Reading for January 7
Isaac is the best part of today's reading, but I want to briefly touch on Abraham's treaty with Abimiech. This is the same guy Abraham deceived one chapter back by lying about his marital relationship with Sarah. Abraham has become a prosperous man and must have acquired enough wealth, servants, and land to be deemed worthy of a treaty with a king. Abimilech says to Abraham, "swear to me in God's name that you will never deceive me, my children, or my descendants..." It is no surprise that he would need such reassurance from Abraham given their history. What was noted in one of my books, was the obvious damage that was done to his witness. In Abimilech's eyes, as well as the eyes of the Egyptian Pharoah who had had a similar encounter with Abraham, this "man of God" was a liar. Who knows how that may have impacted the opportunity for these two people groups to trust in the one true God. When we bear the name of Christ, our behavior and character becomes either an attraction or a detraction for those who may be seeking Him. We have to wear it well and endeavor not to give God the "black eye" that Abraham did. Even with his failings, Abraham becomes a mighty man of faith, as God seems pleased to use even the most broken of servants when their hearts are malleable. Mini-devotional...on to apologetics!
Love Isaac's story! Let me follow up my discussion of Abraham's short-comings with an inspired awe for what he does next. After he is told to sacrifice Isaac, the text says that Abraham "got up early" to make preparations. It is amazing enough that he was even compliant, much less that he got up early to obey God in this way. On both occasions that he was asked to "sacrifice" a son, (remember that he was also asked to send Ishmael away), Abraham "got up early" the next morning to obey the difficult command. This is evidence of how far his trust in God has come, from the beginning of his journey when he felt he needed to lie to kings to protect himself and sleep with a servant girl when God wasn't making good on his promise. As he ascends the mountain with Isaac and his servants, he tells them "the boy and I will travel a little further and then we will come right back". He knew God's heart well enough to know that He wouldn't really take his son. God had made a covenant with Abraham that was dependent upon Isaac continuing his lineage. I don't know what he thought was going to happen, but it must have made him terribly nervous (as it does us when we have to trust God's goodness in the face of some difficulty). And how about Isaac??!!! He was certainly old enough to understand what was happening. He knew they did not have an animal for the sacrifice. And yet he continued on in obedience. Did you notice that he carried the wood for the sacrifice on his own shoulders? Know anyone else who carried wood on their own shoulders for a sacrifice?
Fast-forward to Isaac's adulthood and the search for his wife. Talk about a match made in Heaven! As obedient as Isaac was, he meets his equal in Rebekah. When she was asked, on a moment's notice, to leave her family and her entire life to go with a complete stranger in order to marry a complete stranger, never to see her family again...her reply was "Yes, I will go." God can definitely build a nation out of this couple! The text says that Isaac loved Rebekah deeply, and he is the only one of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) to be monogamous. He's my new favorite...
In this section of Scripture, Abraham purchases a burial cave for Sarah from one of the Hittites. Note how well they regard Abraham. And yet the Hittites were part of the people group we know as the arch enemies of the Israelites throughout the Old Testament...the Canaanites. The relationship between "Israel" and "Canaan" was amiable until Abraham became prosperous. We will soon see the retaliation of the Hittites against the next generation, in Isaac's adulthood. In a similar phenomenon, the Egyptians treated Joseph and his brothers (the nation of Israel in it's infancy) like royalty, but enslaved them years later when they had multiplied and acquired wealth.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 25:1-26
Friday, January 7, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Sodom and Gomorrah and the angel of the Lord
Reading for January 6
Random "in case you were wondering" from a previous reading... I was talking with a friend today about Noah's drunken exposure and she noted how puzzling it was that such a severe curse was handed down to Canaan for what was Noah's bad behavior. This is when it pays to have my handy-dandy resource books! Our text reads that Ham "saw that his father was naked", but the Hebrew translation reveals more than a harmless notice. The verb has such force that it indicates Ham was delighted to find his father in such a state; even to the point of reveling in it. My book says that it can be translated "looked with great satisfaction", meaning that it was Ham's heart that betrayed him. He could not be cursed directly because he shared in the blessing God gave to Noah. He had many sons, but one was singled out, and it is speculated that this was a heart issue as well. After all, Canaan became the father of the Canaanites, and we know from Old Testament history that they were an idolatrous, God-hating people. Anyway, just good to know...
In chapter 18, Abraham is visited by three men who turn out to be angels. I wonder if he knew immediately that they were angels. He certainly treated them well, which is the root of the expression "you never know when you may be entertaining angels". As the conversation between them turns to Sarah and a future pregnancy, one of the "men" is referred to as the Lord. Even as they begin their journey to Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham continues to converse with "the Lord". This seems to be a peculiar reference to a pre-incarnate Jesus. No man can look upon the face of God and live (can't quote where that comes from but I know it's in there), so Abraham can't be talking face to face with God. And it can't be an angel, because the person speaking is "the Lord". So who does that leave? Since Jesus is eternal, and existed in heaven even at the time of creation (did you notice the terminology in verse 2:26 "let us make man in our image"?), he was certainly available for action. The root word for angel is "messenger", so the term angel could be used to describe the role as opposed to the nature of that third "angel". There are a handful of other occasions in the Old Testament where this "angel of the Lord" appears.
