Comments on the emerging church

A good friend has started attending an emerging church which has led us into conversation about it. I have read some about it but not extensively and no books by any of its more well known proponents.

From early on I have had some caution about the movement but I have found it difficult to critique. I now realise that this is because I could never find a set of beliefs to interact with. The fact that there does not seem to be given beliefs makes me uneasy. This post gives a helpful distinction between hard and soft postmodernism within the emerging church.

Now I am aware that Jesus rewards us according to our love for him and our neighbours, and our obedience; not our knowledge. I do not intend to be divisive solely because of variant beliefs. Nor do I think that salvation is about right beliefs (it is about who we follow), but right belief is important in that right behaviour is more likely to follow from right belief than wrong belief (though it is no guarantee of it).

Beliefs can be important in at least 2 ways. They are important in terms of how foundational they are to Christianity. They are also important in terms of how much weight we put on them.

A person can claim a particular theological issue is peripheral. It either is or it is not. If it is peripheral it may be dealt with in such depth and regularity it becomes important.

Consider tithing 10% of one's income. If a Christian thought men should tithe, that tithing is a major issue, and he frequently thought about it, or he taught on it regularly and influenced others about it; then it is important for him to have correct belief because of how much of an issue it is in his life or because others are affected by his influence; even if tithing intrinsically is a lesser doctrine.

The emerging church emphasises minimising our differences. This minimisation and not insisting our beliefs are true supposedly leads to unity and away from judgment and divisiveness.

I agree that Christians can be too judgmental. This is a problem of men because of sin, not because of truth. I can know the truth and speak the truth in love or in hate. And interestingly, if I hold my ideas with conviction, I can be judged as being divisive by those who claim not to judge! Kind of like "tolerant" men being intolerant of intolerance.

The anti-judgment claim allows the more liberal view to inappropriately claim the moral high ground. If one group claims God allows something and another that God forbids it, the group claiming freedom may blame the banning group for being divisive. However this is only the case if they are indeed correct, in which case the other group may be being divisive. If the freedom group are actually incorrect then they are encouraging sin; they are

ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:4)

So the issue is not about how inclusive we are, it is about what is true. In fact Jude states that divisive men are not the men who are emphasising truth, rather the ungodly:

"... In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions." It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit. (Jude 1:18-19)

I think the solution to excessive judgment is not so much a focus on inclusion, but a reminder that we all stand before Christ and it is he who judges. I actually think Jesus is quite confrontational; he intends to divide based on truth and error. We are for Jesus or against him. More so, he does not let us stay as we are but changes us to be conformed to his will. And, whether we like it or not, God does, at time, use men in this process. (We should therefore be careful in how we do God's will, and be certain it is God's agenda and not our own we seek).

So my advice to my friend was: Enjoy your new friends and encourage them in their love for Jesus but stay very grounded in Scripture.

Saved by a nose

Currently I am doing devotions with my daughters following thru a children's devotional book. It referenced the fact that Jesus is God's promised saviour unlike Buddha or Muhammed. To which my eldest daughter (9) asked, "Who is Booger?"

Afflicted 400 years

I have been revisiting the Egyptian sojourn in some recent correspondence. It raised the possibility of another option I had not previously considered.

Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for 400 years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (Genesis 15)

I wondered if the "for 400 years" could be read "until 400 years" giving the translation:

Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted until 400 years (from now).

I would appreciate thoughts from anyone who can read Hebrew.

Does one need always tell the truth?

My general view has been that there is a hierarchy of absolutes, so if one is faced with doing one or other of 2 usually wrong actions he needs to decide what is the right thing to do. If we are faced with a genuine conflict of morality, we are to choose that which conforms to loving God and loving our neighbour.

That being said I cannot think of a situation where murder would ever be the eumoral choice; of course murder is not the same as killing and if killing is ever justified then the killing is unlikely to come under the definition of murder.

