5b as defining ayôm for the following sequence of ordinals-namely one cycle of evening and morning, signifying a complete 24-hour day embracing both the period of darkness and the period of light. Having used the cardinal echad to establish that definition of yôm, the chapter then goes on in the expected ordinal sequence.
The only other passage in the entire Bible that makes reference to the Creation Week as a six-day sequence followed by a seventh day of rest isExodus 20:8–11, where a one to one correspondence is seen between the regular 168 hour week of humans and God’s work of creation and rest.
From the standpoint of Hebrew exegesis it is would be unreasonable to read another meaning into the text. The only reason for so doing would appear to be based on considerations other than a careful reading of the actual narrative.
A final observation
It has been my experience that those who question the normal historical narrative reading of Genesis 1:1–2:4 tend to be my fellow evangelicals. Theological liberals recognize the text as saying that God created the universe in six 24-hour days. They see evangelicals who adopt alternative readings of the text as engaged in a form of suspect apologetics. I believe the liberal critique to be accurate. Where I differ from them, however, is that I believe the text is correct in what it is teaching. A more effective apologetic therefore lies in simply admitting what the text proclaims and showing that it has far more explanatory power than many people think. In that light, I am excited by the kind of research being conducted by CMI and likeminded creation science organizations. God means what He says and He did it just as Genesis says he did!
Related articles
‘No death before the Fall’?
Chapter 2: Six days? Really?
The days of creation: A semantic approach
Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?
Further reading
Creation Compromises
Genesis Questions and Answers
References
Wenham, G.J., Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary, Word Books, Waco, TX, 1987. On p. 19 he states: ‘ … “day”. There can be little doubt that here “day” has its basic sense of a 24-hour period. The mention of morning and evening, the enumeration of the days, and the divine rest on the seventh show that a week of divine activity is being described here.’ Then on p. 39 he contends, ‘It has been unfortunate that one device which our narrative uses to express the coherence and purposiveness of the creator’s work, namely, the distribution of the various creative acts to six days, has been seized on and interpreted over-literalistically, with the result that science and Scripture have been pitted against each other instead of being seen as complementary. Properly understood, Genesis justifies the scientific experience of unity and order in nature. The six-day schema is but one of several means employed in this chapter to stress the system and order that has been built into creation. Other devices include the use of repeating formulae, the tendency to group words and phrases into tens and sevens, literary techniques such as chiasm and inclusion, the arrangement of creative acts into matching groups, and so on.’ In the main body of my text I point out that elegance of order and literary finesse do not preclude the historicity of a narrative account. Return to text.
Grudem, W., Systematic Theology, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 302, 1994. Return to text.
Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, pp. 94–101, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 94–101, 2004. Return to text.
O’Connor, M., Hebrew Verse Structure, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1980. Return to text.
Boyd, S.W., Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: evidence for an historical reading of genesis 1:1–2:3; in: Vardiman, L., Snelling, A. and Chaffin, E. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (Vol. II), Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, pp. 631–734, 2005. Return to text.
I.e. lacking the definite article. If the definite article (represented by the vowel marking pathach under the beth) then it would signify ‘in the day’. Its lack signifies an idiomatic use meaning ‘when’ as in the NIV translation. Return to text.
Steinmann, A., אֶחָד [[echad] as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45(4):577–584, 2002. Return to text.
Steinmann, ref. 7, p.580. Return to text.
Steinmann, ref. 7, pp. 581–582. Return to text.
e.g. Davidson, B., The Analytical and Chaldee Lexicon, Zondervan Edition, 8th printing, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 17, 1976, ‘II first, only in the enumerating of time, where the cardinal stands for the ordinal.’ He cites the usage when dealing with the first day (day one) of the nth month. See my comments in the main text. Return to text.
Brown, F., Driver, S.R. and Briggs, C.A., (Eds.), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, UK, reprinted with corrections, p. 25, 1972. Return to text.
Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K., Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, Volume 1: Moody Press, Chicago, IL, p.30, 1980. This also corresponds to my count in Wigram, G.V., The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, Zondervan Edition, 7th printing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978 where I counted 966. Return to text.
Steinmann, ref. 7., p. 581; Waltke, B.K. and O’Connor, M.P., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, p. 274, § 15.2.1b, 1990. Return to text.
Genesis 4:19: ‘the name of the first [of two wives] was Adah’; Exodus 26:4,5; 36:11: ‘the first curtain’ [of two]; Exodus 29:40, Numbers 28:7: ‘for the first lamb’ [of two]; 1 Kings 6:24: ‘the first cherub’ In each case echad is followed by ordinal forms (second, third … ). Return to text.