So now we know who they are and follow along with them as God and Abraham negotiate over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Lord eventually agrees to spare the city for the sake of just 10 righteous people. Do you ever look at our world and think, why doesn't God hasten the end times and finish this thing off? In so many ways, we are an abomination! But we must have the equivalent of at least "10 righteous people" hanging around that holds back His wrath and judgment. Salt and light, people. Salt and light. Interestingly, by the time the group reaches the gates of the city, there are only two angels and the dialog involving "the Lord" is over. Where and why did Jesus go? I have no idea what that means and my resource books say nothing about it! The rest of the story involves so much tragedy. The men of Sodom want to rape the angels, Lot offers his daughters to protect them (which I guess is understandable since they were ANGELS), the city is destroyed, Lot's wife dies because she loves the world more than God, and then we have the incest episode between Lot and his daughters. Yuk. Again, the incident is not condoned, merely reported.
Finally Isaac was born! In regard to Isaac, I do want to point out something I have never noticed before. Back in verse 18:19, God is reiterating his covenant with Abraham and says "I have singled him out so that he will direct his sons and their families to keep the way of the Lord..." Did you notice the plural "sons"? The nation of Israel was to be formed from Isaac. His descendants would bear the honor of eventually brining forth the Savior of the world, but God's intention was for all of Abraham's sons to follow his ways... including Ishmael. Even though God must have seen Islam coming, it is a perversion of His plan.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 21:8-24
Random "in case you were wondering" from a previous reading... I was talking with a friend today about Noah's drunken exposure and she noted how puzzling it was that such a severe curse was handed down to Canaan for what was Noah's bad behavior. This is when it pays to have my handy-dandy resource books! Our text reads that Ham "saw that his father was naked", but the Hebrew translation reveals more than a harmless notice. The verb has such force that it indicates Ham was delighted to find his father in such a state; even to the point of reveling in it. My book says that it can be translated "looked with great satisfaction", meaning that it was Ham's heart that betrayed him. He could not be cursed directly because he shared in the blessing God gave to Noah. He had many sons, but one was singled out, and it is speculated that this was a heart issue as well. After all, Canaan became the father of the Canaanites, and we know from Old Testament history that they were an idolatrous, God-hating people. Anyway, just good to know...
In chapter 18, Abraham is visited by three men who turn out to be angels. I wonder if he knew immediately that they were angels. He certainly treated them well, which is the root of the expression "you never know when you may be entertaining angels". As the conversation between them turns to Sarah and a future pregnancy, one of the "men" is referred to as the Lord. Even as they begin their journey to Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham continues to converse with "the Lord". This seems to be a peculiar reference to a pre-incarnate Jesus. No man can look upon the face of God and live (can't quote where that comes from but I know it's in there), so Abraham can't be talking face to face with God. And it can't be an angel, because the person speaking is "the Lord". So who does that leave? Since Jesus is eternal, and existed in heaven even at the time of creation (did you notice the terminology in verse 2:26 "let us make man in our image"?), he was certainly available for action. The root word for angel is "messenger", so the term angel could be used to describe the role as opposed to the nature of that third "angel". There are a handful of other occasions in the Old Testament where this "angel of the Lord" appears.
So now we know who they are and follow along with them as God and Abraham negotiate over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Lord eventually agrees to spare the city for the sake of just 10 righteous people. Do you ever look at our world and think, why doesn't God hasten the end times and finish this thing off? In so many ways, we are an abomination! But we must have the equivalent of at least "10 righteous people" hanging around that holds back His wrath and judgment. Salt and light, people. Salt and light. Interestingly, by the time the group reaches the gates of the city, there are only two angels and the dialog involving "the Lord" is over. Where and why did Jesus go? I have no idea what that means and my resource books say nothing about it! The rest of the story involves so much tragedy. The men of Sodom want to rape the angels, Lot offers his daughters to protect them (which I guess is understandable since they were ANGELS), the city is destroyed, Lot's wife dies because she loves the world more than God, and then we have the incest episode between Lot and his daughters. Yuk. Again, the incident is not condoned, merely reported.
Finally Isaac was born! In regard to Isaac, I do want to point out something I have never noticed before. Back in verse 18:19, God is reiterating his covenant with Abraham and says "I have singled him out so that he will direct his sons and their families to keep the way of the Lord..." Did you notice the plural "sons"? The nation of Israel was to be formed from Isaac. His descendants would bear the honor of eventually brining forth the Savior of the world, but God's intention was for all of Abraham's sons to follow his ways... including Ishmael. Even though God must have seen Islam coming, it is a perversion of His plan.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 21:8-24
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar
Reading for January 5
There is so much more to this story than it's face value. Let me start by saying that God did not approve of the solution that Abraham and Sarah contrived to "help" God fulfill His promise. Throughout the Old Testament, God's word makes clear the mandate for monogamy. But what Sarah did is easily understood within the context of her time and culture. Numerous clay tablets found from that era, including the "Code of Hammurabi" (which you may recall from 9th grade World History), indicates that it was a common practice for barren women to have children through their servants. Though Abraham initially showed great faith in believing God for a descendant, as years passed, he must have begun to doubt. He must have thought, "How did we leave things, God and I? Maybe I was supposed to be taking care of the descendant part of the blessing..." It's hard to wait on God sometimes, and so much easier to give Him a push in the right direction. This "push" resulted in a son, Ishmael. Again wanting to help God accomplish His purposes, Abraham asks if "Ishmael might live under your blessing?" Twice in this exchange, Abraham refers to Sarah, and adds the descriptive phrase "your wife" immediately after. He is clearly making known the importance of the covenant passing through an heir from he and his wife, as opposed to a handmaiden. The Bible does not stop to moralize on this situation but merely reports the facts as they occurred. Same phenomenon a few chapters back when Abram lied about Sarai being his sister. The Bible is not condoning lying, but reports the story as it really happened. There are plenty of Biblical accounts that paint the forefathers of the faith in a less than favorable light, which is to me, evidence of the accuracy of the Bible. If stories or characters were fabricated for this religion, surely authors would not choose such imperfect "heroes of the faith".