With lying it is more complex. I personally think that Rahab did the right thing with the spies and the authorities of Jericho. Although previously I would have classified this under graded absolutism (ie. hierarchy of absolutes as above) my more recent thoughts have been that I think it depends on whether you are voluntarily giving information or you are being forced to.

If you are trying to convince someone of what you believe, or in general share your thoughts, you are morally obligated to tell the truth. But if others demand information that you do not desire to give them the situation is not the same. If someone is forcing you into a position of sharing information I wonder if that removes any obligation to tell the truth. I am not aware biblically that one is morally required to give information to someone they do not wish to. So being vague or evasive is not necessarily morally wrong, one has to weigh up the consequences of sharing that information. And if sharing that information causes damage to others (Nazi's looking for Jews) then love of one's neighbour may dictate that lying is justified.

We have liberty to our opinions and what we do with them, if someone tries to remove that liberty (eg. by forcing information out of us) we are released from any moral obligation in our answers. Further, if people misunderstand what we are saying when we do not wish them party to our information we are under no obligation to correct that misbelief.

However, God is not happy if we choose to keep our mouths shut in order to allow the miscarriage of justice.

The postdiluvian patriarchs

Only the age at the birth of the son and the remaining years are mentioned for the postdiluvian patriarchs. The age at which they died can easily be calculated. Again the figures vary depending on the texttype.

Texttype	Masoretic			Septuagint			Samaritan
Name	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died
Noah	502	448	950	502	448	950	502	448	950
Shem	100	500	600	100	500	600	100	500	600
Arphaxad	35	403	438	135	430	565	135	303	438
Shelah	30	403	433	130	330	460	130	303	433
Eber	34	430	464	134	370	504	134	270	404
Peleg	30	209	239	130	209	339	130	109	239
Reu	32	207	239	132	207	339	132	107	239
Serug	30	200	230	130	200	330	130	100	230
Nahor	29	119	148	79	129	208	79	69	148
Terah	70	135	205	70	135	205	70	75	145

The figures for Terah are to his first son. Genesis 12 and Acts 7 imply that Abram was 75 at Terah's death and therefore Terah was 130 when Abram was born, so the year in which Abram was born is 75 years prior to Terah's death.

So we can calculate the year of the flood, the year in which Abram was born and the time elapsed.

Texttype	Masoretic			Septuagint			Samaritan
Period	Flood	Gap	Abram	Flood	Gap	Abram	Flood	Gap	Abram
	1656	352	2008	2242	1132	3374	1307	942	2249

Again I prefer the Masoretic. There seems to be a rationale for lengthening the times so as to make one's culture ancient, but to shorten the timeframe would seem unlikely. As there is no summary age as there is in Genesis 5, the fact of the systematic change in Genesis 5 and the frequent difference of 100 years suggests this was conscious, not accidental.

If the Masoretic is original, then the Samaritan has added years till the year of the first child but subtracted them for the remaining years leaving the total calculated age the same even though this is not given in Scripture. The exceptions being Eber and Nahor. The interesting thing about Eber is that the age after the son was born is 100 years less than the Septuagint. Was there are further Hebrew text which gave 370 years to Eber after his son was born?

Explaining the derivation of the Septuagint is difficult. Arphaxad, Salah and Eber don't appear to derive from the Masoretic at all. A smoothing effect (so that the ages drop off steadily from 900 years) is not clearly apparent and is an inadequate explanation.

If the Masoretic is correct we have the situation where Abram potentially could have known his ancestors. Abram was born in 2008 AM. Note the year of death.

Name	Birth	Death
Noah	1056	2006
Shem	1558	2158
Arphaxad	1658	2096
Shelah	1693	2126
Eber	1723	2187
Peleg	1757	1996
Reu	1787	2026
Serug	1819	2049
Nahor	1849	1997
Terah	1878	2083
Abram	2008	2183

Of Abram's 10 ancestors following the Flood, 7 of them were alive at his birth. Noah died 2 years before Abram was born. And Peleg and Nahor also died prior to his birth. The others were all alive. Shem, who had seen the Flood, only died 25 years before Abram, Abram would have been 150 years old and Isaac 50. Eber, from whom the Hebrews derive their name, outlived Abram!

