April 5, 2017

Kids...? by Gary Rose

Parenting seems like an eternal struggle, doesn't it?  At a certain age, children just have to assert themselves and if you really want to be a parent- THERE WILL BE CONFLICT! To me, the picture says a lot about parenting. But there is more to consider...


Ephesians, Chapter 6 (World English Bible)
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.  2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with a promise:  3 “that it may be well with you, and you may live long on the earth.”

  4 You fathers, don’t provoke your children to wrath, but nurture them in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.


Children need to listen; they will be blessed for it! Fathers need to be moderate in their disciple (it is meant to nurture them, after all) and seek God's help. Simple advice, hard to apply (at least for me, anyway). Speaking as a father with children in their mid to late 40's- they didn't turn out so bad. Not one of them dyed their (feathers) hair and as far as I know, no one had any piercings.  One of the hardest things for me to realize was that at some point you have to let go and allow them to make their own decisions- they have to live with the consequences of what they do, not you.

Bible Reading April 5 by Gary Rose

Bible Reading April 5 (World English Bible)
Apr. 5
Numbers 1, 2
Num 1:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying,
Num 1:2 "Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, every male, one by one;
Num 1:3 from twenty years old and upward, all who are able to go out to war in Israel. You and Aaron shall number them by their divisions.
Num 1:4 With you there shall be a man of every tribe; everyone head of his fathers' house.
Num 1:5 These are the names of the men who shall stand with you: Of Reuben: Elizur the son of Shedeur.
Num 1:6 Of Simeon: Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai.
Num 1:7 Of Judah: Nahshon the son of Amminadab.
Num 1:8 Of Issachar: Nethanel the son of Zuar.
Num 1:9 Of Zebulun: Eliab the son of Helon.
Num 1:10 Of the children of Joseph: Of Ephraim: Elishama the son of Ammihud. Of Manasseh: Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur.
Num 1:11 Of Benjamin: Abidan the son of Gideoni.
Num 1:12 Of Dan: Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai.
Num 1:13 Of Asher: Pagiel the son of Ochran.
Num 1:14 Of Gad: Eliasaph the son of Deuel.
Num 1:15 Of Naphtali: Ahira the son of Enan."
Num 1:16 These are those who were called of the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they were the heads of the thousands of Israel.
Num 1:17 Moses and Aaron took these men who are mentioned by name.
Num 1:18 They assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month; and they declared their ancestry by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, one by one.
Num 1:19 As Yahweh commanded Moses, so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai.
Num 1:20 The children of Reuben, Israel's firstborn, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, one by one, every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war;
Num 1:21 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Reuben, were forty-six thousand five hundred.
Num 1:22 Of the children of Simeon, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, those who were numbered of it, according to the number of the names, one by one, every male from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war;
Num 1:23 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Simeon, were fifty-nine thousand three hundred.
Num 1:24 Of the children of Gad, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war;
Num 1:25 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Gad, were forty-five thousand six hundred fifty.
Num 1:26 Of the children of Judah, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war;
Num 1:27 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Judah, were sixty-four thousand six hundred.
Num 1:28 Of the children of Issachar, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war;
Num 1:29 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Issachar, were fifty-four thousand four hundred.
Num 1:30 Of the children of Zebulun, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war;
Num 1:31 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Zebulun, were fifty-seven thousand four hundred.
Num 1:32 Of the children of Joseph, of the children of Ephraim, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war;
Num 1:33 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Ephraim, were forty thousand five hundred.
Num 1:34 Of the children of Manasseh, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war;
Num 1:35 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Manasseh, were thirty-two thousand two hundred.
Num 1:36 Of the children of Benjamin, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war;
Num 1:37 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Benjamin, were thirty-five thousand four hundred.
Num 1:38 Of the children of Dan, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go forth to war;
Num 1:39 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Dan, were sixty-two thousand seven hundred.
Num 1:40 Of the children of Asher, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go forth to war;
Num 1:41 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Asher, were forty-one thousand five hundred.
Num 1:42 Of the children of Naphtali, their generations, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go forth to war;
Num 1:43 those who were numbered of them, of the tribe of Naphtali, were fifty-three thousand four hundred.
Num 1:44 These are those who were numbered, whom Moses and Aaron numbered, and the princes of Israel, being twelve men: they were each one for his fathers' house.
Num 1:45 So all those who were numbered of the children of Israel by their fathers' houses, from twenty years old and upward, all who were able to go out to war in Israel;
Num 1:46 even all those who were numbered were six hundred three thousand five hundred fifty.
Num 1:47 But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them.
Num 1:48 For Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,
Num 1:49 "Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, neither shall you take a census of them among the children of Israel;
Num 1:50 but appoint the Levites over the Tabernacle of the Testimony, and over all its furnishings, and over all that belongs to it. They shall carry the tabernacle, and all its furnishings; and they shall take care of it, and shall encamp around it.
Num 1:51 When the tabernacle is to move, the Levites shall take it down; and when the tabernacle is to be set up, the Levites shall set it up. The stranger who comes near shall be put to death.
Num 1:52 The children of Israel shall pitch their tents, every man by his own camp, and every man by his own standard, according to their divisions.
Num 1:53 But the Levites shall encamp around the Tabernacle of the Testimony, that there may be no wrath on the congregation of the children of Israel: and the Levites shall be responsible for the Tabernacle of the Testimony."
Num 1:54 Thus the children of Israel did. According to all that Yahweh commanded Moses, so they did.
Num 2:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying,
Num 2:2 "The children of Israel shall encamp every man by his own standard, with the banners of their fathers' houses: at a distance from the Tent of Meeting shall they encamp around it."
Num 2:3 Those who encamp on the east side toward the sunrise shall be of the standard of the camp of Judah, according to their divisions: and the prince of the children of Judah shall be Nahshon the son of Amminadab.
Num 2:4 His division, and those who were numbered of them, were seventy-four thousand six hundred.
Num 2:5 Those who encamp next to him shall be the tribe of Issachar: and the prince of the children of Issachar shall be Nethanel the son of Zuar.
Num 2:6 His division, and those who were numbered of it, were fifty-four thousand four hundred.
Num 2:7 The tribe of Zebulun: and the prince of the children of Zebulun shall be Eliab the son of Helon.
Num 2:8 His division, and those who were numbered of it, were fifty-seven thousand four hundred.
Num 2:9 All who were numbered of the camp of Judah were one hundred eighty-six thousand four hundred, according to their divisions. They shall set out first.