What is fascinating about the story of Ishmael, and his brother Isaac (who will be introduced tomorrow) is the magnitude of the conflict that erupted between them. As God had told Abraham, Ishmael would be passed over for the blessing in favor of Isaac. Can you imagine the hostility? Their mothers have a difficult relationship, natural sibling rivalry exists coupled with the strain of the younger brother being openly favored over the older. To add insult to injury, Ishmael and his mother are eventually cast away from Abraham and his family. Did you know that the resulting hatred between these two brothers and the nations that would stem from them, would escalate into the conflict between Jews and Muslims??!!! Abraham is considered to be the father of the Islamic religion. The Qur'an teaches that the covenant made between he and God conferred upon Ishmael the blessing and the land (Israel). The Qur'an also teaches that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was nearly sacrificed on the altar (really getting ahead of myself). Lest this give the appearance of a "he said/he said" situation, be it known that God's words to Abraham were 2500 years older than the inception of the Islamic religion. It was the prophet Muhammed who started the Muslim faith, and he lived over 500 years after Jesus' death! These two nations have been fighting for thousands of years over the land that was promised to Abraham's seed.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 18-21:7
There is so much more to this story than it's face value. Let me start by saying that God did not approve of the solution that Abraham and Sarah contrived to "help" God fulfill His promise. Throughout the Old Testament, God's word makes clear the mandate for monogamy. But what Sarah did is easily understood within the context of her time and culture. Numerous clay tablets found from that era, including the "Code of Hammurabi" (which you may recall from 9th grade World History), indicates that it was a common practice for barren women to have children through their servants. Though Abraham initially showed great faith in believing God for a descendant, as years passed, he must have begun to doubt. He must have thought, "How did we leave things, God and I? Maybe I was supposed to be taking care of the descendant part of the blessing..." It's hard to wait on God sometimes, and so much easier to give Him a push in the right direction. This "push" resulted in a son, Ishmael. Again wanting to help God accomplish His purposes, Abraham asks if "Ishmael might live under your blessing?" Twice in this exchange, Abraham refers to Sarah, and adds the descriptive phrase "your wife" immediately after. He is clearly making known the importance of the covenant passing through an heir from he and his wife, as opposed to a handmaiden. The Bible does not stop to moralize on this situation but merely reports the facts as they occurred. Same phenomenon a few chapters back when Abram lied about Sarai being his sister. The Bible is not condoning lying, but reports the story as it really happened. There are plenty of Biblical accounts that paint the forefathers of the faith in a less than favorable light, which is to me, evidence of the accuracy of the Bible. If stories or characters were fabricated for this religion, surely authors would not choose such imperfect "heroes of the faith".
What is fascinating about the story of Ishmael, and his brother Isaac (who will be introduced tomorrow) is the magnitude of the conflict that erupted between them. As God had told Abraham, Ishmael would be passed over for the blessing in favor of Isaac. Can you imagine the hostility? Their mothers have a difficult relationship, natural sibling rivalry exists coupled with the strain of the younger brother being openly favored over the older. To add insult to injury, Ishmael and his mother are eventually cast away from Abraham and his family. Did you know that the resulting hatred between these two brothers and the nations that would stem from them, would escalate into the conflict between Jews and Muslims??!!! Abraham is considered to be the father of the Islamic religion. The Qur'an teaches that the covenant made between he and God conferred upon Ishmael the blessing and the land (Israel). The Qur'an also teaches that it was Ishmael, not Isaac, who was nearly sacrificed on the altar (really getting ahead of myself). Lest this give the appearance of a "he said/he said" situation, be it known that God's words to Abraham were 2500 years older than the inception of the Islamic religion. It was the prophet Muhammed who started the Muslim faith, and he lived over 500 years after Jesus' death! These two nations have been fighting for thousands of years over the land that was promised to Abraham's seed.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 18-21:7
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Babel and Abram
Reading for January 4
Thanks to a hot tip from a follower, I have a new resource in my arsenal! I went to www.answersingenesis.com and found some historical information on the Tower of Babel. I can't believe how much I am enjoying this! I am so thankful for archaeologists and ancient language specialists who are often inadvertently providing solid proofs for the historical validity of the Bible! A recent discovery of a Sumerian tablet is the first extra-Biblical source to corroborate that there was a time in antiquity when all the people of the world spoke one language. And the tower itself, seems likely to have been a ziggurat, which was common in the Mesopotamian region at that time. A ziggurat is a stepped pyramid, whose very top level represented "heaven" to the pagan cultures and actually housed a "god" on a throne. Our translation reads "...with a top that reaches into the sky", but others read "...that reaches into heaven", making it very consistent with the ideology of the ziggurat. So we have some evidence that there was one world language at some point and that it was a common pagan practice to build towers culminating in "heaven". God was certainly not threatened by their ability to build a big tower, but by the depravity of their prideful and self-reliant spirits. They were attempting to demonstrate that they could bypass God altogether. In His mercy, God did not destroy them, but destroyed their opportunity for sin. The grouping of these people, dispersed according to common language, was the beginning of the different races.
