Monday, August 03, 2009

How then Four Hundred, Thirty Years?

One person asked (anonymously, against which I have nothing):
Hi Turretin Fan, I just have one quick question about the Camping Jenga article. If Amram was Aaron's dad, how on earth do we account for the 430 year sojourn in Egypt? Thanks in advance for taking the time to respond.
I answer:

The Israelites did not sojourn 430 years in Egypt. Look at the verses that are relevant more closely:

Exodus 12:40-41
Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.

Genesis 15:13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

You will notice that neither of these verses say that the Hebrews were in Egypt for 430 years, but that they were sojourning for 430 years. When we compare Scripture to Scripture, we discover what the starting point of the 430 years is:

Galatians 3:16-17
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Paul here clearly explains that the promise came to Abraham 430 years before the giving of the law. Therefore, the 430 years should be counted not from the entry into Egypt by Jacob and his sons and grandsons, but from the date of the promise.

This particular commenter didn't specifically state whether he accepts Mr. Camping's chronology, but let's be perfectly clear: if one accepts Mr. Camping's chronology, one contradicts Paul in Galatians 3:16-17, because Mr. Camping's chronology makes the period from the promise to the law much longer than 430 years. In fact, Mr. Camping dates the birth of Isaac at 2068 B.C. and the exodus at 1447 B.C., over 600 years later. (Biblical Calendar of History, pp. 6-7)

Recall as well the remainder of the promise:

Genesis 15:13-16
And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age. but in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Abraham died seeing only his grandson Jacob, but not his great-grandchildren from Jacob. We know this from the fact that Abraham died at 175 (Genesis 25:7), that his son Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 (Genesis 17:17), and that Jacob was born when Isaac was 60 (Genesis 26:26).

Who then is the fourth generation? It is the fourth generation of descendants that Abraham did not see.

1) Levi, the son of Jacob

2) Kohath, the son of Levi

3) Amram, the son of Kohath

4) Aaron and Moses, the sons of Amram

But again, if one takes Mr. Camping's view, one must deny the truth of the promise to Abraham, because if Amram was not Moses' and Aaron's father, then they were more than four generations past Abraham's death. I realize that Mr. Camping attempts to defuse this objection by suggesting an odd way of doing the chronology, such that "generation" is actually not the way we consider generations today.

So, as you can see, Mr. Camping's error regarding the relatively simple question of "who is Moses' father?" (correct answer, according to Exodus 6:20, Numbers 26:59, 1 Chronicles 6:3, and 1 Chronicles 23:13, is "Amram") actually ends up in his having not only to deny the plain sense of the term "four generations" but having to contradict Paul's chronology in Galatians.

Before signing off, for those interested, I'd like to add one additional plain contradiction to the growing pile. You'll recall that Mr. Camping's chronology calculated 430 years thus:

Levi (77 years in Egypt)
Kohath (133 years in Egypt)
Amram (137 years in Egypt)
Aaron (83 years in Egypt)
Total = 430 years total time

The last plain contradiction that I'll point out is this. Kohath was Levi's son (Exodus 6:16), Kohath lived a total of 133 years (Exodcuse 6:18), and Kohath came into Egypt with Levi (Genesis 46:8-26, especially vs. 11). Thus, Kohath was born before he and Levi came into Egypt, and Levi's time in Egypt is not properly added to Kohath's time in Egypt, since their time in Egypt was overlapping.

In case anyone thinks that this was a different Kohath in Genesis 46 as opposed to Exodus 6, Scripture confirms the identity of Kohath for us:

Genesis 46:11 And the sons of Levi; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.

and

Exodus 6:16 And these are the names of the sons of Levi according to their generations; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari: and the years of the life of Levi were an hundred thirty and seven years.

-TurretinFan

Addendum: For those interested in what more significant Bible scholars than myself have said about this topic, the following quotations are provided from John Gill, John Calvin, and Matthew Henry

Gill explains:
The Septuagint version adds, "and in the land of Canaan"; and the Samaritan version is,"the sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers, in the land of Canaan, and in the land of Egypt.''Agreeably to which are both the Talmuds: in one (o) of them the words are,"in Egypt and in all lands,''and in the other (p),"in Egypt, and in the rest of the lands;''and in the same way Aben Ezra interprets the words. And certain it is, that Israel did not dwell in Egypt four hundred and thirty years, and even not much more than two hundred years; but then they and their fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, dwelt so long in Mesopotamia, in Canaan, and in Egypt, in foreign countries, in a land not theirs, as the phrase is, Gen 15:13 where the place of their sojourning, and the time of it, are given by way of prophecy. The Jews reckon from the vision of God to Abraham between the pieces to the birth of Isaac thirty years, so the Targum of Jonathan; but that cannot be, though from his coming out of his own native place, Ur of the Chaldeans, to the birth of Isaac, might be so many years, since he was seventy five years of age when he came out of Haran, and if he stayed at Haran five years, as probably he did, then there were just thirty from his coming out of Ur of the Chaldees to Isaac's birth, since he was born when he was one hundred years old; and from the birth of Isaac to the birth of Jacob was sixty years, and from thence to his going down to Egypt was one hundred and thirty, and from thence to the coming of Israel out of Egypt were two hundred and ten years, as is generally computed, which make the exact sum of four hundred and thirty years.


Calvin explains:
The beginning of this period is not reckoned from the coming down of Jacob, for it is very clear from other passages, that, from the time that Jacob entered into Egypt to the Exodus, not more than 230 years at most had passed. The Jews generally only reckon 210; but Moses includes also the period during which Abraham and his children were not in possession of the promised land. The meaning therefore is, that from the time that the inheritance of the land of Canaan was given to Abraham, the promise was suspended for 400, years before his posterity enjoyed their right. For Paul also thus explains this difficulty, (Gal. 3:17) where he says, that God had confirmed his covenant with Abraham 430 years before the law was promulgated. Moses, therefore, dates the commencement of this period from the sojourning of Abraham, when he was still the lord of the land of Canaan by the just title of donation. With respect to the omission of the thirty years in the 15th chapter of Genesis, in this there is no contradiction, because the land had already been promised to Abraham some years previously, though, so far from obtaining dominion over it, he had scarcely been permitted to occupy it as “a stranger.” Therefore God apprizes him, that 400 years still remained before he would put his descendants into possession of it; and, consequently, that the little time which had elapsed was not sufficient for the trial of his patience, but that both for himself and for his posterity there was need of extraordinary endurance, lest they should faint under the weariness of the long delay. Moreover, there is no departure from the usual manner of speaking, in His not exactly reckoning the number of years. More than 400 years, some twenty, or thereabouts, indeed, remained; but, since God had no other object than to exhort His people to patience, He does not accurately compute or define the exact number of years, because it was sufficient to put before them 400 years in a round sum. In the same way, it is added in the next verse, “at the end of 430years,” viz., from the time that Abraham had begun to be the legitimate lord of the land; for Moses wished to show, that although God had long delayed the fulfillment of His promise, still His truth and faithfulness were certainly proved, not only because He had precisely performed what He had promised, but because He had observed the: foreappointed time. He calls the people, weak as they were, by an honorable title, “the hosts of the Lord,” both to enforce again the power of God’s blessing,and to give due honor to His grace in ruling and marshalling so confused a band. Although soldiers may be accustomed to obedience, and have learnt from exercise to keep their ranks; although they may have generals, commandants, and captains, and banners also under which to range themselves, still it is a very difficult thing to march an army of 20,000, or 30,000 men by night without. confusion, and in good order; how great a miracle was it, then, for 600,000 men, with women and children, much baggage, herds, and flocks, and other encumbrances, to pass by night through the midst of enemies, and all to escape safely without a single exception! To the same effect, Moses repeats in the last verse of this chapter, that “the Lord did bring the children of Israel out — by their armies,” as much as to say, that there was no confusion in that immense multitude; since God performed the part of an incomparable Leader in His marvelous power.


Matthew Henry explains:
5. Of the date of this great event: it was just 430 years from the promise made to Abraham (as the apostle explains it, Galatians 3:17) at his first coming into Canaan, during all which time the children of Israel, that is, the Hebrews, the distinguished chosen seed, were sojourners in a land that was not theirs, either Canaan or Egypt. So long the promise God made to Abraham of a settlement lay dormant and unfulfilled, but now, at length, it revived, and things began to work towards the accomplishment of it. The first day of the march of Abraham's seed towards Canaan was just 430 years (it should seem to a day) from the promise made to Abraham, Genesis 12:2, I will make of thee a great nation. See how punctual God is to his time; though his promises be not performed quickly, they will be accomplished in their season.

82 comments:

Jesse Light said...

Hello,

I am not a Campingite and I agree with you on this chronology. The only question I have is, how did 70 people become 2 million people in the span of about 200 years? That's a lot of children! Any thoughts?

Turretinfan said...

Very large families.

Exodus 1:7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.

...

Exodus 1:20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

-TurretinFan

natamllc said...

Something came to me this morning during a quite time with the Lord and pondering the several matters looked at by the articles and responses to them, because of Mr. Camping.

It occurred to me there is an area not touched on and it is this that Paul brings forth when dealing with issues of time and event when writing to the Ephesian Church:

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Eph 1:11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
Eph 1:12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

As you know the KJV uses phrases like these: "....mystery of his will...." or "....dispensation of the fullness of times...." or "....obtained an inheritance, being predestinated....".

The question to be asked, in light of those "indicators" of "what" is preceeding the return of Christ, is, are you resisting the "Counsel of God Will"? Are you having a troubled time entering into that Sabbath Rest prepared for those predestined to enter into it?

Plainly, the Counsel of God's Will is this that God Himself is doing by summing up everything in Christ.

Plainly there are some who are rising up against Christ who is God's Counsel and Purposes and Will in creation.

As Paul indicates, all these sorts of questions about time or event are laid to rest when once you receive or reject the good news about Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

As the early Apostles before, so I would indicate from the book of Acts that the exact same Grace is now available to all called to receive it:

Act 4:33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

I have to say, although I enjoy the scholarly work on this eschatalogical issue, the greater power is in proclaiming Him and His sufferings, death, burial and resurrection! It's the proclamation of the Gospel that brings great grace upon them all; them all, meaning those predestined and foreordained to this Calling and Election.

What is very clear to me then is this, when once this Great Grace is with you, you then become a message of death to those doomed to die in their sins and a message of Life to those called to the forgiveness of their sins:

2Co 2:12 When I came to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ, even though a door was opened for me in the Lord,
2Co 2:13 my spirit was not at rest because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I took leave of them and went on to Macedonia.
2Co 2:14 But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere.
2Co 2:15 For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing,
2Co 2:16 to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things?
2Co 2:17 For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ.

Fred Butler said...

I am definitely not a Campingnite.
But I am curious if you are a late date Exodus believer (1200) or an early date Exodus believer (1440)?

