Give Thanks to God!

For the repentance of Harold Camping.

Incorrigible Camping

Camping has moved his date from from May 21, 2011, to October 21, 2011. No repentance for his faulty hermeneutic. He simply took the position that he was not being spiritual enough.

There's not the smallest reason to take his claim seriously. I hope no one will, though I fear his followers will seize on this false hope that his approach will pull through.

Harold Camping remains a heretic outside the church, and is himself in danger of the hell-fire that he claims does not exist. May God have mercy on him.

-TurretinFan

Where is the Promise of Christ's Coming?

One of the key passages regarding the second coming of Christ is found in 2 Peter 3:1-18 (the entirety of chapter 3 of 2 Peter). First, let me provide you with the text of the chapter, and then my commentary on it.

2 Peter 3:1-18

This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: that ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying,

Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

First, notice that chapter is directed to the beloved - to those who are believers - to those who are already familiar with the promises of God by the prophets and the commandments of the apostles (both Old and New Testaments, one might say today).

Second, notice that Peter prophesies scoffers who will arise and mock the idea of Christ's second coming. There are such men now. We saw many mocking Mr. Camping's prediction of May 21, 2011. Some mocked it because of its absurd claim to be based on the Bible. Others, however, mocked it because they mock the whole idea of Christ coming again. This latter group is the group of scoffers that Peter's prophecy applies to.

Third, notice what else characterizes these scoffers. These scoffers think that the world just goes on and on as it always has. What they are voluntarily ignorant about is the great flood of Noah's day. In that flood, God wiped out all mankind throughout the world, except for eight souls who were left on the ark.

The point that Peter makes in discussing Noah's flood is to point out that God has already judged the world once. God will judge it again. Those who think that life will continue on Earth endlessly should pay attention to the warning that the flood provided.

Fourth, notice the two-fold reason given for the delay in bringing judgment on the Earth again. God does not care about time - that's what the "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" means. It does not mean that God embedded a secret day = one thousand years code in the Bible as Mr. Camping and others before him have thought. Instead, it means simply that God is indifferent to time as such. God doesn't feel rushed to accomplish in a day what men might take a thousand years to do, and God doesn't feel impatient about accomplishing in a thousand years what men might wish were accomplished in a day.

The second part of the reason for the delay is that God is gathering in the elect now. God is longsuffering to us, not willing that any (of us) should perish, but that all (of us) should come to repentance. If God were to have destroyed the world on May 21, 2011, some of the elect would (we must assume) never have been born, or never would have come to repentance and faith. God is indifferent to time, but we live in time. Thus, God uses time itself to His own purpose in the salvation of the elect.

Fifth, notice that the Lord will come as a thief in the night. Herein lies the utter absurdity of Mr. Camping's prediction: a thief wouldn't advertize his robbery in advance on billboards and radio waves around the globe. No, a thief comes without warning, when he is least expected.

Moreover, observe that this "thief in the night" characterization is not simply with respect to the scoffers, but with respect to the beloved as well. While scoffers had been addressed earlier in the chapter, now the beloved are being addressed and are being told that Christ's return will surprise them too.

Sixth, notice that the day of the Lord will be a day of judgment. When Christ returns, it will not be to set up an earthly kingdom. No, the heavens will be destroyed with a loud noise, and the Earth will be destroyed with fire.

Seventh, notice the lesson to be taken from the fact that the world will be destroyed. The lesson Peter draws is that we ought to live holy lives. We ought to be less concerned with this world and its glories (all of which will be destroyed) than with the new heavens and new earth that will come after it. We should be longing for the coming of the Lord, and yet we should understand that God in his mercy is showing longsuffering, as also Paul wrote (see Romans 2:4 and 9:22).

Eighth, notice that Peter identifies Paul's epistle to the Romans and his other epistles as Scripture. This is an important point to take note of, since it demonstrates that the canon of Scripture was known to include the Pauline epistles even during the apostolic era. It was not later generations who came up with this.

Ninth, notice that Peter warns us to be careful. We should not follow the example of men who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. It is hard not to apply these words specifically to Mr. Camping at this time, but nevertheless we ought to realize that there were wicked men wresting the words of the apostles in their own days, the Reformers had to contend with those of Rome wresting Scripture in even more destructive ways, and if the Lord tarries we will see many more wicked men do the same.

Tenth, and finally, notice that the way to avoid the error of the wicked is not to run away from learning and knowledge. Instead, the way to avoid the error of the wicked is to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The antidote to Camping's mishandling of Scripture is to pray for God's favor and to seek knowledge of God in the Scriptures - Scriptures that guarantee that the Lord will return, but also guarantee that no one will know the day or the hour.

- TurretinFan

Does the Bible Guarantee Camping's Prediction?

Harold Camping has widely asserted that "the Bible guarantees" his prediction regarding the end times. This invites us to us examine his Biblical claims. One large chunk of the basis for Harold Camping's claims with respect to May 21, 2011, is that 2011 is allegedly 7000 years from the flood. Camping's date for the flood is unique and springs from work that he published as "Adam When?" in 1974 (I understand that the book may have undergone some revisions or editions since then, and in the following discussion I am referring to the current version available at his website.)

Adam When? purports to be a book that seeks to uphold the integrity of the Bible, and particularly the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. These are noble and right aims. The book quickly goes astray, however.

At page 36, Camping begins a section entitled "Inspired Verbs." While the verbs of the Bible are inspired, Camping treats them as though they represent a code. In short, Camping says that in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, whenever the text describes A begetting B and living a set number of years, this should be interpreted as A being just an ancestor of B, with B being born the year of A's death.

There's no Biblical proof for this approach. In other words, Camping cannot point to any passage where the Bible explains that this way of speaking is being used. This is a key point: nowhere in Scripture does it tell us that when it says "A lived so and so years and begat B and lived so and so more years after he begat B and he died," that B was actually born not after the first so and so years, but rather at the very end of A's life. This particular patriarchal generation idea is just something Camping dreamed up.

Moreover, Camping is forced to admit that in certain cases it is clear that this terminology is used of direct father-son relationships. Camping actually provides an exception for those cases in the genealogies where the text says that the father "called [his son's] name [name of the son]."

But this exception is as arbitrary as the rule. Camping does not provide a Scriptural basis for why the expression "called his name" should be a sign of direct father-son relationship that holds water. After all, the term is frequently used to refer to a mother naming her son, or even to neighbors of the grandmother naming a child:

Ruth 4:17 And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

And, of course, a very old man could name his grandchild born in the year of his death just as easily as neighbors could name their friend's grandchild. So, again, the idea that "called his name" is a special sign of direct father-son relationship is yet another thing that Camping just dreamed up.

What is truly bizarre is that begetting is something that only a father actually does, whereas calling a child's name is something that the mother or even the neighbors of the grandmother can do.

Camping's only answer to this objection is to point to Matthew 1:8 and to allege that Matthew declares that Joram begat Uzziah, although there is not an actual father-son relationship between the two. According to Camping: "Ahazial, Joash, and Amaziah should come between Joram and Uzziah."

Various explanations have been given as to why there are those three apparently missing generations in the Matthew genealogy. What is key about the Matthew genealogy, however, is that it does not purport to provide us with a chronology (i.e. dates). There are no ages or years of life mentioned. Instead, it is providing a lineage, much the way the Ezra 7 lineage does (the Ezra 7 lineage apparently omits 6 generations).

We could speculate about the apparent missing generations (are there really missing generations? have they been omitted because of a curse placed against Ahab? or does Ozias not correspond to Uzziah, but rather to a brother of Ahazial?), but such speculation isn't really necessary.

Why isn't such speculation necessary? Matthew 1's genealogy does not follow the patriarchal generation model that Camping has described. In Matthew 1's genealogy the only "called his name" is - you guessed it - Joseph calling Jesus' name in Matthew 1:25. It would be blasphemous to assert that Joseph was Jesus' biological father.

Thus, we see the arbitrary nature of Camping's pick-and-choose hermeneutic. Camping picks the apparently missing generations of Matthew 1:8 to establish a mere ancestry interpretation of the term "beget," while ignoring the "called his name" in the same genealogy, where such usage undermines Camping's theory.

