Truth Magazine

By Weldon E. Warnock

Various religious groups offer testimonials of “miracles” being worked among them. Each group, regardless of their diversity of beliefs and practices, present the same evidence: human testimonies. Which group are we to believe? Is it the Christian Scientists, the Mormons, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Catholics, or the charismatic groups that include several churches among us?

Many do not understand human anatomy and biological functions of the body. They also don’t understand the power of suggestion, hypnotism, over-wrought emotions, and the adrenal glands. Today’s so-called miracle workers use all of these things to make people believe they have received a miracle. Some respond very well to mental suggestion. The ancient priests of Asklepios, the god of healing, used suggestion to cure the sick. This was practiced at Pergamos, and some were helped, while others returned home in the same condition. Is it any different today?

In my investigation of claimed miracles, I have never corroborated the stories. A woman in Tampa, Florida brought by ambulance to a healing campaign, claimed to be  healed before the audience. But on her return home by the ambulance, she had to be put back to bed. This I saw when I followed the ambulance. The next day I visited this lady and she told me that she was not really healed, but only thought she was. In Dayton, Ohio, a tract was circulated of a man who had been “healed” of blindness, an inoperable brain tumor and emphysema. On checking with his doctor at Lima, Ohio, the doctor told me that he knew nothing of a brain tumor, that his emphysema was simply arrested, not cured, and that his blindness was caused by a mental dysfunction, but was not organic blindness. Strangely, this man who was “cured” was still drawing disability from the government. Dr. William Nolan, a physician, investigated several of Katherine Kuhlman’s “miracle cures” and found not one legitimate case.

Christian Scientists report several “miraculous” cures in the book, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. They sound like testimonies from a Bennie Hinn crusade. Here are a few of them: lungs restored, fibroid tumor healed, cataract cured, heart valve healed, cancer and consumption healed, diseased eyes healed. This is the religious group that denies the resurrection of Christ and the efficacy of His blood. Yet, their testimonies sound like we hear today. How can you reject theirs and accept yours?

The Catholic Church exceeds all of today’s testimonials. We are told that St. Deniss, who was beheaded by King Edward, picked up his head and carried it in his hands. His statue, among others, is over the entrance of Notre Dame in Paris. There he is, holding his head in his hands. Why would one deny this “miracle” and accept current testimonies of others? Saint Eustachius was converted by a deer while hunting. He saw the image of the crucified Savior between the horns of the animal, and he responded to a voice he thought he heard from heaven. Many, many “miracles” are attributed to the Virgin Mary at Lourdes.

Ellen G. White, the founder of Seventh-Day Adventism, claimed that she was taken up into heaven, saw a halo around the fourth commandment, to keep the Sabbath, and that God told her to come back and tell it. Can you outdo this testimony?

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, claimed that he was shown by the angel, Moroni, the location of gold plates on which was inscribed Reformed Egyptian language. The angel translated and dictated to Smith these inscriptions into English. This became the Book of Mormon. Mormons everywhere testify to this “miracle.” Why reject their testimony and accept self-acclaimed seers today who are always saying that God is speaking to them. These “miracle workers” are continually saying that the Lord spoke to them. What is the difference in Smith’s claim, and let’s say, Bennie Hinn?

Friends, the miracles of Jesus, his apostles, and disciples were uncontested. They could not be denied because they were obvious to the beholder. This is why we read that they marveled or were amazed. For example, Jesus instantly healed a shriveled hand (Matt. 12:9). The hand was seen before and after the miracle. It was no longer withered, but whole. None of us has seen anything like this. Jesus healed an impotent man or lame man who had not walked for 38 years (John 5:1-9). He immediately walked, yet this man did not even know who Jesus was (v. 13). So, he was healed without faith in Christ. So-called “miracle workers” today blame all their failures on a lack of faith on the part of the afflicted. Jesus healed a blind man who had been blind from birth (John 9:1-7). Do we hear of such miraculous cures now? Absolutely not! Peter and John healed a man crippled from birth. Immediately, he arose and walked, leapinq and praising God (Acts 3:7- 8). There are no testimonials of this happening today. Peter raised Dorcas from the dead (Acts 9:37-41). Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead who had been dead four days and his body had begun to decay (John 11:39-43). Have you heard of any testimonies of this kind of experience like Dorcas or Lazarus? Jesus healed leprosy, instantaneously (Matt. 8:1-3). Though leprosy was a loathsome and incurable disease, this did not impede the omnipotent power of Jesus. Why are there no testimonials of miraculous cures from former lepers? Ladies and gentlemen, what vast and obvious differences there are between so-called miracles today and the genuine and indisputable miracles recorded in the New Testament.