That alone plays heavily into your evaluation of Camping's chronology.

Fred

Turretinfan said...

I'd tend to favor the earlier date (1491 is, I think what Ussher suggested), but I wouldn't be prepared to be dogmatic about that, as I would be about the end-points of the 430 period.

Fred Butler said...

Let me just preface my comments by saying I work at GTY with Phil Johnson and I am friends with James. I try to visit with him when he is in our neck of the woods. I say all that to make sure you know I am not a Camping crank.

With that said, I think you are mistaken as to that 430 years.

Homer Kent, in his commentary on Galatians, points out there have been three ways scholars have looked at Paul's words in Gal. 3:17: a) spiritualize the 430, which is how the liberals generally do it, b) your position, meaning from the promise of Abraham to the Exodus, which would just be 215 years or so in Egypt proper, or c) from the last giving of the promise to Jacob in Genesis 46:1-4.

There are few reasons to take the third option:

Exodus 12:40 quite plainly says they were in Egypt 430 years. There is no way around this fact. I think you put way too much emphasis upon the concept of "sojourning." In fact, the Hebrew word translated as "sojourn" speaks of living in, or dwelling in, or as the NKJ marginal note renders it, "length of stay." Additionally, verse 41 says it was at the end of those 430 years that the armies of Israel went out from Egypt.

Note that the LXX adds the phrase "and in the land of Canaan" as Gill notes. This is a translational addition, not part of the original Hebrew text. I see this as a problem, not a solution.

Gill, Henry, and Calvin, bless all their hearts - and I love them all dearly for the treasure they are for the church, wrote long before modern archeological research has been refined. Most notably, before the discover of Babylonian documents that helps modern Biblical students pin point exact dates for specific events and when things happened in the biblical record. For example, we know that 1 Kings 6:1 where the date of 480 years after the Exodus, in the 4th year of Solomon's reign, was roughly 966 BC, due in part to astrological records of the Chaldeans recording eclipses and planetary motions. Add 480 to 960 and you get 1446 for the Exodus. Add 430 to that 1446 and we get 1876, which is the conservative date for the Israelites coming into Egypt.

I smell my own blog article on the subject for maybe here in the near future, because I am intrigued by your solution to Camping's numerology. Not that I have a hill to die on, I just want to be, like yourself, accurate with the text. For me personally, I believe God has given us good chronological markers to map out redemptive history.

I admire your willingness to expose Camping, as he rightly should be exposed, but I think you are trying too hard to debunk him with this example. I would exhort you to revisit your argument with these objections in mind.

Fred

Anonymous said...

TurretinFan, I think you're wrong. Genesis 15:13-14 clearly states the Israelites were afflicted by the Egyptians for 400 years.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

Also Exodus 12:40
Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

Read the other translations of this verse:

(English Standard Version)
40The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years.

(NIV)
40 Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt [a] was 430 years.

(Youngs Literal)
40And the dwelling of the sons of Israel which they have dwelt in Egypt [is] four hundred and thirty years;

(KJV)
Now the sojourning <04186> of the children <01121> of Israel <03478>, who dwelt <03427> (8804) in Egypt <04714>, was four <0702> hundred <03967> <08141> and thirty <07970> years <08141>.

The word SOJOURNING is related to the word DWELT.

04186 bvwm mowshab mo-shawb’ or bvm moshab mo-shawb’

from 03427; a seat; n m; {See TWOT on 922 @@ "922c"}

LAMBSFURY said...

"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing"  Genesis 12:2

"And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, UNTO THY SEED WILL I GIVE THIS LAND: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him. And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Beth-el, and pitched his tent, having Beth-el on the west, and Ha'i on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD.  And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the south. And there was a famine in the land: AND ABRAM WENT DOWN INTO EGYPT TO SOJOURN THERE; for the famine was grievous in the land. And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter INTO EGYPT, that he said unto Sa'rai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee. And it came to pass, that, when Abram was COME INTO EGYPT, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair."  Genesis 12:7-14

"Now the SOJOURNING OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt."  Exodus 12:40-41

"Now to ABRAHAM AND HIS SEED were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the COVENANT, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, THE LAW, which was four hundred and thirty years AFTER, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God GAVE IT TO ABRAHAM BY PROMISE."   Galatians 3:16-18

The verses are 100% clear.  When God made the PROMISE to Abraham in Genesis 12, it was ABRAM that was the FIRST to SOJOURN in EGYPT.  The first among a future seed of those who who also dwell in Egypt.

Are Abrah's sojournings in Egypt included in Exodus 12:40-41? YES!!!!

The sojourning in Egypt BEGAN with ABRAM, as God made the covenant with him.  The 430 years begins at the time the promise was made to Abraham, as he entered Egypt afterward, as he was the first to enter Egypt and ends at the giving of the law:

"Now to ABRAHAM AND HIS SEED were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the COVENANT, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, THE LAW, which was four hundred and thirty years AFTER, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God GAVE IT TO ABRAHAM BY PROMISE."   Galatians 3:16-18

The Covenant and Promises made = Genesis 12:2, Genesis 12:7

430 years after the covenant/promises was the law

The law = Begins right after the Exodus in Exodus 12:40-41, as in Exodus 13  God begins the commands of the ceremonial law.

So, from Genesis 12 to Exodus 12:40-41 is exactly 430 years.

The timing of the 430 years BEGINS with Abraham as Galatians 3:17 states, not Jacob's entry to Egypt.

The Camping calendar is completely ruined.

Tom

Fred Butler said...

Tom,
You need to familiarize yourself with the severe problems with the 215 year sojourn. You can hold that position if you want, but there are bunch of problems biblically as well as archaeologically.

I offered a friendly rejoinder to the 215 year theory HERE

Fred

Turretinfan said...

Fred,

I plan carefully to address your comments in the near future.

-TurretinFan

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred,

If you want to conclude that the 430 years of Galatians 3:16-18 began with Jacob, despite Jacob not being mentioned in the chapter, then you do so against the scriptures. Furthermore:

"And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt ALREADY" Exodus 1:5

Joseph was in Egypt decades before Jacob. Why are you not including him? He was captured and sold into slavery and served Pharoah. But his sojournings are not included? Says who?

That is why God begins the 430 years with Abraham:

"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he SOJOURNED in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles WITH ISAAC AND JACOB, the heirs with him of the same promise" Hebrews 11:8-9

Abraham and Isaac are included in the sojourning.

Notice Exodus 6:

"And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of CANAAN, the land of THEIR PILGRIMAGE, wherein they were STRANGERS. And I have ALSO heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant." Exodus 6:4-5

Both Canaan and Egypt are mentioned as the land they were strangers.

To say that God skips over Abraham and Isaac in Galatians 3:16-18 is absurd....

If you are going to insist this refers to just refers to Jacob and his sons, then you MUST include Joseph who was in Egypt long before Jacob.

To avoid the confusion, God begins the 430 years of sojourning with whom the promise was initially made....Abraham.

Tom

Fred Butler said...

I take it that you read those articles I attached at my blog?

None the less...

If you want to conclude that the 430 years of Galatians 3:16-18 began with Jacob, despite Jacob not being mentioned in the chapter, then you do so against the scriptures.

(Fred) It isn't against the scriptures. You yourself quote Hebrews 11:8-9. Who were the heirs of promise with Abraham? Isaac and who? Jacob. Who happened to have had the terms of the Abrahamic covenant reiterated to him in Genesis 46:3-4, right before he went into Egypt.

Both Canaan and Egypt are mentioned as the land they were strangers.

(Fred) But only Egypt is named as the place where they were in bondage and were oppressed. The prophecy of Genesis 15 specifically speaks "to the nation they will serve." Read:

Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land not theirs Now I imagine you will say "see, they were strangers in both Canaan and Egypt, but keep reading and THEY will SERVE THEM Who serves who? and THEY WILL AFFLICT THEM Who will afflict who? four hundred years.

Ah, but there is one more verse that distinguishes the afflicters... And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions

Tell me, what nation did Israel serve and what nation was it that God judged? What Canaanite nation oppressed the Israelites in bondage? Seeing there were no "nations" in Canaan at the time because it was basically an area of nomadic tribes and individual city-states, there were none.

If you are going to insist this refers to just refers to Jacob and his sons, then you MUST include Joseph who was in Egypt long before Jacob.

(Fred) Why? That is a nit-picky objection that doesn't take in the overwhelming weight of the full text. Joseph is irrelevant to the promise God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob is the link, because he is the head, as it were, of the tribes of Israel.

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred,

You quote Genesis 15:13

"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that THY SEED shall be a STRANGER in a land that is not their's, and shall SERVE THEM; and they shall afflict them four hundred years"  Genesis 15:13

"And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for IN ISAAC shall THY SEED BE CALLED. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because HE IS THY SEED"  Genesis 21:12-13

In Genesis 15:13, God tells Abraham that HIS SEED would be a stranger in a land and serve them, and be afflicted 400 years.

The first of Abraham's seed was ISAAC. 

We see that he was a stranger in the land and served them:

"And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech KING OF THE PHILISTINES unto Gerar."  Genesis 26:1

Abraham served the king of the Philistines...

The Philistines envied Isaac - Genesis 26:14

King Abimelech ordered Isaac to leave - Genesis 26:16

"And the herdmen of Gerar did STRIVE with Isaac's herdmen, saying, The water is ours: and he called the name of the well Esek; because they strove with him."  Genesis 26:20

Conflict and affliction resulted with Isaac's people and the herdmen of Gerar.

As we move on to Jacob, his affliction in a strange land did not begin with Egypt, it started before he even went to Egypt:

"Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments: And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went. A and all their eand they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand,rrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem. And they journeyed: and the terror of God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob."  Genesis 35:2-5

Jacob came under great affliction long before he entered Egypt

and served other kings...

"And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel."  Genesis 36:31

"And Jacob dwelt in the land wherein his father was a STRANGER, in THE LAND OF CANAAN"  Genesis 37:1

As we move to Joseph...

"Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt."  Genesis 37:28

He was enslaved by the Midianites, and sold him to the Ishmeelites....

He was afflicted and served them.

"And Joseph was brought down to Egypt..."  Genesis 39:1

Joseph was brought down to Egypt and served pharoah.  Is he included among Abraham's seed that is afflicted and serve other nations?? YES!!!!!!

"And Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he, and his father's house: and Joseph lived an hundred and ten years"  Genesis 52:22

Israel entered Egypt, by Joseph, and served pharoah in a land not theirs. You just can't begin it when Jacob and his sons entered.

Was Joseph's Abraham's seed? YES!  Was he afflicted and served in a strange land?? YES!!!

The affliction of Genesis 15:13 begins with ISAAC.

The 430 years begin with Abraham.