In summary:

1) Camping simply dreamed up his unique patriarchal generations theory. The Bible does not tell us that, for example, the following passage should be understood as saying that Jared was born in the year that Mahalaleel died:

Genesis 5:15-17
And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared: and Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.

2) Camping simply dreamed up the "called his name" exception. The Scriptures do not tell us that "called his name" is a special clue that there is direct father-son relationship between the person who called the name of the other person. Indeed, many times it is a woman who calls the name of the child (Genesis 4:25, Genesis 19:37, 1 Chronicles 4:9, 1 Chronicles 7:18) and sometimes it is even the neighbors of the grandmother, as we saw in the case of Obed.

3) Camping appeals selectively to irrelevant texts to make his case. As we noted above, Matthew's genealogy does not provide years, only lineage. Thus, Matthew's genealogy is not especially relevant to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies. Moreover, if Matthew's genealogy is relevant, Camping ought also to take into account the fact that "called his name" in Matthew 1:25 refers to Joseph naming Jesus, though Joseph was only the adoptive father of Jesus, much like Pharaoh's daughter was only the adoptive mother of Moses where she "called his name" in Exodus 2:10.

So, to answer the title question of this post, no - the Bible does not guarantee Camping's prediction. Camping's prediction is something that Camping dreamed up and attempted to impose on the Bible. Even if a very generous person would say that the Bible does not unequivocally deny Camping's imposed reading, certainly Camping's claim that "The Bible Guarantees It" falls short.

-TurretinFan

Camping Rained Out by Flood

One of the key items in Harold Camping's interpretation that leads him to conclude that 2011 is the last year is that the flood was in 4990 B.C. and that A.D. 2011 is "exactly" 7000 years later. That 7000 years number is important to Camping, because at one point God said to Noah, "For yet seven days, ... and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth" (Genesis 7:4). Moreover, elsewhere Camping has noted that with the Lord one days is as one thousand years, and one thousand years as a day. Thus, Camping concludes that it is 7000 years from Noah's Flood until Judgment Day.

First, this is completely arbitrary. There's nothing about Genesis 7:4 that would lead someone to conclude that does not refer simply to the seven literal days that were fulfilled in the days of Noah. The reference to the earth being destroyed there is a reference to the world being destroyed by a flood, and we have been promised that a global flood will never again destroy the earth (see Genesis 9:13), of which the rainbow is a sign of the covenant.

The arbitrariness of the interpretation can be seen from the full context of the verse itself: "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." (Genesis 7:4)

There is no room for 40,000 years in Camping's chronology, so this part of the verse is conveniently ignored. Perhaps a justification is given that when it says "days ... and ... nights" it is not referring to thousands of years - but such an explanation doesn't come from the Bible.

There's another problem, though. The Bible doesn't date the flood to 4990 B.C. Of course, the Bible doesn't give year numbers, the Bible gives genealogies. Those genealogies can be used, to some extent, to reconstruct the history of the Old Testament era.

If one uses those genealogies, however, one will not arrive at 4990 B.C., one will arrive with a number like 2349 B.C., the number that Archbishop Ussher calculated, or 2957 B.C. - the number similarly calculated from the Septuagint translation (incidentally, the former calculation places Creation at 4004 B.C., while the latter places it around 5200 B.C.).

The 4990 B.C. date for the flood is actually something that Camping came up with around 1970 or so, and published in "Adam When?" in 1974. There is an updated version available on Camping's website now. Lord Willing, we will discuss "Adam When?" some more in a future post.

What suffices for this post is to point out that if Camping is right about the flood being 7000 years before the end of the world, then we have well over a 1000 years to go.

-TurretinFan

Counting Down with Camping ...

In a previous blog post, I commented on the fact that Camping has demonstrably miscounted the number of days between April 1, 33, and May 21, 2011. The number of days 722,501, not 722,500. How did he make this mistake?

Here's Camping's calculation paragraphs from his "Another Infallible Proof":

Because of the importance and wonder of this proof we will take time to develop it. First we must learn that we can develop with perfect precision the number of days from one date to another. To obtain the precise number of days from a moment in one year to the same moment in any other year we must realize that astronomers have long ago discovered that there are 365.2422 days in a complete year. That is why in our modern calendar there are 365 days in each of three consecutive years. However, every fourth year has 366 days. This is done by adding an extra day in February of that year. Thus the average year for the four years becomes 365.25 days. But .25 is greater than .2422, so every 128 years a day is dropped from the calendar to maintain accuracy.

Thus all we have to do is multiply the number of years separating two events by the number 365.2422 to know the exact number of days between them. So from April 1, 33 A.D. to April 1, 2011 there are exactly 2011 – 33 = 1,978 years, each having 365.2422 days. This equals 722,449.07 days. From April 1, 2011 to May 21, 2011 inclusively (including the first day and the last day) are 51 days. Adding these 51 days to the number 722,449.07 gives us exactly 722,500.07 days, from April 1, 33 A.D. to May 21, 2011 inclusively. This number is enormously significant. Presently we will see why this is so.

Camping has made a mistake. The number of days from April 1, 33, to April 1, 2011, is actually 722,451 days (not 722,449.07). What about his proof? His proof is based on an assumption that April 1, 33, to April 1, 2011, are exactly 1978 years apart, and that a year is 365.2422 days.

Camping's calculation allegedly provides the number of days as 722,449.07, although more precisely the number is 722,449.072. But there's a serious problem with the calculation. The number of days between April 1, 33, and April 1, 2011, is not a fractional number of days. It's an exact integer number of days. That's because the sun rises exactly once each day.

If you're not convinced, try a simple example: April 1, 2010, to April 1, 2011. Using Camping's method, that's one year, and consequently it is 365.2422 days. But, in fact, you can go get a calendar and count and verify that, in fact, it is exactly 365 days.

Also, keep in mind that the 365 number is based on counting only one of the two end days. This is the normal way of counting days. For example, we say that April 2 is one day from April 1. That's because we count only the last day (April 2) and not the first day (April 1). So, it is a little strange when Camping asks his readers to count 51 days based on counting both the first day and the last days ("From April 1, 2011 to May 21, 2011 inclusively (including the first day and the last day) are 51 days.")

Using this method means counting from April 1, 2010, to April 1, 2011, to be 366 days. Moreover, as we noted before, if one counts both the first and last days, the number of days from April 1, 33, to May 21, 2011, is actually 722,502 days.

It is also strange to see how some of his other calculations work:

Interestingly this same message of salvation or judgment being the result of the Gospel is hidden in the total number of years the Gospel was to be sent by the churches into the world. We have learned that the church age began immediately after Christ demonstrated how He suffered and died to make payment for sin. That was in the year 33 A.D. We learned that the church age officially began on Pentecost, May 22, 33 A.D. It continued exactly 1,955 full years until May 21, 1988 when the church age came to an end.

A few points. 1) Why are days counted with the first and last day both counted, whereas years are counted normally? Those familiar with Camping's work should recognize this kind of arbitrary hermeneutic - a hermeneutic of convenience, if you will.

2) 1955 "full years" according to his 365.2422 number would be 714,048.501 days.

2) But the actual number of days from May 22, 33 A.D. to May 21, 1988 is exactly 714,051 days (including the end date) - which is indeed 1955 full years (including the end date).

Why April 1? According to Camping, April 1, 33 A.D. is when Christ was hanging on the cross, reminding people of the sacrifice he had already made before the foundation of the world.

However, April 1, 33 A.D. was a Wednesday, as you can see in the calculation results already discussed and as you can calculate for yourself (just enter month "4", day "1", and year "0033".

Incidentally, some programs may tell you that April 1, 33, was a Friday (input "4", "1" and "0033" here, for example), but if you look more closely, you will see that these are programs that are using a Gregorian calendar (back before the Gregorian calendar was even invented).

Incidentally, I suspect that this two days (of the week) difference is connected with the two-day error in Camping's calculations, but I am not sure.

- TurretinFan

"An Exceedingly Serious Matter" 722,500 or 722,501

One of Camping's key arguments for May 21, 2011, is that May 21, 2011, is 722,500 days from April 1, 33. But if we calculate the number of days from April 1, 33, to May 21, 2011, the number is actually 722,501 or 722,502 (depending on whether we count the last day or not).

