January - Reading 3

Matthew 2:11 (ESV)
11 And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

The wise men did not visit Jesus in the manger, but later, perhaps as much as two months, in a “house.”

What was the significance of the gifts?
Gold – in honor of His diety
Frankincense – for His purity, that He would know no sin (incense had been ordained by God in Moses’ day to “cleanse the tabernacle.”
Myrrh – for His death! Jesus put on the incarnation of mankind for the purpose of dying (as a substitute sacrifice for our sins).

Acts 2:2-3 (ESV)
2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.

The disciples could not comprehend the significance of the Spirit’s arrival without the Lord sovereignly illustrating what was occurring with a visible phenomenon.

Wind – frequently used as a picture of the Spirit.
Tongues of fire - Just as the sound, like wind, was symbolic, these were not literal flames of fire but supernatural indicators, like fire, that God had sent the Holy Spirit upon each believer. In Scripture, fire often denoted the divine presence (Ex. 3:2–6). God’s use of visuals here parallels what He did with the dove when Jesus was baptized.

Acts 2:4-8 (ESV)
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?

The issue of “tongues” is a hotly debated one. Nowhere in the scriptures is the speaking in tongues refered to as uttering unintelligible “glossolalia. Here and when Paul used the “gift,” the Holy Spirit supernaturally gave him the ability to speak a real known language. It came in handy as Paul traveled and preached throughout Asia, where there were many dialects (languages). The “gift” of Paul’s tongues solved a language barrier, rather than create one!

The skeptics in the crowd tried to dismiss this miracle, claiming they were drunk – secular humanism in its infancy!

Genesis 5:1-5 (ESV)
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. 4 The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. 5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

Some “Christians” on this BB would have us believe that Adam was only symbolic; a mythical Asian myth. Do the above verses confirm or deny that? “Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.” Romans 3:4

Genesis 5:24 (ESV)
24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.

Only Adam, Eve, and one other man is said to have enjoyed this intimacy of relationship in walking with God, Noah (6:9). Enoch experienced being taken to heaven alive by God, as did Elijah later (2 Kin. 2:1–12).

Genesis 5:28-29 (ESV)
28 When Lamech had lived 122 years, he fathered a son 29 and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.”

Some who claim that Genesis 1-11 is largely Eastern mysticism must ponder that Lamech had knowledge of God’s curse upon Adam and all mankind in Gen 3. Whether it was written or verbal handed down knowledge cannot be ascertained.

Genesis 7:11 (ESV)
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Skeptics claim that there is not enough water to cover the earth above the tops of the mountains. However, “the fountains of the great deep,” subterranean water gushed out of the earth. There are evidences of this in many spots on the ocean floor. http://www.creationscience.com/ “Part II: The hydroplate theory. A few of the mysteries.”

There is no mention of “rain” prior to God telling Noah He would send it to cause the Flood. the windows of heaven. The celestial waters in the canopy encircling the globe were dumped on the earth and joined with the terrestrial and the subterranean waters (1:7). This ended the water canopy surrounding the earth and unleashed the water in the earth; together these phenomena began the new system of hydrology that has since characterized the earth (Job 26:8; Eccl. 1:7; Is. 55:10; Amos 9:6). The sequence in this verse, indicating that the earth’s crust breaks up first, then the heavens drop their water, is interesting because the volcanic explosions that would have occurred when the earth fractured would have sent magma and dust into the atmosphere, along with gigantic sprays of water, gas, and air—all penetrating the canopy triggering its downpour.

Remember back in Genesis 1:7 (ESV) 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.

With findings of frozen water in space, it could well be that God gathered the “waters that were above the expanse” to bear on the earth to flood it? After the Flood, the waters returned to space. There is plenty of water to cover the earth and its mountains!

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

Psalm 3:5 I laid me down and slept; I awakened because the Lord sustained me.

To me, this is a picture of one who is completely resting in the Lord. David was on the run from his own son, Absalom at this point. If anyone seemed to have a right to worry and lose some sleep, it was David, yet David was not afraid because he gave it to the Lord.