Next we meet Abram, the great-grandson of Noah. But I want to skip over him for the time being, as I found the story of Melchizedek far more fascinating. How can this guy be a priest of the Most High God? How does he know God? And if he's a priest, there must be other worshippers of God that he ministers to... how do they know God? God is working through Abram, as the father of the Jewish nation. Melchizedek is not a part of that story! This is my favorite thing about today's reading. Melchizedek showing up out of nowhere, and clearly representing a much larger group of people, is evidence that God is now and always has been working in ways that we don't see. Just as the story of the flood was passed down from Noah to all people groups that extended from him, so was the knowledge and reverence of God. That was perverted in some people, as evidenced by the tower of Babel, but genuine faith existed in others. Some that pop up from out of nowhere in Scripture and many more who we never read about. One of my resource books said "evidently God was also calling out a people for his own name from among the Gentiles, even though the text rarely pauses in it's pursuit of the promise-plan of God through the Hebrew nation, to reflect on this phenomenon". In other words, the Bible doesn't have room enough to detail all the ways that God is working. It focuses on the Hebrew nation as the backdrop for Jesus Christ. It's very exciting to me to think of the people we'll meet in Heaven and think...where did you come from?!
Thanks to a hot tip from a follower, I have a new resource in my arsenal! I went to www.answersingenesis.com and found some historical information on the Tower of Babel. I can't believe how much I am enjoying this! I am so thankful for archaeologists and ancient language specialists who are often inadvertently providing solid proofs for the historical validity of the Bible! A recent discovery of a Sumerian tablet is the first extra-Biblical source to corroborate that there was a time in antiquity when all the people of the world spoke one language. And the tower itself, seems likely to have been a ziggurat, which was common in the Mesopotamian region at that time. A ziggurat is a stepped pyramid, whose very top level represented "heaven" to the pagan cultures and actually housed a "god" on a throne. Our translation reads "...with a top that reaches into the sky", but others read "...that reaches into heaven", making it very consistent with the ideology of the ziggurat. So we have some evidence that there was one world language at some point and that it was a common pagan practice to build towers culminating in "heaven". God was certainly not threatened by their ability to build a big tower, but by the depravity of their prideful and self-reliant spirits. They were attempting to demonstrate that they could bypass God altogether. In His mercy, God did not destroy them, but destroyed their opportunity for sin. The grouping of these people, dispersed according to common language, was the beginning of the different races.
Next we meet Abram, the great-grandson of Noah. But I want to skip over him for the time being, as I found the story of Melchizedek far more fascinating. How can this guy be a priest of the Most High God? How does he know God? And if he's a priest, there must be other worshippers of God that he ministers to... how do they know God? God is working through Abram, as the father of the Jewish nation. Melchizedek is not a part of that story! This is my favorite thing about today's reading. Melchizedek showing up out of nowhere, and clearly representing a much larger group of people, is evidence that God is now and always has been working in ways that we don't see. Just as the story of the flood was passed down from Noah to all people groups that extended from him, so was the knowledge and reverence of God. That was perverted in some people, as evidenced by the tower of Babel, but genuine faith existed in others. Some that pop up from out of nowhere in Scripture and many more who we never read about. One of my resource books said "evidently God was also calling out a people for his own name from among the Gentiles, even though the text rarely pauses in it's pursuit of the promise-plan of God through the Hebrew nation, to reflect on this phenomenon". In other words, the Bible doesn't have room enough to detail all the ways that God is working. It focuses on the Hebrew nation as the backdrop for Jesus Christ. It's very exciting to me to think of the people we'll meet in Heaven and think...where did you come from?!
Monday, January 3, 2011
Flood
Reading for January 3
We've all read stories to our kids about Noah's ark. The little tug boat in the illustrations with the long giraffe neck sticking out the top seems fanciful at best. Given the way my mind works, I love to find evidence that supports the Biblical record. It's not that I don't believe without proof, but it is a big boost to my faith when the Bible is also proven to be accurate and plausible. Since we know God's Word is truth, science will one day catch up with the Bible and corroborate all that lies within it. So where science does not line up with the Bible, we have faith that it one day will. But in regard to the ark and flood, there actually is a considerable amount of outside support.
Would you be surprised to learn that hundreds of ancient civilizations have very similar stories of global flooding, a big boat, and a family that was spared to repopulate the earth? The oldest and most similar is from the Epic of Gilgamesh from the Babylonians. So many accounts of the same event, points to the fact that all the peoples of the earth, however dispersed, originated from one family who passed on the remarkable story of their survival. There are many more proofs than what I have the time or ability to communicate clearly, so I will list the most compelling and easily understood proofs...
Layers of fossils of different ages are often found mixed together in one layer of sediment or layered in the wrong orders. Evidence of massive disruption of the flood waters.
Marine fossils have been found on wide-spread mountain crests. No possible explanation but a massive flood.
Fossil graveyards (high concentrations of fossils) are found worldwide. Evidence of a sudden, catastrophic, global destruction.
Analysis of population growth show a zero population at the estimated time of the Biblical flood.
Genealogical records show that many European kings trace their lineage to Japeth, one of Noah's three sons. This is logical evidence for there being just 4 couples from whom the entire world was repopulated.
The oldest living organisms, the Sequoias and Redwoods, date back 3-4000 years, but there is nothing living that pre-dates the flood.
And the little tug-boat that housed all of the living creatures of the earth, was two-thirds the size of the Titanic! Given the measurements listed, it had the capacity of 2000 cattle cars, each of which could carry 18-20 cows or 60-80 hogs or 80 to 100 sheep. There are now 290 species of large animals, 757 species of mid-sized animals, and 1358 small animals. Two of each, plus the additional "clean" animals intended for animal sacrifices, could have comfortably fit on board. And dinosaurs, though they clearly did not survive long in the post-flood environment which involved radical climate and topographic change, must have been on board. Full-grown dinosaurs may have been tough to house, but Juveniles of even the largest animals could easily have fit on board.