Harold Camping says this is an "extremely serious matter." Perhaps he should recheck his calculations.

-TurretinFan

Background on Harold Camping

Some interesting comments on Harold Camping's own departure from the church can be found at the following story (link to story). This was brought to my attention by the Heidelblog. The most interesting insight is how the May 21, 1988, date seems to be connected to Camping's final time teaching Sunday School.

Repentance and Family Radio

An alert reader noticed that in yesterday's post asking for prayer for the regular listeners to Family Radio's Harold Camping (or is it the other way 'round?), I had neglected to specify that his listeners need to repent.

Those who have broken fellowship with the church do need to repent. Forsaking the fellowship of the brethren and departing from the rule of the elders (without a proper justification, of course) is essentially the sin of schism. It's a serious sin and repentance is needed.

I hope no one took my post as suggesting that those who departed from us should be welcomed back as though nothing had happened. No, they need to repent of their sin. Of course, how this is handled will be the domain of the various churches to which they are restored.

Nevertheless, we hope that churches will be prepared to deal with these folks who have been, for lack of a better word, religiously abused by Mr. Camping. They have been assured by him that the second coming is May 21, 2011. If the Lord tarries, they will hopefully see this and realize that they have been led astray.

My reader thinks that churches will be so eager to have the people back that they will forget to insist on repentance. I hope my reader is mistaken, but apparently something like that happened after September, 1994, when Mr. Camping's prior prediction failed.

In any event, this post is designed both to encourage any Family Radio listeners who are reading to be prepared to repent, as well as to encourage churches to exhort these folks in their communities (many of whom we know, since they were formerly in our churches) to repent. Seize the day, May 22, 2011, to reach out to these people and bring them back to the fold.

-TurretinFan

Prayer for Family Radio Folks

As you may know, in three months (May 22, 2011) if the Lord tarries, there will be a lot of folks associated with Harold Camping and Family Radio that will be disappointed to discover that Camping's prognostications haven't panned out.

Currently, the folks who have believed his teachings have left the churches. Please pray that God would restore these people to the churches, help them to realize that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is superior to any eschatologically driven hermeneutic, and bring them into greater obedience with the command not to forsake the assembly of the brethren.

Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

-TurretinFan

Harold Camping on Judgment Day

Back in 1994, Harold Camping's predictions regarding the end of the world did not come true. The world continued on. He has new predictions that the rapture will occur on May 21, 2011, with world continuing for another 153 days from then. (link to interview) One of his predictions, as you will see in the clip, is that there will be a massive earthquake that is large enough to open all of the graves of, in essence, everyone who has ever been buried. I hope that those who have been following Camping's teaching will realize on May 22, 2011, that this was a serious mistake.

Mr. Camping's method of Biblical interpretation is flawed. Rather than using the grammatical-historical method of exegesis, Mr. Camping applies a highly arbitrary method of trying "decode" a "hidden meaning" in the text of Scripture. The arbitrary method permitted him to predict late 1994, and now permits him to predict May 21, 2011. If that date fails, it will permit him to pick a new date, and again and again.

What's more, folks should be aware that Camping is running his organization this way: "we make decisions as if the end could be quite far away ... contracts are negotiated as if the future was altogether indefinite ... " (source - Time Has an End).

May I strongly urge those who have gone along with Mr. Camping's teachings to please at least imitate this aspect of Camping's organizations. Continue to make plans for the future beyond May 21, 2011. When the earthquake does not arrive, find a Bible-believing church near you and join yourself to that fellowship.

-TurretinFan

(Many thanks to Mr. James Swan for bringing this clip to my attention.)

One Year Until the End of the World

The subject of this post is the message I found in my inbox earlier today. The message reminded me that Harold Camping has, based on complex series of calculations, predicted judgment day to be May 21, 2011. I have already attempted to show a number of problems in Mr. Camping's theology, and rather than rehash those problems, I'll just provide links to the relevant posts below:

1) "Lucifer" and Angels' Names

2) More not Less Church as the Day of the Lord Approaches

3) ISI Discussion Regarding Harold Camping

4) Four Hundred Thirty Years Series
a) Camping Jenga
b) How Then Four Hundred, Thirty Years?
c) From Seventy to More then a Million?
d) 430 Years from the Promise - A Response to Fred Butler

5) Camping and the Atonement

6) Surprising Wisdom from Harold Camping

I have no idea how many of Harold Camping's listeners on the Family Radio network read this blog, or whether they will hear and listen to me before May 22, 2010.

- TurretinFan

Lucifer and Angels' Names

JohnFrancis left this comment on an earlier blog post:

Harold Camping has recently taught that Jerome translated the Hebrew word "hyll" to be the angel "Lucifer" when it should read "praise"(root word) or "boaster(er)". "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
I think I am beginning to understand that this "son of the morning" is the same "son of perdition (or "Boaster" /"Lucifer"(?) who did not (at least at the time of the 7 seals being opened by Christ) know the time of the end. "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father." Since Jesus said that if you have seen Him (Jesus) you have seen the Father, this scripture cannot refer to the Son of man but the "son of perdion or "Boaster" Besides, Jesus told HIS disciples the sign to look for and what to do,so Christ had to know, but obviously this passage was not for them to know as they were commanded to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (begin the churches task).
So the angels in Heaven could not know,neither mankind, and certainly NOT Satan. Can it be any clearer that Jerome obscured the "son" by naming Lucifer" incorrectly? Mr. Camping has stated that the Bible does not give angels proper names??? Any rebuttal?? Thanks - John

In context, Isaiah 14:12 is referring to the king of Babylon. See verses 4 and 22.

The Hebrew word translated "Lucifer" in the KJV (because of the Vulgate, no doubt) is "הילל" (hêylêl). It is a hapax word, that is to say, it occurs only once (here) in the Old Testament. Most translators that I've heard of think that it means brightness/morning star. But yes, it does come from "הלל" (hâlal) which can mean, among other things, "to boast."

The prophecy's immediate fulfillment was on the king of Babylon, but it may have an ultimate fulfillment against the man of sin. I don't pretend to have special insight on this matter.

As for naming angels, Jude 9 states: "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee."

And Luke reports:

Luke 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

Which angel we had seen before:

Daniel 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.

Daniel 9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

Furthermore "Satan" is the proper name of a fallen angel (there are too many passages here that use that name, to list them all). And he may be the same or different (it is sometimes hard to be sure) from another fallen angel named Abaddon (Hebrew) or Apollyon (Greek).

Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Some have claimed that Michael is actually another name for Jesus. Regardless of that, Gabriel is certainly the name of an angel and Satan and Apollyon are names of fallen angels (or of just one fallen angel), notwithstanding Mr. Camping's teachings.

-TurretinFan

More not Less Church as the Day of the Lord Approaches

One of the questions that Mr. Arnzen asked Mr. Harold Camping, during the four-day discussion on Iron Sharpens Iron between Dr. James White and Mr. Harold Camping, was about whether the listeners of Family Radio have their own gatherings. Mr. Camping indicated that, aside from a small group in Almeda, California (where Mr. Camping resides), he does not encourage his listeners to gather together. As we will see below, this practice of abandoning the fellowship and communion of the saints is not only contrary to the historic creeds of the church, but also (and much more importantly) contrary to Scripture itself. In the current post we will see this shown from Hebrews 10:23-25.

Hebrews 10:23-25
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

Harold Camping admits that Judgment Day is in view here: "We know that Judgment Day is in view in this verse ... ." (source) Mr. Camping is right because we see from the context that the "day" mentioned here is the day of the Lord, the day of judgment:

Hebrews 10:30-31
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Nevertheless, Harold Camping argues that:

Returning to Hebrews 10, verses 24 and 25, we read a very curious comment. Verse 25 declares:

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner is...

This is indeed curious language. One would think that it would be more logical to say, "not forsaking the assembling of the congregation" or "not forsaking the assembling of the church." Why does God use the strange language, "assembling of ourselves"? As we have already noted, God is focusing on the time when Judgment Day is very near. We understand this by the phrase, "so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." Another curiosity is the usage of the Greek word episynagogen which is translated "assembling together." This Greek word is used in only one other instance in the Bible. That citation is II Thessalonians 2:1, where we read:

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him.