 

1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2
Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
3
When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Why was king Herod troubled and all Jerusalem with him? Was it because another King had been born and he was threatened with being replaced? Why was Jerusalem troubled they had been waiting for their Messiah?... Just my thoughts... Brother Glen

 

Glen, Herod was troubled, and ALL Jerusalem with him because it was NOT just 'three wise men' as tradition has brought down (from the concept of three gifts, therefore three men...). There was a small army of people outside the gates of Jerusalem at the exact time Herod's army was off fighting another war and they were unprotected.

Those that were seeing the child were the entire upper house of the Persian parliament -- the magoi -- along with their bodyguards. Three men, no matter what they said they were looking for, would not have disturbed ALL of Jerusalem. An armed contingent when they were unprotected would, however.

Why did they come? The state religion at the time was Zoroastrianism. There is evidence that Zoroaster, who lived at the time of Daniel during the exile, was a pupil of Daniel's, or at least held a position under him in the court. In that regard, he would have learned about the prophecies concerning the astrological signs which were to announce the coming of the Anointed One. My husband did a rather massive research project which ended up a video on this one. The basic essay and notes for the video are here: http://www.ldolphin.org/birth.html

The magoi probably visited about the time Christ was 15-18 months old, and it is this which 'inspired' Herod to kill all male children two years old and under. If the magoi had arrived simply within months of the birth, Herod probably would not have risked such a mass slaughter but concentrated on those one year and under or even six months and under.

John, I really like your comments on tongues!

I'd like to deal with the Flood of Noah a little if I may: the rain was not the cause of the flood -- the rain was the result of the flood!

If you notice in Genesis 7:11, ALL the fountains burst forth. That happened first. Radioactive decay in the earth's interior had been heating it progressively (remember, from Gen. 1:2 that it started out cool!). This heating had been driving the water out of rocks which normally contain 13%-20% water (which we see in asteroids and meteorites still). This water was increasing in pressure under the crust. Already by Genesis 2 we see that it was causing the whole earth to be watered by vapors and springs. Why 'steam' or these vapors? Because the water was hot in the interior.

Finally, the waters burst forth. Scalding, hot waters which extra-biblical memories tell us burned up everything. Think of Yellowstone exploding...

These hot waters would immediately have evaporated in massive quantities and caused rain within hours. Heavy, pouring rains, which nevertheless did help cool down things a wee bit. It has been estimated that the earth outgased about half our oceanic content during the Flood of Noah. It should be noted that although it only rained for forty days, the waters themselves kept pouring out from the interior for 150 days (Genesis 7:24).

It is also important to note that the landscape before the Flood did NOT contain the jagged mountains such as the Alps, the Himalayas, and the Rockies and Andes that we see today. These are from post-Flood uplifts. The earth did not simply settle down quietly after such an upheaval! There were mountains before the Flood, but they would have been more like the California coastal range or other similar hills with heights maybe a couple of thousand feet. And the water did cover them all.

The vapor canopy may have contributed somewhat to the rain, but the vast majority would have been the recycling of the boiling floodwaters.

Lastly, look carefully at what God tells Noah about the rainbow:

This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

It was NOT that there was no rainbow known before, but that it was now 'set in the clouds.' Mists of waters in sunlight would have produced beautiful rainbows near the ground for the antediluvians (people who lived before the Flood).

Nor did it necessarily 'not rain' before. Noah did not seem to question what rain was when God told him He was going to make it rain! But if the rainbow in the clouds was the new thing, then we can say for sure that it had never rained during the DAY before!

Even in the relatively still atomosphere before the Flood, the relative heat of day would have evaporated waters which -- at least over the seas which are cooler -- could easily have rained down at night. But the hydrologic cycle involving the land, as we know it today, would have been new after the Flood. The new winds and jet streams which would have been the result of a destroyed vapor canopy would, for the first time, be carrying clouds heavy with rain over the land during the day, and breaking clouds would not only produce rainbows, but in the breaking up and in the rainbows, there was the promise that a Flood like what the earth had just gone through was not happening again.


The last point I would want to mention is Noah's drunkenness. He knew what wine was. He made the stuff. If he was expecting unfermented grape juice and tasted wine he would have spit it out, post haste! Any of us would! He certainly would not have had enough to get drunk!