Galatians 3:16-18 define Exodus 12:40

It's that simple...

Tom

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred,

In addition...

As far as secular evidence, the secular evidence proves that Israel was in Egypt 215 years, not 430 years.

From the article "How Long Was The Israelites' Egyptian Bondage" by Apologetics Press:

"Secular research likewise has concluded that the Israelites remained in the land of the pharaohs for 215 years. David Rohl, a respected Egyptologist, is convinced that this is the proper interpretation of the facts. In his book, Pharaohs and Kings, he undertook the challenge of reassessing the century-old Egyptian chronology so that it could accommodate more accurately several new archaeological discoveries. According to his research, Israel went down into Egypt c. 1662 B.C., and was delivered by God through Moses c. 1447 B.C.—a span of 215 years (1995, pp. 329-332).

They also say:

"There are other important historical and/or textual considerations that need to be investigated in this matter. For example, in Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus wrote that the Israelites “left Egypt in the month of Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred and fifteen years only after Jacob removed into Egypt” (II. 15.2).

Rohl observed in this regard:

"Now, according to the statements of Josephus himself, he had access to very old documents formerly housed in the Temple of Jerusalem from which to draw his account of early Israelite history. Josephus lived in the first century A.D. and so his writings are dated hundreds of years before the Masoretic text of the Tanakh (Hebrew Old Testament) was completed in the fourth century A.D. If his source documents were genuine, then the information he gives for the duration of the Sojourn derives from a much earlier period than that employed by the Masoretes when they made their version of the history of Israel and a further several centuries before the earliest extant copy of the Masoretic text (1995, p. 331).

and regarding Exodus 12:40, Whiston wrote:

"Why our Masorete copy so groundlessly abridges this account in Exod. xii,40 as to ascribe 430 years to the sole peregrination [travel by foot—AB/BT/KB] of the Israelites in Egypt when it is clear even by that Masorete chronology elsewhere, as well as from the express text itself, in the Samaritan, Septuagint, and Josephus, that they sojourned in Egypt but half that time—and that by consequence the other half of their peregrination was in the land of Canaan, before they came into Egypt—is hard to say (1974, 2:171).

Rohl comments:

"It is fairly easy to see what happened in the interval between Josephus’ day and that of the Masoretes. During the process of copying down the original scrolls over the intervening centuries, a section of text something on the lines of “and in the land of Canaan” had fallen out (or had been edited out). This is confirmed by the Greek rendition of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) which retains the original, full version of the passage (1995, p. 331).

and Rohl says again:

"The Septuagint was first written down in the time of Ptolemy I during the third century B.C. and the earliest surviving manuscript is again much older than the earliest surviving Masoretic copy. The Samaritan version of the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch) is also considerably more ancient than the Masoretic scriptures and it too retains the longer rendition of the passage on the length of the Sojourn. Thus, three out of four sources for the book of Exodus state that the four-hundred-and-thirty-year interval represents the whole period from Abraham’s descent into Canaan all the way down to the Exodus of Moses and the Israelites from Egypt (1995, p. 331)."

The facts are clear....the 430 years begin with Abraham

Tom

Fred Butler said...

Tom,

Have you read those articles yet?

Look at Genesis 15 again.

Note the language of verse 14.

And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

What nation? None of those petty squabbles with individuals count as a nation. Also notice "that nation," is translated from the singular of goy. There is one specific nation in view here, not a group of individual nomadic tribes.

Also notice that when God judges the nation, they (the Jews) come out with great substance. Cross reference that with Exodus 12:36.

Further, look at Genesis 15:16. God contrasts Israel's sojourning in a land not theirs by stating how the iniquity of the Amorites (a broad description of the people in Canaan) is not full.

Your attempt to defend the 215 year theory is noble, but doesn't do justice with the text. The fact is that the 430 year prophecy started with God promising to make Jacob a great nation in Genesis 46, right before he went in to Egypt (that nation).

Fred

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred,

Lets look at the facts...

Genesis 15:13-14 does not mention the word "Egypt."

That is what you have 'added' to the phrase that is not there..

Second,

"Now the SOJOURNING of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years" Exodus 12:40

It does not say:

"Now the sojourning in Egypt of the children of Israel, was 430 years..."

The sojourning of the children of Israel, beginning with Abraham, as the currently dwelled in Egypt, was 430 years.

At the time Exodus 12:40 was written, Israel was in Egypt. The Bible is clear that Abraham and Isaac were also sojourners...

Third,

"Now to ABRAHAM AND HIS SEED were the PROMISES MADE. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that THE COVENANT, that was CONFIRMED before of God in Christ, THE LAW, which was four hundred and thirty years AFTER, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but GOD GAVE IT TO ABRAHAM BY PROMISE" Galatians 3:16-18

The covanant was confirmed to whom? Abraham:

"In the same day the LORD MADE A COVENANT WITH ABRAM saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Eu-phra'tes"  Genesis 18:18

"And I will make my COVENANT BETWEEN ME AND THEE, and will multiply thee exceedingly."  Genesis17:2

"As for me, behold, MY COVENANT is with THEE, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee."  Genesis 17:4-5

"And I will establish my COVENANT between ME and THEE and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee"  Genesis 17:7

"And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is MY COVENANT, which ye shall keep, between ME and YOU and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised."  Genesis 17:9-10

430 years after God confirmed the covenant with Abraham was the law...

".....but GOD GAVE IT TO ABRAHAM BY PROMISE" Galatians 3:18

The 430 years is linked with Abraham......

You can't get around it...

Finally....

"And the name of Amram's WIFE was JOCHEBED, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt: and SHE BARE UNTO AMRAM AARON AND MOSES, and MIRIAM their sister" Numbers 26:59

Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi. She delivered unto AMRAM 3 children.....

These 3 children are not grandchilden of different generations....they are all brothers and sisters....Moses, Aaron and Miriam. Who is the mother of Moses, Aaron and Miriam? JOCHEBED. Who was she married to? Amram.

I used to believe in the 430 years in Egypt false doctrine.....sometimes it is hard to come to grips that we can be wrong. While you may not be a Campingite, if you feel that some form of "progressive revelation" is being given to you, that gives you some authority to "rewrite" verses, as Camping does, that means your authority is outside the Bible...

Tom

Turretinfan said...

Fred,

I've moderated an earlier comment of yours that hadn't been published (i.e. it should be up now though you originally wrote it almost a month ago). I've also provided a response at the following link (link)

-TurretinFan

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred,

You said that Galatians 3:16-18 is looking back to Genesis 46:1-4

That simply is ridiculous.....

If Galatians 3:16-18 mentioned Jacob's name, you can make that case. It does not.

"Now to ABRAHAM AND HIS SEED his seed were the promises made...." Galatians 3:16

"For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God GAVE IT to ABRAHAM BY PROMISE." Galatians 3:18

The covenant and the promise was given to Abraham....

This idea that when God says "Abraham," He really means Jacob, is absurd....

"Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the COVENANT which God made with our fathers, SAYING UNTO ABRAHAM, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Acts 3:25

"And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his COVENANT with ABRAHAM, with Isaac, and with Jacob" Exodus 2:24

"And I appeared unto ABRAHAM, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. And I have also established my COVENANT with them, to give them the LAND OF CANAAN, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were STRANGERS." Exodus 6:3-4

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto ABRAHAM, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it" Exodus 33:1

The covenant begins with Abraham..

To say that the "promise" in Galatians 3:16-18 does not apply to Abraham is ludicrous.

Now, in Acts 7:

"And God spake on this wise, That HIS SEED should SOJOURN IN A STRANGE LAND and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil FOUR HUNDRED YEARS." Acts 7:6

God tells Abraham that HIS SEED would SOJOURN in a STRANGE LAND, and be afflicted 400 years. Pointing back to Genesis 15:13

Now, notice at we continue in Acts 7, where God starts...

"And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so ABRAHAM BEGAT ISAAC, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs" Acts 7:8

The first of Abraham's seed is ISAAC. He is INCLUDED in the 400 years. Now, look at the next verse:

"And the patriarchs, moved with envy, sold JOSEPH INTO EGYPT: but God was with him, And delivered him out of all HIS AFFLICTIONS, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house." Acts 7:9-10

Joseph is also included as part of the 400 years, as he was afflicted in Egypt!!!!!!!!!

God so declares that Joseph's time in Egypt is included.

So, your idea that the 430 years begins with Jacob in Egypt does not come from the Bible, it comes from your own idea of what you want the Bible to be...

Tom

Turretinfan said...

Anonymous, regarding your comment from August 8, see my most recent post. The issue is not really the meaning of the word "sojourn," but whether the 430 should be interpreted more broadly to the sojourning or more narrowly to the time in Egypt.

LAMBSFURY said...

"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that THY SEED shall be a STRANGER in a land that is not their's, and shall SERVE THEM; and they shall AFFLICT THEM FOUR HUNDRED YEARS; And also that nation, whom they shall SERVE, will I JUDGE: and afterward shall they come out with great substance."  Genesis 15:13-14

The followers of the 430 years in Egypt doctrine make the claim that the above verses only refer to Jacob's entry into Egypt, ands that God judged Egypt and that is what this verse refers to....

The Bible shows us this is wrong.  While Egypt is included, it does not begin with Egypt.

"And they journeyed: and THE TERROR OF GOD was UPON THE CITIES that were round about them, and they did NOT pursue after THE SONS OF JACOB. So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, that is, Bethel, he and all the people that were with him."  Genesis 35:5-6

We see that God's judgment came upon the cities around Bethel.....the terror of God came upon these cities and they did not persue after the sons of Jacob.  Jacob and his sons were delivered as God's judgment came upon these cities.

They are also included in Genesis 15:14

"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that THY SEED shall be a STRANGER in a land that is not their's, and shall SERVE THEM; and they shall AFFLICT THEM FOUR HUNDRED YEARS; And also that nation, whom they shall SERVE, will I JUDGE: and afterward shall they come out with great substance."  Genesis 15:13-14

In Acts 7, God further comments:

"And God spake on this wise, That HIS SEED should SOJOURN in A STRANGE LAND;  and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil FOUR HUNDRED YEARS. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I JUDGE, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place."  Acts 7:6-7

Two verses later Joseph is mentioned:

"And the patriarchs, moved with envy, SOLD JOSEPH INTO EGYPT: but God was with him, And DELIVERD HIM out of all HIS AFFLICTIONS, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house."  Acts 6:9-10

Question....was Joseph Abraham's seed as defined in Genesis 15? Yes!!

Question...did Joseph sojourn in a strange land, which was Egypt?? Yes!!!

Question....did Joseph serve Pharoah?  Yes!!!

Question....was Joseph afflicted?  Yes!!!!

Question....was Jospeh delivered from his afflictions?? Yes!!!

