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!!! 

From Gary.... Bible Reading January 1

Bible Reading  

January 1

The World English Bible

Jan. 1

Genesis 1

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

Gen 1:3 God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Gen 1:4 God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. There was evening and there was morning, one day.

Gen 1:6 God said, "Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

Gen 1:7 God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

Gen 1:8 God called the expanse sky. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Gen 1:9 God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear;" and it was so.

Gen 1:10 God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:11 God said, "Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with its seed in it, on the earth;" and it was so.

Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Gen 1:14 God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;

Gen 1:15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of sky to give light on the earth;" and it was so.

Gen 1:16 God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars.

Gen 1:17 God set them in the expanse of sky to give light to the earth,

Gen 1:18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Gen 1:20 God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of sky."

Gen 1:21 God created the large sea creatures, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:22 God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

Gen 1:23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Gen 1:24 God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind;" and it was so.

Gen 1:25 God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:26 God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Gen 1:27 God created man in his own image. In God's image he created him; male and female he created them.

Gen 1:28 God blessed them. God said to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Gen 1:29 God said, "Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food.

Gen 1:30 To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;" and it was so.

Gen 1:31 God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

 Jan. 1, 2

Matthew 1

Mat 1:1 The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Mat 1:2 Abraham became the father of Isaac. Isaac became the father of Jacob. Jacob became the father of Judah and his brothers.

Mat 1:3 Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron. Hezron became the father of Ram.

Mat 1:4 Ram became the father of Amminadab. Amminadab became the father of Nahshon. Nahshon became the father of Salmon.

Mat 1:5 Salmon became the father of Boaz by Rahab. Boaz became the father of Obed by Ruth. Obed became the father of Jesse.

Mat 1:6 Jesse became the father of David the king. David became the father of Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah.

Mat 1:7 Solomon became the father of Rehoboam. Rehoboam became the father of Abijah. Abijah became the father of Asa.

Mat 1:8 Asa became the father of Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat became the father of Joram. Joram became the father of Uzziah.

Mat 1:9 Uzziah became the father of Jotham. Jotham became the father of Ahaz. Ahaz became the father of Hezekiah.

Mat 1:10 Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh. Manasseh became the father of Amon. Amon became the father of Josiah.

Mat 1:11 Josiah became the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the exile to Babylon.

Mat 1:12 After the exile to Babylon, Jechoniah became the father of Shealtiel. Shealtiel became the father of Zerubbabel.

Mat 1:13 Zerubbabel became the father of Abiud. Abiud became the father of Eliakim. Eliakim became the father of Azor.

Mat 1:14 Azor became the father of Sadoc. Sadoc became the father of Achim. Achim became the father of Eliud.

Mat 1:15 Eliud became the father of Eleazar. Eleazar became the father of Matthan. Matthan became the father of Jacob.

Mat 1:16 Jacob became the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Mat 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was like this; for after his mother, Mary, was engaged to Joseph, before they came together, she was found pregnant by the Holy Spirit.

Mat 1:19 Joseph, her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, intended to put her away secretly.

Mat 1:20 But when he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, don't be afraid to take to yourself Mary, your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Mat 1:21 She shall bring forth a son. You shall call his name Jesus, for it is he who shall save his people from their sins."

Mat 1:22 Now all this has happened, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

Mat 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son. They shall call his name Immanuel;" which is, being interpreted, "God with us."

Mat 1:24 Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife to himself;

Mat 1:25 and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Jesus. 

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 Jim McGuiggan... BEATING JONAH ONE MORE TIME

BEATING JONAH ONE MORE TIME

Jonah is one of those people it’s easy to pick on; a handy whipping-boy and a convenient place from which to launch a stream of criticism leveled at modern Christians who don’t stress the “love” of God in its coziest forms—the all sugar and sweetness kind of thing. Jonah is presented as the “heartless” and graceless bigot who isn’t willing to give Nineveh access to God’s grace because, while he might know all the verses, he doesn’t know the gracious heart of God. From Jonah we then move to modern Christians who might have “correct doctrine” but like Jonah they’re heartless and graceless because they don’t know the gracious heart of God and so don’t want anyone saved but themselves. [This appears to be the main purpose for touching Jonah at all.]

This view of Jonah and the book of Jonah has recently been presented as new and startling but it’s nothing but more of the same—it’s the kind of thing we’ve read and heard for generations.

The bigoted and graceless Jonah is set up and contrasted with Matthew 18, for example, as if these two sections of God’s word to us were in some way parallel when a single glance at them tells you that the situations aren’t at all alike!

In Matthew 18 you have Jesus and two covenanted individuals who are called to work out some offence. In Jonah you have an enraged spokesman for God’s covenanted people and a predatory nation that ravages the earth [and God’s covenanted people along with it].

The usual “let’s whip Jonah and his modern counterparts” completely ignores this. A better parallel would be to have Jonah stand for a Jew in the Nazi hell-holes called Dachau or Auschwitz and have Assyria stand for Hitler’s death-camp villains.

