1/1/16

Tyre in Prophecy by Kyle Butt, M.Div.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

Tyre in Prophecy

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Predictive prophecy stands as one of the most viable proofs of the Bible’s divine inspiration. Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the city of Tyre provides an excellent example of such evidence.
Ezekiel’s prophetic message is one of the easiest to place in an accurate time frame. In verse 2 of the first chapter, the prophet noted that his visions and prophecies began “in the fifth year of King Johoiachin’s captivity.” The date for this captivity is virtually unanimously accepted as 597 B.C. during the second deportation of citizens from Judea to Babylon, which is documented in detail in 2 Kings 24:10-20. Furthermore, not only is the deportation recorded in the biblical account, but the ancient Chaldean records document it as well (Free and Vos, 1992, p. 194). Since Ezekiel’s visions began five years after the deportation, then a firm date of 592 B.C. can be established for the beginning of his prophecy. The prophet supplies other specific dates such as the seventh year (20:1), the ninth year (24:1), the eleventh year (26:1), and the latest date given as the twenty-seventh year (29:17) [Note: for an outline see Archer, 1974, pp. 368-369].
Due to the firmly established dating system that Ezekiel chose to use for his prophecy, the date of the prophecy regarding the city of Tyre, found in chapter 26, can be accurately established as the eleventh year after 597, which would be 586 B.C.

THE CITY OF TYRE

According to history, the Phoenician city of Tyre, located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, stood as one of the most ancient and prosperous cities in history. Herodotus, known as the father of modern history, lived and wrote between about 490 B.C. and 425 B.C. (Herodotus, 1972, p. i). During a visit to the temple of Heracles in Tyre, Herodotus inquired about the age of the temple, to which the inhabits replied that the temple was as old as “Tyre itself, and that Tyre had already stood for two thousand three hundred years” (Herodotus, 2:44). From Herodotus, then, it can be supposed that the city goes back to 2,700 B.C.
Due to its advantageous geographical position and good ports, Tyre became one of the wealthiest trading cities in history. Fleming noted that it “was the most important of all Phoenician cities” (1966, p. ix). During the reigns of King David and King Solomon (circa 1000 B.C.), Hiram, king of Tyre, played a major role in the acquisition of building materials for important structures such as the Israelite kings’ houses and the first temple. In numerous biblical passages, the text states that Hiram sent cedar trees, carpenters, masons, and builders to Israel (2 Samuel 5:11) because of the Tyrians’ renowned skill in timber cutting (1 Kings 5:1-18). In addition, the Tyrians were equally well known for their remarkable ability to navigate the seas during Solomon’s era. Second Chronicles documents that Hiram sent ships and “servants who knew the sea” to work with Solomon’s men in acquiring gold from foreign lands (2 Chronicles 8:18).
The city of Tyre had a rather interesting and beneficial geographical arrangement. About half a mile off the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea stood a small rocky island on which the original city of Tyre was most likely founded. Some time after the founding of this island city, the mainland city of Tyre was founded, which was called Old Tyre by the Greeks (Fleming, p. 4). Josephus cites a Phoenician historian named Dius, as reporting that the Phoenician king Hiram, who was closely connected to kings David and Solomon, built a causeway from the original island to a smaller island, connecting the two (Against Apion, 1.17).
In addition to its beneficial geographic position, the city had great confidence in its many excellent defensive advantages. Fleming noted: “As early as 1400B.C. Tyre was not only a great city but was considered impregnable” (p. 8). The ancient historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (most likely writing in approximately A.D. 50), listed several of these defensive traits that had remained intact as late as the siege by Alexander in 332B.C. The force of the water and the wind that prevailed on the side of the city closest to the land was said to have produced a “corrosive force of waves” that would hinder the construction of any type of bridge or causeway from the mainland (4.2.8). Furthermore, the water nearest to the walls of the city was “especially deep” and would force any would-be attackers to position any type of siege mechanisms in the unstable foundation of a ship, and the wall “dropped sheer into the sea,” which prevented the use of ladders or approach by foot (4.2.9).
During the time of Ezekiel, Tyre was well established and renowned for its building, manufacturing, and trade. Ezekiel said of Tyre: “Your builders have perfected your beauty” (27:4), and then he proceeded to list several different kinds of wood and imported materials used by the Tyrians (27:3-11). The prophet stated: “When your wares went out by sea, you satisfied many people; you enriched the kings of the earth with your many luxury goods and your merchandise” (27:33).
But Tyre’s profitable trading had done little positive for its spiritual condition. In fact, as is often the case, the riches accrued by the city had caused widespread dereliction and spiritual decay. Concerning the city, Ezekiel noted: “By the abundance of your trading you became filled with violence within, and you sinned.... Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of splendor.... You defiled your sanctuaries by the multitude of your iniquities” (28:16-18). Among the sins listed by Ezekiel, one specific attitude maintained by Tyre was designated by the prophet as the ultimate reason for the city’s demise. Ezekiel noted: “[B]ecause Tyre has said against Jerusalem, ‘Aha! She is broken who was the gateway of the peoples; now she is turned over to me; I shall be filled; she is laid waste.’ Therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Behold, I am against you, O Tyre’” (26:2-3). Apparently, in an attitude of commercial jealousy and greed, the city of Tyre exulted in Jerusalem’s misfortunes and expected to turn them into its own profit. Among Tyre’s list of despicable activities, the city’s slave trade ranked as one of the most profitable. The prophet Joel noted that Tyre had taken the people from Judah and Jerusalem and sold them to the Greeks so that the Tyrians could “remove them far from their borders” (Joel 3:6). These dastardly dealings with the inhabitants of Judah would not go unpunished.
In Ezekiel 26, the prophet mentioned several events that were to occur in Tyre as punishment for the city’s arrogance and merciless actions. The following is a lengthy, but necessary, quote from that chapter:
Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will cause many nations to come up against you, as the sea causes its waves to come up. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for spreading nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken,” says the Lord God; “it shall become plunder for the nations. Also her daughter villages which are in the fields shall be slain by the sword. Then they shall know that I am the Lord.”
For thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, with chariots, and with horsemen, and an army with many people. He will slay with the sword your daughter villages in the fields; he will heap up a siege mound against you, build a wall against you, and raise a defense against you. He will direct his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. Because of the abundance of his horses, their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen, the wagons, and the chariots, when he enters your gates, as men enter a city that has been breached. With the hooves of his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people by the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. They will plunder your riches and pillage your merchandise; they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; they will lay your stones, your timber, and your soil in the midst of the water. I will put an end to the sound of your songs, and the sound of your harps shall be heard no more. I will make you like the top of a rock; you shall be a place for spreading nets, and you shall never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken,” says the Lord God....
For thus says the Lord God: “When I make you a desolate city, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you, then I will bring you down with those who descend into the Pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lowest part of the earth, in places desolate from antiquity, with those who go down to the Pit, so that you may never be inhabited; and I shall establish glory in the land of the living. I will make you a terror, and you shall be no more; though you are sought for, you will never be found again,” says the Lord God (26:1-14,19-21).
Several aspects of this prophecy deserve attention and close scrutiny. The prophet predicted: (1) many nations would come against Tyre; (2) the inhabitants of the villages and fields of Tyre would be slain; (3) Nebuchadnezzar would build a siege mound against the city; (4) the city would be broken down and the stones, timber, and soil would be thrown in “the midst of the water;” (5) the city would become a “place for spreading nets;” and (6) the city would never be rebuilt.
In chronological order, the siege of Nebuchadnezzar took place within a few months of Ezekiel’s prophecy. Josephus, quoting “the records of the Phoenicians,” says that Nebuchadnezzar “besieged Tyre for thirteen years in the days of Ithobal, their king” (Against Apion, 1.21). The length of the siege was due, in part, to the unusual arrangement of the mainland city and the island city. While the mainland city would have been susceptible to ordinary siege tactics, the island city would have been easily defended against orthodox siege methods (Fleming, p. 45). The historical record suggests that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city, but the siege of the island “probably ended with the nominal submission of the city” in which Tyre surrendered “without receiving the hostile army within her walls” (p. 45). The city of Tyre was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, who did major damage to the mainland as Ezekiel predicted, but the island city remained primarily unaffected.
It is at this point in the discussion that certain skeptics view Ezekiel’s prophecy as a failed prediction. Farrell Till stated: “Nebuchadnezzar did capture the mainland suburb of Tyre, but he never succeeded in taking the island part, which was the seat of Tyrian grandeur. That being so, it could hardly be said that Nebuchadnezzar wreaked the total havoc on Tyre that Ezekiel vituperatively predicted in the passages cited” (n.d.). Till and others suggest that the prophecies about Tyre’s utter destruction refer to the work of Nebuchadnezzar.
After a closer look at the text, however, such an interpretation is misguided. Ezekiel began his prophecy by stating that “many nations” would come against Tyre (26:3). Then he proceeded to name Nebuchadnezzar, and stated that “he” would build a siege mound, “he” would slay with the sword, and “he” would do numerous other things (26:7-11). However, in 26:12, the pronoun shifts from the singular “he” to the plural “they.” It is in verse 12 and following that Ezekiel predicts that “they” will lay the stones and building material of Tyre in the “midst of the waters.” The shift in pronouns is of vast significance, since it shifts the subject of the action from Nebuchadnezzar (he) back to the many nations (they). Till and others fail to see this shift and mistakenly apply the utter destruction of Tyre to the efforts of Nebuchadnezzar.
Furthermore, Ezekiel was well aware of Nebuchadnezzar’s failure to destroy the city. Sixteen years after his initial prediction, in the 27th year of Johoiachin’s captivity (circa 570 B.C.), he wrote: “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it” (29:18). Therefore, in regard to the prophecy of Tyre as it relates to Nebuchadnezzar’s activity, at least two of the elements were fulfilled (i.e., the siege mound and the slaying of the inhabitants in the field).
Regarding the prediction that “many nations” would come against Tyre, the historical records surrounding the illustrious city report such turmoil and war that Ezekiel’s prophecy looks like a mild understatement of the facts. After Nebuchadnezzar’s attack of the city “a period of great depression” plagued the city which was assimilated into the Persian Empire around 538 B.C. (Fleming, p. 47). In 392 B.C., “Tyre was involved in the war which arose between the Persians and Evagorus of Cyprus” in which the king of Egypt “took Tyre by assault” (p. 52). Sixty years later, in 332, Alexander the Great besieged Tyre and crushed it (see below for further elaboration). Soon after this defeat, Ptolemy of Egypt conquered and subjugated Tyre until about 315 B.C. when Atigonus of Syria besieged Tyre for 15 months and captured it (Fleming, p. 65). In fact, Tyre was contested by so many foreign forces that Fleming wrote: “It seemed ever the fate of the Phoenician cities to be between an upper and a nether millstone” (p. 66). Babylon, Syria, Egypt, Rome, Greece, Armenia, and Persia are but a sampling of the “many nations” that had a part in the ultimate destruction of Tyre. Thus, Ezekiel’s prophecy about “many nations” remains as a historical reality that cannot be successfully gainsaid.