Noah's family was on the ark for just over a year (vs. 8:13-14) and arrived to a new covenant with God in which He gave man two distinctly new instructions. First, man was now able to eat meat. At the time of creation, back when "it was good", man was a vegetarian, as were all animals. Post-flood provisions provided for the addition of meat to the diets of man and beast. Secondly, God strictly prohibits murder and initiates capital punishment. Previously when Cain killed Abel, the killer (Cain) was merely excommunicated, but now God allowed for the death of such a person. Perhaps murder had become a prevalent problem in the pre-flood world. Before the giving of the Law to Moses, we don't hear of any regulations for man established by God. Given how depraved our society is, with laws in place to govern our behavior, can you even imagine what the human race would have looked like then, before rules or standards of morality? It must have been unbearable and irreversible for God to have resorted to such a radical solution.
But the most important component of the Noahic covenant was God's promise never to destroy the entire earth again by flood. The rainbow is a beautiful picture of that promise, as it only appears after rain. He could have chosen anything to use as a symbol of that promise, but chose to use something that required rain to produce it. This could mean many things, but it demonstrates to me that everything is under God's control. The same force of nature that was used for His judgement is now used as a symbol of His love. It's ironic and masterful.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 11-14
We've all read stories to our kids about Noah's ark. The little tug boat in the illustrations with the long giraffe neck sticking out the top seems fanciful at best. Given the way my mind works, I love to find evidence that supports the Biblical record. It's not that I don't believe without proof, but it is a big boost to my faith when the Bible is also proven to be accurate and plausible. Since we know God's Word is truth, science will one day catch up with the Bible and corroborate all that lies within it. So where science does not line up with the Bible, we have faith that it one day will. But in regard to the ark and flood, there actually is a considerable amount of outside support.
Would you be surprised to learn that hundreds of ancient civilizations have very similar stories of global flooding, a big boat, and a family that was spared to repopulate the earth? The oldest and most similar is from the Epic of Gilgamesh from the Babylonians. So many accounts of the same event, points to the fact that all the peoples of the earth, however dispersed, originated from one family who passed on the remarkable story of their survival. There are many more proofs than what I have the time or ability to communicate clearly, so I will list the most compelling and easily understood proofs...
Layers of fossils of different ages are often found mixed together in one layer of sediment or layered in the wrong orders. Evidence of massive disruption of the flood waters.
Marine fossils have been found on wide-spread mountain crests. No possible explanation but a massive flood.
Fossil graveyards (high concentrations of fossils) are found worldwide. Evidence of a sudden, catastrophic, global destruction.
Analysis of population growth show a zero population at the estimated time of the Biblical flood.
Genealogical records show that many European kings trace their lineage to Japeth, one of Noah's three sons. This is logical evidence for there being just 4 couples from whom the entire world was repopulated.
The oldest living organisms, the Sequoias and Redwoods, date back 3-4000 years, but there is nothing living that pre-dates the flood.
And the little tug-boat that housed all of the living creatures of the earth, was two-thirds the size of the Titanic! Given the measurements listed, it had the capacity of 2000 cattle cars, each of which could carry 18-20 cows or 60-80 hogs or 80 to 100 sheep. There are now 290 species of large animals, 757 species of mid-sized animals, and 1358 small animals. Two of each, plus the additional "clean" animals intended for animal sacrifices, could have comfortably fit on board. And dinosaurs, though they clearly did not survive long in the post-flood environment which involved radical climate and topographic change, must have been on board. Full-grown dinosaurs may have been tough to house, but Juveniles of even the largest animals could easily have fit on board.
Noah's family was on the ark for just over a year (vs. 8:13-14) and arrived to a new covenant with God in which He gave man two distinctly new instructions. First, man was now able to eat meat. At the time of creation, back when "it was good", man was a vegetarian, as were all animals. Post-flood provisions provided for the addition of meat to the diets of man and beast. Secondly, God strictly prohibits murder and initiates capital punishment. Previously when Cain killed Abel, the killer (Cain) was merely excommunicated, but now God allowed for the death of such a person. Perhaps murder had become a prevalent problem in the pre-flood world. Before the giving of the Law to Moses, we don't hear of any regulations for man established by God. Given how depraved our society is, with laws in place to govern our behavior, can you even imagine what the human race would have looked like then, before rules or standards of morality? It must have been unbearable and irreversible for God to have resorted to such a radical solution.
But the most important component of the Noahic covenant was God's promise never to destroy the entire earth again by flood. The rainbow is a beautiful picture of that promise, as it only appears after rain. He could have chosen anything to use as a symbol of that promise, but chose to use something that required rain to produce it. This could mean many things, but it demonstrates to me that everything is under God's control. The same force of nature that was used for His judgement is now used as a symbol of His love. It's ironic and masterful.
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 11-14
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Cain, Abel, and Noah
Reading for January 2
Ok, so we left off with Adam and Eve being expelled from paradise and from a perfect relationship with God the Father. Like us today, their sin was in placing higher value on things other than God. The intrigue of the fruit was the possibility that it offered something more than what they had with God. If they disregarded His instructions, could they find something even better for themselves? Could they increase in knowledge and power and become like God himself? Of course not. And when we think that valuing our material possessions, careers, social standing, even other relationships, will bring the same satisfaction and fulfillment that God offers, we are sorely disappointed. Adam and Eve quickly learned that life would never be better than when they were walking in perfect union with God. In fact, life was about to get a whole lot harder.