Steinmann, ref. 7, p.582. This is a refinement (indeed, correction) of Waltke and O’Connor’s treatment. Return to text.
‘Denying the antecedent’, i.e.
a) echad with the article signifies an ordinal use.
b) In this text echad does not have the article.
c) Therefore, in this text echad has a cardinal use.
‘Denying the antecedent’ since the premise does not assert that an ordinal use of echad necessarily has the article. However, in this case it is still reasonable to take it as a cardinal usage since the default meaning of echad is cardinal. Its ordinal usage is apparent from the context and in these cases the article is always present. Context shows that in the vast majority of cases the default cardinal meaning is implied and in those cases the article is missing. For the few cases where the meaning may be disputed, the burden of proof lies with those who would challenge the regular pattern. I note this mild caveat since Steinmann (see above) does maintain that the ordinal use is always accompanied by the article. Therefore, he would restate the premise as: a) echad with, and only with, the article signifies an ordinal use. b) and c) would, therefore, logically follow. I believe Steinmann is correct and I simply note a mild objection that might conceivably be raised.’ Return to text.
Actually ‘eleven’ is interesting in that it uses ‘ashtēy in construct with the cardinal ‘asar (‘ten’). The etymology is uncertain and is only found in the plural construct form attached to ‘ten’. Return to text.
Steinmann, ref. 7, p.583–584. Return to text.
by Francis Humphrey
Some preliminary considerations
The question often arises as to the correct meaning of ‘day’ in the opening verses of Genesis. There are those who argue that the word signifies a long period of time (e.g. progressive creationists like Hugh Ross). Others contend that the passage in question (Genesis 1:1–2:4) is not meant to be an actual historical account of the creation but is rather a theological reflection on God’s creative power and His sovereignty over the created order (e.g. the ‘framework hypothesis’ of Meredith Kline, Henri Blocher et al.). In the latter case the text is seen as having no relevance in determining the sequence of events at the time of origins.
The traditional view has been that the text is meant to communicate a straightforward account of God’s creation of the universe. The account is, therefore, of six 24-hour days of creative acts followed by a seventh 24-hour day of divine rest.
Theological reflection approach
Regarding this approach it is important to note that it is not really a question of Hebrew textual exegesis but rather a hermeneutical conclusion driven by factors external to the text. Taking the ‘framework hypothesis’ as an example, at an initial glance, Days 1–3 seem to be showing the creation of three empty ‘realms’ or ‘domains’ and Days 4–6 showing the creation of their respective ‘kings’ or ‘rulers’. Even if this was true, it would simply inform us that God created the universe in a specific order of divine acts. It would not annul the historicity of the account unless the reader felt compelled for other reasons to see the pattern as purely literary.1 In fact the structure of Genesis 1:1–2:4 does not really lend itself fully to the schema. For further details the reader is invited to consider the analyses of Wayne Grudem2 and Jonathan Sarfati.3
Poetry or prose?
A question arises as to the genre of the passage: is it poetry or is it prose narrative? If it is poetry, then perhaps there is greater flexibility in the meaning of the words. If it is prose narrative, then it would be appropriate to read it as intending to give a historical account of the creation.
Regarding the issue of genre, even if it is poetry, the passage would not necessarily be overly flexible in its interpretation. Psalm 78 is clearly poetic and yet gives an accurate account of Israel’s history from the Exodus to the anointing of David.
In passages that are universally recognized as historical narrative there is a marked preponderance of preterites over the other three [verb] forms. In poetry there is a preponderance of imperfects and perfects. … Given the ratio of verbal forms, the statistical evidence for the text [of Genesis] being prose is overwhelming.
Furthermore, it can be easily demonstrated that Genesis 1:1–2:4 in fact is not a poem. Hebrew poetry is characterized by certain syntactical features. A thorough grammatical/syntactical treatment of Hebrew poetry is that of M. O’Connor.4A simple test is the use of parallelism where a second grammatical clause repeats the idea of the preceding clause either by way of rewording it, or further explicating it, or by expressing its antithesis. O’Connor’s analysis goes far beyond these simple observations but does not nullify them. Reading the Hebrew text shows that it lacks these requisite poetic markers. Therefore, the Hebrew text is most reasonably read as prose narrative.
