Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Why Men Lust
Our society has drastically changed over the last fifty years. For the critic of this statement, I challenge them to review the statics on sexual deviance. Regardless of personal “feelings,” I believe most would agree that our culture has become lax in the area of restraint. Fifty years ago, the Christian male wasn’t confronted with the sexual explosion of television, Internet, advertising, billboards, movies, etc. Because of the negative connotation of sex, we often retract from this discussion. We can’t turn our heads and hope “that it just goes away.” We’re losing our kids and the only hope is God. Biblical principle teaches that sex is wholesome and appropriate when confined in marriage; it should be taught. So, what does the Bible teach regarding God’s intention? Why are we losing so many of our kids to pornography and premarital relations? Let’s study this issue together.
God planned sex to be “honorable.” The Hebrew author said, “Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled: for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4, ASV). Under God’s gracious plan, we humans have numerous pleasures to enjoy; sex is one of them. Unfortunately America has become so comfortable with our immodesty that we’re desensitized. Marriage is the avenue by which sex is enjoyable, wholesome, and honorable. Hollywood is guilty of presenting sexuality as cheap; the platter is full of selfishness. This has dishonored God! Our schools need to return to the three “R’s.” Sex should be taught in our homes.
God created sex: In the Garden of Eden, God told Adam and Eve to “…be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…” (Genesis 1:28, ESV). One purpose of relations is procreating— to repopulate the earth. Our wonderful Creator didn’t want us to be alone and gave Adam a “helper” (Genesis 2:18). God, being rich in mercy, knew that humans needed companionship. The husband/wife relationship is another example of Jehovah’s kindness.
God intended sex for pleasure. Sex is not dirty—fornication is. Our culture has stained God’s true intention. I challenge you to read Song of Solomon. Because humans are given free will, we have to decide not to participate in certain actions. Let me give you a couple of examples. Sex is designed to be confined to marriage. Can one choose to participate in premarital relations outside of God’s purpose? Sure they can. Eating is another avenue. Were we designed to eat food in order to absorb the calories, thus maintaining life? Absolutely! May one choose to indulge in food as a comfort, thus abusing its sole intention? Of course. There are many things created by God for our benefit, but we must “….no longer [live] for human passions but for the will of God” (1 Peter 4:2, ESV).
Why, then, do men lust? This question has been pondered for many generations, yet the answer was addressed by Jesus. He said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28, ESV). As with all of our behaviors, intention or motivation is at the root of all our actions. As males in our current society, we should strive as Job did when he stated, “I have made a covenant with my eyes; why then should I look upon a young woman?” (Job 31:1). His goal was to be pure; he was focused. So, let’s answer the question “Why do men lust?”:
First, men want to lust. As Jesus clearly conveyed that the root cause for lust is “intent,” noticing and lusting are totally different. If your motivation is as Job’s, you are striving not to have impure thoughts; a male should “make a covenant with his eyes” (Job 31:1). “Noticing” is accidently seeing someone or something that elicits desire; the faithful Christian at this point looks away and “…takes every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). “Lusting” is acting as David did when his gaze fell upon Bathsheba; rather than looking away, he fed upon his desires. In the end, David’s actions caused much heartache upon all involved. “Lust” is fantasizing or thinking about any impure image. This can be a picture, television pixels, or someone standing in front of you. Christianity is about personal accountability; it’s about self-control. By prayer and focus, men need to desire to be faithful to God and not “…look at a woman to lust after her…” (William F. Beck, Th.D., The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1963, p. 8). Men will fail because people are sinful, but there is no excuse for a rebellious attitude of, “I just couldn’t help it. God made me this way.” As James clearly states, “But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire” (James 1:14, ESV). We are tempted by what we want and the devil knows this. We must be “…transformed by the renewal of your [our] mind…” (Romans 12:2, ESV). We live in a period of society that is much different from one hundred years ago. We must remain steadfast in not diluting ourselves with the world. Are we as parents trying to please God or our fellow man?