Physics is descriptive not prescriptive

It is important to remember the laws of physics come from observations. We observe regular patterns and attempt to come up with mathematical models that explain the data and predict related phenomena. The predictive component is validates the model, it suggests that the model is more likely to represent reality. Explaining anomalous data is less impressive because models can usually be adjusted to fit. Models with simple equations, symmetry and covering more fields are generally favoured.

Kepler and Newton came up with orbital equations and gravitational theory that explained the movement of the the planets. Using gravitational laws we can predict the movements of the moon around the earth to great accuracy.

But the moon does not orbit the earth because of these equations, the moon orbits the earth and these equations describe the movements.

God set up the universe to function how it does. But God also sustains it, this means that it is not wound up and would run without him, if God removed his sustaining power the universe would instantly cease to exist. Anti-theists complain that this means we cannot do science, that we are at the whim of a God. Well we are dependant on him, but that does not mean that the universe is irregular and unpredictable. Leaving aside the fact that an atheist view of the universe gives us no reason to even trust our senses, if God is not capricious, then we can rely on his usual providence. We can therefore examine the universe with an assumption of a constant God who set up the world with a high degree of predictability.

This predictability has been known by all cultures and predates the scientific method—the scientific method gives a tool to gain underlying knowledge and make predictions based on models. As the earliest scientists said, they were thinking God's thoughts after him. Isaac Newton stated,

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.

Because God sustains the universe he can manipulate it at his will. Not that he necessarily does this on frequent basis. This intervention we refer to as (specific) providence if God's hand guides specific events according to his will, or even at our request; we refer to it as miracle if it involves the overriding of physical law. Both the general upholding of the universe and a specific change to how the world usually operates are of equal ease for him. If God can stretch out the fabric of space then the multiplying of loaves and fish is of little difficulty.

That is why science is unable to disprove miracles. Miracles are not within the domain of operational science. Miracles are God's specific activity, not his general activity. We cannot observe regularity in miracles to formulate physical law. However they are provable, just via another method: testimony. Proof of miracles is via witnesses.

Miracle is also proof of the supernatural. Science can say the the world operates "like so" under the normal scheme of things. Observations that contradict what we know may be due to miracle and science can say nothing against it—science does not describe specific providence, only the general. Dead men do not come back to life according to biological science, but there is nothing to prevent God doing this in a specific case if he so wishes.

The antediluvian patriarchs

The ages the patriarchs had their sons and their age at death differs according to the various text types. Most English Bibles use the Masoretic figures.

Texttype	Masoretic			Septuagint			Samaritan
Name	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died
Adam	130	800	930	230	700	930	130	800	930
Seth	105	807	912	205	707	912	105	807	912
Enosh	90	815	905	190	715	905	90	815	905
Kenan	70	840	910	170	740	910	70	840	910
Mahalaleel	65	830	895	165	730	895	65	830	895
Jared	162	800	962	162	800	962	62	785	847
Enoch	65	300	365	165	200	365	65	300	365
Methuselah	187	782	969	167	802	969	67	653	720
Lamech	182	595	777	188	565	753	53	600	653
Noah	500	450	950	500	450	950	500	450	950

Noah was 500 when he became the father of Japheth. Genesis 7 tells us that Noah was 600 when the Flood came. This would make the date of the Flood according to the various texttypes:

• 1656 AM, Masoretic
• 2242 AM, Septuagint
• 1307 AM, Samaritan

So which is correct?