Secondly (and more objectively), in prose narrative there is a different ratio of verbal forms than there is in poetry. This has long been recognized by Hebrew scholars and has most recently been exhaustively analyzed by Steven Boyd.5 By way of explanation there are four forms of the finite verb in biblical Hebrew: the preterite (vayyiqtol), the imperfect (yiqtol), the perfect (qatal) and thevav perfect (veqatal). To quickly summarize, in passages that are universally recognized as historical narrative there is a marked preponderance of preterites over the other three forms. In poetry there is a preponderance of imperfects (yiqtol) and perfects (qatal).
Boyd demonstrates that, given the ratio of verbal forms, the statistical evidence for the text being prose is overwhelming. Indeed it would be irresponsible to read it any other way.
The use of the word yôm in Genesis 1:1–2:4 with particular reference to the use of the cardinal number echad in 1:5b
Regarding the word ‘yôm’ in Genesis 1:1–2:4, it is apparent that there are three different uses of the term in the passage. In 1:5a it denotes ‘daylight’ as opposed to ‘night’. In 1:5b it denotes the combination of the two. The word ‘echad’ is most probably to be read as a cardinal number (‘one’) as opposed to an ordinal (’first’) in contrast to many translations. Thus it appears that the text is in fact defining what a ‘day’ is in the rest of the Creation Week. Finally in Genesis 2:4, yôm is part of an anarthrous6 prepositional compoundbeyôm meaning not ‘in the day’ but simply ’when’.
The fact that for the bulk of the passage, the word yôm is accompanied by sequential numerical denotation and the language of ‘evening and morning’ gives a prima facie case that regular 24-hour days are in view.
Concerning the use of the cardinal as opposed to the ordinal in 1:5b, it will be helpful to examine this a little further. For a more detailed examination of echad in Genesis 1:5, the definitive study is that of Andrew Steinmann.7 After examining echad as an ordinal number in numbering units of time he concludes that it may be used in place of the ordinal r’ishon in only two idioms: namely to ‘designate the day of a month, the other the year of a reign of a king’.8
In addition, in a non temporal sense, the cardinal can stand for the ordinal when dealing with a small number of ‘countable’ items.9
In contrast it has sometimes (often) been claimed that when a list of ordinal numbers is given, the cardinal form ‘echad’ is to be rendered as an ordinal (‘first’).10 BDB under usage #7 states ‘as ordinal, first … ’11 and then cites Genesis 1:5, 2:11; Exodus 39:10;Ezekiel 10:14; Job 42:14 and then adds references to the first day of a month or first in a verbally compound ordinal number (thirtyfirst … ).
This claim, as noted in the preceding comments, can be challenged. The word echad occurs 960 times in the Hebrew Old Testament.12 In the AV it is rendered by the English ‘first’ a total of 32 times. The majority of these cases are part of a formulaic expression ‘day one of the nth month’. Another cluster of ordinal renderings of echad is found in compound numbers, e.g., ‘thirty-first year of Asa’ (1 Kings 16:23) (lit. ‘in year of thirty and one of year’). These two clusters of citations are the very exceptions noted by Steinmann.
Another distinction that may be noted is that between simple ‘countable’13 lists and ‘temporally sequential’ events. To illustrate this distinction I will consider as examples of the former category five lists where the cardinal form (echad, ‘one’) is followed by ordinals (‘second, third … ’) and can itself be considered as an ordinal.
1. Genesis 2:11: the list of the four heads of rivers flowing out of Eden follow this pattern.
2. Exodus 28:17: the same pattern is used to denote the four rows of jewels on the High Priest’s breastplate.
3. Exodus 39:10–13: the same pattern appears, again in reference to the same article of clothing.
4. Ezekiel 10:14: the four heads of a cherub are enumerated in this way.
5. Job 42:14: the three daughters of Job are designated using this convention.
There are six other lists which share this same pattern.14 Furthermore, in each of these cases the article is included. Steinmann concludes:
‘The description of the use of echad as an ordinal number for the first element in a small number of countable items should state:With a definite noun, echad serves (as an ordinal) to count the first of a small number of things. In this construction the noun may be elided after a recent mention,[but] the article is never omitted from the adjective or its governing noun. The following items are counted with ordinal numbers.’15
In effect, this means that when echad is unaccompanied by the article and used adjectively it is reasonable that it be considered as a cardinal (‘one’). Some may challenge this conclusion claiming that it may be an example of ‘denying the antecedent’ but it does seem to have merit.16
Another observation is that in lists, which particularly stress sequential events, the ordinal r’ishon (‘first’) is used. I consider six such occasions:
1. Numbers 7:12–89 gives the offerings of the twelve tribal leaders on succeeding days. The first day uses the ordinal r’ishon. This text illustrates another feature, namely that once you reach the compound Hebrew numbers (11 and up) the terms are in the cardinal form.17
2. Numbers 28:16: r’ishon is used to describe the first day of unleavened bread. In verse 25 the text refers to the seventh (ordinal) day of the feast. Intervening ordinals are not present in verses 17–24.