Num 2:10 "On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben according to their divisions. The prince of the children of Reuben shall be Elizur the son of Shedeur.
Num 2:11 His division, and those who were numbered of it, were forty-six thousand five hundred.
Num 2:12 "Those who encamp next to him shall be the tribe of Simeon. The prince of the children of Simeon shall be Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai.
Num 2:13 His division, and those who were numbered of them, were fifty-nine thousand three hundred.
Num 2:14 "The tribe of Gad: and the prince of the children of Gad shall be Eliasaph the son of Reuel.
Num 2:15 His division, and those who were numbered of them, were forty-five thousand six hundred fifty.
Num 2:16 "All who were numbered of the camp of Reuben were one hundred fifty-one thousand four hundred fifty, according to their armies. They shall set out second.
Num 2:17 "Then the Tent of Meeting shall set out, with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camps. As they encamp, so shall they set out, every man in his place, by their standards.
Num 2:18 "On the west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim according to their divisions: and the prince of the children of Ephraim shall be Elishama the son of Ammihud.
Num 2:19 His division, and those who were numbered of them, were forty thousand five hundred.
Num 2:20 "Next to him shall be the tribe of Manasseh: and the prince of the children of Manasseh shall be Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur.
Num 2:21 His division, and those who were numbered of them, were thirty-two thousand two hundred.
Num 2:22 "The tribe of Benjamin: and the prince of the children of Benjamin shall be Abidan the son of Gideoni.
Num 2:23 His army, and those who were numbered of them, were thirty-five thousand four hundred.
Num 2:24 "All who were numbered of the camp of Ephraim were one hundred eight thousand one hundred, according to their divisions. They shall set out third.
Num 2:25 "On the north side shall be the standard of the camp of Dan according to their divisions: and the prince of the children of Dan shall be Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai.
Num 2:26 His division, and those who were numbered of them, were sixty-two thousand seven hundred.
Num 2:27 "Those who encamp next to him shall be the tribe of Asher: and the prince of the children of Asher shall be Pagiel the son of Ochran.
Num 2:28 His division, and those who were numbered of them, were forty-one thousand and five hundred.
Num 2:29 "The tribe of Naphtali: and the prince of the children of Naphtali shall be Ahira the son of Enan.
Num 2:30 His division, and those who were numbered of them, were fifty-three thousand four hundred.
Num 2:31 "All who were numbered of the camp of Dan were one hundred fifty-seven thousand six hundred. They shall set out last by their standards."
Num 2:32 These are those who were numbered of the children of Israel by their fathers' houses. All who were numbered of the camps according to their armies were six hundred three thousand five hundred fifty.
Num 2:33 But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel; as Yahweh commanded Moses.
Num 2:34 Thus the children of Israel did. According to all that Yahweh commanded Moses, so they encamped by their standards, and so they set out, everyone by their families, according to their fathers' houses.
Apr. 4, 5
Luke 4
Luk 4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness
Luk 4:2 for forty days, being tempted by the devil. He ate nothing in those days. Afterward, when they were completed, he was hungry.
Luk 4:3 The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread."
Luk 4:4 Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.' "
Luk 4:5 The devil, leading him up on a high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Luk 4:6 The devil said to him, "I will give you all this authority, and their glory, for it has been delivered to me; and I give it to whomever I want.
Luk 4:7 If you therefore will worship before me, it will all be yours."
Luk 4:8 Jesus answered him, "Get behind me Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and you shall serve him only.' "
Luk 4:9 He led him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down from here,
Luk 4:10 for it is written, 'He will put his angels in charge of you, to guard you;'
Luk 4:11 and, 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest perhaps you dash your foot against a stone.' "
Luk 4:12 Jesus answering, said to him, "It has been said, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.' "
Luk 4:13 When the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him until another time.
Luk 4:14 Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and news about him spread through all the surrounding area.
Luk 4:15 He taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.
Luk 4:16 He came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. He entered, as was his custom, into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read.
Luk 4:17 The book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. He opened the book, and found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim release to the captives, recovering of sight to the blind, to deliver those who are crushed,
Luk 4:19 and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luk 4:20 He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 He began to tell them, "Today, this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
Luk 4:22 All testified about him, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth, and they said, "Isn't this Joseph's son?"
Luk 4:23 He said to them, "Doubtless you will tell me this parable, 'Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in your hometown.' "
Luk 4:24 He said, "Most certainly I tell you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown.
Luk 4:25 But truly I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the sky was shut up three years and six months, when a great famine came over all the land.
Luk 4:26 Elijah was sent to none of them, except to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow.
Luk 4:27 There were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed, except Naaman, the Syrian."
Luk 4:28 They were all filled with wrath in the synagogue, as they heard these things.
Luk 4:29 They rose up, threw him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill that their city was built on, that they might throw him off the cliff.
Luk 4:30 But he, passing through the midst of them, went his way.
Luk 4:31 He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee. He was teaching them on the Sabbath day,
Luk 4:32 and they were astonished at his teaching, for his word was with authority.
Luk 4:33 In the synagogue there was a man who had a spirit of an unclean demon, and he cried out with a loud voice,
Luk 4:34 saying, "Ah! what have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know you who you are: the Holy One of God!"
Luk 4:35 Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" When the demon had thrown him down in their midst, he came out of him, having done him no harm.
Luk 4:36 Amazement came on all, and they spoke together, one with another, saying, "What is this word? For with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out!"
Luk 4:37 News about him went out into every place of the surrounding region.
Luk 4:38 He rose up from the synagogue, and entered into Simon's house. Simon's mother-in-law was afflicted with a great fever, and they begged him for her.
Luk 4:39 He stood over her, and rebuked the fever; and it left her. Immediately she rose up and served them.
Luk 4:40 When the sun was setting, all those who had any sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them, and healed them.
Luk 4:41 Demons also came out from many, crying out, and saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of God!" Rebuking them, he didn't allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.
Luk 4:42 When it was day, he departed and went into an uninhabited place, and the multitudes looked for him, and came to him, and held on to him, so that he wouldn't go away from them.
Luk 4:43 But he said to them, "I must preach the good news of the Kingdom of God to the other cities also. For this reason I have been sent."
Luk 4:44 He was preaching in the synagogues of Galilee.

