1/1/16

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?

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 18^th 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!!!

12/31/15

From Mark Copeland... "MINISTERING SPIRITS" Angels In The Old Testament

                         "MINISTERING SPIRITS"

                      Angels In The Old Testament

INTRODUCTION

1. We have seen that angels are "ministering spirits sent forth to
   minister for those who will inherit salvation" - He 1:13-14

2. Their ministry as "messengers" of God is evident in the Old
   Testament...
   a. During the Patriarchal age, from the creation to giving of the Law
      at Mount Sinai
   b. During the Mosaic age, from Mount Sinai to the time of Christ

[An understanding and appreciation of the ministry of angels may be
gleaned by a survey of their appearances as revealed in the Old
Testament...]

I. THE PATRIARCHAL AGE

   A. BEFORE THE FLOOD...
      1. 'Sons of God' (angels?) shouted for joy at the Creation

          - Job 38:7
      2. 'Cherubim' (angels?) were placed at the east of the Garden of
         Eden to guard the way to the tree of life - Gen 3:24
      3. 'Sons of God' (angels?) cohabitate with 'daughters of men'
         - Gen 6:1-4; cf. 2Pe 2:4; Jude 6

   B. IN THE LIFE OF ABRAHAM...
      1. The Angel of the Lord appeared to Hagar in the wilderness

         - Gen 16:7-14; cf. 21:17
      2. Two angels together with the Lord appeared to Abraham

         - Gen 18:1-2
      3. The same two angels appeared to Lot before destroying Sodom
         - Gen 19:1-22
      4. The Angel of the Lord prevented Abraham from sacrificing Isaac
         - Gen 22:11-18
      5. Abraham was confident that an angel would guide his servant in
         finding a wife for Isaac - Gen 24:7,40

   C. IN THE LIFE OF JACOB...
      1. In his dream at Bethel, Jacob saw angels ascending and
         descending on a ladder up to heaven - Gen 28:12
      2. The angel of God spoke to him in a dream, telling him to return
         to Canaan - Gen 31:11-13
      3. Angels of God met him on his return at Mahanaim - Gen 32:1-2
      4. He wrestled with a "Man", who is later called as "the Angel"
         - Gen 32:24-30; Hos 12:4
      5. Toward the end of his life, he refers to "the Angel who has
         redeemed me from all evil" - Gen 48:15

   D. IN THE LIFE OF MOSES...
      1. The Angel of the Lord appeared to him at the burning bush

         - Exo 3:1-2; cf. Ac 7:30,35
      2. The Angel of God led the Israelites out of Egypt - Exo 14:19

[When the nation of Israel came to Mount Sinai, the Law was given,
ushering in a new dispensation.  It too was a time in which angels
ministered to the people of God...]

II. THE MOSAIC AGE

   A. ON THE WAY TO THE PROMISED LAND...
      1. God's angel led Israel through the wilderness - Exo 23:20-23;
         cf. 32:34; 33:2; Num 20:16
      2. The Angel of the Lord appeared to Balaam's donkey, and then to
         him - Num 22:22-35
      3. Some believe "the Commander of the Lord's Army" was the Angel
         of the Lord - cf. Josh 5:13-15
      4. The Angel of the Lord rebukes Israel at Bochim - Judg 2:1-6

   B. IN THE TIME OF THE JUDGES...
      1. Through Deborah the Angel of the Lord tells Israel to curse
         Meroz - Judg 5:23
      2. The Angel of the Lord appears to Gideon - Judg 6:11-24
      3. The Angel of the Lord appears to the parents of Samson

         - Jud 13:1-23

   C. IN THE DAYS OF THE KINGS...
      1. The Angel of the Lord was sent to destroy the people of Israel
         after David's census - 2Sa 24:15-17; 1Ch 21:14-18,26-30
      2. The Angel of the Lord fed Elijah - 1Ki 19:5-7
      3. The Angel of the Lord sent Elijah with messages to the king of
         Samaria - 2Ki 1:3,15
      4. The Angel of the Lord slew 185,000 men of the army of Assyria
         - 2Ki 19:35; 2Ch 32:20-22; Isa 37:36; cf. Isa 63:9
      5. Isaiah sees 'seraphim' praising the Lord on His throne

         - Isa 6:1-7

   D. IN THE YEARS OF BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY...
      1. Ezekiel sees 'cherubim' (angels?) in several visions

         - Ezek 1:1-28; cf. 10:1-20
      2. Nebuchadnezzar praised God for sending His Angel to deliver
         Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego - Dan 3:28; cf. 3:24-25
      3. They appeared (as 'watchers') in Nebuchadnezzar's dream

         - Dan 4:13,17,23
      4. God sent His angel to shut up the lions' mouths when Daniel was
         in the den - Dan 6:22
      5. Gabriel interpreted several visions for Daniel