3. 1 Chronicles 24:7–18: the sequence of 24 lots is cast for the divisions of the priesthood who serve in successive order. Again the ordinal r’ishon is used to begin the sequence.
4. 1 Chronicles 25:9–31 gives a similar sequential ordering of the 24 families of temple singers and r’ishon is used to commence the list.
5. 1 Chronicles 27:2–15 gives the monthly rotation of David’s 12 army divisions (24,000 men per division) who served in sequence throughout the year. The ordinal r’ishon is used for the first division.
6. Zechariah 6:2–3 lists the four angelic chariots are listed but it appears from the text that they are coming out from between the two mountains, possibly in temporal order. This latter point depends on whether they are pictured as emerging in single file and not coming out four abreast. I would tend to opt for the former since r’ishon is used instead of echad. Nevertheless, certainty eludes us in this case.
From this survey it does appear that a list emphasizing a temporal sequence of events tends to commence with the ordinal r’ishon as opposed to the cardinal echad which we found employed in the five lists of ‘countable items’ (plus the further six cited in the endnote).
Given that Genesis 1 is describing a sequence of creative acts one would expect to find the first day designated by the ordinalr’ishon. Instead, we find the cardinal form echad. From the preceding overview of lists it would seem clear that this initial appearance of the cardinal form is in fact signifying a cardinal meaning.
Furthermore, both echad and yôm are without the article indicating that the expression denotes ‘one day’. In fact the article does not appear until the sixth day—yôm hašišiy.
Steinmann comments:
‘But even here the grammar is strange, since there is no article on yôm, as would be expected. This would indicate that the sixth day was a regular solar day, but that it was the culminating day of creation. Likewise, the seventh day is referred to asyôm hašebi‘iy (Gen. 2:3), with lack of an article on yôm. This also, the author is implying, was a regular solar day. Yet it was a special day, because God had finished his work of creation.’18
An additional comment to Steinmann’s which I believe reinforces his point is that the prefix beth attached to yôm in Genesis 2:2aand 2:2b is both times pointed by the Massoretes with the pathach, implying the presence of the article. He is quite correct that in the concluding use of ‘day the seventh’ in Gen. 2:3b that yôm is anarthrous. Thus the pattern is actually:
Gen. 1:31: ‘day the sixth’
Gen. 2:2a: ‘in the day the seventh’
Gen. 2:2b: ‘in the day the seventh’
Gen. 2:3: ‘day the seventh’
This pattern highlights the peculiar nature of the concluding citation. Since the two prepositional phrases employ the expected use of the article, the fact that in the final reference the article is absent from yôm we are alerted to its uniqueness
it is clearly preferable to read 1:5b as defining a yôm for the following sequence of ordinals-namely one cycle of evening and morning, signifying a complete 24-hour day embracing both the period of darkness and the period of light. Having used the cardinal echad to establish that definition of yôm, the chapter then goes on in the expected ordinal sequence.
Further emphasizing the special nature of the seventh day is the fact that it is the only one to have the day + ordinal occurring more than once.
In light of the preceding, it is clearly preferable to read 1:5b as defining ayôm for the following sequence of ordinals-namely one cycle of evening and morning, signifying a complete 24-hour day embracing both the period of darkness and the period of light. Having used the cardinal echad to establish that definition of yôm, the chapter then goes on in the expected ordinal sequence.
The only other passage in the entire Bible that makes reference to the Creation Week as a six-day sequence followed by a seventh day of rest isExodus 20:8–11, where a one to one correspondence is seen between the regular 168 hour week of humans and God’s work of creation and rest.
From the standpoint of Hebrew exegesis it is would be unreasonable to read another meaning into the text. The only reason for so doing would appear to be based on considerations other than a careful reading of the actual narrative.
A final observation
It has been my experience that those who question the normal historical narrative reading of Genesis 1:1–2:4 tend to be my fellow evangelicals. Theological liberals recognize the text as saying that God created the universe in six 24-hour days. They see evangelicals who adopt alternative readings of the text as engaged in a form of suspect apologetics. I believe the liberal critique to be accurate. Where I differ from them, however, is that I believe the text is correct in what it is teaching. A more effective apologetic therefore lies in simply admitting what the text proclaims and showing that it has far more explanatory power than many people think. In that light, I am excited by the kind of research being conducted by CMI and likeminded creation science organizations. God means what He says and He did it just as Genesis says he did!