But he did get drunk. And not just a little drunk, but falling-down passed-out drunk. And yet the Bible never condemns him for this.

There may be a reason for that. One of the indications that there was indeed a vapor canopy before the flood is found in this drunkeness of Noah's. A vapor canopy would have increased the air pressure on earth significantly. For those of you who have had wine at sometime in your life, you probably know that whereas a moderate amount at sea level might only make you feel a bit flushed, the same amount at 5,000 or 7,000 feet altitude will make you drunk. Why? Reduced air pressure.

I am wondering if Noah had no idea about the reduced air pressure. What he had drunk before the Flood and how much he could drink after the Flood were radically different things! He found out the hard way.

I know there are different opinions on everything I have presented here. Please know that it is NOT a salvation issue!!!

It is some material worth thinking about, though. One of the things we get so criticized for is ignoring natural happenings. Having dipped my toes in science for many a year now, I really have come to the conclusion that God has worked through processes which we can study and understand in many ways. The timing is miraculous and of His choosing at all times, but many of the processes are not miraculous in the sense of being contrary to the natural laws we know and study today.

For the record YES I believe in miracles, YES I believe in the Resurrection as a miraculous event, and YES I am not only YEC but one of those 'inerrantist fundies' who are so laughed at.

I just also happen to love history and science and delving into both. So you don't need to accept or reject or even decide anything about some of the things that I think have happened as I mentioned above. But I would want you to at least come away (if anyone has waded through all this) with the idea that thinking about these things and exploring through them is fun.

We'll find out everything about what happened in heaven, eh? I have asked for a front row seat when the videotape is played....

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Helen the scientic creationist you mentioned God put the rainbow in the clouds but isn't it a scientific fact that a rainbow is actually a complete circle? To us on the ground it is a rainbow but from Gods viewpoint it is a complete circle. Again you baffle me with you knowledge... Thank for the link... Brother Glen

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Yes! I didn't think of that in that connection. That's neat!

Glen, I taught science for almost 30 years and I'm now a science editor. I started as an evolutionist, and when science itself convinced me of the impossibility of that process (apart from variation), I started reading like a 'woman possessed.' I had to know what was going on. I am married now to a physics/astronomy/geology researcher (Barry) who dragged me kicking and screaming out of life sciences and into physics and his other interests (well, I did protest a LITTLE... ).

I have learned something with every paper I have edited. Things -- life in general -- fascinate me. Tell me what you know! I'll listen! I love the way that things all fit together in the parameters of God's Word. To me that is the most exciting thing in the world -- discovering more and more the way He has put it all together and how He has left the mark of Himself on everything.

I love finding things out....

 

In the Acts passage for today, it talks about the New Wine and it being cause for being drunk. Leads me to think that new wine and old wine was alcoholic.

 

Hootie hoo. Psalm 3 is a song we play with our praise band.

"For thou, O Lord, art a shield for me. My glory and my lifter of mine head."

It is a powerful cowbell song.

 

Just a humorous aside:

When I read the account of Noah I had to smile. Last summer Margie and I taught at our church's Vacation Bible School and we had covered our lesson with one class and had some time remaining so we decided to fill the time playing Bible trivia. There were a mixture of ages in the class so for the little ones I asked some questions about Noah.
Looking for the response "raven" I asked, "What was the first bird Noah released from the ark?"
A little boy about 9 or so frantically raised his hand. I pointed to him and he blurted out, "A PIGEON!"

I will always smile now whenever I read or hear the story of Noah until my dying day.

May God bless you

- Clint

 

I have a couple of questions from the readings.

1. Gen 5:2 talks about the male and the female, speaking of both Adam and Eve, but it states "called their name Adam"? Gen 3:20 states "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." Is this the basis for a wife taking her husbands name?

2. Gen 7:11 tells us the flood started on "the second month, the seventeenth day of the month" Gen 8:4 says "And the ark rested in the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." Is there some signifigance to the seventeenth day of a month?

3. Gen 8:4 "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." This seems to tell me the ark was on dry land, or at least the bottom of the ark was touching the top of the mountians.