The phrase "gathering together" in this verse is translated from the same Greek word episynagogen. When we look at the context of II Thessalonians 2:1, we know who is assembling or gathering together. This passage is speaking of those individuals who are gathering together to meet Christ at his coming. The only people who are ready to meet Christ at his coming are true believers. Churches will not be ready to meet Christ. Whole congregations are not ready to meet Christ. Even if Christ had come before the church age was over, only a remnant of the congregation would have been ready to meet Him.

The point God is making is that the Greek word episynagogen emphasizes the gathering together of individuals. It is not in any way looking at a body of people who are all members of one local congregation.

This agrees with the usage of the same Greek word, episynagogen, which we find in Hebrews 10:25, where God emphasizes that individuals are in view as indicated by the usage of the word "ourselves." Thus, a body of people, like a local congregation, cannot be in view in Hebrews 10:25 any more than a local congregation could be in view in II Thessalonians 2:1.

(same source)
This argument is absolutely absurd. Allow me to elaborate, though, because my simply saying it is absurd will have little weight with Harold Camping's listeners.

The term "episynagogen" is a word that combines "epi" (a primary preposition that has, in this case, a directional sense) and "sunagoge" (the word from which we derive "synagogue" meaning the meeting or meeting place). To "episunagoge" means to get to synagogue, or to use modern terminology "go to church."

Someone may point out that the term might have a broader sense of simply coming together as an assembly in Greek. While that is true, the context cannot be ignored. This is an epistle to the Hebrews, and must be understood within that context: as being written to Hebrews.

The attempted imposition of the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:1 is also wrong. Even if we understand 2 Thessalonians 2:1 to refer to the gathering unto Christ at the second coming (something of which the church is a foreshadow), that is certainly not the sense that is being used in Hebrews 10:23-25.

We know that it is not the sense of Hebrews 10:23-25, because Hebrews tells us two things:

(1) "as the manner of some is"

While the verb "is" is implied (not stated) in the Greek, the point of the phrase is to compare what the Hebrews should not do with what others have or are doing. But the coming of Christ is not something that has already come, and consequently there would be nothing to which to compare if the sense of "assembling of ourselves together" is a reference to the gathering at the second coming rather than the weekly gathering.

(2) "and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching"

Again, this provides a comparison. The comparison is between the present and the future. This serves to demonstrate that the verse is talking about something that the Hebrew believers were already doing.

It is not just a comparison, but a comparison of enhancement. They are not to get to church less and less as they see the day of the Lord approaching. Instead, they are to assemble more and more. This practice of fellowship is to increase until Jesus' return.

Finally, the argument is absurd because the idea that "ourselves" should be contrasted to "church" is itself absurd. The focus is on the activity of the individuals in going to the assembly. That individual action is contrasted with the action of some people who don't go to church. The usual sense of the text is not that the individuals are supposed to get others to go to church, but that they themselves should go to church.

But I have left out the most obvious argument in the discussion above. The text says:

Not Forsaking

That means "don't stop." The Greek is "μὴ ἐγκαταλείποντες," which means to leave something behind. We see it used in several places in Scripture:

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Romans 9:29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

2 Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

2 Timothy 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.

Hebrews 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

As you can see, in every instance it refers to a pre-existing condition that is then either (positively) maintained by the thing remaining, or (negatively) altered by the thing being discontinued. In this case, the pre-existing condition is that the Hebrew believers are going to "synagogue" (first to the synagogue of the Jews and later to the Christian church which corresponds thereto).

The undeniable conclusion is that the author of Hebrews, God himself who inspired it, is telling the Hebrews to continue doing what they were already doing, namely assembling together to worship God. Moreover, God is telling them not to stop doing this but to continue this more and more as the day of judgment approaches. The end of the church age, if we wish to call the New Testament period by that name, is Judgment Day. That day has not yet come, and consequently we are called to continue to assemble together.

-TurretinFan

ISI Discussion Regarding Harold Camping

I was recently on the "Iron Sharpens Iron" (ISI) radio program. Here's a link to the ISI page about the call (link) and here is direct link to the mp3 (link).

The following is an outline of some of the topics discussed. This is not a transcript, but more or less notes for the discussion.

I. In General - Regarding Harold Camping

a) False Teacher

He has been seen to be a false teacher at least since his date setting book "1994?" (which was demonstrated by history to be false).

Now, he teaches annihilationism and some form of Modalism.

Perhaps, worst of all, he severs himself and his followers from communion, declaring the church age to be over and discouraging his followers from gathering together.

1 Corinthians 11:25-26
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Jesus has not come, and consequently we continue to show (symbolically) the Lord's death in the Lord's Supper, whereas Mr. Camping and his followers have excommunicated themselves.

b) Familiar with the Bible

Mr. Camping is obviously quite familiar with the text of the Bible. He's been studying it for many years. Unfortunately, his studies are misdirected in that he applies Scripture for purposes for which it was not intended.

II. Regarding Amram and Moses

During the call-in segment of Mr. Camping's debate with Dr. White, I had an opportunity to ask one question of Mr. Camping. My question was:"What was the name of Moses' father?"

Why did I ask the question?

I knew that his answer would demonstrate that he was unwilling to submit to Scripture.

What does Scripture tell us is the name of Moses father?

Scripture tells us:

Exodus 6:20 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.

Numbers 26:59 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.

1 Chronicles 6:3 And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.

1 Chronicles 23:13 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.

Mr. Camping is fond of saying that things are doubled to emphasize their importance. This statement of paternity is not simply doubled but doubled twice - that is to say - it is quadrupled. There are four Scriptural testimonies all agreeing that Moses' father was Amram, and no Scripture suggesting any other name for Moses' father.

Why does Camping not follow this plain teaching of Scripture?

Camping needs to avoid following this plain teaching of Scripture, in order for his date-setting method to work. One of Mr. Camping's methods of calculating the end times is to place it exactly 7000 years from the date of Noah's flood. One sees this in his articles and books. For example he writes: "Because the year 2011 A.D. is exactly 7,000 years after 4990 B.C. when the flood began, the Bible has given us absolute proof that the year 2011 is the end of the world during the Day of Judgment, which will come on the last day of the Day of Judgment." (source)

To give you a sense of contrast, Archbishop Ussher in his "Annals of the World" gives a date for the flood of about 2350 B.C. I'm aware that there is a lot modern scholarship that suggests that disputes Ussher's date, but the point is simply to give you a sense of contrast between a more literal reading of the text and Mr. Camping's view.

How does Camping date the flood so much earlier (about 2500 years earlier)?

As you can imagine, it is not easy to fit an additional 2500 years into the text, and there is no chance that Mr. Camping is going to date the end of the world to be about 2500 years from now. To accomplish his purposes, Mr. Camping has to rely on what he calls a "clue phrase" in the text.

What is this clue phrase?

The clue phrase is "called his name." In some of the genealogical accounts there is a statement that father called the name of his son "Seth" (or whatever the child's name is). Camping asserts that when such a phrase is used, the literal son is being mentioned. Otherwise, in Camping's view, the father-son relationship should not be assumed, and consequently we should be free to view the genealogies another way, such that the "father" is simply an ancestor, and that the "son" is simply a descendant that happened to be born the year his father died.

What are the problems with this?

At first this may seem like a fairly reasonable system. After all, there sometimes some inconsistencies in the biblical genealogies (a matter we can perhaps address a little later). However, there are some real problems:

1) This idea of a "clue phrase" is wrong from a positive usage sense.

Camping writes: "A more careful examination of the Scriptures reveals why the phrase "called his name" which is the Hebrew qara, was used. In every place where this phrase is employed, there can be no doubt of the existing relationship; invariably it is indicative of parent and child." (link)

Mr. Camping's claim about this supposed clue phrase is wrong:

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

It should be plain that Eve is not Adam's child.

1 Samuel 7:12 Then Samuel took a stone, and set it between Mizpeh and Shen, and called the name of it Ebenezer, saying, Hitherto hath the LORD helped us.

Plainly, an inanimate object is not a child.

Ruth 4:17 And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

Obed was the son of Boaz and Ruth not of Naomi's female neighbors.

Exodus 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.

Moses was not biologically the son of Pharaoh's daughter: he held that relationship only by adoption.