ALEXANDER AND TYRE

bust 2
Bust of Alexander the Great, who conquered Tyre in 332 B.C. © TAOLMOR - FOTOLIA
The historical account of Alexander the Great’s dealings with Tyre adds another important piece to Ezekiel’s prophecy. By 333 B.C., Ezekiel’s prophecy that Tyre would be destroyed and its building material cast into the midst of the waters had yet to materialize. But that situation was soon to be altered. Ancient historian Diodorus Siculus, who lived from approximately 80-20B.C., wrote extensively of the young Greek conqueror’s dealing with Tyre. It is from his original work that much of the following information on Tyre’s destruction derives (see Siculus, 1963, 17.40-46).
In his dealings with Tyre, Alexander asserted that he wished to make a personal sacrifice in the temple of Heracles on the island city of Tyre. Apparently, because the Tyrians considered their island refuge virtually impregnable, with war machines covering the walls, and rapidly moving water acting as an effective barrier from land attack, they refused his request. Upon receiving their refusal, Alexander immediately set to work on a plan to besiege and conquer the city. He set upon the task of building a land bridge or cause way (Siculus calls it a “mole”) from the mainland city of Tyre to the island city. Siculus stated: “Immediately he demolished what was called Old Tyre and set many tens of thousands of men to work carrying stones to construct a mole” (17.40). Curtius Rufus noted: “Large quantities of rock were available, furnished by old Tyre” (4.2.18). This unprecedented action took the Tyrians by complete surprise. Fleming noted: “In former times the city had shown herself well nigh impregnable. That Alexander’s method of attack was not anticipated is not strange, for there was no precedent for it in the annals of warfare” (p. 56). And yet, even though this action was unprecedented militarily, it was exactly what one might expect from the description of the destruction of Tyre given by Ezekiel hundreds of years prior to Alexander’s actions. The mainland city was demolished and all her stones, timber, and soil were thrown into the midst of the sea.
aerial view
This aerial view of Tyre vividly shows the landbridge that Alexander created. Much silt and sand has accumulated over the years to widen the area of the original causeway.
In spite of the fact that the Tyrians were taken by surprise, they were not disheartened, because they did not believe that Alexander’s efforts would prevail. They continued to maintain supremacy on the sea, and harassed his workers from all sides from boats that were equipped with catapults, slingers, and archers. These tactics were effective in killing many of Alexander’s men. But Alexander was not to be outdone. He gathered his own fleet of ships from nearby cities and was successful in neutralizing the Tyrian vessels’ effectiveness.
With the arrival of Alexander’s sea fleet, the work on the land bridge moved much more rapidly. Yet, when the construction of the bridge was nearing completion, a storm damaged a large section of the mole. Refusing to quit, Alexander rebuilt the damaged structure and continued to move forward. In desperation, the Tyrians sent underwater divers to impede construction by attaching hooks to the rocks and trees of the causeway, causing much damage (Rufus, 4.3.10). Yet, these efforts by the Tyrians could not stop Alexander’s army and eventually the bridge spanned the distance from the mainland city to the island. Huge siege machines bombarded the walls of Tyre. Siculus’ description of the fight is one of the most vivid accounts of a battle in ancient history (17.43-46).
Eventually the Tyrians were defeated, their walls penetrated, and Alexander’s forces entered the city and devastated it. Most of the men of Tyre were killed in continued fighting. Siculus recorded that approximately 2,000 of the men in Tyre who were of military age were crucified, and about 13,000 “non-combatants” were sold into slavery (17.46) [Others estimate the number even higher.] In describing the devastation of the city by Alexander, Fleming wrote: “There was general slaughter in the streets and square. The Macedonians were enraged by the stubborn resistance of the city and especially by the recent murder of some of their countrymen; they therefore showed no mercy. A large part of the city was burned” (p. 63).
The secular, historical record detailing Alexander’s destruction of Tyre coincides precisely with Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning what would happen to its building materials. As Ezekiel had predicted, the stones, timber, and soil of the mainland city were thrown into the midst of the sea in an unprecedented military maneuver. For Ezekiel to have accurately “guessed” this situation would be to stretch the law of probability beyond the limits of absurdity. His acutely accurate representation of the facts remain as outstanding and amazing proof of the divine inspiration behind his message.