Why I Left The Homosexual Lifestyle by Tony Horton


http://www.oldpaths.com/Archive/Horton/Tony/Earl/1957/whyileft.html

Why I Left The Homosexual Lifestyle

The reason why is simple. I want to spend eternity in heaven. Our life is a vapor. We're not on this earth long (James 4:14). We are here to serve God and do His will (John 6:38) and if we are faithful unto death He will give us the crown of life (Revelation 2:10). It's a small price for us to pay when you consider eternity.
I wasn't born gay and neither were you. It was a path I chose, a sexually perverted choice on my behalf. If I was born that way, others, such as child molesters, drunkards, adulterers, thieves, could claim the same thing. Even if you think you were born that way, God still condemns it. He wouldn't make you that way and then condemn you to hell. It was your choice, so turn from it. Even if you still have the desire after you have repented, fellowship with Christians, personal prayer, and studying God's word will help you refrain and stay right with God. You may never have a heterosexual relationship and you may be single the rest of your life, but as stated above, life here on earth is a vapor. We aren't here long but we have heaven to look forward to if we remain faithful unto death.
God is very clear about homosexuality: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6: 9-10). "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).
God loves everyone and wants us to be saved, waiting patiently for us to repent (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9).
I heard the truth of God's word and through obedience to the gospel, I was added to the "church of Christ" (Acts 2:38, 47).
Denominationalism had me confused for years, and then I heard the truth and my life changed. You, too, may transform your life through the power of the gospel (Romans 12:1-2; Romans 1:16). The only "cure" for sin is the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-6) and sincere obedience to it (Romans 1:16; 6:17).
What I feel is my testimonial is how I live today. I don't go into detail about my past because it is just that, my past. I have been out of the homosexual life for almost seven years. One thing I will say about my past is, I was happy being a homosexual. I wasn't unhappy. I am now happier than I was then, now that I live for God. I was the typical homosexual. I had a few relationships and many sexual encounters. I was a bar fly. I got mad if anyone said my way of life was wrong.
I shook my fist in God's face most of my life, blaming Him, cursing His name, when people tried to show me the truth. And now I see nothing but His love for me. I no longer curse Him, but praise His holy name. I'm happier now than I've ever been in my life. God has given me the peace that passes all understanding which comes from studying His word and fellowship with my Christian friends (Philippians 4:7).
You can also reach this point if you have an honest heart and have the desire. You have to make the effort and meet God on His terms not yours.
Everyday I open my eyes I thank God He gave me another day to repent.
Tony Horton

    The Scripture quotations in this article are from The New King James Version. ©1979,1980,1982, Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers.
    Permission for reference use has been granted.