2) This idea of a "clue phrase" is wrong from a negative usage sense.

Genesis 4:1-2
And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Both Cain and Abel were the direct children of Adam and Eve without any "clue phrase" being provided. In fact, Seth is the first one where it is said that someone "called his name" Seth.

Exodus 2:2 And the woman conceived, and bare a son: and when she saw him that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months.

This is a report of Moses' conception and birth. His mother (Jochebed) is not said to have "called his name" Moses, but she was nevertheless his biological mother.

Even if the "clue phrase" is off, isn't it possible that the Hebrew genealogy works this way?

As far as I can recall, Mr. Camping is not the first to come up with this idea that Hebrew genealogies might sometimes be based on dating from the death of an ancestor to a descendant born about the same time. There are at least two serious problems applying such a principle to Amram and Moses though:

1) Aaron AND Moses

Amram is called the father both of Aaron and Moses. This might be fine if those were twins, but they were three years apart:

Exodus 7:7 And Moses was fourscore years old, and Aaron fourscore and three years old, when they spake unto Pharaoh.

2) And Miriam

Furthermore, they had an older sister, Miriam who (when Moses was three months old - Exodus 2:3) was resourceful enough to persuade the princess of Egypt to hire Moses' mother as a nurse for him (Exodus 2:7). Amram can't have died in three different years (one for Miriam, then again for Aaron, and finally for Moses).

What other reasons does Camping give?

There is one other main argument that Mr. Camping presents, namely that adding a speculative generation (or more than one) between Amram and Moses is necessary to make the stay in Egypt 430 years.

Camping provides the following breakdown:

Levi 77 years in Egypt
Kohath 133 years in Egypt
Amram 137 years in Egypt
Aaron 83 years in Egypt
------------------------
430 years total time

(source)

This enumeration is alleged to correspond to the 430 years that Scripture says ended the day of the Exodus.

What are the problems with this analysis?

1) The 430 years should be measured from the Promise to Abraham

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.

Notice that Paul is explicit that the giving of the law was 430 years from the promise to Abraham. Since Abraham died before the entry into Egypt, it is impossible that there could have been 430 years in Egypt.

2) Kohath wasn't born in Egypt

Genesis 46:8-26, especially vs. 11 let us know that Kohath was one of the sons of Levi who came into Egypt with Levi and Jacob as one of the "seventy souls" mentioned in Genesis 46. It states:

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

So then how long was the stay in Egypt?

The stay in Egypt itself was 215 years. It was 215 years from the promise until the entry into Egypt, as we can determine from Genesis, and we know the total time was 430 years, so we can deduce that the time in Egypt was 215 years.

Does the 215 year view fit the genealogies?

Yes, the genealogies have Levi and Kohath coming into Egypt. Amram is the only one in the series who lives his entire life in Egypt and that was 137 years. Some of the time before his birth and after his death were also time in Egypt, of course.

Additionally, it should be noted that Jochebed is described as being the daughter of Levi.

Exodus 6:20 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.

Numbers 26:59 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.

This evidence again suggests that Levi was not dead over a century before Amram was born, but rather that there was some overlap between Amram and his grandfather Levi (though both Amram and Jochebed were born in Egypt and apparently died in Egypt).

Is Mr. Camping the only one who holds to the 430 year theory?

No. In fact, we find many modern scholars who have a similar view, and even many of the modern translations translate one of the key verses in such a way as to require the 430 year theory. For example, the King James Version states:

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

Whereas the more modern English Standard Version states:

Exodus 12:40 The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years.

Are you a King James Version Only-ist?

No. I simply think that the KJV better preserves the ambiguity of the original text here.

What is the historical view of the text?

Both the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint provide an additional phrase "and in the land of Canaan" that clarify that the 430 years is not to be understood as simply the time in Egypt.

Eusebius of Caesarea, who got his information from the Jewish historian Alexander Polyhistor (who flourished in the first century before Christ) took the 215 year view. In at least one place Joseph adopted the 215 year view:

They left Egypt in the month 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. It was the eightieth year of the age of Moses, and of that of Aaron three more. They also carried out the bones of Joseph with them, as he had charged his sons to do.

-Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, Chapter 15, Section 2 (I am told that in another place Josephus disagrees with his opinion stated here, although I could not locate that other place.)

The Reformed commentators whom I checked on this matter (John Calvin, Matthew Henry, John Gill, and Matthew Poole) all likewise agreed with the 215 year view as well. Even Luther appears to agree.

More recently, however, there has been some debate over the topic.

Do you have any other significant issues with Camping's Theology?

Yes, I think his view of the atonement is seriously flawed (see my post: link)

-TurretinFan

430 Years from the Promise - A Response to Fred Butler

I have indicated that I think that the Israelites were in Egypt for only about 215 years, as opposed to 430 years. Mr. Fred Butler disagrees (link to his post). Mr. Butler's response is friendly, and I hope he'll take my response as being in a similarly amiable vein.

First of all, Mr. Butler points out what he sees as the primary argument argument regarding the length of the stay. In some ways it is the primary argument. I'll reiterate, and perhaps expand upon it here.

Galatians 3:17 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.

What Galatians tells us is that from the the promise to the law was 430 years. The law was given the same year as the Exodus out of Egypt, so we know that the time from the promise to the Exodus was 430 years. What promise is Paul talking about?

Let's check what the context of the verse informs us. After all, the correct way to understand the verse is by examining the context.

Galatians 3:6-18:

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 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. 17 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. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

The promise in question is the gospel, and specifically this promise: "In thee shall all nations be blessed" set forth in verse 8. This is reiterated in verse 14 "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." Notice how Paul links the promise and the in-gathering of the Gentiles.

That promise is recorded for us in Genesis 12.

Genesis 12:1-3
Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 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: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Here's the timeline based on that promise:

0. Abram was 75 years old when he departed out of Haran (Genesis 12:4).

11. Abram was 86 years old when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16).

25. Abraham was 100 years old (and Sarah was 90 years old) when Isaac was born (Genesis 21:5).

[?]. Isaac weaned (we're not told how old he was when he was weaned), Ishmael and Hagar the Egyptian banished and went to Paran & Egypt (Genesis 21:8-21).

55. Sarah was 120 years old when she died (Genesis 23:1-2).

85. Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born (Genesis 25:26).

100. Abraham died at 175 years old (Genesis 25:7-8).

169. Isaac died at 144 years old (Genesis 35:29).

215. Jacob was 130 years old when he went into Egypt (Genesis 47:28).

(which is half of the 430 years, the other 215 years being the time in Egypt)

Notice, however, that there is no reference to "seed" in that particular promise. Paul makes reference to the expression "to thy seed." That issue is easily remedied. Chapter 12 of Genesis explains that when Abraham arrived at Sichem God added to what was said in verses 1-3.

Genesis 12:7 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.

That promise to Abraham and his seed gets repeated several more times, for example, in Genesis 13:15-16 and more dramatically in Genesis 15. Interestingly, the promise is also applied (at least to some degree) to Ishmael:

Genesis 21:13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

But I digress. The primary argument is that the promise in question is the promise made to Abraham, not some other promise.

Some have seized on the verse 16's comment: "to Abraham and his seed were the promises made," to suggest that perhaps a promise to someone other than Abraham is in mind (specifically a promise to Jacob). There are several problems with this objection. First, the repetitions of the promise (or the division of the promise in Genesis 12) can be considered the "promises," alternatively the various blessings can be considered the promises. There is no need for there to be other promises made to other people. Second, the "his seed" comment is immediately followed up - in the very same verse - by Paul explaining that the seed is Christ: "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

The only promise that I can see that God made to Jacob at the time of entry into Egypt was this:

Genesis 46:3-4
And he said, I am God, the God of thy father: fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will there make of thee a great nation: I will go down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again: and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes.

That promise does not mention the seed (so relevant to Paul's discussion) nor does it mention the nations (also highly relevant to Paul's discussion). In short, while it is a promise, and while Jacob was from Abraham, it seems strained at best to say that this is the promise to which Paul is referring.

This is the first argument, but there is a second like it. The second argument deals with the time in Egypt.