Second, we have dopamine. In God’s ingenious design, humans were given a brain. This is often referred to as the “heart.” An example of this is in Matthew 15:19 when Jesus says, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.” Everything we feel, smell, taste, or think is processed in the mind. That is why the New Testament is riddled with admonitions for the Christian to be clear-headed and prepared. This organ is the microprocessor of the body. When it comes to sexual desire, the male brain is equipped with a chemical called dopamine. This can be equated with drugs like cocaine. As Dr. Archibald D. Heart writes in his book Healing Life’s Hidden Addictions, “This form of addictions [addictions that tranquilize], like the others, probably has a basis in the chemistry of the brain. It has become quite clear in recent years that the brain has its own natural system of tranquilizers….The best known of these natural tranquilizers are called ‘endorphins’ [dopamine].” Brad Harrub, Ph.D. refers to dopamine as the “reward center” (Think, February 2007, p. 12-13). This being so, God created men to have this desire for the opposite sex. Unfortunately, this can cause problems outside of marriage. When a man sees an image that is impure, his body releases dopamine. This is the reason why so many Christian males are losing their families, their jobs, and their souls over pornography. God formed us to have pleasure, but as we detailed earlier, we must control ourselves.
Men don’t understand their temptations. How often do commanders lead troops into battle without understanding the enemy? Generals will sit down and discuss the weaknesses, flaws, strengths, past attacks, and countless other strategic plans in order to be prepared. That’s why Paul exhorted the Christian to prepare for spiritual battle in the book of Ephesians when he said, “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil” (6:11, ESV). We must understand ourselves; we must understand our weaknesses. The following are some points that I believe will help us to adhere to God’s standards, thus helping us remain pure:
1. Be careful what you take in. Jesus taught, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matthew 15:19). As the famous expression goes “you are what you eat,” so we are what we take in. We should abstain from movies, T.V., or activities that we would be ashamed of. Ask yourself: “Would I watch or do this with friends from church? Would this glorify God?” The following statement that we hear the denominations often speak rings true: “What would Jesus do?”
2. Stay away from your temptations: Self-reflection reveals weakness; failures manifest why we fall. Often times some will continue making the same mistakes without realizing they bring it upon themselves. The devil knows our weaknesses. That is why he “…prowls around seeking someone to devour.” We must examine ourselves; test our motives; constantly strive to change. Pray, study, apply.
3. Understand that you will fall. When we become arrogant, we fall (1 Corinthians 10:12). We need the blood of Christ to cleanse us because we’re sinful. Mistakes will be made even though our intentions were good. Many take guilt to their graves not understanding that if we “confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). God wants us to repent but we don’t have to wear “the yoke.” Pick yourself up and try again.
Help others with what you’ve learned. How great it is to know that others share your failures. Often we feel alone because we are afraid that others will have a tendency to look down upon us. However, teaching others brings joy and happiness that is beyond words. God’s great plan allows us to help ourselves (through His Word) and, in so doing, help others. Posted on 11/17/2009 12:30 PM by Andrew Hallenbeck
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Lucy Is No Longer in the Sky with Diamonds
In the Genesis creation account, the Bible describes that all land-dwelling creatures were created on Day 6, with man being the pinnacle of God's creation. In chapter 2 of that same book, Moses describes the creation of man and woman in detail, informing readers “and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7). In verse 20 of that same chapter we find Adam giving names to “all cattle, to the birds of the air, to every beast of the field,” indicating that he possessed the intelligence to name them and understand instructions from God. The Darwinian Theory describes man evolving from some primordial soup, initially carrying a club and living in a cave with not much intelligence. These two theories of origins could not be more diametrically opposed.
So which is correct?
Scientific knowledge regarding the origin and antiquity of man is primarily based on fossil discoveries made by anthropologists, such as the world-famous Leakey family. Scientists would uncover fossilized bone fragments and then speculate as to what features the original creature possessed and precisely where it fit on the evolutionary tree of life. Each new discovery was heralded as a major scientific contribution—no matter how fragmented the fossil or how few remains were actually discovered. But as more and more fossils were unearthed, many scientists took delight in designating their finds as entirely new species, providing the scientist with the privilege of designating a new scientific name. While being able to name a new “species” of hominid was beneficial to one’s career, the real advantage came in announcing the discovery of the oldest upright-walking hominid fossil. The race was on to find the “missing link” that led back to a common ancestor that humans allegedly shared with the apes.