Without question Jesus has the power to work wondrous and marvelous miracles. He that made man at the beginning from the dust of the earth could surely make a diseased or afflicted body whole. Jesus did not resort to hypnotism, deceit, fraud, emotional frenzies, or mental suggestions. The issue is not whether Jesus can work miracles today, but rather is he exercising his power?

Many of today’s avowed “miracle workers” have proven to be charlatans, using fraudulent schemes and ploys. Some have been outright crooks and immoral reprobates. Multitudes of unsuspecting people have been duped. John wrote, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

Miracles were to confirm the deity of Jesus and the words of him and his apostles (John 20:30-31: Mark 16:20). They were also provisional, to bring us an inspired Book, the Bible. They served their purpose and passed away (cf. 1 Cor. 13:8-10). Indeed, God answers prayers for the healing of the sick, but this is not the same as miraculous healing.

87 Ormond Dr., Scottsville, Kentucky 42164

By Mike Willis

The Genesis Flood Was A Universal Flood

One who simply reads the Genesis narrative cannot but be impressed with the writer’s intention to describe a universal flood. In this section, we want to emphasize the language of the text that affirms that the flood of Genesis 6-8 was a universal flood.

The judgment was universal. The purpose of the flood was a divine judgment against the moral corruption in the earth. “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (6:5). Wickedness was spread throughout the world. Every man was affected, save Noah and his family. God expressed his determination to destroy the entire world: “And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them” (6:7). “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon earth” (6:12). No one can deny that the Lord’s expressed purpose for sending the flood was to execute judgment against the wickedness of man.

The language describing the judgment is universal. The words used in Scripture to describe the flood describe, not a local flood, but a universal flood. Consider the language of Scripture:

The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth (6:13).

And, behold I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die (6:17).

. . . and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth (7:4).

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things,  and the fowl of heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark (7:21-24). . . . neither will I again smite any more every living thing, as I have done (8:21).

No less an authority than Jesus pronounced that only Noah and his family survived the Flood.  He said, “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all” (Luke 17:26-27). The Apostle Peter wrote, “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water” (1 Pet. 3:20). Again, he wrote, “And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Pet. 3:4-6). What language could God have used to describe a universal flood, had he wanted to describe one, that would be clearer than these words?

Those who argue for a local flood sometimes assert that the population of the world was limited at this time to the Mesopotamian valley and that a local flood would have met the demands of the God’s universal  judgment against man’s sin. The implications of this argument must be considered. This would demand that there be no archaeological evidence of a human being outside the Mesopotamian valley before the flood. If a human remain is found outside the Mesopotamian valley it must be dated after the flood or else one must believe that men migrated back to the Mesopotamian valley so that God’s judgment against sin could be executed.

The language describing the flood of water demands a universal flood. Notice what the text states about the flood itself:

• Rain lasted for 40 days and nights (7:4, 12).
• The fountains of the deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened (7:11).
• The waters became deep enough to bear up the ark (7:17). The ark was 30 cubits high, having a draft of 15 cubits (22.5 feet). The water must have been over 22.5 feet deep to float the ark.
• The waters prevailed for 150 days (7:24).
• The waters covered the highest hills by a depth of 15 cubits (7:18-19). The language is universal language. Genesis 7:19 says that the waters covered “all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven.” Notice the double use of the word col (“all,” “whole”): “All the high hills under the whole heaven.”
• The waters were deep enough that the ark landed on one of the mountains in the Ararat range (8:4). Furthermore, the tops of the mountains were not visible (8:5). The region of Ararat is Armenia. The mountains in that range are as high as 17,000 feet. Without regard to which mountain the ark landed on, the flood had to be a universal flood to cover the tops of these mountains.
• The waters required 150 days to diminish from off the earth (8:3).
• The flood lasted one year and ten days (7:11; 8:14).

Think about these statements of Scripture with reference to the flood. What kind of flood would be produced by torrential downpours for 40 days and nights and the breaking up of the fountains of the deep? What kind of flood lasts for a year and ten days? What kind of flood could cover even a small mountain, such as Mt. Hermon (9,500 feet)? If flood waters became deep enough to cover Mt. Hermon and prevailed for 150 days, how could the water not cover the whole earth? Water seeks its lowest level. If the water leveled out at a depth that covered mountains such as Mt. Hermon, as the words of Scripture state, then the text necessitates a universal flood.

The language regarding the re-population of the earth after the ark necessitates a universal flood. Moses wrote, “And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread” (Gen. 9:18-19). Followed by the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, this text statese that all nations of the earth descended from the three sons of Noah. Unless the flood was universal, that simply is not true; if the flood was universal, then all of mankind descended from these three sons of Noah as the text of Genesis states.