         - Dan 8:15-17;9:21-23
      6. A "certain man" appeared to Daniel and revealed what certain
         "princes" (like Michael, the archangel) were doing - Dan 10:
         4-13,21; 12:1

   E. IN THE PERIOD FOLLOWING THE RESTORATION...
      1. The Angel of the Lord appeared in Zechariah's eight visions
         a. The vision of the horses - Zech 1:7-17
         b. The vision of the horns - Zech 1:18-21
         c. The vision of the measuring line - Zech 2:1-5
         d. The vision of Joshua, the high priest - Zech 3:1-10
         e. The vision of the lamp stand and olive trees - Zech 4:1-14
         f. The vision of the flying scroll - Zech 5:1-4
         g. The vision of the woman in a basket - Zech 5:5-11
         h. The vision of the four chariots - Zech 6:1-8
      2. These visions along with the message of Zechariah were used to
         encourage the completion of the temple following their return
         from Babylon - cf. Ezr 5:1; 6:14

   F. IN THE SONGS OF ISRAEL...
      1. "For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You
         have crowned him with glory and honor." - Ps 8:5
      2. "The angel of the LORD encamps all around those who fear Him,
         And delivers them." - Ps 34:7
      3. "Let them be like chaff before the wind, And let the angel of
         the LORD chase them." - Ps 35:5
      4. "Let their way be dark and slippery, And let the angel of the
         LORD pursue them." - Ps 35:6
      5. "Men ate angels' food; He sent them food to the full."

         - Psa 78:25
      6. "He cast on them the fierceness of His anger, wrath,
         indignation, and trouble, By sending angels of destruction
         among them." - Ps 78:49
      7. "For He shall give His angels charge over you, To keep you in
         all your ways." - Ps 91:11
      8. "Bless the LORD, you His angels, Who excel in strength, who do
         His word, Heeding the voice of His word." - Ps 103:20
      9. "Who makes His angels spirits, His ministers a flame of fire."
         -  Ps 104:4
     10. "Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts!"

         - Psa 148:2

CONCLUSION

1. Angels played important roles in the Old Testament...
   a. Including the giving of the Law - cf. Ac 7:38,53; Ga 3:19; He 2:2
   b. Who wondered at the scheme of redemption slowly being revealed
      - cf. 1Pe 1:9-12

2. They were truly ministering spirits...
   a. Serving the faithful saints throughout the Old Testament
   b. Serving the will of God as He prepared for the coming of His Son

Their service continued with the coming of Christ, which we shall
consider in a future study...

Two Bethlehems? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=1219

Two Bethlehems?

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

One powerful proof of the supernatural origin of the Bible is the presence of predictive prophecy within its pages. Old Testament prophets predicted minute details of events that were fulfilled in the New Testament. The uninformed observer may take this claim with “a grain of salt,” thinking that anyone can write a book that makes predictions, and then report the fulfillment of those predictions in the same book. In other words, one might simply assume that the entire Bible was written by only one (or a few) writers who simply selected contemporaneous events at the time they were writing, and then couched their subject matter in an anticipatory format, creating the impression that they were predicting events yet future to their own day.

This methodology certainly has been followed by other books that claim to be from God. The Book of Mormon is characterized mostly by its reporting of the past. It purports to be the result of a single individual—Joseph Smith—who allegedly received gold plates from an angel, which then were translated with divine assistance (see Miller, 2003). Likewise, the Quran claims to be the result of revelations presented to a single individual—Muhammad—by the angel Gabriel. It, too, gives the appearance of being the result of a single person responding to his surroundings without the ability to predict the future.

In contrast, the canon of the Old Testament Scriptures, completed prior to the formation of the New Testament, stands as an indisputable fact of history. Although the higher textual critics have attempted to reassign late dates to many of the Old Testament books, even they have not dated them beyond the second century B.C., with canonization complete by 100 B.C. (see Archer, 1974, pp. 77-79). One reason for this concession is the fixed historical fact that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament was translated into Greek by seventy-two scholars in Alexandria in approximately 250 B.C.The existence of this translation, known as the Septuagint, is corroborated by several independent historical witnesses (see Harrison, 1969, pp. 228ff.; Koester, 1982, 1:252ff.; Tenney, 1976, 5:342-343). The existence of the Septuagint verifies that the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament were intact over 300 years before the first books of the New Testament were penned. Likewise, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has further demonstrated a pre-Christian presence of the Old Testament books (see Finegan, 1959, 2:271ff.; Thompson, 1962, p. 264; Free and Vos, 1992, pp. 175ff.; Pfeiffer, 1969, pp. 25ff.; Archer, 1974, pp. 38ff., 505-509).