Jacob's Journey to Egypt by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


http://apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=808&b=Exodus

Jacob's Journey to Egypt

by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Three times in the Old Testament, it is stated that seventy people from the house of Jacob went down into Egypt. According to Genesis 46:27, “All the persons of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt were seventy.” In the first few verses of the book of Exodus, Jacob’s sons are named, and then again we are told, “All those who were descendants of Jacob were seventy persons” (Exodus 1:1,5). The third Old Testament reference to this number is found in Deuteronomy 10:22, where Moses spoke to the Israelites about the “great and awesome things” that God had done for them (10:21). He then reminded the children of Israel of how their “fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons,” which Jehovah made “as the stars of heaven in multitude” (Deuteronomy 10:22). The difficulty that Christians are challenged to resolve is how these verses can be understood in light of Stephen’s statement recorded in Acts 7:12-14. Being “full of the Holy Spirit” (7:55) with a “face as the face of an angel” (6:15), Stephen reminded the Jews of their history, saying, “When Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first. And the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Joseph’s family became known to the Pharaoh. Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people” (Acts 7:12-14, emp. added). Skeptics, as well as concerned Christians who seek to back their faith with reasonable answers, desire to know why Acts 7:14 mentions “seventy-five people,” while Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5, and Deuteronomy 10:22 mention only “seventy persons.” Exactly how many of Jacob’s household went to Egypt?
Similar to how a person truthfully can give different degrees for the boiling point of water (100° Celsius or 212° Fahrenheit), different figures are given in the Bible for the number of Jacob’s family members who traveled into Egypt. Stephen (in Acts 7:14) did not contradict the Old Testament passages where the number seventy is used; he merely computed the number differently. Precisely how Stephen calculated this number is a matter of speculation. Consider the following:
  • In Genesis 46:27, neither Jacob’s wife (cf. 35:19) nor his concubines is included in the seventy figure.
  • Despite the mention of Jacob’s “daughters and his son’s daughters” (46:7), it seems that the only daughter included in the “seventy” was Dinah (vs. 15), and the only granddaughter was Serah (vs. 17).
  • The wives of Jacob’s sons are not included in the seventy (46:26).
  • Finally, whereas only two descendants of Joseph are mentioned in Genesis 46 in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, in the Septuagint, Joseph’s descendants are calculated as being nine.
Taking into consideration how many individuals were omitted from “the seventy persons” mentioned in the Old Testament, at least two possible solutions to this alleged contradiction may be offered. First, it is possible that Stephen included Jacob’s daughters-in-law in his calculation of seventy-five. Jacob’s children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Genesis 46:8-26). If Jacob, Joseph, and Joseph’s two sons are added, then the total number is seventy (46:27). If, however, to the sixty-six Stephen added the wives of Jacob’s sons’, he could have legitimately reckoned Jacob’s household as numbering seventy-five, instead of seventy. [NOTE: Jacob is listed by Stephen individually.] Yet, someone might ask how sixty-six plus “twelve” equals seventy-five. Simple—not all of the wives were included. Joseph’s wife obviously would not have been calculated into this figure, if Joseph himself were not. And, at least two of the eleven remaining wives may have been deceased by the time the family journeyed to Egypt. We know for sure that Judah’s wife had already died by this time (Genesis 38:12), and it is reasonable to conclude that another of the wives had passed away as well. (In all likelihood, Simeon’s wife had already died—cf. Genesis 46:10.) Thus, when Stephen stated that “Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people” (Acts 7:14), realistically he could have included the living wives of Joseph’s brothers to get a different (though not a contradictory) number.
A second possible solution to this alleged contradiction is that Stephen quoted from the Septuagint. Although Deuteronomy 10:22 reads the same in both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint (“seventy”), Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 differ in the two texts. Whereas the Masoretic text says “seventy” in both passages, the Septuagint says “seventy-five.” As R.C.H. Lenski concluded, however: “This is a mere matter of counting” (1961, p. 270).
The descendants of Jacob that went to Egypt were sixty-six in number (Gen. 46:26), but counting Joseph and his two sons and Jacob himself (Gen. 46:27), the number is seventy. In the LXX [Septuagint—EL] all the sons of Joseph who he got in Egypt were counted, “nine souls,” which, with the sixty-six, made seventy-five (Lenski, p. 270).
Thus, instead of adding the nine living wives of Joseph’s brothers (as proposed in the aforementioned solution), this scenario suggests that the number seventy-five is the result following the reading from the Septuagint—which includes the grandchildren of Joseph (cf. 1 Chronicles 7:14-21). [NOTE: The Septuagint and the Masoretic text may differ, but they do not contradict each other—the former simply mentions some of Joseph’s descendants who are not recorded by the latter.] In Albert Barnes’ comments concerning these differences, he appropriately noted:
Why the Septuagint inserted these [Joseph’s descendants—EL], it may not be easy to see. But such was evidently the fact; and the fact accords accurately with the historic record, though Moses did not insert their names. The solution of difficulties in regard to chronology is always difficult; and what might be entirely apparent to a Jew in the time of Stephen, may be wholly inexplicable to us (1949, p. 123, emp. added).