ADDITIONAL ASPECTS OF THE PROPHECY OF TYRE

One of the most disputed aspects concerning Ezekiel’s prophecy is the statement that the city of Tyre would “never be rebuilt” (26:14), and “be no more forever” (28:19). The skeptic points to modern day Tyre and suggests that these statements have failed to materialize. Till stated: “In fact, Tyre still exists today, as anyone able to read a map can verify. This obvious failure of a highly touted Old Testament prophet is just one more nail in the coffin of the Bible inerrancy doctrine” (n.d.).
Several possible solutions dissolve this alleged problem. First, it could be the case that the bulk of Ezekiel’s prophecy dealt with the mainland city of Tyre, the location of which has most likely been lost permanently and is buried under the waters of the Mediterranean Sea. This solution has merit for several reasons. In approximately A.D. 1170, a Jewish traveler named Benjamin of Tudela published a diary of his travels. “Benjamin began his journey from Saragossa, around the year 1160 and over the course of thirteen years visited over 300 cities in a wide range of places including Greece, Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia and Persia” (Benjamin of Tudela, n.d.). In his memoirs, a section is included concerning the city of Tyre.
From Sidon it is half a day’s journey to Sarepta (Sarfend), which belongs to Sidon. Thence it is a half-day to New Tyre (Sur), which is a very fine city, with a harbour in its midst.... There is no harbour like this in the whole world. Tyre is a beautiful city.... In the vicinity is found sugar of a high class, for men plant it here, and people come from all lands to buy it. A man can ascend the walls of New Tyre and see ancient Tyre, which the sea has now covered, lying at a stone’s throw from the new city. And should one care to go forth by boat, one can see the castles, market-places, streets, and palaces in the bed of the sea(1907, emp. added.).
From this twelfth-century A.D. text, then, we learn that by that period of time the city known as ancient Tyre lay completely buried beneath the sea and a new city, most likely on some part of the island, had been erected. George Davis, in his book Fulfilled Prophecies that Prove the Bible, included a picture of Syrian fishermen under which the following caption appeared: “Syrian fishermen hauling in their nets on the probable site of ancient Tyre, which perished as predicted by the prophet” (1931, p. 11). In his monumental work on the city of Tyre, Katzenstein mentioned several ancient sources that discussed the position of “Old Tyre.” He wrote: “Later this town was dismantled by Alexander the Great in his famous siege of Tyre and disappeared totally with the change of the coastline brought about by the dike and the alluvial deposits that changed Tyre into a peninsula” (1973, p. 15, emp. added).
It very likely is the case that the specific site of ancient Tyre has been buried by sand and water over the course of the last 2,500 years and is lost to modern knowledge. That the prophet was speaking about the mainland city in reference to many aspects of his prophecy has much to commend it. It was to that mainland city that King Nebuchadnezzar directed most of his attention and destructive measures described in Ezekiel 26:8-11. Furthermore, it was the mainland city that Alexander destroyed completely and cast into the sea to build his causeway to the island city. In addition, Benjamin Tudela’s quote corresponds precisely to the statement that the prophet made in the latter part of chapter 26: “For thus says the Lord God: ‘When I make you a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you’” (26:19, emp. added). In addition, Katzenstein noted that the scholar H.L. Ginsberg has suggested that the name “Great Tyre” was given to the mainland city, while the island city was designated as “Little Tyre” (p. 20). He further noted 2 Samuel 24:7, which mentions “the stronghold of Tyre,” and commented that this “may refer to “Old Tyre,” or the mainland city (p. 20).
Besides the idea that the bulk of the prophecy dealt with the mainland city, other possible solutions exist that would sufficiently meet the criteria that Tyre would “never be rebuilt” and would “be no more forever.” While it is true that a city does currently exist on the island, that city is not a “rebuilt” Tyre and has no real connection to the city condemned by Ezekiel other than its location. If the history of Tyre is traced more completely, it becomes evident that even the island city of Tyre suffered complete destruction. Fleming noted that in approximately A.D. 193. “Tyre was plundered and burned after a fearful slaughter of her citizens” (1966, p. 73). Around the year 1085, the Egyptians “succeeded in reducing Tyre, which for many years had been practically independent” (p. 85). Again, in about 1098, the Vizier of Egypt “entered the city and massacred a large number of people” (p. 88). In addition, the city was besieged in A.D. 1111 (p. 90), and again in April of 1124 (p. 95). Around the year 1155, the Egyptians entered Tyre, “made a raid with fire and sword...and carried off many prisoners and much plunder” (p. 101).
In addition to the military campaigns against the city, at least two major earthquakes pummeled the city, one of which “ruined the wall surrounding the city” (p. 115). And ultimately, in A.D. 1291, the Sultan Halil massacred the inhabitants of Tyre and subjected the city to utter ruin. “Houses, factories, temples, everything in the city was consigned to the sword, flame and ruin” (p. 122). After this major defeat in 1291, Fleming cites several travel logs in which visitors to the city mention that citizens of the area in 1697 were “only a few poor wretches...subsisting chiefly upon fishing” (p. 124). In 1837, another earthquake pounded the remains of the city so that the streets were filled with debris from fallen houses to such a degree that they were impassable (p. 128).
Taking these events into consideration, it is obvious that many nations continued to come against the island city, that it was destroyed on numerous occasions, and that it became a place for fishing, fulfilling Ezekiel’s prediction about the spreading of nets. Furthermore, it is evident that the multiple periods of destruction and rebuilding of the city have long since buried the Phoenician city that came under the condemnation of Ezekiel. The Columbia Encyclopedia, under its entry for Tyre, noted: “The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town” (“Tyre,” 2006, emp. added).
Concerning Tyre’s present condition, other sources have noted that “continuous settlement has restricted excavation to the Byzantine and Roman levels and information about the Phoenician town comes only from documentary sources” (“Ancient Tyre...,” n.d., emp. added). Another report confirmed, “Uncovered remains are from the post-Phoenician Greco-Roman, Crusader, Arab and Byzantine times.... Any traces of the Phoenician city were either destroyed long ago or remain buried under today’s city” (“Ancient Phoenicia,” n.d., emp. added). Thus, the only connection that the present town maintains with the ancient one in Ezekiel’s day is location, and the present buildings, streets, and other features are not “rebuilt” versions of the original city. If Ezekiel’s prophecy extended to the island city as well as the mainland city, it can be maintained legitimately that the ruins lying underneath the city have not been “rebuilt.”

WHEN DID EZEKIEL PROPHESY?

Some have questioned the date of the composition of Ezekiel, due to the prophecy’s amazing accuracy in regard to its predictions concerning Tyre. Yet, the book of Ezekiel has much that lends itself to the idea that it was composed by Ezekiel during the time it claims to have been written. When did Ezekiel write his material? Kenny Barfield noted that, besides a belief that supernatural revelation is impossible,
no evidence supports the thesis that Ezekiel’s predictions were penned later than 400 B.C.Moreover, the book (Ezek. 1:1; 8:1; 33:1; 40:1-4) claims to have been composed by the prophet sometime in the sixth century, B.C., and Josephus attributes the book to the Hebrew prophet during the time in question (1995, p. 98).
In addition, Ezekiel was included in the Septuagint, which is the “earliest version of the Old Testament Scriptures” available—a translation from Hebrew to Greek which was “executed at Alexandria in the third century before the Christian era” (Septuagint, 1998,p. i).
Simon Greenleaf, the lawyer who is renowned for having played a major role in the founding of Harvard Law School and for having written the Treatise on the Law of Evidence, scrutinized several biblical documents in light of the procedures practiced in a court of law. He noted one of the primary laws regarding ancient documents: “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise” (1995, p. 16). He then noted that “this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used in the church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for” (pp. 16-17). Specifically in regard to Ezekiel, that is exactly the case. If the prophet wrote it in the sixth century B.C. his work is exactly where it should be, translated in the Septuagint around the year 250 B.C., and noted to be from the proper time period by Josephus in approximately A.D. 90.
Furthermore, the scholarly world recognized the book’s authenticity and original date of composition virtually unanimously for almost 1,900 years. The eminently respected Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitzsch, who wrote in the late 1800s, commented: “The genuineness of Ezekiel’s prophecies is, at the present day, unanimously recognized by all critics. There is, moreover, no longer any doubt that the writing down and redaction of them in the volume which has been transmitted to us were the work of the prophet himself” (1982, 9:16). Indeed, Archer noted that no serious objection to the book’s integrity was even put forth until 1924 (1974, p. 369).

