Monday, October 12, 2026

CHIURCH GOVERNMENMT #10

 

Church Government #10

What the New Testament teaches on how churches should be governed

              SECOND CONTINUATION IN ANSWER TO
           NORMAN EDWARDS' CHURCH GOVERNMENT PAPER



OFFICIAL FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
A MINISTER/ELDER  AND  DEACON/SERVANT

     We have before proved in part one, that the elders of the
church are also the same as the overseers, bishops, shepherds,
and teachers. An appointed elders can be called by the preceding
names. The word "elder" or as we commonly today would say
"minister"(used in the religious community) is an overall
umbrella name, under which lies the names mentioned
above(overseer etc.). The word commonly given to official church
servants - deacon - by most Christian churches, is not an
umbrella name, in the same way "elder" can be. A deacon/servant
of the church in the way Acts 6 appointed is just that - a
servant or deacon, no other names specifically given in the NT.
Their one official function is that of "serving tables" -
physical matters within the church. The eldership ministry in
contrast, is broken down into what we might call sub-functions
under the one name of eldership.

The following will I hope clarify what I have said in simple
diagram form.

ELDERSHIP MINISTRY

SUB-NAMES

overseer, bishop, shepherd, pastor, teacher(as used in the KJV).

MAIN FUNCTIONS

to "give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of
the word"(Acts 6:2,4).

SUB-FUNCTIONS

1. Apostles
2. Prophets
3. Evangelists
4. Pastors/Teachers
(Eph.4: 1 )

DEACON MINISTRY

SUB-NAMES

serve/servant

MAIN FUNCTIONS

to "serve tables" - physical matters(Acts 6:2).

SUB-FUNCTIONS

None

     As before shown, the Elders/Apostles at first in the NT
church had the responsibility of BOTH the spiritual and physical
duties. When this became too much work to handle, they answered
by delegating the physical work of the church to qualified
persons. As the elders were delegating half of their
responsibilities to others, it was naturally logical that such
persons chosen should have nearly all of the same basic
abilities and qualifications that the elders had.

     This we shall clearly see as we look at the following
outline of basic requirements and qualities Paul was inspired to
lay down, for the appointment of Overseers/elders and
Deacons/servants, in his letters to Timothy and Titus.
     The reason as to why, should I believe, be plain to those
who have carefully studied all that has been written by me thus
far.

     Acts the sixth chapter tells us that the apostles believed
their number one function in life was "prayer and to the ministry
of the word." Paul here to Timothy breaks it down further still
into two categories - "able to teach" (or as the Greek reads -
"skilful in teaching") AND in taking "care of the church of God."

     The time involved for a man to qualify in these two skills
alone would require some considerable length of days. That is why
Paul went on to say such a person could not be a "novice" or as
it is in the Greek - "newly planted." They would have to have had
a pretty good duration of time living as a Christian and walking
with God and His word, together with "church community"
experience.
     These two functions as well as prayer, are the MAIN heart
and core of the work of the spiritual eldership ministry. As we
have seen earlier, an elder may also function for a long or short
time as an apostle, or prophet, or evangelist, maybe a
combination of the functions mentioned in Ephesians 4:11.
Nevertheless, an overseer/elder has always to officially be "on
duty" shall we say, as a "skilful teacher" and as someone who
"takes care of the church of God."

     Those two duties "go with the territory" and are "part of
the job" - they "come with the job" as some say.
     But those same two duties DO NOT OFFICIALLY BELONG TO THE
WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY OF DEACONS!
     Persons chosen as official church servers or deacons for
physical duties DO NOT have to be official church "teachers" or
official "taking care of the church" servants in the spiritual
sense.

     Elders must "feed my sheep" spiritually, as Jesus told
Peter. They must "teach" in official church gatherings the word
of God. They must "teach" in ways that are other than private
personal evangelism. I am teaching in writing these study
articles, or bringing a sermon, or conducting a church "bible
study." I am officially obligated by God and the church to teach
in these ways, though not necessarily all of them. A deacon while
functioning in that appointment IS NEVER UNDER ANY OFFICIAL
CHURCH DUTY TO EVER "TEACH" IN THE WAY I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED
ABOVE.
     If a deacon is invited or requested to preach a sermon,
conduct a church "bible study" or write a spiritual article, he
is not under ANY obligation to accept. He can politely refuse.
His deaconship should never come into question because he refuses
to lead out in official spiritual church functions.
     He was called and chosen to serve in physical matters in the
church and that is where his duty starts and ends. He should be
wonderful at fulfilling those physical duties because he has the
qualifications and the abilities from God to so function. I have
known and talked to some deacons who had been faithfully carrying
out their duties in the church for decades, and who had NO DESIRE
WHATSOEVER to be an overseer/elder or have any official function
in spiritual duties within the congregation. They had no desire
to preach, to teach groups of people, or write any spiritual
articles for the churches publications. They knew their calling,
they knew where God had placed them in the body of Christ, they
were honest enough to "examine themselves." They knew God had not
called them to be elders. They knew God had not given them the
gifts and abilities needed to be spiritual overseers in the
church. And they were perfectly happy and contented Christians!