Ask that “Jonah” if he’s happy with God offering the death-camp creators and executioners full forgiveness and you’re beginning to get a sense of the biblical Jonah’s agony.

Imagine that “Jonah” as he watches children hanging, unable to die quickly because they don’t weigh enough for the rope to choke them quickly, as he watches them innocently herded off to the gas-chambers [one of them even taken by the hand and helped up the steps by a camp-guard because the child couldn’t climb them on his own!], as he watches the torture and purposed extermination of his entire nation—imagine all that and then ask yourself why the biblical Jonah ran off to Tarshish. Imagine all that and then tell me that you don’t know why the biblical Jonah said he’d rather be dead than see the present Assyrian empire survive.

Heartless? His heart was so huge, straining at the seams with love for his people that he was willing to disobey God himself! Call a devout Jew in those camps that defy description, standing there bareheaded in speechless horror while his family and friends are raped, tortured and exterminated—call him heartless because he wants this heathen empire to be destroyed and you rightly lose all credibility with anyone with feelings or who has read the book of Nahum where God came over on to Jonah’s side.

Those who use Jonah as a whipping-boy to urge us moderns all to be nice to one another present no challenge from the book of Jonah—they offer nothing but more of the glib sameness to a Western society of “consumers” that is awash with grace talk. In light of this kind of treatment of Jonah, everyone gets grace extended to him except the confused and tormented Jonah

Jonah is a man torn between profound love for the elect of God and his full awareness that God will be gracious because it is how He is! He is having trouble working out how God is gracious to his covenant people while he extends grace to an empire that rapes the earth. It was precisely because he knew full well that God was full of grace that his torn heart drove him to Tarshish [Jonah 4:2-4]!

“Ah, yes,” the critic will reply, “that’s my very point; he had the right doctrine but no heart! He knew God was gracious but he didn’t want him to be gracious to Nineveh.”

There’s some truth in this, of course, but all in all it’s more of a slander. In order to call Jonah heartless you have to subvert his prayer in chapter 2 and turn it into what it clearly isn’t. Read it for yourself—there’s remorse, thankfulness, a turning to God’s temple in prayer. One writer, anxious to beat on Jonah [and his modern Christian counterparts] turns 2:8 into Jonah’s bigoted gloating over idolaters rather than what it plainly is—a word of praise for the true God who is unlike idols—idols that can’t show covenant love as God can to those who pray to him. That’s why Jonah will pray to the one true God and sacrifice to him rather than to idols [2:7-9].  In saying this he is saying nothing more than what Isaiah and Jeremiah said with blunt developed speech dripping with sarcasm and when he argues with God he’s no more blunt than Jeremiah who said scathing things to God. But no one berates Jeremiah or Isaiah the way some of us berate Jonah and his alleged modern counterparts.

[If we want to have a go at the modern Church of the Lord—let’s go for it but let’s not pretend we’re expositing the message of Jonah!]

Should we forgive our enemies? Of course we should! Doesn’t God do that when they repent?

But should we call God heartless or graceless when he destroys Nineveh for the very things that enraged and tortured Jonah? [Read Nahum!]

Is a longing for the righteous judgment of God on pillaging empires the fruit of bigotry and heartlessness?

If you stood paralyzed with horror in Auschwitz and longed for God to destroy the Nazis should we call you “heartless”? Whatever else we call you, should we call you a ”heartless” bigot?

This liberal Christianizing of OT prophets is certainly not bringing out the meaning or depths of these prophets.

It’s probably true what they say. They say if absolutely nothing can make us angry there’s something essential missing in our make up.

When God asked Jonah (4:6), “Have you any right to be angry?” he wasn’t short of information; he wanted to draw the prophet out. Jonah must have fumed when back home but it was only later that he exploded into speech about the wideness of God’s mercy.

The temptation is real for us to dismiss the righteousness of Jonah’s anger because God is gracious but whatever his limitations [and he had them] Jonah wasn’t angry for nothing.

The same God we extol as full of grace [and he is!] in the book of Jonah is the God who drove the Assyrian kingdom down to Sheol in the book of Nahum. God did in Nahum what Jonah wanted in the book of Jonah and God did it for the very reason Jonah wanted it done!

The painter G.F. Watts produced a direly needed portrait of the tormented and enraged prophet. Jonah is pictured as a green, wild, thin figure with arms raised aloft to heaven. His head is titled back skyward, his mouth is open like a bottomless pit and his eyes are white with madness. The background, blended in with all this, is a collage of scenes in which the cruel Assyrians are brutalizing and enslaving the peoples of the world. GK Chesterton captions his portrait: I Do Well To Be Angry.

There’s something about that picture by Watts that should throw a whole new light on the book of Jonah and put an end to our trotting out one. more. time. what we’ve heard for generations—Jonah is the bigoted and graceless donkey we’re to beat  before we move quickly to our real target—his alleged modern counterparts.  

Here’s a question: Is the book of Jonah really about how gracious God is and how heartless Jonah was?

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

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.

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.

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 believes	One does not believe
God exists	Eternal reward	Eternal punishment
God does not exist	Freedom from angst	Temporal 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).