Question....did the nation that Joseph served and was in bondage, did God bring judgment upon them? Yes!!!

"And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt; and the FAMINE SHALL CONSUME THE LAND; And the plenty shall not be known in the land by reason of that famine following; for it shall be VERY GRIEVOUS. And for that the dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice; it is because the thing is established by God, and GOD WILL SHORTLY BRING IT TO PASS."  Genesis 41:30-32

God's judgment upon Egypt did not begin with the Exodus...

Acts 7 further confirms this:

"And the patriarchs, moved with envy, SOLD JOSEPH INTO EGYPT: but God was with him, And DELIVERED HIM out of all HIS AFFLICTIONS, and gave him favour and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house. Now there came A DEARTH OVER ALL THE LAND OF EGYPT and Chanaan, and GREAT AFFLICTION: and our fathers found no sustenance."  Acts 7:9-11

God brought judgment upon Egypt with a great famine. Joseph is also included in the 400 years of affliciton!!!!!  That is why he is mentioned in Acts 7!!!

The 430 years do NOT begin with Jacob!!!

The 430 years begin with Abraham, and the 400 years of affliction begin with Isaac, the first of his seed, and all of Joseph's time in Egypt is also included!!!

Tom

Fred Butler said...

Tom,
I will have more to say when I have a bit of time to comment. We're moving this week and next into a new place. I have an follow up article already in the works before TF even published his newest one.

You're getting something of an attitude about this that is utterly unnecessary. Be advised that your position is the minority position among orthodox Hebrew scholars, and is found more among higher critics who reject scripture, Gill, Calvin and Henry no withstanding. I have already asked two Hebrew profs about this debate and they are quite adamant that you two are standing on extreme shaky ground exegetically and historically, the historical aspect of Egyptian chronologies as they intersect with Israel's historical record in Genesis being something TF and yourself haven't even touched on much in your rejoinders.

To suggest that I am the only one making up the ratification of the promise God made to Abraham and his seed, his son and grandson being a part of that promise, at Genesis 46, is a bit cocky on your part. I can give you at good handful of orthodox Hebraic sources and scholarship defending my viewpoint, so there really is no need to turn this into some personal vendetta against me.

I'll have more later and my blog.

Turretinfan said...

Fred,

a) If you are going to start appealing to majorities of orthodox Hebrew scholars, I'm going to start asking you to name names.

b) And then I'm going to follow that up with asking those orthodox scholars to explain (a) their view on inerrancy and (b) state their arguments for their opinions on this topic.

-TurretinFan

Fred Butler said...

TF,

We can begin with Leon Wood, J.J Davis, Kitchen, Harold Hoehner of course, Homer Kent, John C. Whitcomb, John Currid, The members of the ABR, the OT faculty of the Master's seminary and College, that's off the top of my head as I am taking a break from packing. Both Riggs and Ray provide additional sources in their papers.

All those individuals are inerrantists and hold to the full infallibility of scripture.


Some of those guys are published on the subject, others are not.

Honestly, did you think your position was the only one?

Again, a lot of this has to do with what we now know about the history of Egypt as that nation intersected with Israel. This cannot be ignored. Perhaps you did this in your paper, for I have merely glanced over it and plan to read it more in full later this week.

It would be helpful for you to plug in your chronology for 215 years with known chronologies for the reign of various Egyptian dynasties. Give an identification for the Exodus Pharaoh. When that is done, the time frame is matched with roughly 400 some odd years for Israel being in slavery. Just what the Bible teaches, Tom's gyrations of the text not withstanding.

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Butler,

Thanks for the short list of names. I'll look into the issues I mentioned as I have time.

You're the one making the argument from Egyptian archeology, not me. My understanding of the state of archeology is that there is still no definitive evidence as to the year of the Exodus, much less the years of the two sevens. If either of those two dates could be pinned to a specific date in Egyptian archeology, we might be able to tell whether the 215 or 430 period is more likely based on external evidence, and if we could pin down both, we'd give a lot of weight to one side or the other.

The problem, though, is that (as is so often the case) the archeological evidence is just not that clear. Names that the Hebrews gave to things are not necessarily the names that the Egyptians gave to them, and so even rudimentary questions like the location of Goshen remain uncertain.

Fred Butler said...

I would encourage you to do a little bit of research on the subject of Egyptian archaeology, because it is not as vague as you seem to think that it is. The ABR is a good place to start. A lot of the places in scripture have been identified and we can certainly identify many of the Egyptian Pharaohs and their dynasties that overlapped with the time of the Israelite sojourn.

See Doug Petrovich's article on Amenhotep for example.

Usually it is the higher critics and liberals who make the claim things are not so easily deduced, because, let's face it, they have an agenda.

I'll let this be my last comment here on the subject until I write some stuff up, which will be in the next couple of weeks. I hate to employ the Gerry Mattatics argument, but all my books really are packed away in boxes.

Fred

Turretinfan said...

It is rare when higher critics and fundamentalists such as myself have the same view of a text. That in itself should give you pause.

Please don't assume that my opinion of the limited value of Egyptology in this discussion is based on a lack of familiarity with the state of the scholarship in that area.

-TurretinFan

LAMBSFURY said...

Stephen quotes Acts 7:14

"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, THREESCORE AND FIFTEEN SOULS." Acts 7:14

God through Stephen quotes 75 souls that came to Egypt.

"And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were THREESCORE AND TEN. And he sent Judah before him unto Joseph, to direct his face unto Goshen; and they came into the land of Goshen." Genesis 46:26-27 (The KJV Masoretic Text)

The MT only quotes 70.

"And all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, who came out of his loins, besides the wives of the sons of Jacob, [even] all the souls were SIXTY-SIX. And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in the land of Egypt, were NINE souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were SEVENTY-FIVE SOULS" Genesis 46:26-27 (The Septuagint)

The Seputagint quotes 75

66+ 9 = 75

It is clear that God is looking to the Seputagint that has the correct account as Acts 7:14 looks back to Genesis 46:26-27

Where is the difference coming from?

The difference is coming from Genesis 46:20

"And unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him." Genesis 46:20 (KJV Masoretic Text)

However, Genesis 46:20 in the Septuagint quotes additional names that are "dropped" from the Masoretic text:

"And there were sons born to Joseph in the land of Egypt, whom Aseneth, the daughter of Petephres, priest of Heliopolis, bore to him, [even] Manasses and Ephraim. And there were sons born to Manasses, which the Syrian concubine bore to him, [even] MACHIR And Machir begot GALAAD. And the sons of Ephraim, the brother of Manasses; SUTALAAM and TAAM And the sons of Sutalaam; EDOM." Genesis 46:20 (The Seputagint)

Five names are mentioned in the Septuagint that are "dropped" from the Masoretic Text in Genesis 46:20...

1. Machir
2. Galaad
3. Sutalaam
4. Taam
5. Edom

These 5 names that are "missing" from Genesis 46:20 is why the MT only shows "70" in Genesis 46:26-27.

However, these 5 names that are "included" in the Septuagint in Genesis 46:20, is why the Septuagint lists 75 souls in Genesis 46:26-27

So, who is right?

The proof comes from the Bible...

"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, THREESCORE AND FIFTEEEN SOULS." Acts 7:14

God through Stephen confirms the Seputagint account of 75 souls, and it shows that the MT we have today is altered, and "not 100% preserved"

"Threescore and fifteen souls.... But the SEPTAGINT VERSION, quoted almost invariably by CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES, as well as by Stephen here, after giving the sixty-six, adds: And the sons of Joseph born in Egypt were nine souls. The nine, added to the sixty-six, make the seventy-five that Stephen gives. Why this clause was OMITTED FROM THE HEBREW TEXT, followed by the Common Version, is UNKNOWN. Stephen simply follows the text received by Christ, the apostles, and the Jews generally." People's New Testament

"....their number is said to be threescore and ten; but Stephen QUOTES from the SEPTUAGINT, which adds five persons to the account which are not in the Hebrew text, Machir, Gilead, Sutelaam, Taham, and Edem" Adam Clarke

"Seventy - five souls - So the SEVENTY INTERPRETERS, (whom St. Stephen follows,) one son and a grandson of Manasseh, and three children of Ephraim, being added to the seventy persons mentioned Gen 46:27." Wesley Notes

In this case, Acts 7:14 aligns with the Seputagint version of Genesis 46:26-27

The Septuagint also "preserves" Exodus 12:40.

"Now the sojourn of the children of Israel, which they dwelt in the land of Egypt AND THE LAND OF CANAAN, was 430 years" Exodus 12:40 (The Septuagint)

2011 is not 7,000 years from the flood.

Tom

LAMBSFURY said...

As the Masoretic Text "drops" the phrase "in the land of Canaan" from Exodus 12:40, they also "drop" 5 names in Genesis 46:20, and drop 6 verses quoted in Romans 3. The Septuagint preserves them all:

Look at Psalm 14:3 in both the Masoretic Text and the Seputagint:

"They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one."  Psalm 14:3 (The Masoretic Text of 1000AD)

Look at all the additional verses are quoted in Psalm 14:3 in the Seputagint:

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one. THEIR throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes."  Psalm 14:3 (The Seputagint)

Paul quotes Psalm 14 in Romans 3:

"As it is WRITTEN, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."  Romans 3:9-14

As Paul says IT IS WRITTEN, he quotes Psalm 14:3 and EXACTLY quotes this phrase as well:

"Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes"

He quotes the Septuagint in Psalm 14:3 and these 6 verses from Romans 3 are completely missing from the Masoretic Text of Psalm 14:3. As Adam Clarke correctly points out:

"In Rom. 3: there is a large quotation-from Psalm 14:, where there are six whole verses in the apostle's quotation which are NOT FOUND in the present Hebrew text, but are PRESERVED in the SEPTUAGINT! How strange it is that this venerable and important version, so often quoted by our Lord and all his apostles, should be so generally neglected, and so little known! That the common people should be IGNORANT of it, is not to be wondered at, as it has never been put in an English dress; but that the ministers of the Gospel should be unacquainted with it may be spoken to their shame."  Adam Clarke

With so many phrases "dropped out" of the Masoretic Text but preserved by the Septuagint, it is no surprise that the phrase "and the land of Canaan" was also "dropped" by the MT and "preserved" by the Septuagint.

Tom

LAMBSFURY said...

"And the sons of Merari; Mahali and Mushi: these are the families of Levi ACCORDING TO THEIR GENERATIONS. And AMRAM took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him AARON AND MOSES: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years"  Exodus 6:19-20

When we look at these verses, it is 100% that Amram was the father of Moses, and Jochebed bare Amram, Aaron and Moses..