Related articles
‘No death before the Fall’?
Chapter 2: Six days? Really?
The days of creation: A semantic approach
Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?
Further reading
Creation Compromises
Genesis Questions and Answers
References
Wenham, G.J., Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary, Word Books, Waco, TX, 1987. On p. 19 he states: ‘ … “day”. There can be little doubt that here “day” has its basic sense of a 24-hour period. The mention of morning and evening, the enumeration of the days, and the divine rest on the seventh show that a week of divine activity is being described here.’ Then on p. 39 he contends, ‘It has been unfortunate that one device which our narrative uses to express the coherence and purposiveness of the creator’s work, namely, the distribution of the various creative acts to six days, has been seized on and interpreted over-literalistically, with the result that science and Scripture have been pitted against each other instead of being seen as complementary. Properly understood, Genesis justifies the scientific experience of unity and order in nature. The six-day schema is but one of several means employed in this chapter to stress the system and order that has been built into creation. Other devices include the use of repeating formulae, the tendency to group words and phrases into tens and sevens, literary techniques such as chiasm and inclusion, the arrangement of creative acts into matching groups, and so on.’ In the main body of my text I point out that elegance of order and literary finesse do not preclude the historicity of a narrative account. Return to text.
Grudem, W., Systematic Theology, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 302, 1994. Return to text.
Sarfati, J., Refuting Compromise, pp. 94–101, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, pp. 94–101, 2004. Return to text.
O’Connor, M., Hebrew Verse Structure, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1980. Return to text.
Boyd, S.W., Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: evidence for an historical reading of genesis 1:1–2:3; in: Vardiman, L., Snelling, A. and Chaffin, E. (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (Vol. II), Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA, and Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, AZ, pp. 631–734, 2005. Return to text.
I.e. lacking the definite article. If the definite article (represented by the vowel marking pathach under the beth) then it would signify ‘in the day’. Its lack signifies an idiomatic use meaning ‘when’ as in the NIV translation. Return to text.
Steinmann, A., אֶחָד [[echad] as an Ordinal Number and the Meaning of Genesis 1:5, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45(4):577–584, 2002. Return to text.
Steinmann, ref. 7, p.580. Return to text.
Steinmann, ref. 7, pp. 581–582. Return to text.
e.g. Davidson, B., The Analytical and Chaldee Lexicon, Zondervan Edition, 8th printing, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 17, 1976, ‘II first, only in the enumerating of time, where the cardinal stands for the ordinal.’ He cites the usage when dealing with the first day (day one) of the nth month. See my comments in the main text. Return to text.
Brown, F., Driver, S.R. and Briggs, C.A., (Eds.), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, UK, reprinted with corrections, p. 25, 1972. Return to text.
Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K., Theological Word Book of the Old Testament, Volume 1: Moody Press, Chicago, IL, p.30, 1980. This also corresponds to my count in Wigram, G.V., The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance, Zondervan Edition, 7th printing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1978 where I counted 966. Return to text.
Steinmann, ref. 7., p. 581; Waltke, B.K. and O’Connor, M.P., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, p. 274, § 15.2.1b, 1990. Return to text.
Genesis 4:19: ‘the name of the first [of two wives] was Adah’; Exodus 26:4,5; 36:11: ‘the first curtain’ [of two]; Exodus 29:40, Numbers 28:7: ‘for the first lamb’ [of two]; 1 Kings 6:24: ‘the first cherub’ In each case echad is followed by ordinal forms (second, third … ). Return to text.
Steinmann, ref. 7, p.582. This is a refinement (indeed, correction) of Waltke and O’Connor’s treatment. Return to text.
‘Denying the antecedent’, i.e.
a) echad with the article signifies an ordinal use.
b) In this text echad does not have the article.
c) Therefore, in this text echad has a cardinal use.
‘Denying the antecedent’ since the premise does not assert that an ordinal use of echad necessarily has the article. However, in this case it is still reasonable to take it as a cardinal usage since the default meaning of echad is cardinal. Its ordinal usage is apparent from the context and in these cases the article is always present. Context shows that in the vast majority of cases the default cardinal meaning is implied and in those cases the article is missing. For the few cases where the meaning may be disputed, the burden of proof lies with those who would challenge the regular pattern. I note this mild caveat since Steinmann (see above) does maintain that the ordinal use is always accompanied by the article. Therefore, he would restate the premise as: a) echad with, and only with, the article signifies an ordinal use. b) and c) would, therefore, logically follow. I believe Steinmann is correct and I simply note a mild objection that might conceivably be raised.’ Return to text.