OBJECTIONS TO EZEKIEL’S AUTHENTICITY CONSIDERED

In regard to the objections that have been put forth, as Greenleaf noted, the burden of proof concerning the authenticity of Ezekiel lies with those who consider it inauthentic. Yet, far from proving such, they have put forth tenuous suggestions based on alleged internal inconsistencies. First, these critics have proposed that the work could not have been by one man since some sections are filled with descriptions of doom and destruction, while others resound with hope and deliverance. This alleged inconsistency holds little weight, as Miller noted:
Of course, this viewpoint is based on purely subjective considerations. No inherent reason exists that forbids a single writer from presenting both emphases. In fact, virtually all the prophets of the Old Testament announce judgment upon God’s people and/or their neighbors and then follow that judgment sentence with words of future hope and restoration if repentance is forthcoming.... One must be in possession of a prejudicial perspective before approaching Scripture to come to such a conclusion (1995, p. 138).
The second objection to the integrity of Ezekiel has little more to commend it than the first. The second “proof” of the book’s alleged inauthentic nature revolves around the fact that in certain sections, Ezekiel seems to be an eyewitness to events that are happening in Palestine, while at the same time claiming to be writing from Babylon. This objection can be dealt with quickly in a twofold manner. First, it would be possible, and very likely, that news would travel from the remnant of Israelites still free in Palestine to the captives in Babylon. Second, and more likely, if Ezekiel was guided by divine inspiration, he could have been given the ability to know events in Palestine that he did not see (see Miller, 1995, pp. 138-139). Taking the prophecy of Tyre into account, it is clear that Ezekiel did possess/receive revelation that allowed him to report events that he had not seen and that were yet to take place.
A third objection to Ezekiel’s authenticity actually turns out not to be an objection at all, but rather a verification of Ezekiel’s integrity. W.F. Albright, the eminent and respected archaeologist, noted that one of C.C. Torrey’s “principle arguments against the authenticity of the prophecy” (the book of Ezekiel—KB) was the fact that Ezekiel dates things by the “years of Jehoiachin’s captivity” (1948, p. 164). Supposedly, Jehoiachin would not have been referred to as “king” since he was captive in another land and no longer ruled in his own. Until about 1940, this argument seemed to possess some merit. But in that year, Babylonian tablets were brought to light that contained a cuneiform inscription giving the Babylonian description of Jehoiachin as king of Judah, even though he was in captivity (p. 165). Albright concluded by saying: “The unusual dates in Ezekiel, so far from being indications that the book is not authentic, prove its authenticity in a most striking way” (p. 165).
Due to the fact that modern critics have failed to shoulder the burden of proof laid upon them to discredit Ezekiel’s integrity and authenticity, Smith rightly stated: “The critical studies of the Book of Ezekiel over the past fifty years or so have largely cancelled each other out. The situation now is much the same as it was prior to 1924 (the work of Hoelscher) when the unity and integrity of the book were generally accepted by the critics” (Smith, 1979, p. 33). Miller correctly concluded: “All theories and speculations which call into question the unity and integrity of the book of Ezekiel are unconvincing.... The most convincing view is the traditional one that sees Ezekiel as the long recognized sixth century Hebrew prophet and author of the Old Testament book which bears his name” (1995, p. 139).

CONCLUSION

So accurate were the prophecies made by Ezekiel that skeptics were forced to suggest a later date for his writings. Yet, such a later date cannot be maintained, and the admission of Ezekiel’s accuracy stands as irrefutable evidence of the prophet’s divine inspiration. With the penetrating gaze that can only be maintained by the Divine, God looked hundreds of years into the future and instructed Ezekiel precisely what to write so that in the centuries following the predictions, the fulfillment of every detail of the prophet’s words could be denied by no honest student of history. “When the word of the prophet comes to pass, the prophet will be known as one whom the Lord has truly sent” (Jeremiah 28:9). Ezekiel’s accurate prophecy adds yet another piece of insurmountable evidence to the fact that “all Scripture is inspired of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).

REFERENCES

Albright, W.F. (1948), “The Old Testament and Archaeology,” Old Testament Commentary, ed. Herbert Alleman and Elmer Flack (Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg Press).
“Ancient Phoenicia” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://gorp.away.com/gorp/location/africa/phonici5.htm.
“Ancient Tyre (Sour)” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Tyre.html.
Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.
Barfield, Kenny (1995), The Prophet Motive (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Benjamin of Tudela (no date), “Traveling in Jerusalem,” [On-line], URL: http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/history/seminar/benjamin.htm.
Benjamin of Tudela (1907), The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (New York, NY: The House of the Jewish Book), [On-line], URL: http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/history/seminar/benjamin/ benjamin1.htm.
Davis, George T.B. (1931), Fulfilled Prophecies that Prove the Bible (Philadelphia, PA: Million Testaments Campaign).
Fleming, Wallace B. (1966), The History of Tyre (New York, NY: AMS Press).
Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Greenleaf, Simon (1995), The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics).
Herodotus, (1972 reprint), The Histories, trans. Aubrey De Sélincourt (London: Penguin).
Josephus, Flavius (1987), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus: Against Apion, trans. William Whitson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Katzenstein, Jacob (1973), The History of Tyre (Jerusalem: The Schocken Institute for Jewish Research).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament—Ezekiel and Daniel(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Miller, Dave (1995), “Introduction to Ezekiel,” Major Lessons from the Major Prophets, ed. B.J. Clarke (Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications).
Rufus, Quintus Curtius (2001), The History of Alexander, trans. John Yardley (New York, NY: Penguin).
Septuagint (1998 reprint), (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Siculus, Diodorus (1963), Library of History, trans. C. Bradford Welles (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Smith, James (1979), Ezekiel (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Till, Farrell (no date), “Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled,” [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html.
“Tyre” (2006), Columbia Encyclopedia, [On-line], URL: http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=48355.

The Fallacy of Preaching Pascal by A.P. Staff


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=922

The Fallacy of Preaching Pascal

by A.P. Staff

Preachers and authors in the religious community sometimes commit inadvertent fallacies in what they teach and write. These can stem from a lack of understanding of vital fields, such as biblical languages, church and secular history, psychology, and philosophy. While some of these fallacies are harmless, others can do more damage to a person’s soul through their inaccuracies than if nothing had been said at all. One such fallacy is that of mistakenly “preaching Pascal.”
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a French scientist, mathematician, and philosopher. He was a brilliant young man whose father educated him, and who published his first work, an essay on geometry, at the tender age of sixteen. He continued to publish works in the fields of science and mathematics, but he died before publishing his most important philosophical works: Pensées and De l’Esprit Géométrique. Theologically, Pascal was a Jansenist—i.e., a member of a group within the Catholic Church that followed the views of Cornelius Jansen—and spent much of his time refuting the Jesuits.Pensées [Thoughts] is the title posthumously given to a series of notes that Pascal originally intended to publish under the title Apologie de la religion chrétienne [Apology for the Christian Religion] (Popkin, 1967, 6:51-52). It was in these notes that Pascal’s now-famous “wager” was constructed. The wager, simply put, goes something like this:
  • If it is impossible for a person to believe with certainty that God exists, then that person should believe in God anyway—“just in case” He does exist.
  • If it turns out that God does exist, the believer “wins” the wager by receiving an eternal reward.
  • If it turns out that God does not exist, the person who believes has lost nothing (except perhaps some temporal pleasures, the loss of which is outweighed by freedom from the angst of unbelief).
  • If God does not exist, and a person does not believe, then he may gain some temporal pleasures.
  • If God exists, and a person does not believe, then that person is punished eternally for his unbelief.
Who never “loses” the wager? The believer. Why so? If God does exist, the believer “wins” by going to heaven. If God does not exist—the believer lives and dies, end of story—again, he has lost nothing (except a few finite pleasures). In both cases, the believer wins because he chose the “safe” thing to do.
But who loses 50% of the time? The unbeliever. If God exists, he “loses” by not believing, and therefore goes to hell. If God does not exist—the unbeliever lives and dies, end of story—he (like the believer) has lost nothing.
One of the two “gamblers” never loses; one loses half the time. Thus, Pascal concluded, it is safer to believe in God that not to believe. [Pascal continued in his reasoning by suggesting that if someone does not know how to believe, then he should follow the customs and rites of those who do believe—as if he himself were a believer. Eventually, then, according to Pascal, the person will become a believer (Pascal, 1995, pp. 121-125).]
PASCAL’S WAGER
 One believesOne does not believe
God existsEternal rewardEternal punishment
God does not existFreedom from angstTemporal pleasures
Some ministers of the Gospel preach Pascal’s Wager in an effort to convert people, suggesting that belief in God makes more sense than non-belief because of the 50% risk that is involved if God does exist.
What does this show, and why is it wrong to use Pascal’s line of reasoning in the conversion of non-believers? First, preaching this seems to show a lack of faith on the part of the minister himself. If a preacher’s argument for the existence of God is based on a gamble—even if it is not his only argument for God—then he should re-examine his own beliefs and see if he has truly built his faith on the solid rock of the moral, cosmological, and teleological proofs for God, or if he has built his faith upon the sands of guesswork (Matthew 7:24-27). This is damaging to the congregation for which such a man preaches, because a solid congregation needs a solid man to preach solid truths, and believing in God just because it is “prudent” to do so, shows a lack of solidarity.
Moreover, what of the man who believes in God because of preaching Pascal’s Wager? Since “faith is the substance of things hoped for” and “the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1), a pseudo-belief in God based on statistical risk and/or wager produce a pseudo-Christian. Faith is based on knowledge and certainty, not on probabilities, and someone who believes based on a wager is someone who cannot possess true faith in God and His existence. Paul said that we will be “above reproach in His sight—if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard” (Colossians 1:22b-23a). Pascal’s Wager does not produce a faith “grounded and steadfast,” because it does not build faith. However, faith in God is easy to build through other means, “because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 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” (Romans 1:19-20).
As Christians who are called to handle the Bible correctly (2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17), let us not give in to philosophies that are not in keeping with God’s Word (Colossians 2:8). In our preaching, let us be honest with people and teach them to “hold fast” to faith and truth (1 Corinthians 15:1-2), and not let them be led into believing in God just because it makes the “best sense in a gamble.”