[?1 - at some point before 169 in the first list] birth of Levi (one of the 70 who came to Egypt - Genesis 46:11)

[?2] birth of Kohath (one of the 70 who came to Egypt - Genesis 46:11)

0. Entry into Egypt

[?3] birth of Amram

[?1 + 137] Levi died at 137 years old (Exodus 6:16)

[?4] Aaron born

[?4 + 3] Moses born (Exodus 7:7)

[?2 + 133] Kohath dies at 133 years old (Exodus 6:18)

[?3 + 137] Amram dies at 137 years old (Exodus 6:20)

[?4 + 83] Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 7:7)

As you can see from the use of the designation "?" there are a number of uncertainties over the precise dates in the chronology. There are, however, a few hooks that prevent the chronology from shrinking or expanding excessively. For example, a child cannot be born before his father, and it is not reasonable to expect that a child is born before the father is at least about 13 years old.

Furthermore, the child cannot be born much after the father dies, and it is pretty much normal for the child to be born before the father dies, unless the father dies quite young (which is not the case with any of the men here). Finally, at the start of the chronology, we know from Genesis 35:27-28 and Genesis 32:22, which show that Jacob had his first eleven sons (including Levi) before Isaac died.

One further item should be noted. I've placed the birth of the grandsons before the deaths of their grandfathers, since this seems to have been normal at the time. There is, of course, no absolute requirement that the grandfathers in each case lived to see their grandsons.

I want to draw your attention to one fact of central importance to this discussion. There is only one person in the chronology who both was born and died in Egypt. That was Amram. His entire life fits within the endpoints of the time in Egypt, but his father was born in Canaan and his sons died in the wilderness on the way to Canaan.

It should be plain that this time-line is perfectly consistent with there being 215 years in Egypt. That duration permits there to be a comfortable amount of time before Amram was born and after he died while the Israelites were in Egypt.

As noted above, though, this timeline has a lot of play in it - it can be expanded or contracted by quite a bit. How much?

Well, using the most extreme assumptions, the maximum time that there can be between 0 and the Exodus in the timeline is if Kohath is born the same year as the entry (and comes in consequently as a newborn) and then if Amram is born the year following Kohath's death, and Moses is born the year following Amram's death. None of these seem probable, but they provide us with an outside limit. Under those assumptions, the time from the entry to the Exodus would be: 133 (life of Kohath) + 1 + 137 (life of Amram) + 1 + 80 (age of Moses at Exodus) = 352 years.

Plainly, 352 years is not enough to make 430. However, perhaps someone will point out that Joseph went down to Egypt first, and try to expand the time in Egypt by adding the time that Joseph was there. How much can that help?

Joseph was 17 years old when he received his coat of many colors (Genesis 37:1). To maximize the times involved, we will assume he was enslaved the same year. Joseph died at 110 years old (Genesis 50:26). However, Joseph did not die in the year of the entry into Egypt. Jacob died 17 years after the entry into Egypt (Genesis 47:28). Joseph survived Jacob by at least 70 days (Genesis 50:1-4). So, the most time that Joseph was in Egypt prior to the entry was 93 years (assuming he died the same year as his father and was enslaved the same year he got his lovely coat).

352 + 93 = 445, which would actually permit a play of about 15 years. If we go ahead and remove the 15 years to end up at 430, we have Joseph being 78 years old at the time of the entry of Jacob into Egypt. However, Jacob was 130 years old when he went into Egypt (Genesis 47:28). Thus, for that scenario to work, Joseph would have to have been born when Jacob was 52.

Yet Scripture tells us:

Genesis 37:3 Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.

While 52 is a bit old for folks to be having children now, it really wasn't that old in the age of the patriarchs. Furthermore, remember that Jacob had left the home on his own to flee from Esau when they were at least forty years old (Genesis 26:34-35, remembering that Jacob and Esau were twins), had worked fourteen years for his wives, and then had had children after that (Genesis 29:31-32), with Rachel having children only after Leah had given birth seven times (six sons and one daughter) (Genesis 30:19-22). In short, such a thesis is impractical.

On top of that, when Joesph goes down into he Egypt, he is sold to Potiphar, and then imprisoned after being falsely accused by Potiphar's wife. He there interpreted two dreams. Two years later (Genesis 41:1) Joseph was called before Pharaoh to interpret a dream (it was one dream in two dreams) and was thirty years old at that time (Genesis 41:46). The dream announced 7 coming years of plenty followed by 7 coming years of famine (Genesis 41:26). Furthermore, the year of the entry into Egypt was the 2nd or 3rd year of the famine (Genesis 45:6). While Scripture does not say the the years of plenty started immediately after the dream's interpretation, that seems to be the implication. If so, then it should be plain that Joseph was about 40 years old at the time of the entry of Jacob into Egypt. That would mean that Joseph was born when Jacob was about ninety years old, which would make him a son of Jacob's old age.

On these two arguments from Scripture, the idea that the 430 years should be counted from the first promise to Abraham seems to be pretty strong. There are two lesser arguments, however.

The first of the lesser arguments, and our third point in this discussion, is one that is of relatively minor interest. Recall that Genesis 15 is one of the places where the promise to Abraham is reiterated. At that time, Abraham is given a date for the length of the sojourning, namely 400 years.

Genesis 15:13-14
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.

As you may note in the first chronology above, the date at which Ishmael is driven off is about the year 30 in the chronology (assuming Isaac was weaned at age 5, which does not seem very unreasonable). If that's the case, then 400 years of affliction would begin with Ishmael's affliction and end with Israel's exodus. This seems a little too neat, but perhaps it is correct. The more usual explanation for the difference between the 400 and the 430 is that the 400 is simply a round number, and that we should use the birth of Isaac (which would be 405 years) rather than his weaning as the date for the fulfillment of the 400 year prophecy.

The fourth argument (and the second of the lesser two arguments) is an argument from the fact that Exodus occurs in the fourth generation.

Genesis 15:15-16
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.

As can be seen from the first chronology above, Abraham lived to see the birth of Jacob. Thus, the first generation after what he saw was Levi, then Kohath, then Amram, and finally in the fourth generation there was Aaron and Moses. Thus, the prophecy was fulfilled in a way that is fully consistent with the sojourning period being counted from Abraham's initial sojourn out of Haran in Canaan (Genesis 12:5) and Egypt (Genesis 12:10).

Finally, there is one textual objection that is made. The one objection that is made is that Exodus 12:40 states unequivocally that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. This argument seems to be based on the particular readings found in many modern translations. The King James Version translates the verse in question as follows:

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

With this reading, the sojourning is 430 years and the "dwelt in Egypt" modifies the children of Israel, though not necessarily their stay in Egypt. Thus, the text of the KJV is ambiguous as to whether the sojourning all took place in Egypt or not. Some (perhaps all!) the other versions phrase the verse such that all the 430 years are in Egypt. Mr. Butler is quite insistent that the only way to read this verse is as saying that the entire time of the sojourning was in Egypt, but when I've questioned him on the issue of translation of the text (i.e. whether the KJV's translation is a reasonable translation) he does not seem to have any answer.

Aside from textual arguments, I had noted that John Gill, John Calvin, and Matthew Henry agree with my position on this matter. I could have added others, such as Matthew Poole, Martin Luther, John Chrysostom, and John Owen. It doesn't seem to have been a particularly contentious point of exegesis historically. If there are any reputable Reformed, Reformation Era, or Patristic commentators that took a different view, Mr. Butler hasn't pointed them out (I should note that one of the articles noted that Hippolytus took a long-sojourn view, and at least one of the articles indicates that Josephus inconsistently seemed to support both views).

Mr. Butler's response instead was to lead by dogmatically insisting that the verse regarding the 430 year stay can only be read one way:

First, there is absolutely no other way to read Exodus 12:40 but that Israel sojourned in Egypt 430 years. In fact, the Exodus record even places the termination of Israel's sojourn in Egypt at the 430th year (vs. 41).

With all due respect to Mr. Butler, the text of the Authorized Version can be read in another way, and has been so read. Moreover, it seems to be the case that the Hebrew is similarly ambiguous.

Mr. Butler's second argument is to suggest that we should downplay the significance of the Galatians passage:

Next, Galatians 3:16, 17 should not be made the controlling passage over Exodus 12:40, 41. Thus, Paul may have had something else in mind when he spoke about the 430 years before the giving of the law, quite possibly the last promise of the covenant made to Jacob in Genesis 46:3, 4 before he went down into Egypt to live.