Actually ‘eleven’ is interesting in that it uses ‘ashtēy in construct with the cardinal ‘asar (‘ten’). The etymology is uncertain and is only found in the plural construct form attached to ‘ten’. Return to text.
Steinmann, ref. 7, p.583–584. Return to text.
Australian Senate debates gay- marriage!
Australian Senate considers marriage equality bill Posted by Mathew
APR1
http://aristophrenium.com/mathew/australian-senate-considers-marriage-equality-bill/
On April 2, 2012, the Australian Senate closes invitations from the public on their opinion regarding the legalisation of same-sex ‘marriage’. This is not the first time the Senate has been requested to do so; the last time was back in 2009. Yet the political climate in Australia is markedly different now. In 2009, the Labor Government had as it’s official party policy to support marriage as man-woman only; likewise the Opposition Government. The Bill put forward to redefine marriage to “any two persons”, the Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2009, by the Greens (a progressive left party) was resoundly dismissed. Yet this time round, we have a Labor Government who altered their party platform late last year to support same-sex ‘marriage’ and we have three bills being reviewed by the Senate to amend the Marriage Act 1961. One of the those bills is again from the Greens: the Marriage Equality Amendment Act 2010. It’s the latter bill that presents the most radical of change to the current definition of marriage in Australia. And its to that bill that I’ve composed the following submission:
Senate
Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Senate,
Re: Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010
I write to the Senate Inquiry Committee to voice my opposition to the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 and to lend my support of traditional man-woman marriage. I note my reasons in the following paragraphs, providing supporting references where appropriate.
Full equality already exists under current law
Marriage, for all Australian constituents, is an institution in which there already exists a full equality under the law; there is none to whom the Marriage Act 1961 unjustly discriminates. In order for anyone to marry, all must pass the prescribed criteria: 1. Be of marriageable age; 2. Be not already married; 3. Must not marry a close blood relative, and; 4. Must marry a member of the opposite sex. All Australians, irrespective of their sexual identity, are expected to meet these criterions; there is no inequality of law in their application to either the homosexual or the heterosexual. Both the homosexual and the heterosexual have the same restrictions.
While this response may be unsatisfactory to many homosexuals, it must be noted that the existing criterion for marriage in Australia does not require desire or love between the two being married. Although love and desire are important to the marital union, it is not required by law, but assumed. Government does not regard desire as key to the marital union because such unions encompass not only love but also provide a unique social good1.
Why prohibiting same-sex marriage is not equivalent to anti-miscegenation
Advocates of same-sex marriage mistakenly compare its prohibition to that of anti-miscegenation laws. While anti-miscegenation was unjust discrimination (as ethnicity has nothing to do with marriage), man-woman only marriage is not unjust – this is because anti-miscegenation was about whom to allow to marry, not what marriage is essentially about. The gender difference between a man and woman has everything to do with marriage.
In actuality, promoting same-sex marriage has more in common with anti-miscegenation than it does against anti-miscegenation because it also seeks to arbitrarily include a non-essential criterion to the institution of marriage: that the complementarity of the sexes is unimportant.
The public purpose of marriage
Man-woman marriage is an important social good. As a group, as a rule, and by nature, marriages produce children. The public purpose of marriage, therefore, associates the children produced from it to their father and likewise associates the father to their mother. This cohesiveness serves to foster the best environment within which to raise children2, over and above all other forms of family combinations, and is in this real sense, a unique arrangement to be promoted.
By contrast, same-sex unions, as a group, as a rule, and by nature, cannot produce children without the involvement of a third party. Homosexual unions are socially infertile; while some homosexual partnerships do involve children from previous relationships or conceived through IVF, these arrangements are intentionally designed to deny children the nurture of one or both of their biological parents. While two homosexuals can be loving parents, it defies common sense that a homosexual man can be a good “mother” to a child, and likewise that a homosexual woman can be a good “father” to a child. Author and lawyer Dawn Stefanowicz, writing of her experience growing up with a gay father, remarked: “What makes it so hard for a girl to grow up with a gay father is that she never gets to see him loving, honoring and protecting the women in his life3.”