One of the more “inexplicable” things regarding the 70 (or 75) “of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt,” revolves around the mention of some of Jacob’s descendants who apparently were not born until sometime after the journey to Egypt was completed. If one accepts the Septuagint’s tally of 75, including the grandchildren of Joseph, he also must conclude that Manasseh and Ephraim (Joseph’s sons) fathered these children sometime after Jacob’s migration to Egypt, and possibly before Jacob’s death seventeen years later (since Ephraim and Manasseh still were very young when the house of Jacob moved to Egypt). If one excludes the Septuagint from this discussion, there still are at least two possible indications in Genesis 46 that not all “seventy” were born before Jacob’s family arrived in Egypt. First, Hezron and Hamul (the sons of Perez) are included in the “seventy” (46:12), yet the evidence strongly leans toward these great-grandsons of Jacob not being born until after the migration. Considering that Judah, the grandfather of Hezron and Hamul, was only about forty-three when the migration to Egypt took place, and that the events recorded in Genesis 38 (involving his family) occurred over a number of years, it seems logical to conclude, as did Steven Mathewson in his “Exegetical Study of Genesis 38,” that “Judah’s sons Perez and Zerah were quite young, perhaps just a few months old, when they traveled to Egypt. Therefore it would have been impossible for Perez to have fathered Hezron and Hamul, his two sons mentioned in Genesis 46:12, before the journey into Egypt” (1989, 146:383). He went on to note:
A close look, however, at Genesis 46:12 reveals a variation in the mention of Hezron and Hamul. The end of the verse reads: “And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul.” Yet throughout Genesis 46, the listing of descendants was done without the use of a verbal form. For example, verse 12a reads, “And the sons of Judah: Er and Onan and Shelah and Perez and Zerah” (146:383).
Hebrew scholar Umberto Cassuto commented on this “special phraseology,” saying, “This external variation creates the impression that the Bible wished to give us here some special information that was different from what it desired to impart relative to the other descendants of Israel” (1929, 1:34). Cassuto also explained what he thought was the intention behind this special use of the verb “were.”
It intended to inform us thereby that the sons of Perez were not among those who went down to Egypt, but are mentioned here for some other reason. This is corroborated by the fact that Joseph’s sons were also not of those who immigrated into Egypt, and they, too, are mentioned by a different formula (1:35).
A second indication that all “seventy” were likely not born before Jacob’s family migrated to Egypt is that ten “sons” (descendants) of Benjamin are listed (46:21). If Joseph was thirty-nine at the time of this migration (cf. 41:46), one can figure (roughly) the age of Benjamin by calculating the amount of time that passed between their births. It was after Joseph’s birth that his father, Jacob, worked his final six years for Laban 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. In fact, Benjamin was not born until after Jacob: (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. Albert Barnes conservatively estimated that Benjamin was thirteen years younger than Joseph (1997). Biblical commentator John T. Willis said Benjamin was likely about fourteen years younger than Joseph (1984, p. 433). Also, considering Benjamin was referred to as “lad” (“boy”—NIV) eight times in Genesis chapters 43 and 44, which record events directly preceding Jacob’s move to Egypt, one would not expect Benjamin to be any more than 25 or 26 years of age at the time of the migration. What is somewhat perplexing to the Bible reader is that even though Benjamin was by far the youngest son of Jacob, more of his descendants are named in Genesis 46 than any other son of Jacob. In fact, some of these descendants of Benjamin apparently were his grandsons (cf. Numbers 26:38-40; 1 Chronicles 8:1-5).
But how is it that ten of Benjamin’s descendants, along with Hezron and Hamul, legitimately could appear in a list with those who traveled to Egypt, when all indications are that at least some were yet to be born? Answer: Because some of the names are brought in by prolepsis (or anticipation). Although they might not have been born by the time Jacob left for Egypt, they were in his loins—they “came from his body” (Genesis 46:26). Renowned Old Testament commentators Keil and Delitzsch stated: “From all this it necessarily follows, that in the list before us grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob are named who were born afterwards in Egypt, and who, therefore, according to a view which we frequently meet with in the Old Testament, though strange to our modes of thought, came into Egypt in lumbis patrum” (1996). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown agreed, saying:
The natural impression conveyed by these words [“these are the names of the children of Israel which came into Egypt”—EL] is, that the genealogy which follows contains a list of all the members of Jacob’s family, of whatever age, whether arrived at manhood or carried in their mother’s arms, who, having been born in Canaan, actually removed along with him to Egypt…. A closer examination, however, will show sufficient grounds for concluding that the genealogy was constructed on a very different principle—not that of naming only those members of Jacob’s family who were natives of Canaan, but of enumerating those who at the time of the immigration into Egypt, and during the patriarch’s life-time, were the recognized heads of families, in Israel, though some of them, born after the departure from Canaan, could be said to have “come into Egypt” only in the persons of their fathers (1997, emp. added).
While all seventy mentioned in Genesis 46 may not have literally traveled down to Egypt, Moses, writing this account more than 215 years later (see Bass, et. al., 2001), easily could have used a figure a speech known as prolepsis to include those who would be born shortly thereafter, and who eventually (by the time of Moses) would have been “the recognized heads of families.”
REFERENCES
Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Barnes, Albert (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Bass, Alden, Bert Thompson, and Kyle Butt (2001), “Questions and Answers,” Reason & Revelation, 21:49-53, July.
Cassuto, Umberto (1929), Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973 reprint).
Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
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).
Mathewson, Steven D. (1989), “An Exegetical Study of Genesis 38,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 146:373-392, October.
Willis, John T. (1984), Genesis (Abilene, TX: ACU Press), orig. published in 1979 by Sweet Publishing Company, Austin, Texas.