REFERENCES

Pascal, Blaise (1995), Pensées, trans. A.J. Krailsheimer (New York: Penguin).
Popkin, Richard H. (1967), “Pascal, Blaise,” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: MacMillan).

Flood Carves a Channel Through Uniformitarian Ideas by Kyle Butt, M.Div.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3776

Flood Carves a Channel Through Uniformitarian Ideas

by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

Most of us have been pressed by geologic literature, park rangers, or cave tour guides to believe that today’s prominent geological features such as caves and canyons are the result of millions of years of slow, uniform processes. The tale is spun that millions of years of slight modifications have brought about the amazing features that dot the geological landscape. The problem with these deep-time scenarios (millions and billions of years) is that they are simply false. There never have been millions of years of uniform geological processes slowly and gradually carving out rock canyons and caves. Instead of these imaginary years of uniformitarian processes, modern catastrophes give us an excellent look into how things actually happened.
In June 2010, John Matson wrote an article for the Scientific American Web site in which he reported about a huge catastrophic flood in Texas that occurred in 2002. Matson noted: “At Canyon Lake, a reservoir north of San Antonio, water rushed over the dam’s spillway, pouring into the valley below. Within days a 50-meter-wide channel now known as Canyon Lake Gorge had been carved into the soil and bedrock, drastically transforming the landscape on a short timescale” (Matson, 2010). Michael Lamb, a geologist from the California Institute of Technology who studied the effects of the flood, “found that the landscape below Canyon Lake had been remodeled in just three days or so, during which hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of rock and sediment were flushed downstream” (2010). Matson also stated: “The 2002 Texas flood was powerful, plucking meter-sized limestone boulders out of the bedrock and carrying them away to leave a channel that in places exceeds 12 meters in depth.”
The implications of such a flood are clear. If huge channels over three stories deep can be carved in bedrock in a matter of days, then catastrophic flooding on a larger scale could easily be responsible for carving much larger canyons in brief periods of time (cf. Butt, 2002; Butt, 2003; Butt, 2004). The false assumption of uniformitarianism, by which so many people have been taught to believe in billions of years of Earth history, cannot be logically sustained in the face of such clear evidence for the catastrophic origins of geological features like canyons.
Furthermore, not only do such catastrophic floods undermine the uniformitarian ideas so often used in geologic writings, but they also add credence to the biblical account of the Flood. If local and regional floods that are confined to small parts of single states can perform so much geological work in a few days, imagine the geologic formations, canyons, caves, and crustal displacement that a global flood which lasted several months would cause. The next time geologic literature or a park ranger insists that a certain feature was carved over millions of years by uniform processes, think about the massive amount of water that carved the huge 150 foot wide, 36 feet deep channel in Texas in just a few days. Not only did that flood “remodel the landscape” of the area in three days, but it helped to scourge the geological landscape of false uniformitarian ideas of deep time as well.

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2002), “Scoffers in the Last Days,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1771.
Butt, Kyle (2003), “Changing Their Tune About the Grand Canyon,”http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1811.
Butt, Kyle (2004), “The Little Grand Canyon,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1857.
Matson, John (2010), “Data Deluge: Texas Flood Canyon Offers Test of Hydrology Theories for Earth and Mars,” http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=canyon-lake-flood.

Prayer: “Immoral and Un-American”? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=395