One category of Old Testament predictive prophecy is Messianic prophecy, i.e., prophecy that pertains to the coming of the Messiah—Jesus Christ. Some 332 (Free and Vos, 1992, p. 241) minute, intricate predictions are scattered throughout the Old Testament that pinpoint details of events and circumstances that transpired while Jesus lived on Earth. Included among these moments in the life of Christ are: His descent from Abraham (Genesis 22:18; Luke 3:34), through the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Hebrews 7:14), through the family of David (2 Samuel 7:12; Luke 1:32), through the virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:22), during the Roman empire (Daniel 2:44; 9:26; Luke 2:1), while Judah still had a king (Genesis 49:10; Matthew 2:22), His escape to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15), His Galilean ministry (Isaiah 9:1-2; Matthew 4:12-16), His priesthood comparable to Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 5:6; 6:20; 7:15-17), His rejection by the Jews (Isaiah 53:3; Psalm 2:2; Luke 15:25; 23:18; John 1:11; 5:43), His triumphal entry (Zechariah 9:9; Isaiah 62:11; Matthew 21:1-11; John 12:12-15), His betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; John 13:18), for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:15), which would be returned for a potter’s field (Zechariah 11:13; Matthew 27:3-10), with His accuser replaced (Psalm 109:7-8; Acts 1:16-20), being spit upon and beaten (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30), His silence when accused (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 26:62-63), by false witnesses (Psalm 27:12; 35:11; Matthew 26:60-61), mocked and insulted (Psalm 22:6-8; Matthew 27:39-40), given gall and vinegar (Psalm 69:21; John 19:29), His death with sinners (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38), with His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16; Luke 24:39), but no bone broken (Psalm 34:20; John 19:33), while lots were cast for his clothing (Psalm 22:18; Mark 15:24), buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60), but in death his body would not decay (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:22ff.), and His ascension (Psalm 68:18; Daniel 7:13-14; Luke 24:50-51; Acts 1:9).

One particularly striking prophecy was uttered by the prophet Micah, who lived and prophesied in the eighth century B.C. (Lewis, 1966, p. 32). He articulated a very specific reference to the place of Christ’s birth: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting” (5:2). This prophecy is remarkable on at least two counts. First, the fact that anyone could predict the precise city where a “ruler” would be born centuries later is unsurpassed in ordinary human experience. A charlatan would be “leaving himself wide open” to being discredited. Psychics, palm readers, spiritualists, and faith healers of today are very careful to maintain ambiguity and to keep their words sufficiently vague as to allow for adjustment, evasion, and multiple explanations.Pinpointing a specific city is specificity that is incomparable in its own right.

Second, Micah “stuck his neck out” even farther when he identified the city as “Bethlehem Ephrathah.” Few people probably realize that Palestine contained two towns named Bethlehem. Similarly, in the United States, we have Paris, Texas, and Paris, Tennessee. There’s a Jackson, Mississippi, and a Jackson, Tennessee, as well as a Lexington, Tennessee, and a Lexington, Kentucky. The Bethlehem with which most people are familiar is Bethlehem of Judah, located five miles south of Jerusalem. This town, or its inhabitants, is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 35:19; 48:7; Judges 17:7-9; 19:1ff.; Ruth 1:19), and was the birthplace of King David (1 Samuel 16:4; 17:12,15; 2 Samuel 23:14,16). After the Babylonian exile, Bethlehemites reinhabited the town (Ezra 2:21; Nehemiah 7:26). This same Bethlehem served as the birthplace of the Messiah (Matthew 2:1,5; Luke 2:4,15). In fact, King Herod’s familiarity with biblical prophecy caused him to concentrate his massacre of innocent babies on the infant population of this particular Bethlehem.

The other Bethlehem was Bethlehem of Zebulun in northern Palestine. Though mentioned less frequently in the Old Testament (Joshua 19:15; Judges 12:8,10), archaeological excavations indicate that it was a place of some importance in earlier days (Masterman, 1956, 1:449-450).

How did Micah know that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem—let alone Bethlehem Ephrathah? The only rational explanation is that Micah was inspired in his writing—supernaturally guided to predict the precise location where the Messiah would be born. The Bible stands alone—in a class by itself—apart from all other books on the planet that claim to be of divine origin. It is, in fact, the Word of God. As such, it reserves the right to require conformity to its precepts by all accountable human beings.

REFERENCES

Archer, Gleason L. Jr. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition.

Finegan, Jack (1959), Light from the Ancient Past (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), second edition.

Free, Joseph P. and Howard F. Vos (1992), Archaeology and Bible History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), revised edition.

Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Koester, Helmut (1982), History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress).

Lewis, Jack (1966), The Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Masterman, E.W.G. (1956), “Bethlehem,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. James Orr (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1974 reprint.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Is the Book of Mormon from God?” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2243.