On November 30, 1974, Donald Johansson and graduate student Tom Gray loaded up in a Land Rover and headed out to plot an area of Hadar, Ethiopia, known as Locality 162. There they unearthed a fossilized skeleton that was nearly 40% complete. Dr. Johansson named his discovery Australopithecus afarensis meaning “the southern ape from Ethiopia's Afar depression in northeastern Ethiopia.” The creature earned the nickname “Lucy” from the Beatles song “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” that was playing in the camp the night of the discovery. While there was a great deal of pomp and circumstance offered by the mainstream media when Lucy was first announced, her star does not shine as brightly today. In fact, having over 20 years to examine the fossils, there are several problems wrong with Lucy. For instance:
A. She has curved fingers and ape-like limb proportions (see Stern and Susman, 1983, J. Phy. Anthrop., 60:280) that point toward her being an ape.
B. She has locking wrists—a trait identified in quadrupeds (see Richmond & Strait, 2000, Nature, 404:382-385). Maggie Fox reported in the March 29, 2000, San Diego Union Tribune: “A chance discovery made by looking at a cast of the bones of ‘Lucy,’ the most famous fossil of Australopithecus afarensis, shows her wrist is stiff, like a chimpanzee’s, Brian Richmond and David Strait of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., reported. This suggests that her ancestors walked on their knuckles” (Fox, “Man’s Early Ancestors Were Knuckle Walkers,” 2000, Quest Section, March 29.).
C. The microwear on the teeth indicate this creature was tree fruit eater (see Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358). Alan Walker, a professor of anthropology and biology at Penn State University, believes he might be able to reconstruct ancient diets from paleontological samples. In speaking of Alan Walker’s material, Johanson noted:
Dr. Alan Walker of Johns Hopkins has recently concluded that the polishing effect he finds on the teeth of robust Australopithecines and modern chimpanzees indicates that Australopithecines, like chimps, were fruit eaters…. If they were primarily fruit eaters, as Walker’s examination of their teeth suggests they were, then our picture of them, and of the evolutionary path they took, is wrong (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 358).
D. Lucy’s rib cage is conical like an ape’s, not barrel shaped like a human’s (see Leakey and Lewin, 1992, p. 193-194). Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich, Switzerland, received a replica of Lucy and noted,
When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy being very modern. Very human. So I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross section. More like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross section. But the shape of the ribcage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human ribcage is barrel shaped. And I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped ribcage, like what you see in apes (Peter Schmid as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, Origins Reconsidered, 1992, p. 193-194).
E. The semicircular canals of Australopithecines resemble an ape’s, not a human’s or a transitional creature’s (see Spoor et al., 1994, Nature, 369:645-648).
F. The pelvis of Lucy is not large enough to give birth, leaving one to wonder if she is really a “he” [“Lucy or Lucifer?”] (see Hausler and Schmid, 1995, J. Human Evol. 29:363-383).
This doesn’t stop textbooks or museums from perpetuating the lie. For instance, at the “Living World” located in the Saint Louis Zoo, they have built a shrine to Charles Darwin. As you walk into the “Introduction to the Animals” hall, you are immediately confronted by a life-size animatronic version of Charles Darwin. The area also features a life-size replica of the alleged Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) proclaiming: “This life-sized model shows a likely ancient ancestor of the human family.” However, there were never any feet or hand fossils discovered. The question becomes how can they be so sure about what this creature looked like? According to David Menton from Washington University, the statue is “a complete misrepresentation. And I believe they know it is a misrepresentation.” When asked how in good conscience they could display a creature possessing feet and hands without fossilized evidence, Bruce L. Carr, the zoo’s director of education, declared, “Zoo officials have no plans to knuckle under. We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. We look at the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct” (St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 22, 1996, p. 1). In other words, the impression supports evolution—let’s just forget what the evidence shows. Donald Johanson admitted:
There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it…. In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age…. Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils, which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain (Johanson and Edey, 1981, p. 257, 258, emp. added).
He went on to state: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence” (p. 277).
The evidence clearly demonstrates that Lucy was nothing more than an ape. Entire books have been written about alleged missing links. But what does the evidence really show? One hundred and fifty years ago, Charles Darwin published On the Origins of Species describing the lack of transitional fossils as “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,” but explained it by the extreme imperfection of the geological record. He believed that time would prove his theory correct. Grains of sand have indeed passed through the hourglass of time—but those shifting sands have never turned up Darwin’s missing links.
References
Hausler, Martin and Peter Schmid (1995), “Comparison of the Pelvis of Sts 14 and AL 288-1: Implications for Birth and Sexual Dimorphism in Australopithecines,” Journal of Human Evolution, 29:363-383.