So now we find Adam and Eve raising a family without the benefit of close communion with God. The Bible doesn't say much about His involvement in their lives post-Eden, but we do know that they taught their boys about God and about making sacrifices to Him. A connection must have been made between shed blood and the covering of sin back when God himself killed the first animals to make clothing for Adam and Eve after the fall. Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God, Cain from his crops and Abel from his livestock. God was displeased with Cain's offering. Why? Later in the Mosaic law, the Israelites were commanded to offer the first fruits of their crops to God. His displeasure could not have been related to the content of the sacrifice. A careful look at the wording in verse 3 of chapter 4 offers a clue. "Cain presented some of his crops" while "Abel also brought a gift- the best of the firstborn lambs". Cain offered something, Abel offered his best. God always looks at the heart, and what He saw was a fundamental difference between Cain and Abel's love for Himself. Doing the right thing with the wrong motivation is of no value to God. The true nature of Cain's heart is then clearly revealed when he kills his brother. Cain is cast away from his family as punishment, and also as protection, for he must have had many siblings by that time who may have sought revenge. The Bible only records the births of Cain and Abel, and later Seth, but given the lifespans of Adam and Eve and their responsibility to populate the earth, we can assume that Cain was far from alone. So he leaves with his wife; and yes it had to have been his sister since there was no one else and marrying a sibling was not prohibited until much later. Adam and Eve had another son, Seth, from whose line came Noah and ultimately Jesus and all mankind.
At the time of Seth's son Enosh, people began to "worship the Lord by name". But seven generations later (which equated to a couple thousand years given the extended lifespans before the flood), the world had succumbed to gross immorality. The perplexing reference to the "sons of God" sleeping with the "daughters of man" seems to indicate the intermingling of the followers of God with pagans. God warned against this destructive combination throughout the Old Testament, and this seems to be the generation of it's origin. Some scholars have questioned whether these unions, which produced "giant Nephilites", were actually fallen angels with humans. But the fact that the offspring were "giants" is not necessarily proof of such unions, as even today we see genetic anomalies that produce really big people. Does anyone question the parentage of Andre the Giant??? However, there are two references, one in the book of Jude and one in 2 Peter, that speak of "angels who did not keep their proper domain" and are in chains in Hades awaiting the day of judgement. It could be that the angels referred to in these books were guilty of fornication with women, producing these "superhuman" offspring. Regardless, I think the point of this aside, is that the pagans were pulling the believers down and bringing about new levels of immorality. This is why God repeatedly tells His people not to be yoked together with unbelievers. It grieves Him deeply when we are living apart from Him. Verse 6 says that it "broke His heart" that the pre-flood world had fallen so far away from Him. It was now evil enough that God saw fit to destroy all that existed, save for one family that had stood for righteousness. Think about how amazing it is, that when God tells Noah His plan and asks him to play the leading role, he does it without question. Verse 22 reads "Noah did everything exactly as God had commanded him". It must have sounded crazy. It surely cost him dearly, as it must have been very expensive to build the ark and would certainly have required him to devote himself fully to the job for YEARS. Additionally, he must have suffered ridicule as he undertook this very obvious task at a time when rain had not yet fallen on the earth. Before the flood, the earth was watered by a canopy of mist in the atmosphere which resulted when God "separated the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth" on day 2 of creation.
Of all the things we have ever felt nudged to do by God, how many have we balked at that required FAR FAR less of us than what Noah agreed to. I think of this blog, and how I tried to talk myself out of it for months before finally committing. Let it be said of us this year, that we "did everything exactly as God commanded us".
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 7-10
Ok, so we left off with Adam and Eve being expelled from paradise and from a perfect relationship with God the Father. Like us today, their sin was in placing higher value on things other than God. The intrigue of the fruit was the possibility that it offered something more than what they had with God. If they disregarded His instructions, could they find something even better for themselves? Could they increase in knowledge and power and become like God himself? Of course not. And when we think that valuing our material possessions, careers, social standing, even other relationships, will bring the same satisfaction and fulfillment that God offers, we are sorely disappointed. Adam and Eve quickly learned that life would never be better than when they were walking in perfect union with God. In fact, life was about to get a whole lot harder.
So now we find Adam and Eve raising a family without the benefit of close communion with God. The Bible doesn't say much about His involvement in their lives post-Eden, but we do know that they taught their boys about God and about making sacrifices to Him. A connection must have been made between shed blood and the covering of sin back when God himself killed the first animals to make clothing for Adam and Eve after the fall. Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God, Cain from his crops and Abel from his livestock. God was displeased with Cain's offering. Why? Later in the Mosaic law, the Israelites were commanded to offer the first fruits of their crops to God. His displeasure could not have been related to the content of the sacrifice. A careful look at the wording in verse 3 of chapter 4 offers a clue. "Cain presented some of his crops" while "Abel also brought a gift- the best of the firstborn lambs". Cain offered something, Abel offered his best. God always looks at the heart, and what He saw was a fundamental difference between Cain and Abel's love for Himself. Doing the right thing with the wrong motivation is of no value to God. The true nature of Cain's heart is then clearly revealed when he kills his brother. Cain is cast away from his family as punishment, and also as protection, for he must have had many siblings by that time who may have sought revenge. The Bible only records the births of Cain and Abel, and later Seth, but given the lifespans of Adam and Eve and their responsibility to populate the earth, we can assume that Cain was far from alone. So he leaves with his wife; and yes it had to have been his sister since there was no one else and marrying a sibling was not prohibited until much later. Adam and Eve had another son, Seth, from whose line came Noah and ultimately Jesus and all mankind.