Pfeiffer, Charles (1969), The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Tenney, Merrill, ed. (1976), The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Thompson, J.A. (1962), The Bible and Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

The Euthyphro Dilemma by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Euthyphro Dilemma

by	Dave Miller, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=4102

Q:

What do atheists mean when they speak of the “Euthyphro Dilemma” as a means to discredit theism?

A:

The so-called Euthyphro Dilemma has its genesis in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro in which Socrates and Euthyphro discuss the nature of piety: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” (2008). Over time, philosophers have sharpened the salient point of the dilemma by presenting it in a modified form. The world-renowned late atheist philosopher Antony G.N. Flew worded the argument this way: “Are the things which are good good because God approves of those things, or is it the case that God approves of those things which are good because they are good?” (Warren and Flew, 1977, p. 26). By this thorny contention, the atheist hopes to dismiss the notion of God by placing the theist in an untenable dilemma.

On the one hand, if an action is right simply because God approves it, then morality would be the product of the arbitrary will of God, which He could just as easily alter. Instead of saying that lying and murder are wrong, He could just as well have said they are right—and that divine intention would make them so. On the other hand, if God approves of an action because it is inherently good, then an objective standard exists outside of God that He merely acknowledges. Such a law would therefore be above and higher than God. By the Euthyphro Dilemma, atheists think they have demonstrated that good is either above or beneath God and thereby proof that God is not God (see Figure 1).


Figure 1: The Euthyphro Dilemma	Figure 2: Reality

But this dilemma is impotent in that it fails to take into account the nature, being, and character of the perfect God of the Bible who is eternal and infinite in all of His attributes. Goodness, like all God’s other attributes, flows from His very being as the Ultimate Good (see Figure 2). Good is neither above nor below God (cf. Mark 10:18; 1 John 4:8; Psalm 33:5). God’s attributes and God’s will are inseparable. The alternatives posed by the atheist do not pose a proper dilemma.

REFERENCES

Plato (2008), Euthyphro, trans. Benjamin Jowett, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1642/1642-h/1642-h.htm.

Warren, Thomas and Antony G.N. Flew (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God(Ramer, TN: National Christian Press), info@nationalchristianpress.net.

Finches, Fossils, and Falsehoods by Kyle Butt, M.Div.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=872

Finches, Fossils, and Falsehoods

by	Kyle Butt, M.Div.

In the May 6, 2002 edition of Newsweek, Fred Guterl wrote a brief article titled “Evolution: Birds Do It” (139[18]:11). The gist of the article centered on a couple named Peter and Rosemary Grant, “a married team of biologists from Princeton, [who] have worked for three decades to fill in Darwin’s blanks.”

The major problem with Mr. Guterl’s article hinges on the fact that he is not aware of the true “blanks” that need to be filled in with regard to Darwin’s theory. In the opening paragraph of the article he wrote: “Charles Darwin described how the daily struggle for food and sex ultimately determines the future of a species, be it dinosaur, bird or human. He had plenty of fossil evidence to back him up, but he never actually observed natural selection taking place.”

In sharp contrast to this statement, the tenth chapter of The Origin of Species is titled “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.” In it, Darwin argued that, due to the process of natural selection, “the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.” However, he went on to admit: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against this theory. The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record” (1956, pp. 292-293).

Darwin most certainly did not have “plenty of fossil evidence to back him up.” He hoped that future geological research would fill in those blanks, due to the fact that fossil evidence was the major lacking evidence needed to verify his theory. Unfortunately for Darwin and his theory, that evidence has been much less forthcoming than he had hoped. In fact, if Mr. Guterl had checked his own publication’s archives before he printed his misleading article, he would have discovered that in the November 3, 1980 issue of Newsweek, Jerry Adler went on record as stating: “Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment” (96[18]:95). Nothing in that regard has changed in the more than two decades since Mr. Adler made that statement.

Mr. Guterl made two common mistakes in his article. First, he attributed evidence to Darwin’s theory that it does not (and never will) have. Second, he discussed thirty years of experience by two intelligent scientists who documented minor changes among the various beak sizes and body weights of finches. He then used those minor changes to imply general (amoeba-to-man) evolution, but failed to recognize the fact that those minor changes have built-in limits. The finches never changed into anything other than finches. You could put scientists on the Galapagos Islands for the next million years (if the Earth were to stay around for that long) and they never would see a finch change into another type of animal. Evolution is a theory that lacks scientific evidence. Darwin looked to the fossils, and Guterl looked to the finches, but it is time that we all start looking past the falsehoods.

REFERENCES

Adler, Jerry (1980), “Is Man a Subtle Accident?,” Newsweek, 96[18]:95, November 3.

Darwin, Charles (1956 reprint), The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).

Guterl, Fred (2002), “Evolution: Birds Do It,” Newsweek, 139[18]:11, May 6.