Thus, marriage is much more than simply the expression of love and commitment between any two adults; it is the love and commitment to each other as well as to any children produced by the sexual expression of that love and commitment. That marriage between a child’s biological parents is the ideal circumstance is a great public good, and it is a good that a homosexual union cannot create or produce. Where the welfare of children is concerned, the Government cannot unjustly discriminate and ought always promote man-woman marriage over and above all other relationships for the benefit of children and for the benefit of wider society as a whole.
Legalising same-sex marriage threatens religious liberty and free speech
Where same-sex marriage is legalised (and even in some instances where it is not yet legal), ordinary citizens, business owners, religious believers and not-for-profit organisations will have their religious liberties and values and freedom of speech curtailed:
In Jan 2011, hotel owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull from Cornwall, UK, were ordered to pay $6000 in damages to a homosexual couple who sued them for declining to offer a room as it violated their hotel policy to only make board available to married couples4
In Illinois, Washington DC and Massachusetts, US, Catholic bishops voluntarily closed the Church’s adoption and foster-care organisations rather than comply with new non- discrimination laws following the legalising of same-sex marriage in those states which would have forced them to place children with same-sex couples5
Massachusetts, US, 2005, father David Parker was arrested after talking with his son’s school about opting his son out of mandatory pro-homosexuality teaching6. (Charges were later dropped.)
New Mexico, US, 2008, a Christian photographer was sued by a lesbian couple after
refusing to shoot a gay wedding7
Canada, 2008, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was fined $5000 and banned from
expressing his biblical understanding of homosexuality8
UK, Church of England lawyers state that legalising same-sex marriage in England will
effectively force churches to comply9
UK, housing manager Adrian Smith was demoted10 after posting a criticism of the UK’s
new gay rights law on his personal Facebook page, on his own time
Derbyshire, UK, Christians Mr and Mrs Johns denied the right to be foster parents11 after
refusing to teach children in their care that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle
Man-Woman Marriage Conclusion
Marriage ought to remain as the union between one man and one woman for life. It is this union that all cultures throughout the history of the world have recognised as the fundamental building block of their society, and it is a union that the Government of Australia has recognised and protected – and later described – as critical to the continued longevity and prosperity of its own society.
Aside from its societal importance, man-woman only marriage ought to be upheld as the norm; legalising same-sex marriage unduly threatens people’s freedoms of religion and speech – both of which are truly invaluable to any nation seeking to be equitable and prosperous.
Kind regards,
Mathew Hamilton
If you haven’t yet done so, there is still a wee bit of time left for you to email your own submission through to the Australian Senate Inquiry Committee. Your submission can be very basic; even one paragraph stating your support for man-woman only marriage is more than sufficient. In politics, numbers matter.
Email the Committee (legcon.sen@aph.gov.au) your submission, attached as a Word or PDF document. You must do this by no later than 4.30pm Monday April 2, 2012. Further detail on making submissions, including what items to note, can be found on the Australian Christian Lobby site.
References:
Sherif Girgis, Robert P George, Ryan T Anderson, “What is Marriage?”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2010, p26
Maggie Gallagher, “What is Marriage For?“, The Public Purpose of Marriage Law, section III A; cf. Georgina Binstock and Arland Thornton, “Separations, Reconciliations, and Living Apart in Cohabiting and Marital Unions”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 65 No. 2, 2003
Dawn Stefanowicz, Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, Annotation Press, 2007, p. 230
“UK Hotel Owners’ Religious Appeal Deemed ‘Discriminatory’ Against Gay Couple“, The Christian Post, February 10, 2012
“Bishops close adoption services over new rule on gay parents“, The Irish Times, December 30, 2011
“Charges dropped against jailed dad“, World Net Daily, October 20, 2005
“Christian Photographer Hauled before Commission for Refusing Same-Sex Job“,Life Site News, January 30, 2008
“Government to Pastor: Renounce Your Faith!“, World Net Daily, June 09, 2008
“Law on same-sex marriages mean churches ‘will be forced to conduct gay weddings’“, The Daily Mail, March 12, 2012
“Demoted for not backing gay marriage: housing manager’s pay slashed for criticising new law on Facebook“, The Daily Mail, October 23, 2011
“Christian foster couple lose ‘homosexuality views’ case“, BBC News, February 28, 2011
Other related Aristophrenium articles:
Why can’t the gay brothers be wed? (1)
Marriage: more than “equality of love” (0)
Weep with compassion for the celebration of sin (0)
Frank Turek – The Real Bigots (7)
Rob Ford vs. the LGBT Agenda and PC Peer Pressure Tactics (1)
How Same-Sex Marriage Affects Me (1)
When same-sex marriage was a Christian rite (6)
Psalm 71 - a Bible Study
By Dennis Edwards:
Actually the word 'psalm' means 'song.' The psalms were prayers put to music, or music which inspired prayer songs. King David was a great psalmist and many of the psalms in the book of Psalms are his creation. Many of the psalms were made during times of great personal turmoil and or trouble. For example Psalm 51 is a psalm that David received after he had gone in unto Bathsheba, had her husband killed in battle and tried to cover up the whole thing. But God sent his prophet Nathan to expose David´s sin to him. David afterward repented and we have his prayer-song of repentance in Psalm 51. If you are feeling low or distant from God, spend time reading the psalms. David often starts off the psalm discourage and spiritually defeated or negative, but by the time the psalm is finished he is usually praising God and thanking Him for His faithfulness.