At the time of Seth's son Enosh, people began to "worship the Lord by name". But seven generations later (which equated to a couple thousand years given the extended lifespans before the flood), the world had succumbed to gross immorality. The perplexing reference to the "sons of God" sleeping with the "daughters of man" seems to indicate the intermingling of the followers of God with pagans. God warned against this destructive combination throughout the Old Testament, and this seems to be the generation of it's origin. Some scholars have questioned whether these unions, which produced "giant Nephilites", were actually fallen angels with humans. But the fact that the offspring were "giants" is not necessarily proof of such unions, as even today we see genetic anomalies that produce really big people. Does anyone question the parentage of Andre the Giant??? However, there are two references, one in the book of Jude and one in 2 Peter, that speak of "angels who did not keep their proper domain" and are in chains in Hades awaiting the day of judgement. It could be that the angels referred to in these books were guilty of fornication with women, producing these "superhuman" offspring. Regardless, I think the point of this aside, is that the pagans were pulling the believers down and bringing about new levels of immorality. This is why God repeatedly tells His people not to be yoked together with unbelievers. It grieves Him deeply when we are living apart from Him. Verse 6 says that it "broke His heart" that the pre-flood world had fallen so far away from Him. It was now evil enough that God saw fit to destroy all that existed, save for one family that had stood for righteousness. Think about how amazing it is, that when God tells Noah His plan and asks him to play the leading role, he does it without question. Verse 22 reads "Noah did everything exactly as God had commanded him". It must have sounded crazy. It surely cost him dearly, as it must have been very expensive to build the ark and would certainly have required him to devote himself fully to the job for YEARS. Additionally, he must have suffered ridicule as he undertook this very obvious task at a time when rain had not yet fallen on the earth. Before the flood, the earth was watered by a canopy of mist in the atmosphere which resulted when God "separated the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth" on day 2 of creation.
Of all the things we have ever felt nudged to do by God, how many have we balked at that required FAR FAR less of us than what Noah agreed to. I think of this blog, and how I tried to talk myself out of it for months before finally committing. Let it be said of us this year, that we "did everything exactly as God commanded us".
Tomorrow's reading: Genesis 7-10
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Creation
Reading for January 1
Wow. Creation and the fall of man, all in one day. That's alot of ground to cover, but some really important topics that deserve attention. Obviously, these two major tenets of the faith have been debated by scholars far more worthy than myself, so please put my thoughts and opinions in the proper perspective. If you've heard of "apologetics" which means "defense of the faith", that's my angle. I want to really know what I believe and I wrestle with things that don't make sense at face value. But as much as I want to understand it all, there is a great amount of the Faith, and of the Bible specifically, that is not meant to be fully understood by our finite minds. One day it will all make sense, and that is enough for many people (like my husband). I think faith like that is a gift. But for those like me who struggle to work out the difficulties, a good verse to commit to memory is from 1st Corinmthians 13:12. It reads, "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror, then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known".
All that said, here goes my attempt to consolidate what I have read regarding the debate between evolution and creation. Scientific theories are always changing, and though taught as fact, are filled with plenty of holes. Faith is required to accomodate either theory...creation or evolution. Though atheists have grabbed hold of the theory of evolution as a means of discounting the existence of God, Darwin himself believed that a creating God was necessary to explain the existence of the primordial ooze from which he believed all life originated. Despite the basic discrepancy regarding the involvement of a creator, there are many areas of agreement between science and creation. The science of astronomy maintains that the earth had a beginning; geology holds that life began in the sea with lower life forms appearing first and man being the most recent; physics (specifically the law of thermodynamics) teaches that the world is running out of energy and therefore is not eternal and therefore had a beginning; biology teaches that creatures reproduce their own kind (this is consistent with fossil records which do not support macro-evolution from species to species...still looking for the "missing links"); anthropology asserts that there is only one race of mankind, having one common ancestor; and finally mathematics, through the law of probability, confirms that the chance of life beginning spontaneously is ridiculously small. I've seen many different numbers, but I've always found it most easily understood by the analogy of a tornado blowing through a junkyard, resulting in the creation of a 747 jet. My father-in-law likes to use the analogy of a man stumbling upon a watch in a field. That man would never suppose that the watch was self-existent but that a watch-maker had been responsible for it's creation. We'll all have different opinions on the particulars of creation, but what is essential is a belief in a sovereign Creator. When we view the complexity and majesty of this world and all that's in it, our only response should be reverent worship. Trying to understand it is fine, but in doing so, we cannot give credit to any other process than creation. The "Big Bang" theory that we were taught in school, is neither logical nor consistent with the Bible. Many things are open to interpretation, but that fact is not.
If you have accepted the fact that the earth was created intentionally, as opposed to happening by random and improbable chance, there is still room for debate about the time span involved in creation. Was it seven 24-hour days as we understand them? The text certainly reads that way, as it says "there was evening and there was morning" in reference to each day of creation. However, the Hebrew word for "day" is used in other places to mean longer periods of time. Second Peter 3:8 reads "a day is like a thousand years to the Lord and a thousand years is like a day". Were the days merely intended to indicate stages of creation; a sequence rather than time-line? According to one of my resource books, the Hebrew translation did not include the definite article "the" before references such as "on the first day" or "on the second day". It actually should be read "on a first day", "on a second day", etc., meaning that there could be gaps between the days of creation. Could the author (Moses) have used "days" as a means of simplifying a very complex process? If you hold to the literal, 24-hour day interpretation, it is still somewhat unclear how old the earth is due to gaps in the genealogical record but conservative scholars place the earth's age somewhere between 4000 and 6000 years. Bear in mind though, that even if the world is only a few thousand years old, God created a "mature" earth. Trees were full grown and already producing seeds of their own kind, Adam was a full grown man, animals were presumably not babies, as they had no parents to care for them. God could have created the earth however old He wanted to, so the age of the earth cannot really be used to discredit the Biblical account, even taken in its most literal sense. Again, the important point to make is that God created all that was made. How long ago is a non-essential, though very interesting, topic of discussion.