     They sure knew, had no bones about it, were quite candid in
admitting, often the first to admit, that THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A MINISTER AND A DEACON.

     An Elder must take care of the church of God. He is required
to do so, he is obligated to so work. This may call for private
member counselling on many personal problems and troubles in
life, that the individual member requests guidance on, from child
rearing, to marriage difficulties, to sex questions, to financial
matters, to employment decisions, and whatever else the church
member wants to confide in the minister/s. After all the elders
are to be as spiritual fathers (not to be called "father" as a
title) to the members of the congregation. And I have noted that
churches who do have the correct form of NT government, live as a
family, where the elders are highly respected and taken into
great confidence, as the people do want to be cared for in many
ways.
     Sometimes that "taking care of the church" may mean the
elder/s are humble enough to see the personal problems of some
are so large and complicated, that the advice given is for the
member to seek counsel from someone who specifically deals with
and is a certified expert in such matters.

     The duty of a deacon covers no such territory. He is under
no obligation to so counsel with congregation members. If someone
from the church comes to them wanting to pour out all their
nitty-gritty private problems and seeking advice, he can kindly
refuse to hear and send them to the elders.

     Again I have talked to many deacons who have been wise
enough(one of their qualities is wisdom - Acts 6) to realize they
were not called to function as elders, and just did not
have the gifts from the Lord to "take care of the church of God"
in this spiritual way. And believe me it does take special gifts
to care for the church in this manner. The mental stress of
having people confidently share with you their many trials,
tests, and troubles, hoping you will be able to help them, can
put you in the hospital with a nervous break down. I have seen a
few good ministers end up this way. Certainly men who have not
been called, given the gifts, and met the qualifications to be
overseers in the church, should ever try to be one, for it is a
most demanding occupation! Please believe me, as one who speaks
from personal experience.

     It is one reason why James was inspired to write: "My
brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we
shall receive a stricter judgment" (James 3:1).

     A minister's life can be very difficult at times, in many
ways, sometimes physically, sometimes spiritually, sometimes both
at the same time. Read again 2 Corinthians chapter eleven and
verses sixteen to twenty-eight. Note verse 28, "Besides those
things that are without, that which comes upon me daily, the care
of all the churches."

OH, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINISTERS AND DEACONS !

     Then let me say, in the event that some would misunderstand
all I have stated above. If some deacons are gifted, or find
themselves to be gifted in spiritual matters, after being
appointed to function in official physical matters, it will come
out, it will be noticed believe me. Such things can not be hidden
from the elders or from the congregation. If such deacons are
invited to lead in spiritual church matters such as "Bible
studies" etc. they can accept the invitation. It is hoped they
will accept, for in so doing God may be calling them to move into
the eldership ministry. They will need to be trained and proved
to find if this is so and the will of God.

     I have seen this in action also over the years. Some men
have been called from the official deaconship duty into the
official eldership duty in the process of time and experience.
Then on the other hand, I have seen it work this way. A man is
appointed as a deacon, he has met all the requirements to
function in that duty. After a while, the elders as well as the
general membership note that he has some spiritual leadership
abilities. God may be calling him to the eldership. The man
himself is pleased to be given official spiritual church
opportunities, so he and others can see if the eldership ministry
is his ultimate destiny.
     As time goes by he serves in spiritual church programs like
Bible studies, youth evangelism gatherings, and visits to the
homes of the brethren with an elder or elders. He clearly
discovers within himself that although he may have some "talking"
ability and a pretty good understanding of the word of God, the
ELDERSHIP MINISTRY is just not for him! He finds through getting
his feet wet, he just cannot cut it, just cannot handle the
daily stress and responsibilities of "caring for the church" as
elders must do. He is then quite content and happy to let
everyone know, and once more function in the duties of a deacon
only.

     I have seen this very thing take place among some churches
of God. That is fine, sometimes it takes a little maneuvering
within the body of Christ before we find exactly which part of
the body we are to function as. God places us in the body as it
pleases Him, and in accordance with the gifts and abilities we
have through the Holy Spirit.

     I should also make it plain that a man chosen for the
eldership ministry does not have to be a deacon first. The 12
apostles, Paul, and others in the NT were not deacons(as we think
of deacons today in the church) first, and then later elders.
Many officially appointed elders have never served as officially
appointed deacons, for their qualifications as noted above COVERS
that for deacons, and goes beyond to that of the overseership.