The need for an ark demands a universal flood. The Bible clearly distinguishes local disasters from universal disasters, even those sent by God. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a local disaster that affected four cities of the plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, Deut. 29:23). To escape the destruction of the cities of the plain, God instructed Lot and his family to flee the cities of the plain (Gen. 19:12-13). 

Had the flood of Genesis 6-8 been a local flood there would have been no need for an ark. God announced his judgment 120 years before the flood (6:3). Noah and his family would have had time to flee anywhere on the face of God’s earth to escape a local flood. Why did they need to build an ark? Furthermore, animals survive local floods. If a flood hit the entire mid-west region, the animals of North America could survive without the need of an ark. So also would man! So why build an ark?

The size of the ark demands a universal flood. The ark was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. It had three floors in it. The word tÙbŒh properly means “chest, box,” indicating that the ark was not keel-shaped for navigation, but rectangular for floating. Using 17.5 inches for a cubit, Henry Morris calculated that the ark was 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high with a deck area of 95,700 square feet (equivalent to about 20 standard college basketball courts) and a total volume of 1,396,000 cubic feet (The Genesis Flood 10). Morris wrote, “. . . the Ark had a carrying capacity equal to that of 522 standard stock cars as used by modern railroads or of eight freight trains with sixty-five cars in each” (The Genesis Flood 67-8). This structure took 120 years to build. Why was such a vessel needed to escape a mere local flood? If the only animals on the ark were animals in a local area, what need was there for an ark of this size?

The covenant of the rainbow demands a universal flood. After the flood is ended, God made a covenant with Noah never again to destroy the world with water. The covenant reads as follows:

And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth (9:9-16).

God did not keep his covenant if the flood was a mere local flood, for there have been many local floods since the Genesis flood that destroyed much human life, animal life, and property. The covenant has been kept if God intends to state that he will never again destroy the entire world with water.

Conclusion

These biblical evidences force one to the conclusion that the Genesis text meant to describe a universal flood. Only because extra-biblical evidences are thought to have greater reliability than the biblical text do men begin to search for  another and different interpretation of the obvious meaning of the Genesis narrative.

(To be concluded next issue.)

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Joe R. Price

Unquestionably, those who commit suicide were troubled in heart. Our sympathy goes out to those whose lives have been affected by the suicide of a relative or loved one. We also want to understand what God’s word says about suicide so that we can make godly decisions about it. Everyone of us will face despair and trouble in this life. Is suicide how God would have us deal with despair, pain and trouble in our lives? Are there alternatives to suicide?

The Bible does not paint a pleasant or supportive picture of suicide. While more and more people are openly advocating their “right” to commit suicide, the Bible nowhere offers suicide as an option for the right-thinking man or woman. Life is a precious gift which God has given us. We are neither to murder others, nor are we to inflict a fatal wound upon ourselves. Those who advocate suicide reveal a diminished view of life and humanity, who have been made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; 2:7). Suicide is an act of selfishness. It does not consider its impact upon those it leaves behind.

Suicide is the result of utter despair. Experts tell us that overwhelming feelings of helpless, haplessness, and hopelessness are the warning signs of suicide. There were people in the Bible who reached a point in their lives that the only option they could see was to kill themselves. Notable among these was Judas (Matt. 27:1-5). His hopeless attitude can be contrasted with Peter, who denied Jesus three times, but repented of his sins and was restored (Luke 22:31-34, 54-62). Life is never as hopeless, and we are never as helpless, as we may think. We must learn to trust in God instead of ourselves!

Suicide is often contemplated when one sees no clear resolution of our troubles. Elijah’s life was under the threat of murder from queen Jezebel (1 Kings 19:1-4). The Philippian jailer thought his prisoners had escaped, which meant certain doom for him, so he prepared to kill himself (Acts 16:26-27). The problem is that just because we do not see a solution to our troubles does not mean there is not one — or that God is through with us here on earth. God still had many things for Elijah to do (1 Kings 19:15-18). If the jailer had killed himself he would not have been saved (Acts 16:28-34). Although Paul wanted to be with Christ, he knew there was still much for him to do in this life, so he committed himself to being faithful to Jesus (Phil. 1:21-25).

Physical suffering drives many to kill themselves while they still have life. Although Job longed for death rather than his life which at the moment was filled with pain, agony, and humiliation, he endured, and he was ultimately blessed beyond measure (Job 3; 6:8-11; 7:15-16; 42:10-17). It was not the quality of life which made Job’s life precious, it was life itself! He learned (like we must) that there are many things that God does which we must accept in faith (Job 42:1-6). If Job had killed himself he would have shown a lack of faith in God and trust in his own opinion of how  things were. We should learn from Job not to think that we have all the answers. Paul did not allow his physical disability to lead him to the depths of despair and suicide, but to the heights of faith and service (2 Cor. 12:7-10)! We must trust God even when things look helpless to us. God is great and does great things for those who fear him (Heb. 13:5-6). Many astounding things have been accomplished by people who would not give up. In Christ we do not have to resort to suicide, we are more than conquerors in Christ! (Rom. 8:37-39). You are important to God, so live for Him!