If you'll notice in your Bibles, the word for God used in the first chapter of Genesis is "God", which is translated Elohim in the Hebrew. This word refers to God as Creator. Beginning in chapter two, with the account of man's creation, the word used is "Lord God", which is translated "Yahweh" in the Hebrew. The connotation here is one of relationship...a knowable God who relates with his creation. But in chapter three, when Satan speaks of God to Eve, he refers to Him as "God" instead of "Lord God". This is important because the distinction highlights the fact that Satan is not in relationship with God and does not recognize that aspect of His character. Something else that would escape our notice due to the translation, is that the word "you" that Satan uses when speaking to Eve in the garden, is plural. This means that Adam was standing right next to her, complicit in the entire exchange. He was not unwittingly tempted by Eve. She just happened to be the one who took the first bite...
Tomorrow's scripture readings: Genesis 4 thru 6
Wow. Creation and the fall of man, all in one day. That's alot of ground to cover, but some really important topics that deserve attention. Obviously, these two major tenets of the faith have been debated by scholars far more worthy than myself, so please put my thoughts and opinions in the proper perspective. If you've heard of "apologetics" which means "defense of the faith", that's my angle. I want to really know what I believe and I wrestle with things that don't make sense at face value. But as much as I want to understand it all, there is a great amount of the Faith, and of the Bible specifically, that is not meant to be fully understood by our finite minds. One day it will all make sense, and that is enough for many people (like my husband). I think faith like that is a gift. But for those like me who struggle to work out the difficulties, a good verse to commit to memory is from 1st Corinmthians 13:12. It reads, "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror, then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part, then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known".
All that said, here goes my attempt to consolidate what I have read regarding the debate between evolution and creation. Scientific theories are always changing, and though taught as fact, are filled with plenty of holes. Faith is required to accomodate either theory...creation or evolution. Though atheists have grabbed hold of the theory of evolution as a means of discounting the existence of God, Darwin himself believed that a creating God was necessary to explain the existence of the primordial ooze from which he believed all life originated. Despite the basic discrepancy regarding the involvement of a creator, there are many areas of agreement between science and creation. The science of astronomy maintains that the earth had a beginning; geology holds that life began in the sea with lower life forms appearing first and man being the most recent; physics (specifically the law of thermodynamics) teaches that the world is running out of energy and therefore is not eternal and therefore had a beginning; biology teaches that creatures reproduce their own kind (this is consistent with fossil records which do not support macro-evolution from species to species...still looking for the "missing links"); anthropology asserts that there is only one race of mankind, having one common ancestor; and finally mathematics, through the law of probability, confirms that the chance of life beginning spontaneously is ridiculously small. I've seen many different numbers, but I've always found it most easily understood by the analogy of a tornado blowing through a junkyard, resulting in the creation of a 747 jet. My father-in-law likes to use the analogy of a man stumbling upon a watch in a field. That man would never suppose that the watch was self-existent but that a watch-maker had been responsible for it's creation. We'll all have different opinions on the particulars of creation, but what is essential is a belief in a sovereign Creator. When we view the complexity and majesty of this world and all that's in it, our only response should be reverent worship. Trying to understand it is fine, but in doing so, we cannot give credit to any other process than creation. The "Big Bang" theory that we were taught in school, is neither logical nor consistent with the Bible. Many things are open to interpretation, but that fact is not.
If you have accepted the fact that the earth was created intentionally, as opposed to happening by random and improbable chance, there is still room for debate about the time span involved in creation. Was it seven 24-hour days as we understand them? The text certainly reads that way, as it says "there was evening and there was morning" in reference to each day of creation. However, the Hebrew word for "day" is used in other places to mean longer periods of time. Second Peter 3:8 reads "a day is like a thousand years to the Lord and a thousand years is like a day". Were the days merely intended to indicate stages of creation; a sequence rather than time-line? According to one of my resource books, the Hebrew translation did not include the definite article "the" before references such as "on the first day" or "on the second day". It actually should be read "on a first day", "on a second day", etc., meaning that there could be gaps between the days of creation. Could the author (Moses) have used "days" as a means of simplifying a very complex process? If you hold to the literal, 24-hour day interpretation, it is still somewhat unclear how old the earth is due to gaps in the genealogical record but conservative scholars place the earth's age somewhere between 4000 and 6000 years. Bear in mind though, that even if the world is only a few thousand years old, God created a "mature" earth. Trees were full grown and already producing seeds of their own kind, Adam was a full grown man, animals were presumably not babies, as they had no parents to care for them. God could have created the earth however old He wanted to, so the age of the earth cannot really be used to discredit the Biblical account, even taken in its most literal sense. Again, the important point to make is that God created all that was made. How long ago is a non-essential, though very interesting, topic of discussion.
If you'll notice in your Bibles, the word for God used in the first chapter of Genesis is "God", which is translated Elohim in the Hebrew. This word refers to God as Creator. Beginning in chapter two, with the account of man's creation, the word used is "Lord God", which is translated "Yahweh" in the Hebrew. The connotation here is one of relationship...a knowable God who relates with his creation. But in chapter three, when Satan speaks of God to Eve, he refers to Him as "God" instead of "Lord God". This is important because the distinction highlights the fact that Satan is not in relationship with God and does not recognize that aspect of His character. Something else that would escape our notice due to the translation, is that the word "you" that Satan uses when speaking to Eve in the garden, is plural. This means that Adam was standing right next to her, complicit in the entire exchange. He was not unwittingly tempted by Eve. She just happened to be the one who took the first bite...
Tomorrow's scripture readings: Genesis 4 thru 6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