MORE NECESSARY DUTIES FOR MINISTERS/ELDERS

     Before we look at them, somewhat in detail, I think this is
a good place to answer an argument that goes like this: "Timothy
is not called an elder, he may not have been one."
     True, we may not be able to find the words "elder Timothy"
or in any of Paul's letters something like: "Unto Timothy, my son
in the faith and elder in the church of God."
     Yet despite this, I believe the overwhelming internal
evidences of the letters to Timothy, prove beyond a reasonable
doubt, that Timothy was an officially appointed/ordained elder in
the church. The following are the main points to support this
conclusion.

1. 1 Tim.2:9-15. He(Timothy) had obviously from the very wording
by Paul, some authority and enough respect to not only teach the
women this directive of Paul's(inspired by God), but to make sure
it was followed. Surely only an officially appointed elder could
carry this much respected guidance and teaching for all the women
in the church to obey.

2. Chapter 3:1-13. The fact that Timothy is given the
instructions as to what the basic qualifications are for the
overseership and deaconship of the church, naturally implies he
will teach other elders/deacons this truth, and has enough
respect from every quarter of the church to see that it became
established true doctrine. Anything less than Timothy being an
officially appointed elder of the church for such an undertaking,
would to me, be naive to contemplate, especially in the light of
the fact that Paul himself had many who opposed him as his other
letters show.

3. Chapter 3:15. Paul wrote these letters to Timothy "...so that
you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of
God........." Not exactly the same words as he earlier gave to
Timothy concerning one of the requirements for overseership -
namely, an elder is to "take care of the church of God"(verse 5).
But close enough to make this another way of saying the same
thing. Surely an honest mind will see by reading carefully
these two letters, that Paul is instructing Timothy in some
rather fine detail at times, how indeed to "take care of the
church." Instructions that Paul (not having much longer to live
- 2 Tim.4:6-8) thought important for his "son in the faith" to
have, and to be able to pass on to other elders and the church as
a whole.

4. Note verses 6, 11, 13, 16, of chapter four. Timothy was in the
function of teaching the brethren, and in no uncertain manner at
times: "These things command and teach"(verse 11). As before
shown, one of the qualities needed to be an overseer/elder is
that of being a "skilful teacher." From this section alone(never
mind many other passages in these two letters showing the same)
we have proof Timothy was an official elder within the church.

5. Chapter 4:14. The word "presbytery" in the KJV is the Greek
word presbuterion. It is the same Greek word as in Titus 1:5
except for the ending. In Titus it is presbuteros. See the
Englishman's Greek Concordance page 652, for all their places of
use. The Greek Interlinear by Berry, translates presbuterion of 1
Tim.4:14 as "elderhood" while presbuteros in Titus 1:5 is
rendered as "elders."

     I guess we could argue from now until the cows come home, as
to WHEN and for WHAT REASON specifically did the elderhood lay
hands upon Timothy. Was it at his baptism, at his official
appointment to the eldership ministry, or for some special
undertaking(as with Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:1-3)? From the
use of where Paul  puts this sentence - the context it is
enclosed within - having to do with instructing, teaching, even
commanding, the brethren concerning the things so far stated by
Paul, I believe the best understanding would be to take this
"laying on of the hands of the elderhood" at Timothy's official
appointment to eldership.

6. Chapter 5: 17-18. This is obviously concerning spiritual
elders - appointed elders - of the church, who are guiding and
leading in an official way. It is hard to imagine Timothy
having any influence over this matter unless he himself was a
recognized appointed elder.

7. 5:19-21. Here Timothy is instructed to act as "arbitrator"
between church saints and an elder. If the elder is in a
sin(obviously a major one and unrepentant) he is given the
authority to "rebuke before all, that others also may fear."
Again, to think under these conditions, that Timothy was anything
less than an elder himself, to me is absurd.

8. Verse 22. The context is spiritual elders of the church.
Timothy is instructed to be very careful and slow in laying hands
on men to the appointment of elders. There is a certain amount of
blame to be carried by the one or ones doing the appointing, if
the one appointed turns out practicing sins that need rebuking
before all(above verses). Once more showing Timothy was an elder
with authority to lay hands on and appoint other men to the
eldership ministry.

9. Timothy was to "teach and exhort"(chapter 6:2). The whole
context of this first letter to him is in the form of "teaching"
in an official church format and frame. Elders are to function as
teachers in the church.