So Help Me God by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1490

So Help Me God

by  Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Among the multitude of attempts to eradicate America’s Christian heritage from daily life is the ongoing clamor to jettison the expression “so help me God” from oaths taken by witnesses in courts, by federal employees (including members of the armed forces), and others. For example a district court judge in North Carolina stated that such religious references should be removed because not all people subscribe to the Christian perspective: “The burden should not be on those individuals to speak up and request an oath that does not mention God or use the Christian Bible” (“Nutty North...,” 2004). Atheists have long been pecking away at this feature of American jurisprudence, but now are being joined by increased numbers of Hindus, Buddhists, et al., in the U.S.
Of course, the first question is: Why even have oaths that a person utters before testifying in court or assuming an elected office? An oath is a formal declaration or promise that one is going to tell the truth or conduct himself or herself in a truthful manner. The oath is intended to place the individual in a position to feel a strong sense of obligation to be honest. Upon what is this “strong sense of obligation” based? Whence does any person’s sense of duty, obligation, or conduct arise? Beyond any retribution or repercussions that may come from one’s fellow humans in the event of perjury, the only possible ultimate sense of responsibility would have to come from the individual’s belief in a Higher Power to whom one must eventually give an account—and by whom one could be punished for dishonesty. While the atheist may cry long and loud that he is “moral,” and that he feels as strong an obligation to be truthful as the Christian, logically there is no reason for him to be committed to any system of morality—except his own. In the words of French existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist” (1961, p. 485).
The Founding Fathers and judicial authorities from the very beginning of American civilization recognized this fact—and stressed it over and over again. The evidence is voluminous that they insisted very forthrightly that daily proceedings in our nation depend heavily upon the Christian morality of the population. For example, listen to the timely question posed by George Washington in his farewell address to the nation: “Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?” (1796, emp. added). He was speaking of the almost-universal commitment to the Christian religion that existed at the time. One of the Fathers of American Jurisprudence, New York State Supreme Court Chief Justice James Kent, asserted in 1811 that “Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths.... [W]hatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government” (People v. Ruggles, emp. added).
In arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the famed Daniel Webster explored the essence of oath-taking: “ ‘What is an oath?’ ...[I]t is founded on a degree of consciousness that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues or punish our vices.... [O]ur system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property and all our rights, are founded on or rest on Christianity and a religious belief ” (1844, pp. 43,51, emp. added). Indeed, this explains why one of the signers of the U.S. Constitution, Rufus King, affirmed:
[In o]ur laws...by the oath which they prescribe, we appeal to the Supreme Being so to deal with us hereafter as we observe the obligation of our oaths. The Pagan world were and are without the mighty influence of this principle which is proclaimed in the Christian system—their morals were destitute of its powerful sanction while their oaths neither awakened the hopes nor fears which a belief in Christianity inspires (Reports of the Proceedings..., 1821, p. 575).
And what of the remarks of Justice James Iredell, appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington? He claimed in 1788: “According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a ‘solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which would bind his conscience most’ ” (The Debates..., 1836, 4:196).
So firmly embedded in the American consciousness was this principle of taking an oath as an appeal to the God of the Bible (to establish that the individual was being truthful), the first President of the United States added the words “so help me God” to the oath of office given in the Constitution for the swearing in of the president—a custom repeated by every president since (“Inaugurals of Presidents...,” n.d.). Likewise, several of the original state constitutions employed oath-taking as prerequisite to holding state office. These oaths were typically coupled with an affirmation of the candidate’s belief in God as “the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked” (Constitution of Vermont, 1777; Constitution of Pennsylvania, 1776; cf. Constitution of South Carolina, 1778; et al.).
Many Americans would be shocked and incredulous if they knew that early on in America’s history, atheists and those who did not believe in the God of the Bible (and a future state of rewards and punishments) were disqualified from serving as witnesses in courts of law. Daniel Webster reminded the high court of what was universally understood in 1844: “We all know that the doctrine of the...law is that there must be in every person who enters court as a witness, be he Christian or Hindoo [sic], there must be a firm conviction on his mind that falsehood or perjury will be punished either in this world or the next or he cannot be admitted as a witness. If he has not this belief, he is disfranchised” (1844, p. 43, emp. added). “Disenfranchised” means deprived of the right to serve as a witness. Justice Joseph Story, also a Father of American Jurisprudence, and appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President James Madison, insisted: “[I]nfidels and pagans were banished from the halls of justice as unworthy of credit” (1851, 2:8-9). Or, again, as Daniel Webster argued before the Supreme Court, an oath is “a religious appeal, founded upon a conviction that perjury will be punished hereafter. But if no superior power is acknowledged, the party cannot be a witness. Our lives and liberties and property all rest upon the sanctity of oaths” (Vidal v. Girard..., 1844, emp. added).
The Bible likewise enjoins the sanctity of oaths as an appropriate device by which to impress upon the oath taker the essentiality of telling the truth in view of God, eternity, and eventual reckoning—e.g., Numbers 30:2; Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20. It is perjurers (or “false swearers”—ASV) that are condemned. In fact, God Himself has taken oaths in Bible history, swearing by Himself—since no greater authority exists (Genesis 22:16ff; Hebrews 6:13-17; Luke 1:73; Psalm 104:4; Ezekiel 20:42).
Thus the Founding Fathers were simply following Bible teaching in this regard. The influx into America of rival religions and ideologies, and the politically correct tendency to accommodate and embrace these philosophies—even to the point of removing an appeal to God to tell the truth—is yet another indication of the dismantling of America’s Christian heritage, the erosion of American values, and the inevitable dissolution of the American way of life.