Prayer: “Immoral and Un-American”?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The ongoing assault on America’s historic Christian heritage grows more aggressive and alarming with each passing day. One recent outrage by the ACLU consists of an attempt to punish Louisiana school officials for permitting a pre-game prayer at a high school baseball game. The local ACLUdirector called the brief prayer for player safety—“un-American and immoral” (Hume, 2005). Unbelievable and outrageous! How can the broad segment of American society allow such vicious, ludicrous attacks on our freedoms to be perpetuated? Did the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the federal Constitution wish to create a secular society in which the Christian religion is not allowed to be manifested in public—whether in the government, the public school, or local communities? Would they agree with the ACLU’s contention that prayer is immoral and un-American? Quite the opposite. The historical evidence is overwhelming and decisive. Even a casual perusal of Founder remarks quickly and easily exposes the ACLU’s contention as erroneous and uninformed.
Having been instructed by resolution from the U.S. House of Representatives as well as the Senate, President George Washington issued a proclamation calling for a day of national prayer and thanksgiving:
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayerto be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God...” (1789, emp. added).
The second President of the United States, John Adams, issued a proclamation on March 23, 1798 urging the nation to petition God in prayer:
As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him, but a duty whose natural influence is favorable to the promotion of that morality and piety without which social happiness can not exist nor the blessings of a free government be enjoyed; ...it has appeared to me that the duty of imploring the mercy and benediction of Heaven on our country demands at this time a special attention from its inhabitants. I have therefore thought fit to recommend, and I do hereby recommend, that Wednesday, the 9th day of May next, be observed throughout the United States as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens of these States, abstaining on that day from their customary worldly occupations,offer their devout addresses to the Father of Mercies (emp. added).
President James Madison called for a national day of prayer during the War of 1812:
The two Houses of the National Legislature having by a joint resolution expressed their desire that in the present time of public calamity and war a day may be recommended to be observed by the people of the United States as a day of public humiliation and fastingand of prayer to Almighty God for the safety and welfare of these States, His blessing on their arms, and a speedy restoration of peace (1814, emp. added).
A year later on March 4, with peace restored, another proclamation was issued:
The senate and House of Representatives of the United States have by a joint resolution signified their desire that a day may be recommended to be observed by the people of the United States with religious solemnity as a day of thanksgiving and of devout acknowledgments to Almighty God for His great goodness manifested in restoring to them the blessing of peace (1815, emp. added).
Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, while governor of Massachusetts, issued a proclamation on February 28, 1795 calling for “public fasting, humiliation, and prayer”:
The supreme Ruler of the Universe, having been pleased, in the course of his Providence, to establish the Independence of the United States of America, and to cause them to assume their rank, amount the nations of the Earth, and bless them with Liberty, Peace and Plenty; we ought to be led by Religious feelings of Gratitude; and to walk before Him, in all Humility, according to his most Holy Law.... [I]t is therefore highly incumbent on us, according to the ancient and laudable practice of our pious Ancestors, to open the year by a public and solemn Fast. That with true repentance and contrition of Heart, we may unitedly implore the forgiveness of our Sins, through the merits of Jesus Christ, andhumbly supplicate our Heavenly Father, to grant us the aids of his Grace, for the amendment of our Hearts and Lives, and vouchsafe his smiles upon our temporal concerns: I have therefore thought fit to appoint, and with the advice and consent of the Council, I do hereby appoint Thursday, the Second Day of April next, to be observed as a Day of Public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer throughout this Commonwealth (emp. added).
On Thursday, June 28, 1787, Benjamin Franklin delivered a passionate plea to the Constitutional Convention to pray to God for His assistance in their deliberations:
In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered.... I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business (emp. added).
These allusions to the essentiality of public prayer throughout the nation are legion during the period of the Founders and Framers. They could be multiplied many times over. The average American today simply has no idea how thoroughly the Christian worldview was embedded into the hearts and lives of the Founders—who frequently and repeatedly indicated their insistence that America’s status was integrally and inextricably linked to God and His providential acts.
Consider one additional compelling sample. Three years after they declared their independence from England, while the Revolutionary War was raging, the Continental Congress issued a national proclamation that is literally saturated with recognition of the one true God, the one true religion, and the absolute imperative that all Americans direct prayers to the God of the Bible. [NOTE: The reader is asked to exercise patience in giving due consideration to the lengthy quotation that follows, taken from the Library of Congress Web site (see “Proclamation,” 1779).]
WHEREAS, in just Punishment of our manifold Transgressions, it hath pleased the Supreme Disposer of all Events to visit these United States with a calamitous War, through which his Divine Providence hath hitherto in a wonderful Manner conducted us, so that we might acknowledge that the Race is not to the Swift, nor the Battle to the Strong: AND WHEREAS, notwithstanding the Chastisements received and Benefits bestowed, too few have been sufficiently awakened to a Sense of their Guilt, or warmed with Gratitude, or taught to amend their Lives and turn from their Sins, that so he might turn his Wrath: AND WHEREAS, from a Consciousness of what we have merited at his Hands, and an Apprehension that the Malevolence of our disappointed Enemies, like the Incredulity of Pharaoh, may be used as the Scourge of Omnipotence to vindicate his slighted Majesty, there is Reason to fear that he may permit much of our Land to become the Prey of the Spoiler, our Borders to be ravaged, and our Habitations destroyed:
RESOLVED,
THAT it be recommended to the several States to appoint the First Thursday in May next to be a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer to Almighty God, that he will be pleased to avert those impending Calamities which we have but too well deserved: That he will grant us his Grace to repent of our Sins, and amend our Lives according to his Holy Word: That he will continue that wonderful Protection which hath led us through the Paths of Danger and Distress: That he will be a Husband to the Widow, and a Father to the fatherless Children, who weep over the Barbarities of a Savage Enemy: That he will grant us Patience in Suffering, and Fortitude in Adversity: That he will inspire us with Humility, Moderation, and Gratitude in prosperous Circumstances: That he will give Wisdom to our Councils, Firmness to our Resolutions, and Victory to our Arms: That he will bless the Labours of the Husbandman, and pour forth Abundance, so that we may enjoy the Fruits of the Earth in due Season: That he will cause Union, Harmony, and mutual Confidence to prevail throughout these States: That he will bestow on our great Ally all those Blessings which may enable him to be gloriously instrumental in protecting the Rights of Mankind, and promoting the Happiness of his Subjects: That he will bountifully continue his paternal Care to the Commander in Chief, and the Officers and Soldiers of the United States: That he will grant the Blessings of Peace to all contending Nations, Freedom to those who are in Bondage, and Comfort to the Afflicted: That he will diffuse Useful Knowledge, extend the Influence of True Religion, and give us that Peace of Mind which the World cannot give: That he will be our Shield in the Day of Battle, our Comforter in the Hour of Death, and our kind Parent and merciful Judge through Time and through Eternity.
Done in CONGRESS, this Twentieth Day of March, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Nine, and in the Third Year of our Independence.
JOHN JAY, President
Attest. CHARLES THOMSON, Secretary
Not only does this proclamation, and many more early documents, refute the contention that “prayer is un-American and immoral,” it establishes very clearly the fact that the Founders firmly believed in the one true God to the exclusion of all other deities, that they believed in the one true religion (i.e., Christianity) to the exclusion of all other religions, and that they believed in the one true “Holy Word” of God (i.e., the Bible) to the exclusion of all other books. They believed that the establishment of the Republic, the outcome of the Revolutionary War, and America’s future survival were completely dependent on the favor, guidance, and blessings of God. They believed the Bible’s assertion: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12). Indeed, how tragically ironic that the very ones who are opposing the Christian religion—by doing everything they can to undermine prayer and Christian morality in the public square—are in actuality the ones who are “un-American and immoral.”

REFERENCES

Adams, John (1798), “Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations,” Pilgrim Hall Museum, [On-line], URL: http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc1789.htm.
Adams, Samuel (1795), “1795 Massachusetts Fasting and Prayer Proclamation,” Wallbuilders, [On-line], URL: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=108.
“Proclamation” (1779), Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, The Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query.
Franklin, Benjamin (1787), Records of the Federal Convention, [On-line], URL: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm.
Hume, Brit (2005), “Prayer Punishment,” Fox News: Political Grapevine, [On-line], URL: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152684,00.html.
Madison, James (1814), “Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations,” Pilgrim Hall Museum, [On-line],URL: http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc1789.htm.
Madison, James (1815), “Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations,” Pilgrim Hall Museum, [On-line],URL: http://www.pilgrimhall.org/ThanxProc1789.htm.
Washington, George (1789), “The Thanksgiving Proclamation,” The Papers of George Washington, [On-line], URL: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/thanksgiving/intro.html.

Could Terah Have Been 130 When Abraham Was Born? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.



http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=665&b=Genesis

Could Terah Have Been 130 When Abraham Was Born?