The corrupt texts have been deliberately changed. This is obvious because in Genesis 5 the age of fathering the son, the remaining years and the total age is given. As the first 2 figures sum to the 3rd an error in one of the figures would lead to an incorrect sum yet in all texttypes all figures add up. Josephus gives different figures again though they are similar to the Septuagint. I have not seen figures for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I do not know whether there are any manuscripts of the early chapters of Genesis found. It would be interesting to know as some Dead Sea Scrolls preserve in Hebrew a more Septuagint texttype.

One thing that points away from the Septuagint is that by its chronology Methuselah outlives the Flood which is not possible. If the meaning of Methselah is "when he dies it shall be sent," then this points to the accuracy of the Masoretic and the Samaritan which both have Methuselah's death in the year of the Deluge.

A further possible argument against the Septuagint is that is was translated perhaps 250 BC. Many cultures claimed antiquity for themselves. There may have been a desire to lengthen Hebrew history, either to make claims for priority, or to allow time to accommodate the claims of other cultures; it would not do to have Yahweh creating the earth many years after Egypt was founded. Egyptian history is not as old as is sometimes claimed, it postdates the Flood which leaves even less time for it to develop, but this is a possible argument for the translators changing the figures in Genesis 5 and 11. Interestingly the age at fatherhood for the Septuagint is exactly 100 years greater than the Masoretic for most men. Setterfield suggests a mark for 100 has been omitted in the switch from paleo-Hebrew glyphs to the square Hebrew (Setterfield favours the Septuagint as being original as did many church fathers). I am not convinced this is an adequate explanation as there is a loss of 100 years for the years they lived after fathering the relevant descendant: a deliberate change in whichever texttype is errant.

This does raise an interesting point though, how old was Jared when Enoch was born? If the Masoretic is original and the Septugint routinely added 100 years (except for Noah for other reasons) why not make Jared 262? Is the Samaritan correct here? Was 262 seen as just too old? Noah was 500. Does the Samaritan decrease the age in line with the surrounding patriarchs? But why would a culture want to minimise its ancestry? And if we decide to follow the Samaritan then both Methuselah and Lamech die in the year of the Flood. Possible but it does seem a little convenient.

The fact that the first 2 figures add up to the third in all versions (corrupt and original) is evidence that the men changing the ages in translation understood the chronology to be airtight, there are no gaps.

Though I think the Septuagint is underrated in current English translations, I tend towards the Masoretic figures in Genesis 5. I have no desire to make the world any older or shorter than it is. Claims of cultural antiquity no longer bother me, all cultures must post date the Flood and even using the Septuagint leaves one at odds with secular dating for many post-Flood artefacts. And good arguments can be made for shortening many chronologies.

There is a place for looking for common themes amongst the varying figures. The problem is that the corrupt figures are not accidental, they are deliberate, and deducing the original is that much harder. It is not the case that a misread letter explains variant readings. The most similarities can do is fix ages for specific men. The only agreement for the antediluvian patriarchs across all 3 texttypes is that of Noah.

It would be wonderful to find a manuscript in paleo-Hebrew. It may help point us toward the original.

Random Quote

As if reason was the Lone Ranger of epistemology.

Alex

Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

The pharaoh who was in power when Moses fled Egypt died (Exodus 2:23). A subsequent pharaoh, perhaps the next, continued to oppress the Hebrews. Moses returned to Egypt c. 2513 AM. Moses appeared before Pharoah with a sign of a staff turning into a snake. This pharaoh had 2 magicians named Jannes and Jambres (2 Timothy 3).

God sent 10 plagues over several months. They were the plagues of blood, frogs, gnats, flies, pestilence on the livestock, boils, thunder/ hail/ fire, locusts, darkness, and death of firstborn. The death of the firstborn was on the 13th or 14th of Nisan in the year 2514 AM.

~2,000,000 Hebrews and Egyptians left Egypt from Rameses and Sukkoth. They went thru the wilderness to Etham on the edge of the desert then to Pi-hahiroth. Pharaoh with his army caught up to them there at which point the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea but the pursuing army, including Pharaoh, drowned in the Red Sea.