REFERENCES

Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776), The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/pa08.htm.
Constitution of South Carolina (1778),The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/sc02.htm.
Constitution of Vermont (1777),The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, [On-line], URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/vt01.htm.
The Debates in the Several States Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (1836), ed. Jonathan Elliot (Washington, DC: Jonathan Elliot).
“Inaugurals of Presidents of the United States: Some Precedents and Notable Events” (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/inaugural/inaug_fact.cfm.
“Nutty North Carolina” (2004), Tongue Tied, [On-line], URL: http://www.tonguetied.us/archives/week_2004_03_07.php.
The People v. Ruggles (1811), 8 Johns 290.
Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, Assembled for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution of the State of New York (Albany, NY: E. and E. Hosford).
Sartre, Jean Paul (1961), “Existentialism and Humanism,” French Philosophers from Descartes to Sartre, ed. Leonard M. Marsak (New York: Meridian).
Story, Joseph (1851), Life and Letters of Joseph Story, ed. William Story (Boston, MA: Charles Little and James Brown).
Vidal v. Girard’s Executors (1844), 43 U.S. 127.
Washington, George (1796), “The Farewell Address,” [On-line], URL: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/farewell/transcript.html.
Webster, Daniel (1844), Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young, Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton).

Haeckel: The Legacy of a Lie by Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=596

Haeckel: The Legacy of a Lie

by  Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A.