We are all tempted like David was to look down at our problems. In Psalm 71 the author starts out with the words,"In thee, O Lord, do I put my trust; let me never be put to confusion." Later the psalm has some prayers for old-age in verse 9 we find: "Cast me not off in the time of old-age; forsake me not when my strength fails." Later again in verse 17 & 18 he prayers: "O God, thou hast taught me from my youth; and hitherto have I declared thy wonderous works. Now also when I am old and grey headed, O God, forsake me not..." Take some time to read it. I think you will find it very encouraging.
Sometimes for devotions I will read the proverb of the day. There are 31 proverbs in the book of Proverbs so it makes a nice short reading for each day. The proverbs are packed with wise saying and are helpful reminders of moral truths. I do a similar reading with the psalms. However there are 150 psalms in the book of Psalms. By reading the psalm of the day of the month and then adding 30 and then 30 more etc you can get about 5 psalms a day to read. In other words today is June 11, so today I will read Psalm 11, + 30= Psalm 41, Psalm 71, 101, & 131. In this way you read through the book of Psalms in one month. Here´s an interesting verse from Psalm 101:3. "I will set no wicked things before my eyes." be careful what kind of television you are watching. David was very adamant about his viewing habits, we should be, too. Happy reading. The Bible is a great book once you get into it, as someone has written, like "streams that never run dry." Be refreshed, read your Bible. That's the book for me!
Psalm 11:3 "If the Foundations Are Destroyed, What Shall the Righteous Do?"
Psalm 11:3 asks us,
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"
Of course, if the foundation of a building is destroyed, the whole building will go down. Therefore, to destroy faith in God, one has to destroy the foundation of faith, which is belief in the Word of God.
If men can show that God's Word is in fact false, or in error, then men can destroy faith, because faith comes from hearing God's Word. Atheism, materialism, evolution, and naturalism, or the belief that only the natural world exist, have been the forces at work daily, constantly, consistently attacking the veracity of the Word of God. Like the slow, consistent dropping of water eventually wears away the rock beneath it, so have these doctrines of men eroded man's belief, man's trust in God's Word.
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"
Of course, if the foundation of a building is destroyed, the whole building will go down. Therefore, to destroy faith in God, one has to destroy the foundation of faith, which is belief in the Word of God.
If men can show that God's Word is in fact false, or in error, then men can destroy faith, because faith comes from hearing God's Word. Atheism, materialism, evolution, and naturalism, or the belief that only the natural world exist, have been the forces at work daily, constantly, consistently attacking the veracity of the Word of God. Like the slow, consistent dropping of water eventually wears away the rock beneath it, so have these doctrines of men eroded man's belief, man's trust in God's Word.
Mankind has willingly discarded the Bible, because he believes it to be of little significance in the modern world. The communists in Russia and elsewhere confiscated the Bibles and destroyed them in their attempt to destroy faith in God. But men have learned that a direct attack upon the Word of God only causes men to cling to it and their faith the more. They have learned that by repeating their mantra enough times in the mouths of learned men, the masses will accept their ideas. By teaching as fact the assumptions of evolution, or the unfounded and unproven initial belief of evolution, that is, the belief that evolution actually occurred, scientific men have deceived mankind.
The belief that evolution has occurred, contrary to what the Bible teaches, and contrary to what actual scientific evidence demonstrates, has been the single most important factor in the decline of faith. So says Dr. Michael Denton in his 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.
Together with the media's constant barrage against anything that is Godly or Christian, the enemies of faith have slowly, but surely been actively working on destroying the faith of today's and future generations. What will the righteous do? Thank God for all the Godly men and women who are doing their best to hold up the dike against the destructive, evolutionistic, materialistic, naturalistic, atheistic, & new-age philosophies that have inundated Western Society over the past 150 years. Are you standing up for the truth or helping others who are?