Some of the places may prove difficult to identify but there is plenty of information given to help us identify the pharaoh. There are several catastophes which befell Egypt that there may be records of. Pharaoh died in the Red Sea and therefore his body was not mummified. His eldest son died so did not ascend the throne. It is possible that this pharaoh was the last in his family line. Egypt was also without an army for sometime.

Several persons have variably identified the pharaoh of the Exodus based on the biblical data. Some correlate the plagues to verses in the Ipuwer Papyrus, this may be so though the main theme of the poem seems to be a reversal of social order.

Various identities for this pharaoh are:

Neferhotep I
This identity is made by David Down. Neferhotep is a pharaoh of the 13th dynasty. The chronology of the 13th dynasty is difficult to untangle. Down places him as the last pharaoh of this dynasty before the Intermediate Period dominated by the Hyksos whom he identifies with the Amalekites as per Velikovsky who first proposed this. Neferhotep's corpse has not been identified.

Tom-Taoui-Toth
This is the proposal by Immanuel Velikovsky. I am unable to identify him further though Velikovsky places him at the end of the middle kingdom which would be about the 13th dynasty.

Ka-Ankh-Re
Which in Greek would be Cencheres. Donovan Courville identifies a 13th dynasty pharaoh by this name. Neferhotep is also known by his throne name Khasekhemre and his brother Sobekhotep IV has the throne name Khaneferre; both names having some resemblance. Courville suggests that Brugsch identified Ka-Ankh-Re as Sobekhotep IV (or V). Charles Taylor agrees with Courville on KaAnkh-Re being the pharaoh of the Exodus.

Amenemhat IV
Alan Montogomery suggests that this is the pharaoh of the Exodus. Amenemhat was earlier than Neferhotep, the former belonging to the 12th dynasty, though possibly not by many years (< 100).

? Menrenre Nemtyemsaf II
Bruce Alan Killian suggests that the long reign of Pepe II corresponds to the birth and life of Moses for the first 80 years. He suggests that Pepe's successor was the pharaoh who pursued the Hebrews and died in the Red Sea. He does not mention the pharaoh by name so Nemtyemsaf is my guess. Pepe II reigned during the 6th dynasty.

Dudimose I
Or Tutimaeus. This is suggested by Barry Setterfield based on Manetho who gives this pharaoh as the last one before the invasion of the Hyksos. Again the relationship to the other pharaohs is not immediately apparent because of the messy state of affairs with ancient Egyptian chronology and the multiplicity of names. Setterfield states Dudimose comes after Khaneferre whom he places at the time when Moses flees Egypt.

Amenhotep II
Curt Sewell proposes this pharaoh of the 18th dynasty. This is consistent with his identification of Moses adoptive mother as Hatshepsut, also of the 18th dynasty. My difficulty with this is Amenhotep's body has been identified. Sewell claims that while the army is at the bottom of the Red Sea, the pharaoh did not follow them in and thus survived. While Exodus does not specifically state that pharaoh dies (though it is a reasonable inference), Psalm 136 does.

Conclusion
There have been multiple attempts at identifying the pharaoh of the Exodus. I have surveyed a few who take the biblical record seriously. We know that there were 10 plagues in the months prior to the Exodus and the Egyptian economy was devastated; there was a mass exodus of slaves and some of the natives from Egypt; and Pharaoh and his army drowned in the Rea Sea. I think that the identification of Sewell contradicts a scriptural passage, as mentioned above, which leaves the identities proposed as being the later kings on the 13th dynasty except Montogomery who suggests the 12 dynasty and Killian the 6th. The 12th and 13th dynasties were closely aligned and the 13th may not have lasted very long. The documentation of the 13th dynasty is in shambles which would not be unexpected if it ended in such disaster. Interestingly, Courville claims dynasties 6 and 12 were concurrent. While these chronologists are not independent, a not unreasonable inerrantist identification of the pharaoh of the Exodus is a late or final pharaoh of what is commonly identified as the 13th dynasty.