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

When calculating the age of Terah at the time that Abraham (his son) was born, one is compelled to conclude that he was around 130. Considering that Terah died at age 205 (Genesis 11:32), that Abraham moved to the land of Palestine after Terah’s death (Acts 7:4), and that Abraham was 75 when he departed Haran and moved to the land of Palestine (Genesis 12:4), the clear implication is that Terah was at least 130 at Abraham’s birth. [For more information on the age of Terah when Abraham was born see: “How Old Was Terah When Abraham Was Born?”] The “problem” with Terah being 130 when Abraham was born has to do with why Abraham regarded his own ability to beget a son at age 100 as somewhat incredible (Genesis 17:1,17). Curious and diligent Bible students want to know why the apostle Paul described Abraham’s body as being “already dead (since he was about 100 years old)” [Romans 4:19; cf. Hebrews 11:12], if Abraham was born when his father was130? Why would Abraham have staggered at the thought of a 100-year-old-man begetting a son if the above calculations are correct? [“Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, ‘Shall a child be born to a man who is one hundred years old?’ ” (Genesis 17:17).]
First, it should be remembered that Abraham did not think it impossible to sire a child by Hagar at age 85 (Genesis 16). In fact, by insisting that Abraham engage in conjugal relations with her maid, Sarah exhibited confidence in his ability to raise up an heir. In modern times, one only rarely hears of a man in his mid-seventies begetting children. Abraham, on the other hand, begot his first son at 86 years of age. Although during Abraham’s day the longevity of man was not what it once was (e.g., Noah begot sons at 500 years of age—Genesis 5:32), it still was greater than it is today. Thus, we must refrain from comparing the ages of those who sired children thousands of years ago by today’s standards.
Another detail often overlooked in Abraham’s life is that he had more children than just Ishmael and Isaac. He actually obtained six heirs through a woman he married by the name of Keturah (Genesis 25:1-6; cf.1 Chronicles 1:32). Because nothing is mentioned about Keturah until after the death of Sarah, it is reasonable to presume that the children she bore to Abraham came along well after Isaac was born. Genesis 23:1-2 states that “Sarah lived one hundred and twenty-seven years” and “died.” After reading about Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah recorded in Genesis 24, the text says, “Abrahamagain took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bore him Zimran, Joktan, Medan, Midian, Ishback, and Shuah” (25:1-2, emp. added). If these events are to be understood as occurring in chronological order, it means Abraham was more than 140 when Keturah bore him six sons. [Abraham was ten years older than Sarah (17:17), and thus when Sarah died at 127, Abraham would have been 137. Also, since Isaac was born when Abraham was 100, and he (Isaac) married Rebekah at the age of 40 (25:20), then this would make Abraham at least 140 when he married Keturah.]
It must be admitted, however, that just because the events regarding Abraham’s marriage to Keturah are recorded after the death of Sarah, it does not necessarily mean this is the exact order. There are events recorded, and stories told, throughout the Bible that are not written in a chronological format (cf. Genesis 10 and 11; and Matthew 4:1-11 with Luke 4:1-13). As the respected commentators Keil and Delitzch mentioned, “it is not stated anywhere, that Abraham did not take Keturah as his wife till after Sarah’s death. It is merely an inference drawn from the fact, that it is not mentioned till afterwards; and it is taken for granted that the history is written in strictly chronological order” (1996). Adam Clarke agreed by stating: “When Abraham took Keturah we are not informed; it might have been in the lifetime of Sarah” (1996, emp. added). According to some, “this must have occurred many years before the death of Sarah, for several sons are listed” (Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 1962). However, based on the wording of Genesis 25:1, and the fact that neither Keturah nor any of her sons is ever mentioned before this time, it seems more likely that Abraham took Keturah as his wife after Sarah died. But, even if it were during his marriage to Sarah, he still would have been close to (if not more than) a century old. Why? Because we read that well after entering the land of Canaan at the age of 75 Abraham was “childless” with “no offspring” (Genesis 15:2-3). Ishmael, Abraham’s first child, was not born until he was 86. The “best” scenario (for those who believe Keturah bore Abraham six sons while Sarah was still living) is that Zimran, Joktan, Medan, Midian, Ishback, and Shuah were born sometime after Abraham was 86. Therefore, even the most conservative estimates put Abraham in his nineties during this time—a time when he was still begetting sons.
A final detail that few have considered concerning Abraham’s age when Isaac was born, is how old Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, was when Joseph was born. According to Genesis 47:9, Jacob was 130 years old when he arrived in Egypt (cf. 47:28), which was at the end of the second year of the famine (45:6,11). Joseph was in his thirtieth year when he stood before Pharaoh nine years earlier at the beginning of the seven years of plenty (41:46). Thus, at the end of the second year of the famine (the year Jacob arrived in Egypt being 130), Joseph would have been 39 years old. This means that Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born.
If Jacob was 91 when Joseph (“the son of his old age”—37:3) was born, one is curious to know how old he was at the birth of his youngest son, Benjamin. In order to ascertain this figure, one must begin with Jacob’s twenty-year commitment to Laban in Padan Aram (Genesis 31:38). The first seven years Jacob was in Padan Aram serving Laban, he was not married and had no children (29:18-20). After his “marriages” to Leah and Rachel, the text indicates that all of Jacob’s sons, save Benjamin, were born sometime within the next few years (Genesis 29:30-30:25). It was after Joseph’s birth that Jacob began serving his final six years in Padan Aram (30:25; 31:38,41). We know that Benjamin was more than six years younger than Joseph, because he was not born until sometime after Jacob discontinued working for Laban. Jacob did not receive his twelfth son until after he: (1) departed Padan Aram (31:18); (2) crossed over the river (Euphrates—31:21); (3) met with his brother, Esau, near Penuel (32:22,31; 33:2); (4) built a house in Succoth (33:17); (5) pitched his tent in Shechem (33:18); and (6) built an altar to God at Bethel (35:1-19). Obviously, a considerable amount of time passed between Jacob’s separation from Laban in Padan Aram and the birth of Benjamin near Bethlehem. Biblical commentator Albert Barnes conservatively estimated that Benjamin was 13 years younger than Joseph (1997). Hebrew scholar John T. Willis said Benjamin was likely about 14 years younger than Joseph (1984, p. 433). Actually, if Benjamin was just ten years younger than Joseph (and few, if any, commentators have ever suggested there was less than 10 years between the two), that would mean Jacob was 101 when he begat Benjamin. The fact that Jacob could still beget children when he was 100 years old (with no indication of there being a miracle involved) supports the proposition that Terah, his great-grandfather (who begot Abraham 260 years earlier) could have begotten Abraham at 130 years of age.
The obvious question, then, is why it took a special miracle for Abraham to become a father when he was only 100 years old? Actually there are several factors that may come into play as to why Abraham was somewhat baffled at the idea of having a child at the age of 100. First, it seems likely that the emphasis of Genesis 17:17 is on the physical condition of Abraham at this particular period in his life, and not so much his actual age. It is possible that Abraham simply was failing in health. This would not be surprising, considering his son experienced a serious failing in health about 44 years before he (Isaac) died (Genesis 27:1). [Since Isaac was 60 years old when he begat Jacob (25:26), and since Jacob was about 91 when Joseph was born (as noted above), Isaac must have been about 151 when Joseph was born. Since Joseph was born after Jacob had been living in Padan Aram for about 14 years, Isaac would have been no more than 137 in Genesis 27:1.] Like Isaac, it may be that Abraham was failing in health at 100, even though he wouldn’t die for another 75 years. Considering that his father begot him at 130, and that his grandson sired a child at 100, Abraham’s statement about him being 100 years of age when Isaac was promised likely should be interpreted in light of his physical condition at the time rather than his actual age.
Even today, men use their age when describing their physical situation. For example, when most 45-year-old men are asked if they could play major league baseball at their current age, they often respond by saying, “I’m too old to play baseball.” But does this mean that it can’t be done? Obviously not, since Nolan Ryan was still throwing 100-mph fastballs when he was 45. Ricky Henderson is still hitting homeruns and stealing bases at 42 years of age. Michael Jordan is still playing professional basketball at the age of 39. Thus, even though we know it still is possible for certain people who are our same age (or older) to do something, we frequently use our age to describe our physical condition. My father begot me when he was 40. However, if someone asks me when I’m 40 if I want any more children, I’ll likely respond by saying, “I’m too old to be changing diapers.”
It seems clear that the special miracle the Almighty worked on Abraham “depended on something else than his mere age” (McGarvey, n.d., p. 118). The miracle was not that He simply made it possible for a 100-year-old man to beget a child (for this was done by others both before and after Abraham begot Isaac), but rather that He miraculously endowed him with new vital and reproductive energy for begetting the son of the promise. As Whitcomb and Morris concluded, “In response to his renewed faith in God and in God’s promise (Rom. 4:19), his [Abraham’s—EL] body, which was ‘now as good as dead,’ must have been renewed by God to live out the remaining 75 years and to beget many more children (Gen. 25:1-7)” [1961, p. 480].
Another reason Abraham was so perplexed at the promise of a son (Genesis 17:17) had to do with his wife’s physical condition. Genesis 18:11 states: “It had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women” (ASV). Sarah’s “periods had ceased with the so-called change of life and with them the capacity to conceive…. Capacity for procreation and conception was extinct” (Luepold, 1942, p. 541). “From the human standpoint, it was impossible for a woman long after the onset of menopause to give birth to a child” (Coffman, 1985, p. 239). For this reason, J.W. McGarvey, one of the brightest biblical scholars of the nineteenth century, concluded: “The incredulity of Abraham…had reference chiefly to Sarah” (p. 118). Abraham knew it would take a miracle for her to conceive a child (cf. Hebrews 11:11).
A third reason Abraham expressed astonishment upon hearing Jehovah’s promise of a son through Sarah could have depended largely on the possibility “that he had now been living thirteen years with a young concubine, Hagar, since the birth of Ishmael, and she had not borne him another son (17:24,25)” [McGarvey, p. 118]. Although most people would disregard this option because Hagar “became despised” in Sarah’s eyes after she conceived Ishmael (16:4), nothing is said about Sarah’s feelings toward Hagar for the thirteen years after Hagar gave birth to Ishmael and before Isaac was born. It is more than possible that Abraham continued to “go in to her” during that time. If this was the situation, then certainly Abraham’s amazement upon hearing the Lord’s promise of a son (Genesis 17:17) could have been due (at least in part) to his inability to beget any more children with Hagar the past thirteen years.
The truth of matter is that Terah was 130 when Abraham was born. This fact is known because of the inspiration by which Stephen spoke and Luke wrote (Acts 7:4). As renowned commentator R.C.H. Lenski said, it is a “simple matter of adding a few figures” (1961, p. 263). It in no way contradicts the statement Moses’ recorded in Genesis 11:26 (that “Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran”—see “How Old Was Terah When Abraham Was Born?”), or Abraham’s statement in Genesis 17:17. That Abraham thought it incredible for him to have a son at 100 years of age must be understood in light of other information given in Genesis.
  • Abraham had been able to “raise up an heir” at the age of 85 (Genesis 16).
  • He then had six other sons by Keturah sometime after he was 86 (likely it was “long after” this time; see McGarvey, p. 118).
  • Also, Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, was 91 when Joseph was born, and over 100 when he begot his youngest son, Benjamin.
All of this information leads us to believe that Abraham’s amazement at the pronouncement of Isaac at age 100 was due to some other factor than just his being 100 years of age.
  • Perhaps the emphasis is more on his physical condition, and not so much his actual age (with his age being used to “describe” his failing health).
  • Or maybe, as J.W. McGarvey suggested, Abraham expressed amazement because “he had now been living thirteen years with a young concubine, Hagar, since the birth of Ishmael, and she had not borne him another son (17:24,25)” [p. 118].
  • Likely, however, most of Abraham’s bewilderment was due largely to his wife’s inability to conceive since her onset of menopause (18:11).