Johanson, Donald C. and Tim D. White (1979), “A Systematic Assessment of Early African Hominids,” Science, 203[4378]:321-330, January 26.
Johanson, Donald, Lenora Johanson, and Blake Edgar, (1994) Ancestors: In Search of Human Origins (New York: Villard Books).
Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin (1992), Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human (New York: Doubleday).
Richmond, Brian G. and David S. Strait (2000), “Evidence that Humans Evolved From a Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,” Nature, 404:382-385, March 23. Posted on 11/17/2009 12:33 PM by Dr. Brad Harrub
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Heart of the Matter – Blessings
Having looked into the tearful eyes of parents whose children have abandoned the Faith, I have learned that there are a million miles between our children “going through the motions” in reference to their spiritual lives versus our children possessing hearts that dictate their actions. In this column I want to share with you what I hope to instill in the hearts of my own children and those whom I love.
The difference is palpable—and tragic. Watch a visiting family with two young children enter a church building and the response you witness is overwhelming. People go out of their way (literally) to meet these new visitors and share with them what their congregation has to offer children. But consider for a moment the response to a family who walks in, followed behind by six or seven children. The response is not as overwhelming. In fact, she is often viewed as odd, irresponsible, not financially wise, lower class, or socially ignorant. More often than not, Christians steer very clear of extremely large families. After all, society has successfully convinced us that “two” is the magic number for children. (Of course there is the unwritten rule that you can try one more time if the first two were the same sex.) Even from the pulpit we hear a preacher joking about “the close call” of he and his wife thinking they might be pregnant. Fact of the matter is, this is not a joking subject.
How sad is it to hear a preacher teach a powerful lesson on children and the home only to realize that his actions are teaching a totally different lesson. I have listened firsthand to a preacher give counsel about the “wisdom” of only having one or two children—and that anything more than that is “foolish.” This same preacher would then mount the pulpit and preach a tear-jerking lesson on Psalm 127 and children. While his voice spoke one message, his life and his actions spoke an entirely different message. There are some Christians who need to really re-evaluate their view of children in the light of God’s Word.
Here’s what I intend on teaching my children about the blessings of children.
Not a morning passes by in our house when your mom and I are not thankful for the sounds of little feet and tender young voices. We feel incredibly blessed by God to have children, and we pray that you will be able to experience the same joys of parenthood.
I’m not exactly sure of the precise date of when children went from being considered a blessing to being considered baggage, but unfortunately I have witnessed it countless times. Parents oftentimes view the existence of their children as competition for their own personal desires and wishes. At some point along the way, parents began to value prosperity more than posterity. I hope that you will boldly reject society’s view of children. Never look upon children as a burden or an expense. Sure, we need to be financially responsible—but children are not a tally mark we put under the “expense” column.
Sadly, many parents today do not even like their children. The responsibility for rearing these children is given to anyone and everyone—except their own parents (see Deuteronomy 6:4-9—a passage directed toward parents). In some homes, children are treated as just another piece of property, a commodity, or a showpiece to be trotted out when guests visit. Parents have forgotten that they are responsible to return the souls of their children to God, and that every soul is precious (Matthew 16:24-26).
Every time you see a child’s face, I hope that the first thought that enters your mind will be “a blessing from God.” The inspired psalmist observed, “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward” (Psalm 127:3). It then continues by saying, “Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them.” When you see a family enter a church building with many children, I hope you will remind yourself and that mother how blessed she truly is. Solomon wrote, “Children’s children are the crown of old men, and the glory of children is their father” (Proverbs 17:6). I’m looking forward to that crown! While I don’t know God’s plan for each one of you, I do pray you enjoy parenthood—whether it be you physically having children or adopting little ones into your family. I wish for you a full quiver so that you too can experience the love, joys, and happiness that you have brought your mother and me.
Love,
Dad Posted on 11/17/2009 12:35 PM by Dr. Brad Harrub
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
A Living Soul
In Genesis 2:7 we find three statements concerning mankind’s origin. First, God created or formed humans from the dust of the earth, hence material. Second, God breathed into him the breath of life. Third, man became a living soul. This verse is denied entirely by materialist philosophers and scientists. First they deny God’s existence, then that man was created by Him and for Him (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14), and finally that all human life has a soul.