Although books on evolution began refuting Haeckel’s biogenetic “law” in the 1920s, his idealized drawings of embryos with gill-slits, and his mantra-like saying, “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” became part of evolutionary folklore [see feature article]. Biology textbooks perpetuated this fable well into the second half of the twentieth century. Modern editions rarely present the latest evolutionary ideas on embryology, and remain content to rest their case on century-old woodcuts and misnamed “gill slits.” Such imagery persists in the popular media, too. When USA Today published an article on genetic similarities as proof for evolution, the author’s analogy and sole illustration invoked the icons of comparative embryology (Friend, 1993).
Not only were Haeckel’s ideas persistent, they were pernicious. He used his position as professor of zoology at the University of Jena to convert German science and Germany to Darwinism. Haeckel’s efforts outstripped the zeal of Thomas H. Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog” in England. Like Huxley, however, he took Darwin’s theory beyond the confines of biological origins into politics, religion, and other social concerns. Under the guise of evolutionary science, Haeckel and Huxley hoped to rescue humanity from what was, in their opinion, the destructive ignorance of religious delusion.
Haeckel’s embryonic recapitulation inspired a host of popular, but false, conceptions. Perhaps the most powerful offshoot was a rationalization for scientific racism. If it could be shown that the white races are more evolved (read “advanced”) than the dark races, then slavery and colonialism were permissible, even necessary. While Darwin’s work suggested such conclusions, or at least provided the language for making such claims, Haeckel’s ideas could be grasped by ready observation. If the human embryo retraces its animal ancestry, culminating in a fully human child, then the child retraces its human ancestry, culminating in the supreme adult form.
To many scientists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the candidate for that most evolved state was obvious: the northern European white male—a category they happened to occupy. In contrast, the dusky inhabitants of Africa and Asia were simple, more child-like, and hence, less deserving of equal treatment and self-rule. As Gould noted: “If the conquest of distant lands upset some Christian beliefs, science could always relieve a bothered conscience by pointing out that primitive people, like white children, were incapable of self-government in a modern world” (1977, p. 218). The evolutionary racists amassed a wealth of data, based on convenient physical and behavioral criteria, to prove their point. They applied the same contorted reasoning and conclusions to women and anybody who, by their standards, exhibited child-like characteristics.
“African Man-like Apes black in colour, and like their countrymen, the Negroes, have the head long from back to front.... The Asiatic Man-like Apes are, on the contrary mostly brown, or yellowish-brown colour, and have the head short from front to back..., like their countrymen, the Malays and the Monogols” (Haeckel, 1876, 2:180-181).
Haeckel himself was an unabashed racist. He urged the German people to seek racial purity by purging the unfit among them, and to increase the superiority of the “Nordic race” by violent competition (i.e., war) with other nations. A few decades later, these ideas found fertile soil in Adolf Hitler’s mind, and were openly expressed in his book Mein Kampf, or in English, “My Struggle” (taken from Haeckel’s translation of Darwin’s phrase, “the struggle for existence”).
The myth of recapitulation also provided the basis for Freudian psychoanalysis. Freud developed the idea that neurotic adults were stuck in an earlier stage of human evolutionary history. Further, he believed that contemporary “primitive” cultures provided a fitting analogy for the distant past of “advanced” Europeans. In the opening paragraphs of Totem and Taboo, Freud wrote:
Primitive man is known to us by the stages of development through which he has passed.... We can thus judge the so-called savage and semi-savage races; their psychic life assumes a peculiar interest for us, for we can recognize in their psychic life a well-preserved, early stage of our own development (1938, p. 807).
He went on to argue that taboos against incest arose from incidents in Stone Age societies in which sons murdered their fathers so that they could mate with their mothers. Hence, Freud hoped to understand dysfunctional behavior in the light of our supposed primitive past. One of the many problems with this idea is that it simply was not true: nonindustrial cultures do not have a high incidence of patricide and a lack of incest taboos, and anthropologists have not found evidence for Freud’s ideas in ancient cultures (see Milner, 1990, pp. 176-178; Bower, 1991).
Finally, to show how Haeckel’s views surfaced in the 1990s, we can turn to one of the great popularizers of evolution, Carl Sagan. In a Parade Magazine article, Sagan (and co-author Ann Druyan) use the following terms to describe the developmental stages of the pre-born human: “a kind of parasite,” “a little like a segmented worm,” “something like the gill arches of a fish or amphibian,” “the reptilian face,” “somewhat pig-like,” “resembles that of a primate” and, eventually, “recognizably human.” Although they never mention Haeckel’s name, their point is clear: abortion in the first few months of pregnancy is acceptable because the embryo or fetus is a lower form of life during this period (see Jackson, 1990; Ham, 1992).
The abuses of embryonic recapitulation do not, by themselves, disprove Haeckel’s theory. However, it was literally too good to be true for many groups who needed a crutch for their own false theories. Haeckel was determined to give Darwinism a proof its critics could not assail and so, at the very outset, his motives hardly epitomized calm, objective science. By exaggerating the appearance of similarity, and tying it to a radical philosophical view, Haeckel sanctioned the ensuing abuses. It seems his legacy, and a need for response on our part, will continue well into the twenty-first century.

REFERENCES

Bower, Bruce (1991), “Oedipus Wrecked,” Science News, 140:248-249, October 19.
Freud, Sigmund (1938), “Totem and Taboo,” The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud (New York: Random House, edited and translated by A.A. Brill), pp. 807-930.
Friend, Tim (1993), “Clues to Human Development Float in Nature’s Gene Pool,” USA Today, p. 5-D, July 27.
Gould, Stephen Jay (1977), “Racism and Recapitulation,” Ever Since Darwin (New York: W.W. Norton).
Haeckel, Ernst (1876), The Evolution of Man (Akron, OH: Werner, English translation of third edition).
Ham, Ken (1992), “The Smartest Man in America?,” Back to Genesis, [a pamphlet] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), No. 48.
Jackson, Wayne (1990), “Evolution & Abortion: A Fatal Connection,” Christian Courier, 26:13, August.
Milner, Richard (1990), The Encyclopedia of Evolution (New York: Facts on File).