That alone defeats the 430-year in Egypt doctrine and this truth that Amram is the father of Moses is repeated 3 more times in scripture. It is also confirmed by secular evidence in the Book of Jasher and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Some will say that this is not a direct father/son relationship

As we continue reading in Exodus 6, we see that a direct father/son relationship is in view:

Looking at Aaron, Amram's oldest so, as we continue:

"And AARON took him ELISHEBA, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Naashon, to wife; and SHE BARE HIM Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar"  Exodus 6:23

Aaron took Elisheba to wife and she bared Aaron Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar..

So, here we see Aaron's family, his wife and children..

Is this also not a direct father son relationship???  Of course it is!!

One of Aaron's sons was "Eleazar" as listed in Exodus 6:23

"And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and HIS SONS WITH HIM, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office, [even] Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, ELEAZAR and Ithamar, Aaron's sons"  Exodus 28:1

Eleazar is the direct son of Aaron!!!  That is why the command was to take Aaron and his sons with him....this is not talking about some generation in the future!!

"And Moses spake unto Aaron, AND UNTO ELEAZAR Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons that were left, Take the meat offering that remaineth of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and eat it without leaven beside the altar: for it [is] most holy"  Lev 10:12

Moses is speaking to Aaron and his sons!!  Eleazar!!!!

"Take Aaron and ELEAZAR HIS SON, and BRING THEM up unto mount Hor"  Numbers 20:25

How can BOTH Aaron and Eleazar go together to mount Hor unless they were together.  Father and son!!!

As we continue:

"And Eleazar Aaron's son took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife; and she bare him PHINEHAS: these are the heads of the fathers of the Levites according to their families"  Exodus 6:25

Aaron's son "Eleazar" took one of the daughers of Putiel, to wife, and she bare him "Phinehas."

Looking at more information about "Phinehas"

"And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw [it], he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand"  Numbers 25:7

Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron...A DIRECT FATHER SON RELATIONSHIP!!!!

As God looks at Phinehas, Eleazar and Aaron!!!  Son, father and grandfather!!!

"And ELEAZAR the SON OF AARON died; and they buried him in a hill [that pertained to] PHINEHAS HIS SON, which was given him in mount Ephraim."  Joshua 24:33

Aaron was the father of Eleazar, Phinehas was the son of Eleazar....a direct family line!!

So, it is clear that we see the whole family named!!  Just looking at "Phinehas" we see that:

1. His father was Eleazar
2. His grandfather was Aaron
3. His great grandfather was Amram

The 430-year in Egypt doctrine is DEFEATED!!!!

Tom

LAMBSFURY said...

"And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM"  Hebrews 1:6

A beautiful phrase talking about Christ..... and let all the angels of God worship Him.

A quote from Deuteronomy 32:43

"Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people"  Deuteronomy 32:43 (The Masoretic Text of 1000AD)

Oh, well we don't see it in the Masoretic Text...

But in the Seputagint:

"Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people."  Deuteronomy 32:43 (The Seputagint)

The phrase is EXACT in the Septuagint as it is in Hebrews 1:6..."And let all the angels of God worship Him"

The phrase is COMPLETELY MISSING in the Masoretic Text!

As Adam Clarke says:

"...where the passage is found verbatim et literatim; but there is nothing answering to the words in the present Hebrew text. The apostle undoubtedly quoted the Septuagint, which had then been for more than 300 years a version of the highest repute among the Jews....This very verse, as it stands now in the Septuagint, thus referred to by an inspired writer, shows the great importance of this ancient version; and proves the necessity of its being studied and well understood by every minister of Christ."  Adam Clarke

Guess what else is "missing" from the Masoretic text??? The phrase "and the land of Canaan"

"And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt AND THE LAND OF CHANAAN, [was] four hundred and thirty years."  Exodus 12:40 (The Seputagint)

Just as the phrase "And let all the angels of God worship Him" is "missing" from Deut 32:43, in the MT, the phrase "in the land of Canaan" is also "missing" in the MT in Exodus 12:40

It is clear that Paul is looking to the Septuagint in Exodus 12:40, and he quotes Galatians 3:16-18, and looking to the Seputagint in Deuteronomy 32:43, when quoting Hebrews 1:6, as Stephen looks to the Seputagint in Acts 7:14 when quoting Genesis 46:26.

Below is a list of examples that show how the Septugint is clearly superior and the New Testament confirms that the Seputagint is the version that was quoted in the New Testament in the majority of verses quoted. We see that the MT either alters phrases or drops them altogether.

http://ecclesia.org/truth/comparisons.html

What this means is that the Septugint version confirms that the 430 years begin with Abraham in Exodus 12:40.

Tom

LAMBSFURY said...

The Family of Moses revealed!!

"And he said unto Moses, I thy FATHER IN LAW JETHRO am come unto thee, and thy wife, and her two sons with her. And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent."  Exodus 18:6-7

Many times in the Bible God mentions JETHRO, who was the father-in-law of Moses.

According to those who follow the false 430-year in Egypt doctrine, the father in law of Moses is revealed, but the actual father of Moses is "missing."

Sorry!!!!

All of Moses' family is revealed.....Jethro is revealed.

"Then Jethro, Moses' father in law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her back"  Exodus 18:2

The wife of Moses is revealed, Zipporah.

"Then Jethro, Moses' father in law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her back, And her two sons; of which the name of the one was Gershom; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange land:  And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh"  Exodus 18:2-4

The sons of Moses are revealed..

"And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt: and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister"  Numbers 26:59

The brothers and sisters of Moses are revealed.

"And Aaron took him Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Naashon, to wife; and she bare him Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar."  Exodus 6:23

The nephews of Moses are revealed.

The sister-in-law of Moses is revealed (Elisheba)

But according to the supporters of the 430-year doctrine, the parents of Moses are missing!!!!!

Sorry!!

Moses' parents are revealed as well...

1. Father - Amram
2. Mother - Jochebed
3. Brother - Aaron
4. Sister -Miriam
5. Wife - Zipporah
6. Father-in-law - Jethro
7. Two sons - Gershom & Eliezer
8. Sister in law - Elisheba
9. Sons of  Aaron/Elisheba all revealed and their families all revealed.

But the supporters of the 430-year doctrine want you to think that the father and mother of Moses is "missing!!!"

2011 is not 7,000 years to the flood!!!

Tom

Fred Butler said...

... Amram is the father of Moses is repeated 3 more times in scripture.

Agreed. I have never argued otherwise. However, it does nothing to defeat what you perceive is the erroneous 430 years. They are understood according to other means I outline in my 3 posts.

LAMBSFURY said...

"The SONS OF AMRAM; AARON and MOSES: and Aaron was separated, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons for ever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name for ever. Now concerning Moses the man of God, his sons were named of the tribe of Levi. THE SONS OF MOSES were, GERSHOM, and ELIEZER."I Chronicles 23:13-15

The reason why we have books like "Chronicles" and "Numbers" is that God is showing us the generations from father to son....

I I Chronicles 23:13-15, God lists:

1. The Sons of Amram
2. The Sons of Moses

We know the sons of Moses listed are his direct sons..

But the 430-year in Egypt followers want you to think that that Moses and Aaron are not "The sons of Amram!!!!"

Let these people prove that Gershom and Eliezer were not the direct sons of Moses, and then they can prove that Aaron and Moses were not the direct sons of Amram

And they can't!!

"The SONS OF AMRAM; Aaron and Moses: and Aaron was separated, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons for ever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name for ever. Now concerning Moses the man of God, his sons were named of the tribe of Levi. THE SONS OF MOSES were, Gershom, and Eliezer."  I Chronicles 23:13-15

In these verses God is showing the PARENTS of Moses and the CHILDREN of Moses...

A direct father son relationship!!!

Tom

Turretinfan said...

Tom:

Please note that while some of the 430-years-in-Egypt crowd, especially Mr. Camping, deny that Amram was Moses' father, there are some (like Mr. Butler) who admit that Amram was Moses' father.

-TurretinFan

LAMBSFURY said...

"Now to ABRAHAM and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY YEARS AFTER, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to ABRAHAM by promise."  Galatians 3:16-17

One of the arguments made by the 430- year-in-Egypt crowd is that these verses are talking about "Jacob" and "Jacob in Egypt."

Even though Abraham is mentioned 9x in Galatians 3, including the beginning in Canaan - Galatians 3:8, and Jacob is not mentioned at all, they still want you to believe Jacob is in view.

Lets just go along with their argument and say Jacob is in view. They like to quote Genesis 46 and also quote Psalm 105:

Now, lets assume that "Jacob" is in view:

"Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And CONFIMRED the same unto JACOB for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: SAYING, UNTO THEE will I GIVE THE LAND of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance"  Psalm 105:9-11

So, God is looking back to when something QUOTED BEFORE, as God promised Jacob the land of Canaan.

"And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: THE LAND whereon thou liest, TO THEE WILL I GIVE IT , and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed"  Genesis 28:13-14

And again...

"And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; And THE LAND which I gave Abraham and Isaac, TO THEE I WILL GIVE IT, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land."  Genesis 35:10-12

"Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: SAYING, UNTO THEE will I GIVE THE LAND of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance"  Psalm 105:9-11

Not only is God in Psalm 105:9-11 quoting from Genesis 28 and Genesis 35, that quote is not even mentioned in Genesis 46!!!

Psalm 105:11 is quoted in Genesis 25:13 and Genesis 35:12, and it is not quoted in Genesis 46 at all.....

The covenant, as God promised the land of Canaan to Jacob, was made to Jacob IN CANAAN.  You can't get around it...

This of course is a death blow to the 430-year in Egypt doctrine, because if you attempt to say  that Galatians 3 is referring to Jacob, despite him not being mentioned in the chapter, the covenant was confirmed with Jacob while in CANAAN.

So, the 430 years do not begin with Genesis 46.

However, we know that Abraham is in view..

In Galatians 3:16-18, God clearly is is looking back to the chronology of the Sepuagint, that mentions the 430 years starting in Canaan.  That is why "Canaan" is in view in Galatians 3:8

As the Apologetics Study Bible says it well:

"The New Testament provides CONCLUSIVE evidence that the chronological clarifications in the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint are accurate.  In Galatians 3:17, the apostle Paul noted that the Law was given to Israel 430 years after God's covenantal promise had been delivered to Abraham

Tom

LAMBSFURY said...

This is not for Fred Butler, but for those in the Camping crowd who deny Amram is the father of Moses:

"The SONS OF KOHATH; Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, FOUR. The SONS OF AMRAM; Aaron and Moses: and Aaron was separated, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons for ever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name for ever. Now concerning Moses the man of God, his sons were named of the tribe of Levi. THE SONS OF MOSES were, Gershom, and Eliezer. Of the SONS OF GERSHOM , SHEBUEL was the chief" I Chronicles 23:12-16

Absolute damning verses for those who do not believe Amram was the father of Moses.

In I Chronicles 23:12-16, we see that God specifically says FOUR sons for the sons of Kohath. Specifically referring to his family, and not some future generation.