This argument is not feasible, as discussed above. The promise in Genesis 46:3-4 is not the promise that Paul has been talking about, nor does it contain either of the elements ("seed" and "all nations") that are germane to Paul's discussion.

Mr. Butler's third argument relates to a counter-argument that I have not presented above. Very briefly, the counter-argument is that the LXX reading of Exodus 12:40-41 includes the phrase "and in the land of Canaan" into the middle of "who dwelt in Egypt." This reading suggests at least the possibility that the original reading included the time in Canaan as well as that of Egypt. Alternatively, the reading suggests that there was an ancient marginal note that confirmed that the expression "in Egypt" shouldn't be understood in the exhaustive sense that Mr. Butler contends. Thus, some ancient commentator likewise confirms the 215 year thesis. Mr. Butler's response is this:

Third, we need to keep in mind that the LXX is a translation of the Hebrew text. Applying the normal rules of textual criticism, the shorter reading of the original language text should be preferred over the longer reading of a translated text that wasn't published until some 1300 years or so later. Moreover, the fact that the additional phrase "and in the land of Canaan" is just found in a few editions of the LXX and not others makes this even more of a questionable reading in my mind.

"Published" is probably not the word he means to use. It's worth noting that the Hebrew manuscripts that we have are not 1300 years earlier than the LXX manuscripts that we have. Thus, the date issue is a bit moot. From what I can tell the Dead Sea Scrolls give support to the idea that Masoretic text was preserved well at least back to that date (more on the Dead Sea Scrolls below).

Mr. Butler's fourth argument is this:

Fourth, as much as I appreciate the writing ministry of Gill, Calvin, and Henry, and the great treasure of their commentaries they have left to the Church at large, let's be honest, they are seriously dated with regards to current archaeological information. Our understanding of Egyptian history, the sojourn of Israel, and the Exodus has advanced dramatically since those men wrote.

I'm quite hesitant to use the external evidence of archaeology to trump the text of Scripture. Mr. Butler goes on to identify several articles, which we can take a look at, but he does not point to any specific or concrete archaeological data that suggests that we know the entry and exodus dates via the historical records of Egypt. If such data has been conclusively established, I know at least one friendly South African atheist who will be chomping at the bit to review it.

But, in fact, there is at least some additional archeological evidence that has come to light since the time of Gill, Calvin, Henry, et al. that confirms the 215 year stay. Specifically, 4Q559 (Biblical Chronology) provides the following at fragment 3:

[... And Levi was 3]4 [years old] when he [begot Qahat.] [And Qahat was 2]9 years old when he begot Amram. And Amram [was] [110 years old when he begot] Aaron. And Aaron left Egy[pt ...] [...] these thousand and 536

Leaving aside, for the moment, the complexities of reconstructing those fragments and simply plugging those numbers into the second chronology above, we would have:

0. birth of Levi (one of the 70 who came to Egypt - Genesis 46:11)

34. birth of Kohath (one of the 70 who came to Egypt - Genesis 46:11)

[??] Entry into Egypt

63 birth of Amram

137 Levi died at 137 years old (Exodus 6:16)

167 Kohath dies at 133 years old (Exodus 6:18)

173 Aaron born

176 Moses born (Exodus 7:7)

200 Amram dies at 137 years old (Exodus 6:20)

256 Exodus from Egypt (Exodus 7:7)

Note that this approach is all relative to Levi's birth, not to the entry itself. If the entry were 215 years before the exodus, then the entry would be at year 41, which fits within the appropriate window (Kohath is not yet old enough for his own children, but he is already born).

It should be readily apparent that the fragment cannot bear out the 430 years in Egypt hypothesis.

Additionally, fragment 2 of the same document is provided thus:

[Abraham was 99] years old [when he begot Isaac] [And I]saac was [60 years old when he begot Jacob. And Jacob] [was] 65 ye[ars old when he begot Levi ...] ...

This piece would provide the final link necessary to connect the Levi-based second chronology with the Abraham-based first chronology. If Jacob were 65 years older than Levi then Levi would be 65 year old at the time of the entry into Egypt. The problem is that it seems that Amram born when Levi was 63 (based on fragment 3) and consequently the numbers don't quite line up. Since we don't view 4Q559 as inspired, this is not a particularly severe problem.

The first article to which Mr. Butler links is The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage by Harold Hoehner

Contrary to Mr. Butler's apparent argument, almost all of the arguments in the article are exegetical and lexical (with support being given to the Authorized Version's reading) and not archaeological.

The next is The Length of Israel's Sojourn in Egypt by Jack Riggs

Again, the arguments are not archaeological, and the other material that may not have been available to some of our Reformed fathers (though Gill seems to mention it) is the Samaritan Penteteuch, which confirms the LXX reading as to the 430 years including the time in Canaan.

The final article is The Duration of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt by Paul J. Ray

This one finally refers to some additional archaeological material, but the material is far from compelling. Essentially, the final article provides a thesis for how the time in Egypt could have occurred within a particular window of Egyptian history, as well as how Abraham's sojourning could fit in the century in which it would fall under the 430 years in Egypt scenario. While certain of the arguments could be critiqued (for example, the idea that Joseph received the "second chariot" of Pharaoh, for example, almost certainly refers to an honor, not a shortage of chariots at the time) since the arguments do not suggest a significant preference for a long stay over a short stay, it is difficult to see what Mr. Butler finds so compelling about the arguments. His summary:

Though I commend TF's efforts to stick with scripture, I think consideration of further historical information helps to illuminate more of what the biblical text is saying, and in my mind, the 215 year theory is extremely problematic. Even for debunking a false teacher like Camping.

seems unjustified.

Mr. Butler sums up his arguments thus:

1) There are other editions of the LXX which do not contain the phrase "and in the Land of Canaan," particularly, A, F, and M.

2) All of the Hebrew texts of Exodus 12:40 do not contain the additional phrase.

And 3) Well established extra-biblical evidence also supports the 430 year sojourn, not the 215.

As noted above, however, those first two issues are not particularly central to the argument. The short reading of Exodus 12:40-41 is consistent with the 215 year stay in Egypt just as the longer reading is (though the longer reading complete destroys the theory of the 430 year stay in Egypt). The idea that the extra-biblical evidence does not support the 215 year stay or somehow provides a preference for the 430 year stay seems inaccurate, and the idea the timeline of Egyptian history is well-established from contemporary archaeology seems slightly naive.

What's more, Mr. Butler seems to present the articles in favor of the long stay in Egypt as though they were the scholarly consensus on the topic. In contrast, however, the articles themselves make reference to the fact that there scholars who come down on both sides of the issue.

The above should have addressed most of the arguments that Mr. Butler has raised. There are, however, a few other points to be noted. First, the issue of the sojourn is also mentioned by Stephen in Acts:

Acts 7:6 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.

This is simply a translation of Genesis 15. The most natural reading of the Authorized Version here is that the four hundred years relates to evil entreaty. However, another reasonable reading is to understand the "four hundred years" as referring to the entire period of sojourning in a strange land, being in bondage, and being treated harshly. And again, the 400 years may be viewed as approximate (based on Isaac's birth) or exact (based on Isaac's weaning and Ishmael's exile, either on the basis of treating Ishmael as the seed, or as treating the exile of Ishmael as being the revelation of the true seed status of Isaac).

Second, Paul makes reference to a time period in his speech at the synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia.

Acts 13:16-24:

Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience. The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it. And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness.
And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.
And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.
And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus: When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.

The time period in question is the four hundred fifty years mentioned at verse 20. Sometimes this verse is presented as though it is relevant to the discussion. That time period, however, is plainly referring to a time period after the exodus.

Ray, in his article, provides the following comment in a footnote:

On the basis of MSS B, [Aleph], A, and C, the text should indicate, according to B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort a[] period of "about 450 years" (or more precisely 447 years)--i.e., 400 years of bondage in Egypt, 40 years in the wilderness, and 7 years of conquest of Canaan. See Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Original Greek (New York, 1948), p. 276.

Even if, however, the 400 year period should be started before the exodus, it works better to select the 215 year hypothesis and use as the starting point the weaning of Isaac/exile of Ishmael as the start of the 400 year period.