Gen 8:5 "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen." This seems to say that land was not visible until the 10th month.

Was the ark that big that it took 3 months for the land to be visible, was the flood that slow in receding? Its just a thought that struck me.

Bill

 

I have a couple of questions from the readings.

1. Gen 5:2 talks about the male and the female, speaking of both Adam and Eve, but it states "called their name Adam"? Gen 3:20 states "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." Is this the basis for a wife taking her husbands name?

First of all, the word 'adam' is a generic word for 'man' (mankind), and is from the root of the same spelling meaning 'ruddy' or 'showing blood.' This would not mean Adam was a redhead, but that he was hairless with probably a medium amount of melanin in his skin.

'Eve' is not a Hebrew word, but is a rendition of the original 'Chavvah', meaning 'life-giver', from the root 'chavah,' meaning 'to live.' In naming Eve, Adam may have been recognizing her function as a child-bearer, which is something he couldn't do!

The woman taking the name of the man seems to have its origin in inheritance rights by family. This way the children of the woman would be recognized as the legal heirs of the father. I just did a quick check on Google of ancient historical customs here and as far back as we evidently can find -- Sumerian -- there is evidence of women taking the husband's name and it seems to be for purposes of legal protection and economics as well as inheritance rights of the children. Whether or not it started before the flood we have no way of knowing -- with the possible clue in Genesis 4 that there is a parallel phrasing in verse 23: "Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words." If they were known primarily as 'wives of Lamech' then we may have a clue that the husband's name was either taken or theirs were simply subjugated to their husband's.

2. Gen 7:11 tells us the flood started on "the second month, the seventeenth day of the month" Gen 8:4 says "And the ark rested in the seventh month on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." Is there some signifigance to the seventeenth day of a month?

Not that I am aware of. The only thing, except for junk expeditions into 'Biblical Numerology' that comes to mind is that the months were determined by the moon, and that the seventeenth would then be just after the full moon.


3. Gen 8:4 "And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat." This seems to tell me the ark was on dry land, or at least the bottom of the ark was touching the top of the mountians.

Something I learned from Dr. Bernard Northrup, a Greek and Hebrew scholar and professor, is really interesting here. In verse 3 what is translated in the NIV as "The water receded steadily..." and in the King James as "And the waters returned from off the earth continually" is the various translators' way of trying to cope with an odd verb usage here. The word for 'receded' or 'retreated' is repeated. The waters receded receded, or 'in receding the waters receded' -- something along those lines. Dr. Northrup is quite sure the useage indicates a back and forth motion of the receding waters.

You didn't ask about that, but as I was looking at verse 4 I remembered what he had told us about verse 3...

Verse 4, yes, the Ark was partway in the water, the way all ships are, and so, even though it most probably had a flat bottom, it still could have stalled on something it ran up against before that something was visible. This is how ships can still, today, wreck on sandbars and coral reefs. The don't see them in time.


Gen 8:5 "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen." This seems to say that land was not visible until the 10th month.

Evidently, yes.


Was the ark that big that it took 3 months for the land to be visible, was the flood that slow in receding? Its just a thought that struck me.

We have a couple of possibilities here:

1. yes the water was evidently quite slow in receding at this time.

2. or, possibly, the Ark grounded on a mountain significantly higher than anything around it, so that the Ark would have been out of water long before the surrounding area was.

but yes, the Ark was big -- but maybe not THAT big...

A Hebrew cubit is considered to be about half a meter, which would make the Ark approximately 140 meters long, 23 meters wide, and 13.5 meters high. In feet this is about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

One thing that occurs to me that your questions made me think about is concerning those who are looking for the Ark today.

If it was on a much higher section of land than the surrounding area (and I tend to think this is indicated even if the waters were receding slowly...), land movements since then (Turkey is in a geologically active area and it was much worse before) could have tumbled the Ark down and broken it up pretty thoroughly in the years and millennia which followed. I am wondering about the realistic expectations regarding finding the Ark given that possibility.

Just thinking...

 

I would like to add here that the waters had receded below the mountaintops when the dove returned with the olive branch. Olive trees do not grow at higher altitudes. Noah's first look outside of ark was at dry land (Genesis 8:13). This was seven days after the dove failed to return.