God mentions the sons of Moses, Gershom and Eliezer. These were his direct sons. God confirms this in Exodus 18:

"Then Jethro, Moses' father in law, took ZIPPORAH, MOSES' WIFE, after he had sent her back, And HER TWO SONS; of which the name of the one was GERSHOM; for he said, I have been an alien in a strange land: And the name of the other was ELIEZER; for the God of my father, said he, was mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh" Exodus 18:2-4

"The SONS OF KOHATH; Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, FOUR. The SONS OF AMRAM; Aaron and Moses: and Aaron was separated, that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons for ever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister unto him, and to bless in his name for ever. Now concerning Moses the man of God, his sons were named of the tribe of Levi. THE SONS OF MOSES were, Gershom, and Eliezer. Of the SONS OF GERSHOM , SHEBUEL was the chief" I Chronicles 23:12-16

Gershom, Moses' son, had a son who was "Shebuel." This also was the direct son of Gershom. God confirms this in I Chronicles 26:24

"And Shebuel the son of Gershom, the son of Moses, was ruler of the treasures." I Chronicles 26:24

So, in I Chronicles 23:12-16, we see direct generations

1. Kohath had FOUR sons, one was Amram

2. Amram has two sons, one called Moses

3. Moses had two sons; Gershom, and Eliezer, the grandchildren of Amram

4. Gershom has a son, Shebuel, the great grandchild of Amram, the grandchild of Moses.

These truths are 100% clear!!

But the followers of the 430-year doctrine want you to think through their "voodoo" that these verses are not talking about a direct father/son relationship!!

Not only does the LXX destroy the 430-year in Egypt doctrine, the OT KJV does as well!!!

Tom

Fred Butler said...

Tom,
You still have to deal with the historical Egyptian evidence. Appealing to a Church of Christ apologetic ministry and the debunked research of an anti-supernaturalist crank doesn't really help your case.

The chronologies of Israel happened in real history that crossed the real history of Egypt. We can pin-point those historical, Egyptian individuals with certain accuracy. So, who was the Egyptian pharaoh in your particular scheme? Or do we appeal to voodoo of "Christological" hermeneutics to explain it away?

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Butler,

The articles that I've read don't seem at all certain about which Pharoah goes where. Perhaps I have simply read the articles that lack confidence.

-TurretinFan

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred,

You said:

"You still have to deal with the historical Egyptian evidence"

And the historical evidence leans to a 215-year sojourn:

"David Rohl, a respected Egyptologist, is convinced that this is the proper interpretation of the facts. In his book, Pharaohs and Kings, he undertook the challenge of reassessing the century-old Egyptian chronology so that it could accommodate more accurately several new archaeological discoveries. According to his research, Israel went down into Egypt c. 1662 B.C., and was delivered by God through Moses c. 1447 B.C.—a span of 215 years (1995, pp. 329-332)

In addition, we have this evidence:
"Now the sojourn of the children of Israel, which they dwelt in the land of Egypt AND THE LAND OF CANAAN, was 430 years" Exodus 12:40 (The LLX)

"Now the sojourn of the children of Israel AND THEIR FATHERS, which they dwelt IN THE LAND OF CANAAN and in the land of Egypt, was 430 years." Exodus 12:40 (The Samaritan Pentateuch)

What do you think is more authoritative....your questionable secular evidence, or the LLX version of Exodus 12:40, that has over 300 direct quotes in the New Testament, and as well as the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Which has greater authority?

Tom

Fred Butler said...

See Doug Petrovich's extensive article on the Exodus Pharaoh

Note the section identifying specific chronological markers in various chronological records that help us synchronize the chronologies of Egypt with what we have recorded for us in the biblical record.

Turretinfan said...

The author of that article makes an argument (which he seems to think is strong) for dating the Exodus. I lost count of how many assumptions go into it.

The key point that comes out in the article is the fact that the Egyptians didn't celebrate or memorialize their defeats and humiliations.

Thus, we lack historical evidence that helps us positively pinpoint the Exodus or the 7 year famine. There are educated guesses that are made, but one would easily lose track of the number of assumptions made in even such a short article as Petrovich's.

It was an interesting article, and he makes a reasonable case, from what I could tell.

Fred Butler said...

The matters of how the chronological dating of the 15th century are determined are not subjective. Neither are they assumptions. These are tangible dates we can be certain of.

With any evaluation of evidence there will be interpretations we bring to the evidence, that is for sure. In this case, the Biblical record of Israel's sojourn in Egypt is reliable and when compared to what we do know for certain about the 15th century, we can synchronize individuals pharaohs and their reigns with Israel's life in Egypt, and it does not match them being there for only 215 years.

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Butler,

You certainly insist that, but the articles you cite do not.

-TurretinFan

Fred Butler said...

You certainly insist that, but the articles you cite do not.

Really? How are specific historical records recognized by all positions both liberal and conservative "not certain"?

David Rohl, a respected Egyptologist

Respected Egyptologist? I guess in the same way Bart Ehrman or Marcus Borg are respected NT scholars. You need to Google his name, bud.

If the best you have is a crank Egyptologist and claiming the LXX trumps the original Hebrew when the Hebrew argues persuasively against your position, you're grasping for straws.

Fred Butler said...

Here's one review article on Rohl's work.

Interestingly, you guys seem to favor Ussher's chronology of the Exodus happening in 1491. Rohl's revisions of the biblical chronologies shortens many aspects of the biblical record and places the exodus being much later than what Ussher presents in his Annals of the World. I see that as a pretty significant disagreement between to important sources in your argument.

Turretinfan said...

Our argument is based on the plain teaching of Paul which provides us with more sure testimony than that of archaeology.

Turretinfan said...

"How are specific historical records recognized by all positions both liberal and conservative "not certain"?"

You and I seem to be reading different articles. Even the highly critical review of Rohl that you provided mentioned majority and minority views.

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred,

You said:

"If the best you have is a crank Egyptologist and claiming the LXX trumps the original Hebrew when the Hebrew argues persuasively against your position, you're grasping for straws"

That is where you are in error.  The Masoretic Text that is used today for our modern English Bibles is from a "revision" of the Hebrew from 1000AD.  The LXX is a Greek translation from "an ancient/original" Hebrew from 285BC.  A completely different Hebrew text.  So, if you want to "really" see what is closest to the "original" Hebrew, it is the LXX translation.....not the masoretic text we use today.   Since the masorites could not alter the LXX, they could alter the MT text over the centuries in their attempts to destroy the proof that Jesus is the Christ.  The LXX is the closest thing we have that is a representation of the original/ancient Hebrew...

"And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"  I Peter 4:18 KJV

Which scriptural text was Peter quoting from in I Peter 4:18 as he looks back to  Proverbs 11:31, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

"Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner." Proverbs 11:31 (The Masoretic Text of 1000AD)

"If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear?" Proberbs 11:31  (The Septuagint of 250BC )

It is clear that the LXX is a much more accurate representation of the original Hebrew that Peter and others had in the 1st century.

You see can the proof in Psalm 14:3 in both texts, as Paul quotes the longer LXX version in Romans 3, that is "totally missing" from the MT text in Psalm 14:3, along with many other verses.

Acts 7:14 and the "75 souls" confirms the authority of the Septuagint, and Galatians 3:16-18 confirms Exodus 12:40 beginning in the land of Canaan.

Tom

Turretinfan said...

There may be inaccuracies in the Masoretic text, but to charge the Masoretes with intentionally changing the text seems farfetched.

LAMBSFURY said...

Turretinfan,

You said:

"There may be inaccuracies in the Masoretic text, but to charge the Masoretes with intentionally changing the text seems farfetched."

Not really...

Besides the Jews trying to kill Jesus, Jesus Himself said they did not believe the Old Testament - John 5:46-47

Would the Jews hesitate to destroy the Word of God, that they never believed in from the start?

Where in the Bible does it state that God would use the Satanic, anti-Christ masoretic Jews to preserve the Word of Christ for the first 1000 years after Christ?

When you look at Old Testament verses that are not quoted in the New Testment, you usually see harmony with both texts.....but very strangely, when verses are quoted in the NT that talk about Jesus being the Messiah and His fulfillment, suddenly those verses are "altered."

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, HE SAITH, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but A BODY hast thou PREPARED ME" Hebrews 10:5

"Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." Psalm 40:6 (The Masoretic)

"Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but A BODY hast thou PREPARED ME whole-burnt-offering and [sacrifice] for sin thou didst not require" Psalm 40:6 (The Seputagint)

Notice how Hebrews 10:5 is exactly as the Septuagint quotes it....and the phrase "but a BODY has thou prepared me" is "dropped" from the MT text.

The last thing the Jews wanted others to know was that Jesus was a fulfillment of "the body" that was the atoning sacrifice...

So, as Hebrews 10:5 says "he saith" regarding the phrase "but a BODY has thou prepared me" that means it is quoted in scripture.....

But where in the masoretic text that we use today is that found?

No doubt it was in the ancient Hebrew, but not the Hebrew we use today.

The "bereans" can't "search if those things are so" when you have texts that are "altered."

Tom

Turretinfan said...

Well, we've each said our bit on the Septuagint issue. I don't want to turn this comment box into a debate on that topic. Perhaps some other time I can dedicate a post to that topic.

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Butler,

Petrovich's article raised an interesting point with respect to the 3,600 Apiru (Hebrew?) slaves captured.

The current archaeology first documents the term used as a designation within the reign of Thutmose III (ca. 1506–1452 BC). Yet we find Potiphar's wife repeatedly using the term: "See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us..." (Genesis 39:14) "The Hebrew servant, which thou hast brought unto us, came in unto me to mock me:" (Genesis 39:17).

The chief butler refers to Joseph the same way: "And there was there with us a young man, an Hebrew, servant to the captain of the guard" (Genesis 41:12).

These comments suggest that the term for "Hebrew" was already in at least somewhat common use in Egyptian society at least as early as Joseph's day (otherwise, the designation would not be helpful for communication).

This fact is more consistent with Joseph coming less than 250 years before the Exodus than with Joseph coming nearly 500 years before the Exodus.

Fred Butler said...

I'll shoot him an email about it and ask. I will say that footnote 138 in the article cites Hoffmeier who mentions that the term Habiru and its derivatives such as Apiru, had been found in cuniform dated at 2500 B.C., so it sounds like it was a common name among the people groups who would be familiar with the Hebrews.

Also, another common explanation is that the Genesis narrative was updated by Moses, or later copyists, to reflect current usage. In other words, Moses was updating his writing of Genesis to match what his current generation knew about history, things such as place names and the like. This is not an uncommon practice and is identifiable throughout the OT text. 1 Samuel 9:9 being a well known example off the top of my head.

Turretinfan said...