Character Deficiency Syndrome

An interesting article that I have read recently is Character Deficiency Syndrome by Garry D. Nation. He states that the Bible translates 4 different words as fool into English and that these different words describe different, and likely progressive stages, of foolishness. The words are pethi which he calls a naive fool; kesil which he calls the self-confident fool, though I prefer cocky fool; 'evil which he calls the committed fool, though there is also the word nabal which describes a full blown version of that person; and luts which he calls the scornful fool, though I prefer mocker or mocking fool. His descriptions are:

1. The first degree is the Simple or Naive Fool, who is unthinking, gullible. He lacks the most basic understanding of moral cause and effect.


2. The second degree is the Self-Confident Fool. He is known by his stubbornness, and by his big mouth.


3. The third degree is the Committed Fool, who has decisively rejected wisdom, and instead pledged his allegiance to destructive ideas and behaviors.


4. The fourth degree or terminal stage of Character Deficiency Syndrome is reached by the Scornful Fool, a mocker who is openly contemptuous of spiritual truth and moral righteousness.

The cocky fool is not amenable to reason:

Proverbs 26, verses 4 and 5, back to back proverbs, seem to contradict each other. "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. / Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." The contradiction isn't in the Scripture, it's in the fool! One is compelled to reply to his aggravating foolishness, yet it's pointless to do so. You never get anywhere talking to him.

Of the mocker Nation writes,

Other fools may be abominations to God, but the Scorner is even an abomination to men! The Bible expends few words describing such a one. It simply warns the wise believer to stay away from him. ...[he] does serve one civic purpose: he provides an object lesson.

Well worth a read.

Reconciling the talion

We read in the Law of Moses about punishment for crime which causes permanent injury. The law states that the same injury the offender has caused should be meted out to him.

"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:22-25)

"Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. (Leviticus 24:17-20)

Further, even if a person intends to cause injury by false accusation they are to punished in the way they intended to harm.

If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:16-21)

How is this reconciled with Jesus' teaching? Jesus' views on the inerrancy of Scripture are clear. In commenting on the law he preludes his statements with:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew5:17-20)

Then he discusses anger/ murder, lust/ adultery, divorce, making oaths, talion, and loving your enemy.

The introduction to each topic is:

• "You have heard that it was said to those of old,..."
• for anger and taking oaths
• "You have heard that it was said,..."
• for lust, talion, and love
• "It was also said,..."
• for divorce, though this is relating to the discussion on adultery.

In mentioning "those of old" Jesus is obviously referring to the Hebrews receiving the Mosaic Law. Although Jesus doesn't say "to those of old" for 3 of them (lust, talion, love), the context suggests he is still referring to the Law. As mentioned the divorce commentary is tied into the lust/ adultery commentary so is not a separate discussion. The Old Testament references are:

• Murder
• Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17
• Adultery
• Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:14 and Deuteronomy 5:18
• Divorce
• Deuteronomy 24:1
• Making oaths
• Numbers 30:2
• Talion
• passages mentioned above
• Loving your neighbour
• Leviticus 19:18

The Old Testament does not have a direct parallel command to hate one's enemies. It may have been (incorrectly) surmised from the Leviticus passage, though there are commands for Israel to fight her enemies. If the idea of hating one's enemies had been incorrectly surmised by many Jews then Jesus is correcting this wrong belief.

However the talion is clearly taught in the Law yet Jesus says,

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39)

How do we reconcile these passages? Jesus' says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" which precludes a resolution that denies the truthfulness of Scripture.

There are at least 3 solutions to this issue, though all may come into play.

The first is that the laws were a limit on punishment. While it may have been appropriate to invoke a judgment that matched the crime, it also limited judgment. It disallows punishments that were excessive, and likely common at the time in other cultures. It rejects the possibility of a sentence of hand amputation for stealing. A man cannot be executed for breaking another's arm. It forced justice to be just.