REFERENCES

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarke’s Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Coffman, James Burton (1985), Commentary on Genesis (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House).
Leupold, H.C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Lyons, Eric (2001), “How Old Was Terah When Abraham Was Born?” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/572.
McGarvey, J.W. (no date), New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Willis, John T. (1984), Genesis (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962), Electronic Database: Biblesoft.

From Eugene C. Perry... Hallowed be Your name Is there no respect?




http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Perry/Eugene/Charles/1922/Articles/hallowed.html

Hallowed be Your name
Is there no respect?

Man’s failure to respect that which is sacred has, through the ages, been detrimental to the culture of the day as well as being displeasing to God. God’s name represents His person just as your name represents you. The scriptures in both Testaments are replete with instructions and examples emphasizing the sacredness of the names of the divine.
Personally, I am old enough to have experienced the days when mothers who heard their children use God’s name as an expletive or use other “swear words” and unbecoming language would threaten with “I’ll wash out your mouth with soap and water.” Using the name of Jesus and using substitutes for God’s name such as “gosh” or “golly” was also punishable. Things have changed since then. We now hear mothers themselves using such expressions in casual and otherwise wholesome conversations in front of their children and in public. Women, in their push for equality, it seems, feel that the use of such language is one way of being equal.
Perhaps my mother’s early efforts contribute to my reaction to the now so commonly heard, “Oh My God.” My involuntary reaction to hearing this phrase, especially from unexpected sources, is similar to the chills that run up my spine when a student playfully causes hard chalk to screech on the chalk board. The popular TV program, “Extreme Makeover, Home Edition,” serves as an example. For me, a very fine program that encourages the Biblical concept of helping the less fortunate is ruined by the frequent and, I fear, deliberate use of the “Oh My God” phrase. The frequency suggests that these people must be coached to use this expression. I have renamed this show “The OMG Show” and avoid viewing it. I am startled, shocked, to hear this expression freely flowing from unexpected sources such as the tongues of “ladies”, mothers, teachers. 
In bygone days this type of language was commonly heard from the worldly, those who were not making any effort to be God’s people. It is shocking to hear it in casual conversation among parents, teachers and church leaders. Recently, individual articles in religious journals as well as a couple of special issues (See Gospel Herald, March 2010 – God the Father for one) have highlighted the greatness of God and the importance of giving Him due respect. Similar emphasis has been noted in recent worship service themes. The contrast between these and what is being heard in daily conversation has prompted me to compose this article on a topic that has been on my mind for a long time.
It is clear that God’s names have always borne special significance and that He has expected such to be recognized by those who would please Him. This should not surprise us. Our own names are important to us. We are pleased and complimented when people remember our names and use them in addressing us and when they, in general, show respect for our names. The opposite is also true. We are demeaned and displeased if our names are used in careless and disrespectful ways.
An interesting item entitled “Blasphemers of Ireland Beware” appeared in the January 18th edition of MacLean’s Magazine. It begins, “Be careful how you invoke the name of god . . . any god . . . in Ireland.” and tells us of legislation which bans the publication of material, “grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.” Surely the names of God and Jesus Christ should be held sacred by all Christians.
Ireland’s 1937 constitution already outlawed blasphemy. Its 1961 Defamation Act included the possibility of both a fine and up to seven years in prison. These laws recognize, in fact, require that language usage show respect for what others hold sacred. They are primarily geared to avoid our offending each other. This reminds us of the workmen who adjust their speech when their minister drops by. They may be concerned about offending his sensitivities or, perhaps, more about hiding their true character from him. Being careful not to offend others is important but how much more careful ought we to be not to offend almighty God by our careless, casual and disrespectful use of His name? We cannot hide our true character from Him.
Number three of the Ten Commandments reads, “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.” (Ex.20:7 NRSV). An online Reader’s Digest service has an item entitle, “If God Had Texted the Ten Commandments” that the reader will find interesting. For number three we find “no omg’s”. When Ezra led the people of Israel in national confession, he instructed them to stand up and “bless the Lord our God” and declared, “Blessed be your name, and may it be exalted above all blessing and praise.” (Neh.9:5) 
The title of this article is the words used by Jesus in the beginning of the “model prayer”, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name . . .” (Mt.6:9). We often include this or similar phrases in our prayers. These are “empty words” if we do not show respect for God’s name in our everyday communications. We sing hymns such as, “We Trust in the Name of the Lord our God,” “Glorify the Lord” and “Exalt His Holy Name.” Do we mean what we sing and pray?
There was a time when God’s name was held so holy by the Hebrew people that they were afraid to speak it. The scribes, whose occupation was to hand copy the scriptures would stop copying and ritually purify themselves with water before transcribing God’s names. (You are encouraged to google “scribes, God’s names” and read more about the extremes to which the scribes were required to go when transcribing God’s names.) How would one of them react to the casual ways that His name is used today by many? How, indeed, does God feel about this?
To those whose response to these comments is, “God knows that I don’t mean any disrespect,” we ask, “What do you mean? Using the name of God as an exclamation (punctuation point) in a slang way has meaning or does not have meaning. If it has meaning, it is disrespectful to God and His people. If it does not have meaning, it is being used in a vain, empty way which cannot be pleasing to God.
The Psalmist, after declaring several verses expressing praise for God’s wonderful works, concluded, “Holy and awesome is his name. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practise it have a good understanding.” (Ps.111:9,10) 
Let us demonstrate at least “the beginning of wisdom” and some “good understanding” in the use of the name of our Holy God. We fear that the casual way that we vocalize God’s name in our culture is evidence of a growing disrespect for God Himself and hence in the way we respond to His word and apply it in our daily living.
Let us show a very high respect for God, His name and His word.
Eugene C. Perry

Published in The Old Paths Archive
(http://www.oldpaths.com)

From Gary... New


Well, here is something new; eating a dunked Oreo without touching it!  Nice way to start off the beginning of a New Year with a "new" idea!  This year, thousands upon thousands of people will make New Year's resolutions to change; change their habits, change their goals, change their LIFE!! But, will they do it? If statistics are any guide- most won't, but then, anything is possible....

Colossians, Chapter 3 (WEB)
1 If then you were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God.  2 Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth.  3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.  4 When Christ, our life, is revealed, then you will also be revealed with him in glory.  5 Put to death therefore your members which are on the earth: sexual immorality, uncleanness, depraved passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry;  6 for which things’ sake the wrath of God comes on the children of disobedience.  7 You also once walked in those, when you lived in them; 8 but now you also put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and shameful speaking out of your mouth. 9 Don’t lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old man with his doings,  10 and have put on the new man, who is being renewed in knowledge after the image of his Creator,  11 where there can’t be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondservant, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all. 


  12  Put on therefore, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, a heart of compassion, kindness, lowliness, humility, and perseverance;  13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, if any man has a complaint against any; even as Christ forgave you, so you also do. 

  14  Above all these things, walk in love, which is the bond of perfection. ...

Those who will change will think of higher things (vs.1) and put off those things which are ungodly and put on the higher things of God. Read the entire passage, it covers many, many things. The main idea here is to love God and let HIM show you the right way to live. Then, do it- but have a dunked Oreo first- you will be glad you did!!!