In this case, Moses is reporting what the people said. Thus, on its face, this is not an example of Moses providing the reader with assistance.

Not that you've necessarily suggested otherwise, but I reject the documentary hypthesis, just so we're clear.

Fred Butler said...

Not that you've necessarily suggested otherwise, but I reject the documentary hypthesis, just so we're clear.

As do I, but this isn't an example of the documentary hypothesis.

Turretinfan said...

Not yet, it's not. Hence my carefully worded caveat.

LAMBSFURY said...

In the article "IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus From Egypt" concludes:

"A look at the New Testament gives CONVINCING PROOF that Paul in Galatians 3:17-18 saw the 430 years STARTING with the PROMISE TO ABRAHAM The Jews were not in Egypt for 400 years, but the 400 years applied to their sojourn in CANAAN as well which was controlled by Egypt. The LXX interprets it this way in Exodus 12:40. In Acts 13:20 it is clear that there are 450 years for the time of the judges, but this does not seem to square with the 480 years from Solomon's Temple to the Exodus, because the years of oppression are omitted. This would place the exodus back to the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt.......This paper has shown that most of the ancient writers equated the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1570-50 BC Most ancient writers put the Jews in Egypt for 215 years or less. According to most ancient writers the 430 YEARS in Egypt was taken to start with the promise to ABRAHAM, and the 400 years from the birth of ISAAC. Others begin these years with Abraham's entry into Canaan. All of the ancient Jewish and Christian writers considered in this paper took the 430 or 400 years to cover the time in Egypt AS WELL AS CANAAN. Biblical writers also agree with these ancient traditions, AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE REINFORCES THESE VIEWS"

A detailed study how the archaeological evidence all prove that Israel was NOT in Egypt 430 years, but 215 years. Link is below:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

Tom

LAMBSFURY said...

More information including the Dead Sea Scholls, Josephus, Demetrius, and tons of other secular information, that show Israel was NOT in Egypt 430 years.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodusdate.htm

Tom

Fred Butler said...

So Tom,
You really don't have a problem depending upon "research" put out by a web based organization that is headed by a disgruntled, ex-fundamentalist who is admittedly liberal in his views and has an axe to grind against folks like you and TF? Really?

Turretinfan said...

a) Doesn't that sound and eensy-weensy bit like an ad hominem response? I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but can't you see how it ends up sounding like that?

b) In general citing a scholar whose bias is against us is more compelling than citing scholars whose bias is for us. Don't you agree?

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred,

The secular evidence just supports the Biblical account.

Now, your original statement that the "MT" is the "original Hebrew" is wrong.

The LXX translated from a more ancient and original Hebrew then the MT text that we have from the 10th century AD.

When we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and the evidence from it:

Papyrus Greek 458 which contains portions of Deuteronomy 23-27,28 are dated to the 2nd Century BC.

Papyrus Fouad 266, another LXX manuscript, dates from the 2nd Century BC, contains Deuteronomy 18, 20, 20-24, 27

In addition, we have fragment 7QLXX on the Greek book of Exodus, fragment 4QLXX on the Greek book of Leviticus and the Book of Numbers, all from the 1st century B.C

Proof that there was a Greek Old Testament Bible before Christ..

In addition:

Fragment DSS 4QEx[a], found at Qumran, in Hebrew, supports the LXX reading of Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, of 75 SOULS, making the LXX's textual witness stronger.

So, we have "two witnesses" that the LXX is correct in Exodus 1:5 and the 75 souls:

1. Acts 7:14, the Word of God

2. DSS 4QEx[a], written in "Hebrew" which is 1000 years older than any Hebrew text we have today, confirming 75 souls.

What this means is that the most ancient evidence shows that the LXX is correct, and proof that the MT has points that are in error.

Besides the many verses that are "omitted" by the MT and "altered" we have this truth:

"Of the FULLER QUOTATIONS in the New Testament of the Old, nearly ONE HUNDRED agree with the modern form of the Septuagint, and SIX agree with the Hebrew text" Jones, Table: "Instances where the New Testament agrees with the Septuagint and Hebrew texts"

and we have this truth on the most important Trinity truth of Exodus 3:14

"One passage where the LXX differs from the Hebrew is Exo 03:14. That verse in the BHS MT has the imperfect "I will be," but the LXX has the present "I Am" in Exo 03:14. Bible translators look at the Hebrew MT and the LXX and they have generally decided to go with the LXX in Exo 03:14. By the way, the Keil-Delitzch commentary didn't touch on this issue, and also the BHS Hebrew MT does not have any variants for “I will be,” but the BHS does mention the Septuagint has “I am” (ego eimi). The 3rd C BC LXX is a more ancient attestation (by 13th centuries) to the original inspired Hebrew than the 10th C AD Masoretic Text (MT). The MT was edited and redacted by anti-Trinitarian Jews for thirteen centuries. The aleph and the vowel pointings that apparently changed “I AM” to “I will be” were added in by anti-Trinitarian Masoretes in the 10C AD" Yoel Natan (Jewish believer and expert in Hebrew)

So, what is the point in all this?

That the LXX translation of Exodus 12:40 is proven by a whole host of evidence to be the correct translation.

Tom

Turretinfan said...

Unfortunately, the Masoretic Hebrew text is the main Hebrew text that we have. Whether or not it represents the Hebrew original (either in general or in this particular instance) is a textual critical question. It is unclear to me why a Hebrew scribe would drop the "and in the land of Canaan" if that were in the original. That said, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX both attest to the reading. I'm not sure whether the Dead Sea Scrolls (which are not Masoretic) attest to the MT reading, or the SP/LXX reading. My recollection is that they confirm the MT reading.

LAMBSFURY said...

Turretinfan,

As you said you don't want to turn this to a Septuagint topic (unless you create a thread on it...which I am hoping you do in the future)

But I will say this as far as textual criticism:

The general rule is that the older the text the better and rule # 2 is that not all texts are the same.

When we look at these 3 facts:

1. The Anti-Christ Masorets could not corrupt the LXX, but could alter the MT.

2. The Complete LXX outdates the complete MT by almost 700 years.

3. The LXX is a representation of ancient 3rd century BC ancient Hebrew, while the MT is a representation of 9th century AD "revision" of the Hebrew

In the light of these facts, from a textual criticism vantagepoint, the LXX is superior from every angle..

Tom

Fred Butler said...

TF,

I guess if you want to call it ad hominem you can. I am just citing to you the facts from his website. Note this concluding comment under his bio page where he talks about how his study of radical anti-biblical archaeologists "liberated" him from the Bible.

I discovered that the internal and external evidence for the fundamentalist view of the Bible was wrong. Not only was the Bible not a science book, it was not even a historically accurate history book.

You seriously want to cite this guy as a reputable source? All he does is regurgitate the anti-God material of skeptical Egyptologists and pronounces them right because he has the bitters against his fundy up bringing.

However, what seems to be going over your all's heads is that if you were to seriously sit down and read Rohl and even this Meyers fellow, they are more than just concluding in favor of the 215 year theory. Their work would radically cut against your basic beliefs about the people of Israel, where they came from, and when the Exodus took place. That is somewhat important, dontcha think?

Tom. I have never encountered an LXX-onlyist before. I really want you to call James White's webcast and lay out to him how you think the LXX is a superior text type to the Hebrew. Somehow, God failed to preserve the Bible in the original language it was inspired. The Reformers missed this too, as did a ton of OT scholars down to our modern day.


Fred

Turretinfan said...

Fred:

Surely it's not your position that if accept one thing that the scholar has to say, I must accept everything he has to say.

-TurretinFan

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred,

I am not an "LXX-onlyist"

I am saying that the LXX is the most accurate translation from the original/ancient Hebrew scriptures.

I also use the KJV, as far as complete English translations, that is the best one.

However, the proof does not come from Protestant Tradition, or what the reformers thought, it comes from the Bible itself.

The New Testament is the "witness" as to which translation is better depending on the verse in question.

Now, don't you find it odd that the masorets, the supposed "preservers" of God's Word according to Protestant tradition, have rejected the New Testament, along with the LXX?

Thus, since they rejected the New Testament, they are not the preservers of God's Word. Is does not matter what Protestant Tradition says.

Now, if you really think that there was no accurate Bible for the first 1600 years of Christianity, you really are going to have a hard time trying to prove that.

What was the Ethiopian Eunich reading from when he read the Book of Isaiah in Acts 8? He read from the LXX.

Gentiles did not understand Hebrew, and even most Jews at that point didn't anymore, as they lost the language from captivity....that was why there was a need for a Greek Old Testament, because at the time, Greek was the international language of the world, the way English is today.

And we can understand the reason why God prepared a Greek Old Testament a couple centuries before Christ......because it was God's plan for salvation to go to the Gentiles. When Paul spoke to the men of Athens in Acts 15:22, do you think he was speaking and quoting in "Hebrew." Of course not. The philosophers of Athens were not Hebrew speaking people. They were Greeks.

So, again, the "witness" comes from the New Testament, as far as what translation is better....

Tom

LAMBSFURY said...

Exodus 12:40 is probably the most debated verse in the Bible.

The witnesses are about equal as far as the Old Testament.  2 solid written sources say the 430 years begin with "Canaan"

"Now the sojourn of the children of Israel and their fathers, which they dwelt in THE LAND OF CANAAN and in the land of Egypt, was 430 years." Exodus 12:40 (The Samaritan Pentateuch)

"Now the sojourn of the children of Israel, which they dwelt in the land of Egypt and THE LAND OF CANAAN, was 430 years" (The Septuagint - LXX)

2 solid sources say the 430 years begin with "Egypt"

"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years"  Exodus 12:40 (The MT/KJV)

And the English translation from the Dead Sea Scrolls agrees with the MT:

"Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt was four hundred and thirty years" Exodus 12:40 - The Dead Sea Scrolls

So, we have 4 solid sources, each equally saying something different.

The Bible that the Josephus quoted from, whatever that was in his day, say the 430 years begin with Canaan.

In the light of this confusion, God reveals to us in the New Testament that the 430 years begin with Abraham in Canaan - Galatians 3:8, Galatians 3:16-18

Without this New Testament reference, we could not come to definite conclusion when the 430 years begin.

So, the DSS agrees with the MT as far as the 430 years in Egypt

The LXX agrees with the SP as far as the 430 years in Canaan

The New Testament reveals it begins with Canaan.

So, the New Testament shows that the LXX and SP are correct.

When we look at Exodus 1:5, we see something different.

"And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were SEVENTY souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already"  Exodus 1:5 (The MT/KJV)

The Samaritan Pentateuch also says 70 souls...in this case the SP agrees with the MT.

So, we have 2 sources that say 70 souls.