The Hebrew word for soul is nepes. The term is defined as “soul, self, life, person, or heart.” The word occurs some 780 times in the Old Testament. In over 400 of the places, this word is translated “soul.” The KJV uses over 28 different English terms for the one Hebrew word. 1
The closest English word for nepes is soul. The soul of Rachel departed from her resulting in death (Genesis 35:18). The dual nature of a human of possessing both a body and a soul, is noted in Job 14:22. In the New Testament James has a similar analysis in James 2:26.
The battleground for many years between materialist and non-materialist has been the nature of the soul. The physical part of mankind is definitely of a material nature (Genesis 2:7). The non-materialist contends that the soul is not material. The discussion has raged back and forth over the decades. The materialist wants empirical proof for the soul. Since the soul is non-material, it cannot be analyzed by normal scientific means (e.g., weight or chemical composition). Carl Sagan, a materialist, stated in regard to the brain that , “what we sometime call mind, is a consequence of its anatomy and physiology and nothing else.”2
Sagan and others of his conviction felt that the brain was hardwired and could not be altered. When they were challenged with new evidence such as neuroplasticity, they resorted to what is called promissory materialism. Promissory materialism is the concept proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. He used the concept of promissory materialism to answer questions to evidence that supposedly would be found in the future against materialist beliefs. The materialists believe they are correct and future data will prove them so. They argue that contradictory evidence that now exists will be proven wrong in the near or distant future. Charles Darwin, when asked about the incompleteness of the fossil record in his day, used the same approach. Darwin stated future discoveries would provide proof. The proofs of materialism are not in accord with all the evidence from physical and biological sciences. Since these new findings can point to another conclusion, they close ranks and use promissory materialism. The destruction of promissory materialism lies with the evidence that can be shown to destroy it.
Nobel Prize winner John Eccles, a neurologist, states, “I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by reductionism [the theory that complex phenomenon can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic mechanism or organelles, DLC] with its claims in promissory materialism to account eventually for all of the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neural activity. This belief must be classed as superstition.”3
The impact of promissory materialism has had far-reaching complications in our society. Richard Florey, a sociologist, in his essay Promoting a Secular Standard: Secularization and Modern Journalism, 1870 to 1930, states, “Journalists began to see themselves as the successors to traditional religion or spiritual leaders.”4 They were to provide the appropriate guidance for both individuals and society. They assumed Darwin, Freud, and other materialists were correct and it was here stay. The belief that religion had no authority was accepted by most journalists and they therefore modeled future articles in the shadow of materialistic philosophy and science.
The progressive movement in the United States, with its investment in social Darwinism, began to alter education under the leadership of John Dewey.5 Educationists like the journalists believed in Darwinism at the expense of religion with its resulting effect on society. A government controlled by materialists will redefine good as a debunked philosophy of the past (Isaiah 59:13-15) even with evidence to the contrary, which will be suppressed or marginalized. The role of self-control and normal restraints used in the past will be downplayed. The materialist does not believe in the concept of self, hence, there is nothing to control.
The societal upheaval we see today is an unfolding calamity for the control of the minds of mankind. The materialist wants the thought process of a thinking individual to be robotically controlled. Their bankrupt philosophy is the driving force behind these calamitous events. How long will they wait for the “proof” when the evidence already exists—evidence that demonstrates man possesses a living soul.
References
1. Vines, W.E., et al.: Complete Expository Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).
2. Sagan, Carl (1977), The Dragon of Eden (Random House).
3. Eccles, John and Daniel Robinson (1984), The Wonder of Being Human (New York: Free Press).
4. Florey, Richard (2003), The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life; Christian Smith ed. (University of California Press).
5. Edmondson, Henry T. (2006), John Dewey and the Decline of American Education (ISI Books). Posted on 11/17/2009 12:44 PM by David Campbell
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Big Deal Over A Big Fish
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?…For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” —1 Corinthians 1:20, 25
In elementary school we were all introduced to certain ideas and topics. These things were taught again in middle school, and hopefully we mastered them when they were repeated in high school. One such thing my class had to learn in science was the mnemonic “King Phillip Came Over For Good Soup”. This helped us remember the scientific classification of all living things that began with kingdom and ended with species.