335 Park Pl., Lynden, Washington 98264

By Bobby Graham

For many years it has been the contention of religious liberals that the Bible is not the very word of God, but that the existential moment that one has with that word can sometimes make it God’s word to him for that time. They have historically viewed the Scriptures as the product of man’s search for God, setting forth man’s ideas about God rather than God’s will for him.

In more recent time liberals among God’s people have contended that Jesus is our pattern instead of New Testament Scriptures. This contention has been born out of the crucible of religious controversy, which also have produced a call for a “new hermeneutic.” It is for the benefit of all, particularly those who insist that he is our pattern over Scripture, that we here address the idea that Jesus viewed the Scriptures in a certain way. Of course, the Scriptures available to him were those of the Old Testament. A later article will examine his use of the Scriptures, in relation to the recent call for this “new hermeneutic.” 

1. Jesus viewed the Scriptures as the word that came from God. In Mark 7:10-13 it becomes clear that this is Jesus’ understanding of them. He dealt with the Jewish practice of neglecting parents in need by a dedicating of their means to God. In the context he referred to what Moses had said in the accounts of Exodus and Deuteronomy, and he then accused the Jews of making void the word of God through their tradition in this matter and in other matters. Jesus obviously said that the writings of Moses were equivalent to God’s word. He did not here refer to its becoming God’s word to them at some time when their awareness of its impact suddenly dawned. It was God’s word even while they were guilty of rejecting it in their lives.

2. It was the inerrant and verbally inspired word to Jesus. By “inerrant” the writer means “free from error,” and “verbally inspired” means the very words employed by the writers were endorsed by the Spirit as the product of God’s mind. In Matthew 22:31-32 Jesus replied to the enigmatic case of the woman married seven times, as presented by the Sadducees to overcome any idea of a resurrection from the dead or of a spirit surviving death. His reply began with a citation of what God said to Moses at the burning bush: “I am the God of Abraham . . . ,” because Jesus desired to stress the present tense of the verb — “am.” His point was that God is eternally existent, and he based this contention upon the tense of a verb. If Jesus did not believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the words used in the Scriptures, then his argument falls flat. (A similar instance occurs in Paul’s explanation of Jesus Christ as the singular seed of Abraham — through whom the entire world can be blessed. He built his case on the singular (as opposed to plural) number of the noun used.)

3. He understood the Scriptures to be authoritative and obligatory. In John 10:35 he declared, “The Scripture cannot be broken.” The traditions of the fathers did not begin to approach this same level. It is quite impossible to deny successfully that Jesus accepted the Scriptures absolutely as the word given by the Father — undiluted and undiminished. Before anyone trifles with the word of truth found in the Bible, he must first contend with Jesus’ teaching that it bears the authority of God on its face and is incumbent upon all human beings in its declarations, promises, and warnings. In this connection he often said that either certain events in his life or his entire ministry fulfilled various Old Testament passages (Matt. 4:14; 21:5; Luke 4:21; 24:27).

4. Jesus believed the Scriptures to be historically true. How else can anyone explain his use of the Old Testament incidents in efforts to teach people? He obviously accepted the historical accuracy of Moses and other Old Testament writers without reservation. His allusions to the creation in Matthew 19:4, to the flood in Noah’s day in Matthew 24:37-38, to the incident of Jonah and the great fish in Matthew 12:40, and to the repentance of the people in Nineveh in Matthew 12:41 all depend upon his acceptance of the historically accurate accounts of which they are a part. Other Old Testament events/persons (Abel, Elijah, Elisha, and Daniel) could also be cited in his teaching as sharing in this endorsement.

5. Jesus believed that the Scriptures were divine teaching in their entirety and vitally beneficial in their effect. Notice that Jesus said that people should live by the words coming from God; that is, life is dependent upon them in Matthew 4:4. In the immediate context we see Satan’s misuse of the Scriptures pitted against Jesus’ correct employment of them, forcing the conclusion that there are right and wrong ways to interpret and use the Scriptures. Satan obviously wrongly construed them in some instances, whereas Jesus interpreted them correctly and used them accordingly.

The view that Jesus held of the Scriptures — a high and lofty one — should dictate our view. Such a high regard for the words that God has given will affect our interpretation of them, our use of them, and our response to them.

24978 Bubba Trail, Athens Alabama 35613 bobbylgraham@juno.com