And we have 2 sources that say 75 souls:

"But Joseph was in Egypt. And all the souls [born] of Jacob were SEVENTY-FIVE." Exodus 1:5 (The LXX)

The LXX says 75 souls and the Dead Sea Scrolls also say 75 souls.  The DSS literal translation of Exodus 1:5 is this:

"And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were SEVENTY-FIVE souls"  Exodus 1:5 (The DSS)

So, we have another 2 against 2 argument.....2 witnesses against 2 witnesses.

And again, the New Testament reveals who is correct:

"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls"  Acts 7:14

So, in this case the New Testament shows that the LXX and DSS is correct.

So, in some cases when we have an equal number of witnesses against each other, the New Testament will reveal who is correct.

The same is true when other Old Testament verses are quoted in the NT.  The New Testament will reveal which translation is correct, as Hebrews 1:6, and the phase "Let all the angels of God worship Him" is from Deuteronomy 32:43 in the LXX, missing from the MT....proving that the LXX is the correct translation.

Tom

LAMBSFURY said...

"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not their's, and shall serve them; and they shall AFFLICT THEM four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance." Genesis 15:13-14

One of the arguments of the 430-year supporters is that the nation in view is only the nation of Egypt.

There are two clear ways showing how the 430 years begin with Isaac.

First, the "nation" in Genesis 15:13 is defined by multiple nations:

"Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance; When ye were but few, even a few, and STRANGERS in it. And when they went FROM NATION TO NATION, and from ONE KINGDOM TO ANOTHER PEOPLE; He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes, Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm. Sing unto the LORD, all the earth; shew forth from day to day his salvation. Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among ALL NATIONS." I Chronicles 16:18-24

"And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance: When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and STRANGERS IN IT. When they went from ONE NATION TO ANOTHER, from ONE KINGDOM TO ANOTHER PEOPLE; He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes"  Psalm 105:10-14

The "strangers" in the land, referring to Abraham's seed, as they went from "one nation to another" and "one kingdom to another people."

Multiple nations and peoples are in view. That is why BOTH Canaan and Egypt are mentioned in Acts 7:11 that came under judgment.

"Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt AND Chanaan, and GREAT AFFLICTION: and our fathers found no sustenance" Acts 7:11

Now, lets go along with the supporters of the 430-year doctrine and claim that only EGYPT is in view in Genesis 15:13.....and by that they exclude Isaac..

Even with that, they are defeated:

"And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the EGYPTIAN, which she had born unto Abraham, MOCKING"  Genesis 21:9

"Now we, brethren, as ISAAC was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh PERSECUTED HIM that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."  Galatians 4:28-29

Isaac was PERSECUTED by an EGYPTIAN, who was Ishmael...

The afflictions by a different people, the Egyptians, began with Isaac!

Since the 400 years begin with Isaac in Genesis 15:13, the first of Abraham's seed, that means that 430 years in Egypt cannot begin with Jacob!!!

Tom

Fred Butler said...

Dude, this subject has become like your white whale.

Just a few problematic observations,

One of the arguments of the 430-year supporters is that the nation in view is only the nation of Egypt.

The reason for that has to do with the original grammar of the text. "Nations" in Genesis 15:13 is a singular noun. Meaning, it's one specific nation in view here, not a whole bunch of them, or a multiple of them. This is confirmed by the fact that God tells Abram that his descendants will come out of this particular nation with great possessions. This we see fulfilled in Exodus 12.

Now what I find unusual with this line of argument you have put forth is that it ignores the grammar of Genesis 15:13. Why that is unusual is that TF, along with a good many of his readers, and I would imagine commenters as well, tend to be adamant about the details of the text. I would expect TF to be so, seeing that he partners with James White's apologetic ministry and anyone even remotely familiar with AOMIN know how James is a stickler for sticking to the details of the text first and foremost. We don't go running to outside contexts UNTIL we have dealt with the exegesis of the passage at hand, i.e. Genesis 15:13. If we hold Arminians to this high standard of exegesis on say, John 6:44, we need to certainly model that high standard among ourselves in these sorts of issues.

"Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance; When ye were but few, even a few, and STRANGERS in it. And when they went FROM NATION TO NATION, and from ONE KINGDOM TO ANOTHER PEOPLE; He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes, Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm. Sing unto the LORD, all the earth; shew forth from day to day his salvation. Declare his glory among the heathen; his marvellous works among ALL NATIONS." I Chronicles 16:18-24

Interestingly, 1 Chronicles 16:16-17 states, Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; 17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, Who did God confirm (ratify, Paul's words in Galatians 3) that initial covenant with? Jacob. Psalm 105:10-14 pretty much says the same thing.

Now, lets go along with the supporters of the 430-year doctrine and claim that only EGYPT is in view in Genesis 15:13.....and by that they exclude Isaac..

But Issac is included in the passage from 1 Chronicles 16 and Psalm 105 in which you cite. Additionally, YHWH states on several occasions in the beginning chapters of Exodus when commissioning Moses for his ministry that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. No one is excluded anywhere. The three men always go together.

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Butler, do you mean that Genesis 15:14 says "nation" (I'm not sure why you wrote "nations" or Genesis 15:13).

Fred Butler said...

I wrote "nations" because he is insistent this is a plurality of nations or kingdoms or whatever. It is in fact one singular nation in view here. The Nation or "that nation." Writing 15:13 must had been a transcribal error when I was glancing from his comment to my response.

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred

"And also that NATION, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance."  Genesis 17:14

When you look at other verses with the phrase "nation"

"Judge me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly NATION: O deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man"  Psalm 43:1

If a singular nation is in view, what is the singular ungodly nation in Psalm 43:1?

"Righteousness exalteth a NATION: but sin is a reproach to any people"  Proverbs 14:34

What is the singular one nation that must only be in view in Proverbs 14:34?

"Howbeit every NATION made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, EVERY NATION in their cities wherein they dwelt. And the men of Babylon made Succothbenoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima, And the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim."  I Kings 17:29-31

Notice.....multiple peoples are in view from the singular "nation."

"For the NATION and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those NATIONS shall be utterly wasted." Isaiah 60:12

Notice....the singular nation refers to plural nations..

"For nation shall rise against nation...."  Matthew 24:7

You must only think that 2 specific nations are in view in Matthew 24:7

Tom

Fred Butler said...

Tom you are becoming desperate. The use of "that nation" In Genesis is a specific singular noun. The language of the context even affirms this. To appeal to the use of the word in other contexts with different emphasis, and then read that back into the context of Genesis 15 is esigesis, not exegesis.

Turretinfan said...

Fred:

"Seed" is singular too. I wouldn't have thought much of it, unless I had read the NT.

-TurretinFan

Fred Butler said...

Yes. Abraham's specific seed, his offspring that will be captive in that one nation. The NT doesn't really do anything to change that.

Turretinfan said...

I'm not sure you're seeing my point. Consider:

Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Yet many great nations came from him.

LAMBSFURY said...

Fred,

"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that THY SEED shall be a STRANGER in a land that is not their's, and shall serve them; and they shall AFFLICT THEM four hundred years; And also THAT NATION, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance."  Genesis 15:13-14

"And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, MOCKING. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, CAST OUT this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall NOT BE HEIR with my son, even with Isaac."  Genesis 21:9-10

"And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, HEARKEN UNTO HER VOICE; for in ISAAC shall thy seed be called. And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make A NATION, because he is thy seed."  Genesis 21:12-13

"But as then he that was born after the flesh PERSECUTED him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? CAST OUT the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman SHALL NOT BE HEIR with the son of the freewoman."  Galatians 4:29-30

It was the nation of Ishmael that God identifies in Genesis 21:13, that began the persecutions of Abraham's seed, Isaac....and the beginning of the 400 years.

While they are an official nation of people, God brought Judgment upon them, as they were "cast out" and "shall not be heirs" as Galatians 4:29-30 and Genesis 21:9-10 states

God confirmed that in Genesis 21:12-13

As time goes on, another "nation" in the womb, struggled with Jacob:

"And the children STRUGGLED together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, TWO NATIONS are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger" Genesis 25:22-23

Esau struggled with Jacob right in the womb.....and after:

"And Esau HATED Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I SLAY my brother Jacob" Genesis 27:41

And God hated Esau:

"As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I HATED."  Romans 9:13

You have no Biblical justification to say that the 2 nations of Ishmael and Esau "do not count."

Tom

Fred Butler said...

...and those many great nations are?
I am taking it you want to spiritualize this?

Turretinfan said...

Arabia (via Ishmael), Edom (via Esau), and others ...

Fred Butler said...

Wait a moment. Though I would agree with you, your response contradicts Paul's argument from Galatians 3:15 ff. The very heart of this discussion. The emphasis there is on seed, not seeds. So it doesn't matter if Ismael or Esau is related to Abraham.

None the less, that doesn't help you guys out in Genesis. The grammar of Genesis 15 for nation is a noun with an article, meaning that it is one specific nation in mind. Further grammatical delimiters with God's words to Abram concerning this one nation make it clear one specific nation is in mind, not a bunch of different ones encompassing Canaan and Egypt. This is inescapable.

I see the language being employed, especially by Tom, in order to argue for an extremely novel view point based upon rare textual variants in a couple of copies of the LXX. It is similar argumentation Hugh Ross and other long agers put forth to try and get around the grammar of Genesis 1 where it is clear a day means a day, as in one 24 hour rotation of the earth.

Turretinfan said...

Dear Mr. Butler,

With all due respect, comparing other people to kooks is easy. Perhaps it would be better not to do that here.

I think you're missing the point about the seed/nation comparison. My point was simply that a reference to a singular nation is not necessarily understood to be exclusive, such that because one nation is brought out there cannot be others in a similar or related relationship.

In Genesis 12, God promises to make of Abram a mighty nation, and then made of him at least three mighty nations (with Israel being the primary physical fulfillment of that promise).

I'm not sure why you would find it especially significant then that Egypt would be the primary referent here, but that other nations would not be excluded simply because the singular form is used.

-TurretinFan

Fred Butler said...

Sorry if you think I am comparing you to a kook. That's not my intention. I am just pointing out that the exegetical approach to this passage and the pouring of meanings into words is a classic example of how I have seen Ross, Samples and Riddlebarger and many others who are long agers argue for their position.

The reason why your understanding of a plurality of "nations" is not tenable in Genesis 15 is simply because "that nation" is grammatically understood as one, specific nation because it is a noun attached to an article in the original language. The other instances Tom cites don't necessarily carry that grammatical nuance in the language. Additionally, as I mentioned above, other textual delimiters narrow down our understanding of the passage that God is speaking of Egypt and Egypt alone and in no way has the Canaanites in view. Most specifically the description of God's dealings with "that nation" in the passage we see fulfilled in Exodus 12 along with the contrast with the "Amorites" in verse 16, who at that time would had been the occupiers of Canaan, or the Canaanites as far as Abram is concerned.