Nevertheless, the flow of the passage seems to suggest that Paul is trying to refer to the period of the judges (including, perhaps, Joshua), since Paul has already specifically enumerated the 40 years in the wilderness, and subsequently gives the time period of Saul.

There is a slight problem with respect to the number that Paul gives, because the time from the coming out of Israel from Egypt to the building of the temple of Solomon is 480 years. In order for the time of the Judges to be 450 years (approximately), one would need to assume that in that instance, the coming out from Egypt is reckoned according to Joshua's death 30 years after the 40 years of wandering. Then back-subtracting the 80 years of David and Saul from the 480, we would have 400 years from the death of Joshua to start of Samuel/Saul. That 400 years plus the 30 years of Joshua could be viewed as the "about 450 years."

The problem, however, is not fully resolved because the typical accounts of the time of the judges proper is given around 350 years rather than 450 years. In any event, that particular difficulty is one that can be addressed at another time.

Third, a few of the articles raise as an objection the increase in the number of the people of Israel during the time in Egypt. I have dealt with this issue at greater length in a previous post. In brief, however, several replies are called for. First, Scriptures make abundantly clear that the time in Egypt was accompanied by extraordinary multiplication of families. As I noted, if we simply go by the ratio of first-born males to total men, the family sizes would have been enormous by modern standards. Even if that number is too high, much smaller families of 10-12 children would have been sufficient to produce the necessary multiplication.

Additionally, as at least one of my readers pointed out, there is the possibility that a large number of proselytes were made via the plagues, either among the Egyptians themselves or more likely among their other slaves. In support of this argument it is asserted that we find folks like Caleb (who might have been a descendant of Esau's grandson Kenaz) and that there are described those who "feared the word of the LORD among the servants of Pharaoh." (Exodus 9:20)

Moreover, the very high level of fertility among Israelite women helps to explain why there are some folks during the exodus who, like Moses and Aaron are in the fourth generation from Jacob, whereas there are others who are in the sixth or seventh generation. Notice, for example, that Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation and some of the grandchildren of Manasseh before his death. (Genesis 50:23) Thus, that in some cases the number of generations would be only four, but in other cases six or seven should not be thought to be the result of inaccurate chronologies, but rather of the varying ages at which the patriarchs and their children begot children of their own.

As a next-to-last point, some contention is made that the fourth generation referenced in Genesis 15 should be interpreted as four lengthy periods of time rather than four generations in the usual sense. This interpretation seems quite strained. The reckoning of generations in the usual sense seems both more natural and consistent with other uses in the Torah, such as in Deuteronomy 23:2, where an illegitimate son is prohibited from entering into the congregation of the LORD to his tenth generation.

That particular prohibition becomes important because of the following genealogy:

0. Judah
1. Pharez (illegitimately by Tamar)
2. Hezron
3. Ram
4. Amminadab
5. Nahshon
6. Salma
7. Boaz
8. Obed
9. Jesse
10. David

Some have argued that the crown was deferred until David's generation specifically because of the prohibition in Deuteronomy 23:2. In any event, the idea that the illegitimate person would himself be excluded for 10 periods of time of about 100 years each sounds a bit bizarre.

Finally, a few articles and commenters attempt to make an issue of the idea that sometimes the genealogies are questionable in that they sometimes have gaps or questionable items. One example of these is the issue of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, as reported in Luke 3:36. In the genealogy of Genesis 11 (in the Masoretic text) that Cainan is omitted.

While this is a significant issue for those who think the KJV was specially inspired, it is a less significant issue for those who do not have that same persuasion. After all, the Septuagint provides the details for Cainan and some early manuscripts of the New Testament omit that particular Cainan in the genealogy.

More significantly, there is no similar variant present in any of the manuscripts or versions (of which I'm aware) with respect to the genealogy of Moses from Levi. Furthermore, the genealogy is repeated in Scripture, and in every case it is the same. Thus, it does not seem to be reasonable to suppose that this is a case of a corrupted genealogy through some sort of scribal error.

In conclusion, I respectfully maintain the 215 year period in Egypt on the strength and clarity of the Scriptural testimony both in Exodus 6 and Galatians. In both cases, the Scriptural evidence rules out the view of the 430 years being exclusively by Jacob's children in Egypt.

-TurretinFan

From Seventy to More than a Million?

Two posts ago, I pointed out how Mr. Camping's chronology falls apart under Scriptural scrutiny over something as simple as the name of Moses' father (link). In the immediately preceding post, I demonstrated that a rebuttal based on there needing to be 430 years in Egypt was wrong based on the plain teachings of Scripture (link). As I explained then, the claim that there were 430 years in Egypt is based on misreading the text of Scripture.

In addition to the argument based on misreading a text as suggesting that Israel would be in Egypt for 430 years, there was also an argument made based on population growth. "How could it be that in only 210 years," we might paraphrase the question as stating, "the population of Jacob's family grew from 70 people to over two million?" The short answer is that the Israelites had large families.

For a more detailed answer, first of all, let's confirm that the numbers are correct:

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

Genesis 46:26-27
All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six; 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.

Specifically that 70 number is (breaking it down by their maternal connection to Jacob): 7 sons and grandsons of Bilhah (Genesis 46:25); 14 sons and grandsons of Rachel (Genesis 46:22); 16 (15 sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons and 1 daughter) offspring of Zilpah (Genesis 46:16); and 33 (32 sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons and 1 daughter) offspring of Leah (Genesis 46:15), for a grand total of 70 sons, daughters, grandsons, and great-grandsons of Jacob.

Additionally, as Genesis 46:26 informs us, there were wives that were not included in that number (nor, as we note above, was Israel himself included in that number). So, in essence, there were 69 men of Israel (Israel himself and 68 sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons, as well as two daughters) at the beginning of the 210 year period in Egypt.

Two years after the Exodus, there were 603,550 men (counting only those 20 years old and older) and not counting the Levites (Numbers 1:46-47). That's huge population growth in only 210 years. How did this happen? They had very large families. Scripture expresses it this way:

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.

They didn't just have a lot of kids, they:

• were fruitful
• increased abundantly
• multiplied
• waxed exceeding mighty [numerically]
• land was filled with them

You can easily imagine why the Egyptians did not like the way this was headed. So they began persecuting the Israelites, and trying to have the midwives kill them off at birth.

But again, after the initial wave of persecution (which the midwives resisted) Scripture tells us that the fecundity continued yet more:

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

There was an enormous boom in the population of Israel. How could this happen? The answer is simply that there were really enormous families. This is revealed to us in Scripture:

In Numbers 3:43, Moses and Aaron counted all the firstborn males of Israel - not counting the Levites. Now, keep in mind that the total number of males (over 20 years old) was 603,550. What Moses and Aaron found was that the firstborn males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward were 22,273 (Numbers 3:43).

That's a ratio of 1 firstborn male for every 27 males. Even if Israelites rarely had girls in those days (an unlikely proposition), that's an average family of 27 children. And actually, we've understated the matter, since the first-born males were counted from a month old and upward, but the total males were only counted from 20 years old and upward, and only those that were able to go forth to war (presumably this excludes any disabled or elderly men) (But see FN1, below). If we further assume that there were about an even number of girls born to boys born, then the average Hebrew family had over 50 children. These children may not have been born serially, since it possible that the Israelites were polygamists. If they were, their ever-increasing need for wives would tend to be met by taking Egyptian girls as the wives for their sons, something that would further have caused concern to the Egyptian Pharaoh, who would see it as decreasing his own population in each successive generation.

So, that's the answer to the objection to a 210 year stay in Egypt based on the massive population growth of the Israelites: they grew from 69 males to over 600,000 males (an 8,700-fold increase) by having enormous families. [FN2]

-TurretinFan

FN1: One further caveat is that the firstborn would tend to be the first to die of old age. Given that the 600,000 number counts those able to go to war, and excludes the elderly, the "old age effect" should roughly be canceled out.

FN2: For those interested in such things: 68 x 25 x 25 x 25 = 1,062,500, which shows how 68 men can, in three generations, become over 1,000,000: first generation multiplies 25-fold, second generation does the same, and third generation also does the same.