Second, it may be that this law is for the government and people were applying it personally. What God allows the state to do may frequently be very different to the responsibility of individuals—this concept needs expanding at another time. So the talion may have been a commandment to judges that they may judge justly and men were (wrongly) applying the principle individually. This allows a judge to sentence in this way but prevents individuals from vigilante justice. Jesus was, in effect, saying not to seek one's own justice. If Jesus is saying this here, this message is very consistent with Old Testament teaching: seek justice for others and let God fight for you. We see examples of this in the life of David where he refused to take what would become his but waited for God to give it to him.

A third possibility is that Jesus was calling for a higher way. It is not that justice is wrong, God is very just; rather that mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2). Jesus is saying that forgiveness is greater than vengeance. And this is the message of the gospel: that we owe God a debt we cannot pay but he forgives us if we come to him and ask him to. If we don't, judgment is all that remains possible. We are not to respond like God in the area of judgment as we are still in the era where God is seeking men. We are part of that activity of God and therefore must act in love. If men reject it, punishment will come, but we are to leave that part to God.

So 2 seemingly disparate passages are in fact complementary. We can reject difficult passages as being too hard, we can reject God claiming his Word errs, or we can seek to understand what initially appears contradictory and come to a greater understanding of the ways of God.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! (Romans 11)

While I have attempted to reconcile the issue, I have not really explained what turning the other cheek means; that may prove more difficult.

Pharaohs of the Bible

There several Pharaohs mentioned in the Bible. Many are unnamed and overlaps are not always certain. For example was the Pharaoh who spoke to Joseph at his father's death the same one who had the dreams? There are also at least 4 women of royal blood; the princess who adopted Moses, the princess Bithiah who married Mered, the princess who married Solomon, and (the) Queen (of) Sheba.

Correlating the biblical mentions with the Egyptian records is difficult for several reasons. The Pharaohs having several names and the difficulty in translating these names is one of them. But the main difficulty comes from incorrect synchronisms. If dates are held more tightly than events, then poor correspondences will be accepted and strong ones resisted. Conversely, if the persons and events are reviewed closely then we may have to play more freely with the dates. Obviously if events match the dates actually do match, it is just that the dates are not those that are commonly held.

The Flood occurred in 1656 anno mundi (AM, year of the world). The early Egyptians are descendants of Mizraim (Mizraim is the Hebrew for Egypt). Mizraim was a son of Ham. Mizraim or his early descendants established Egypt. The ancient kingdom of Egypt postdates the Flood and probably postdates Babel. Establishing the time of Babel is more elusive. If the reference to Peleg corresponds to the Babel event, it possibly occurred shortly before or around the time of Peleg's birth (1757 AM), certainly before his death (1996 AM).

If we take Peleg's birth as the earliest reasonable time for the establishment of Egypt then Mizraim, born after the flood, would have been less than 100 years old. The dynasties of Egypt cannot predate this year. 1757 AM is c. 2200 BC (my reckoning). The first Pharaoh of Egypt, Menes, conventionally dated c.3000 BC, actually started his reign nearly 1000 years later.

Reasons that Genesis 1 means a literal 6 days

Firstly I have a question for those who deny the days are literal: "If God decided to make the world in 6 days, how would he convey this so we would not misunderstand him?" I mean, if God did take 6 days, there is nothing he could say more than what already is in Genesis 1 to convince us. Whatever further details that could be written would be explained away by those who disagree just like they do now. If the days were not intended to be read as literal the wording used in Genesis seems an unusual choice, and there are plenty of ways in Hebrew to say otherwise.

Several reasons why I think the days in Genesis 1 are of 24 hour duration:

1. Style is narrative. This is clear from just reading it, but technical analysis concurs.


• A study looking at the verb forms in Genesis 1 compared to other passages in Scripture show that the frequency of verb forms for poetry are similar and those for narrative are similar. Genesis 1 has a frequency of verb forms that is strongly in line with other narrative.