Taxonomy is the science that deals with the classification of every living thing known to man. This classification is based on certain characteristics or traits. Each animal has a specific kingdom, phylum, class, order, and family to which it belongs. It also has a specific genus and species name. (Since I first learned of this classification, other subsets have been added such as domain, sub-family, and sub-species.) For example, our dogs are known scientifically as the following—Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Canis familiaris.
One reference I read stated that scientists guess that there are approximately 1 million species in the world. These species have either already been classified or are in the process being classified. Adam, the first taxonomist, named all the animals in one day and look what we have turned it into!
In addition, animals specifically are known by various descriptions such as mammals, amphibians, birds, insects, etc. Science has taken great pains to ensure that every living thing is known specifically and distinctly. I have always wondered why so much time, energy, and effort has been put into this. There may be several reasons, but one I think that stands out. If biologists, botanists, entomologists, etc., can specifically and accurately describe a species, then they will be able to tell when another species has evolved. Evolutionary science takes truth (that is based on what we can see, hear, smell, taste, and touch) and looks for change.
Now are we any better off knowing the phylum of the South African swallow? I don’t think so. Man, in our wisdom, has placed importance on things that God does not. What is important, however, is how man’s classification system is different from God’s.
We read in Genesis 1 that God has four sets of living creatures. On Day 3, God made all the plants. On Day 5, He made the living things in the sea and the birds of the air. On Day 6, God made every living thing that moves on the earth. Isn’t God’s scientific classification much simpler? We then read in Genesis 2 that Adam gives names to all the birds and living things that move on the earth.
So how does God’s system of classification differ from man’s system? Look at what God lists as unclean birds in Leviticus 11:13-19, “And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat” (emp. added) Did you catch that? God classifies bats as birds! And why not since bats were created on Day 5 with all the other flying creatures? Bats do not move along on the ground.
WAIT! I’m confused! Our scientific knowledge tells us that bats are anything but birds. Bats do not have feathers, don’t build nests, or lay eggs, which are all characteristics of birds. Bats are not birds but mammals according to science. Bats are mammals because they give birth to live young. So who are we to believe? Man-derived science or the Bible? Well, the Bible is inspired by God through the Holy Spirit while textbooks are written by fallible men. Science has done some great things for mankind, but they have also muddied the waters in some instances.
If you read further in Leviticus 11:20-23, it talks about “flying insects that creep on all fours.” It lists among these insects with four legs the grasshopper, locust, and cricket. Don’t these insects have six legs? We must remember that God doesn’t classify according to man.
I can’t help but talk about Jonah and the whale, or is it Jonah and the fish, or Jonah and the big fish? Was Jonah swallowed by a fish, whale, shark, or something else? In congregations across the United States, discussions have been had on whether or not the animal was a “fish” or a “whale.” I have even heard some people argue it was a shark that swallowed Jonah. I have seen several documentaries on how partial and complete remains of humans have been found in different species of fish and sharks. Because of this evidence, some “experts” have suggested that Jonah was swallowed by a shark.
But what does the Bible really say? “Now the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights” (Jonah 1:17). We are simply told that Jonah was swallowed by a sea animal. Whales, even though they are mammals and give birth to live young, are considered “sea creatures” by God when we read the Genesis account of creation. Genesis 1:20-21a says, “Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind….”
The discussion and debate on the sea creature that swallowed Jonah in my mind is over. Science and biologists may give multiple reasons why it was not a whale, not a fish, or not even shark. However, God’s Word records that it was a “great fish.” Jonah was swallowed by a large sea creature because of his sin of disobedience. Period. End of discussion. This animal was one that was big enough to swallow a man and allow him to breathe, think, and pray while in its belly.
When Christians began to ask questions about the earth that was created around 8,000 years ago, we need to go back to the Bible for our initial answer and look for the science which supports God’s written word. If we want the correct answer to all of life’s questions then we must start with the Bible, draw a conclusion, then go back to the Bible to ensure that our answer coincides with what the Bible says. Let’s remember Romans 1:20-22, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.”
Please don’t get me wrong, there is a place for studying nature and how God’s creation works together. An understanding of this helps us understand God and how to better care for the world He created for us. However, when we take what we call scientific knowledge and try to match it with the Bible instead of taking God’s creation and applying it to science, we have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and [worship] and [serve] the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 1:25).
Posted on 11/17/2009 12:54 PM by Dr. David Longley
|