- Clint

I also forgot to add this comment to the reading of the Magi. In Matthew 2:12 the magi returned home a different way to avoid Herod. After meeting the Messiah, we all go "home" a "different way". I think this is a very subtle symbolism inherent in this account.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Cross reference links on the board

Read through the Bible forum:

Genesis 5, the antediluvian geneology

Genesis 6, preparing for the Flood

Genesis 7, the Flood

Genesis 8, after the Flood

 

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU - day 3 and I can`t wait to do my reading... just in from work tea and washing up done, and I can`t wait to start todays `slice` of reading..... I am making a file of the new things that I am learning, it is so much easier with the help of all of you and the posts here are so very helpful and informative....... THANK YOU

 

Well I give in. I am going to try to go through the 2003 Bible Reading Plan. I have caught up through the 3rd day and I really appreciate those involved in putting the verses out here for us and also those answering questions along the way. It helps to have people going through it with you that can help with the understanding.

I have read through the New Testament before, but my Old Testament reading has only made it to the beginning of Numbers. I hope this will motivate me to make it all the way through.

Rod

 

Gwyneth and Rod, I am delighted that both of you are taking advantage of the plan. Last year we started out the program with over twenty people and at the end I believe about ten made it all the way through. Be careful not to fall behind, that is what causes the problem and discouragement.

Other folks found that they didn't like the broken up format. I suppose that is a matter of preference. Personally, I really like it. I find the readings easy to get through with a proper concentration given to each passage.

Regarding the story of the flood today, Margie picked up on the fact that in verse 7:2 of Genesis that animals were already referred to as "clean" and "unclean" at this point in history. This leads us to believe that the Levitical definitions of cleanliness regarding sacrificial animals was already established.

I sometimes teach Sunday School when our regular teacher is gone and we recently had such a Sunday when the topic was the Magi. It is quite remarkable how askew our perception of this event has become through tradition. As Helen mentioned last year, the Magi were not part of the nativity as we often picture them. Mary and Joseph had already established a "house." We also do not know how many of these wise men there were. The three gifts have lead to the assumption that there were three visitors but this is not a concrete fact. They most certainly were not kings. That a representation of worldly authority would visit Christ is contrary to the remainder of the story of our master. Earthly powers and religions are almost ALWAYS portrayed as opposing Christ. They were not Oriental nor African. It is far more likely that they were from Persia or southern Arabia, thus making them Semitic. The term Magi is in various languages and represents a priestly class.

"We three kings of Orient are..." Three abiblical statements right in a row yet it is the image that so many hold.

It is also fitting that the Jewish Shepherds came to Christ first and then later the Gentile astrologers as Christ came first for the Jews (Matthew 15:21-28).

Also, the Herod we find mentioned here is Herod the Great, son of Antipater. He was an Idumaean, known in the Old Tesament as Edomites. There are 6 distinct Herods mentioned in the Scriptures all part of this same dynasty. Herod the Great was appointed king of this region by the Romans in 40 BC and all extrabiblical accounts of him lead to a confirmation that this brutal, ruthless man was very capable of commiting an atrocity like the murder of infants.

May God bless you,

Clint

[ January 03, 2003, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

When Mankind began to increase and to spread all over the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of the gods saw the daughters of men were beautiful; so they took for themselves such women as they chose...In those days, when the sons of the gods had intercourse with the daughters of men and got children by them, the Nephilim were on earth. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. Gen. 6:1-4 (NEB)

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose...There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (KJV)

I prefer the KJV here. Some commentators call the "sons of God" the men of faith, and the daughters of men, worldly women. Indeed, by the outward appearance the life of a worldly woman is more glamorous than a woman of faith, whose adorning was not that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel, But of the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 1 Pet. 3:3.

[ January 03, 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Thus, all of Jerusalem being troubled WITH him. He was a weird and mean man. I would be troubled, too, if he were my leader and be became angry. There are accounts that he had his wife killed b/c he believed she was having an affair, then he was sorry, so he had her "pickled" and talked to her (among other things) at night in his chamber.
Ewww.
Tater