• The waw consecutive is a Hebraic form that gives a narrative a sequential flow. It is translated "and," though it is predominantly sequential in its 55 occurrences in Genesis 1: read "then."


2. The word "day" is prefixed by a number. This always means a literal day elsewhere in Scripture. Some questions of interpretation of day with a number is raised when the passage is prophetic.


3. The word "day" is prefixed by the phrase "there was evening and there was morning," a phrase that is also used for a literal day. Again, some dispute around prophetic usage.


4. The first day also mentions the day was divided into daytime and nighttime according to whether it was light or dark.
   

   And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day(time)," and the darkness he called "night(time)." And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:3-5)
   

5. Comparison is made to creation when God commanded the Israelites to rest on the Sabbath. God said,
   

   Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 6 days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the 7th day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in 6 days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the 7th day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20)

   The reason this parallel is exact is because the word day is used. One can have a Sabbath of other time periods, usually years (Exodus 23, 2 Chronicles 36), but no comment is made about those periods being the same as the creation periods, ie. days.
   
   In fact the existence of the week is a strong pointer to the literalism of Genesis 1. Day, month and year all have astronomical events that define them. Other time divisions are clearly a division or multiplication of these 3 fundamental periods. Decade and century from the decimal numerical scheme; seconds, minutes and hours from the sexagesimal scheme. The week is clearly a period based on days that has no logical explanation other than divine decree.

The first day is particularly instructive because, in a way, it is acting as a definition. Not only is it literal because of the mention of a number and evening and morning, the day is defined based on a period of daylight followed by darkness.

For those who deny the days are 24 hours this needs explaining. And it is likely the proposed hermeneutic will be invoked because of a prior, extra-biblical commitment to an ancient earth.

Who and why not how and when. Really?

A comment so frequent it would be difficult to attribute a source is:

Genesis 1 tells the creation story in terms of who and why not how and when.

Like many cliches it sounds pithy but on closer inspection lacks substance. The statement is analysing the first chapter of the Bible from the viewpoint of who, why, how and when. It is useful to read the chapter with these questions in mind.

The repeated use of the word God thru out the chapter certainly supports the observation that Genesis 1 tells us who created.

What about the "why"? I can see very little in the first chapter that tells us why God created the universe. That he did, yes; but his motivation for doing so, no. We are informed that the stellar objects are for light and time keeping and the vegetation is for food; so there is a "why" for creation in terms of man's relationship with them, but the reason for making man? In fact it is difficult to find much in the Bible that tells us why God created us. A explanation would be that he is love and created creatures, including man, to offer love as a gift. While that is likely true, it is an indirect teaching of Scripture and is not obvious in Genesis 1.

Does Genesis 1 tell us how God created? Only in a limited form. That all started from the deep (water) and hence possibly some creations were made from water; that space was created by separating the waters; in terms of land and seas being gathered together which may have some implications for geology. Genesis 2 gives information on the "how" of man. Male was made from dust and God's breath, which may have some theological implications but less certain scientific ones; and female from male, again for theological reasons: in order to teach us about marriage. While some "how" information may be garnered from the chapter, it is not a primary teaching.

Which leaves the "when". The term "when" in the phrase above is used to mean that Genesis 1 does not give us chronological information. So strictly the "when" is not given in the first chapter, it is from later chapters in Genesis and elsewhere in Scripture. But that Genesis 1 gives chronological information is certain. The chapter repeatedly uses statements that give a chronological flow.

Therefore if someone subscribes to a hermeneutic that doesn't agree with Genesis 1 describing 6 literal days, it is unreasonable to disparage those who think it does.

So the quote may be better rephrased:

Genesis 1 tells the creation story in terms of who and when but gives little information on how and why.

Random quote

What happens if I'm not arrogant, what if I am better than everybody else?

Tim