10. 2 Tim.4:1-5. Paul urges Timothy to "Preach the word, be
instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with
all longsuffering and doctrine.........do the work of an
evangelist, make full proof of your ministry." Words from Paul
that I cannot reconcile being given to anyone but an elder in the
church. Surely no one believes this is instructions for personal
evangelism that all church members can undertake to do? No, it is
for Timothy and those in his like function today. For those who
are obligated because of the church appointed duty as elder, to
officially teach and preach to the brethren and to the
unconverted world.

     With all the weight of the above ten points it should be
plain to see I believe, for the honest seeker of truth, that
Timothy was indeed an officially appointed Overseer or Elder in
the church of God.

STILL MORE DUTIES FOR THE ELDERSHIP MINISTRY THAT IS NOT REQUIRED
FOR THE DEACONSHIP MINISTRY, IS FOUND IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL TO
TIMOTHY AND TITUS.

LET US LOOK AT THEM!


 Qualifications and Requirements of 

 Elders(E)                  
 Deacons(D)
 1 TIMOTHY 3                

 Verse 2
                  
 Blameless = E
 Blameless(v.10)= D                    
 One wife = E                    
 One wife(v.12)= D
 Vigilant ( 1 Pet. 5: 8)= E      
 None = D
 Sober (1 Pet.5:8)= E            
 None = D
 Good behaviour = E              
 None = D
 Hospitable = E                  
 None = D
 Able to teach = E               
 None = D

 Verse 3

 Not given to much wine = E     
 Not given to wine(v.8)= D
 No striker = E                  
 None = D
 Not greedy for money = E        
 Not greedy for money(v.8)= D
 Patient = E                    
 None = D
 No brawler = E                  
 None = D
 Not covetous = E                 
 None = D

 Verse 4

 Rules well house = E             
 Rules well house(v.12)= D

 Verse 5

 Take care of church = E        
 None = D

 Verse 6

 Not novice = E                  
 Be proved first, Acts 6(v.10)= D

 Verse 7

 Good report (character) = E    
 Honest,Spirit,Wisdom(Acts 6)= D



     Note the differences!

     Now please take note of the following:


     Tim.1:18; 2:1,8,9-14; 3:1-15; 4:6,11,13,14,16; 5:1-22;
6;1-2, 17-20.

     Here we find clear and obvious directives and instructions
to a person that must have had the official backing and sanction
of the church, to teach, establish, and some authority to carry
out, or see they were carried forth in practice. Only overseers
or elders would have the respect and authority to so guide and
"care for the church." The SERVANTS(diakonos - deacons) appointed
to "serve tables" in Acts 6 were never given this kind of
directive or instructions to serve the brethren, as we find in
the verses above.

     Let's move to 2 Timothy:

     Verse two of chapter two shows Timothy was to train other
men to be "teachers." A deacon is under no obligation to so do,
it is not within their function of serving in physical matters
for the church.

     Verse 24. Paul tells Timothy he is a servant of the Lord. He
uses not the word "diakonos" here but the Greek word doulon -
bond slave. He reminds Timothy of some of the qualities and
qualifications for the eldership - skilful in teaching is one of
them. As we have seen those in the deaconship are under no duty
or obligation to be official teachers in the church, as was
Timothy.
     Chapter 4. The very instructions given in verses two through
five were never given to those who would serve the church in
physical matters only. Official church servers/deacons are under
no obligation to fulfil the directives here given to Timothy by
Paul.

     As we look carefully at the letter to Titus we shall see
many more functional requirements pertaining to the elders of the
church, which are NOT specifically amplified upon, for those who
will function as deacons.

     Verse six mentions children not accused of riot or unruly.
Verse seven, an "overseer" is to be "blameless as the steward of
God, not selfwilled, not soon angry. Verse eight - a lover of
good things(marg.reading), just, holy, temperate. Verse nine -
holding fast the word, exhort by sound doctrine, and to convince
the gainsayers. Verse eleven tells the overseer that he must at
times (mentally, verbally, and in written form) stop the mouth of
those who teach deception in the name of God.

     Chapter two starts out with powerful instructions from Paul
about more automatic duty functions for the men like Titus. The
overall quality of being "apt to teach" is broken down into some
specifics on teaching older men, older women, younger men,
servants to masters. Note verse seven and eight. Incorruptible in
doctrine, serious, sincerity, and sound speech that brings shame
upon those who oppose.
     Verse 15 is mighty strong, no punches pulled. I did not say
it friend, Paul did, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:
"These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.
Let no man despise you."

     The Greek word used here for "authority" is epitage (number
2003 in Strong's Con.). Here is what Vine's Dictionary says:
"epitage.......an injunction(from epi, 'upon,' lasso, 'to
order'), is once rendered 'authority,' Titus 2:15 (RV marg.,
'commandment'). See COMMANDMENT. Note: The corresponding verb is
epitassoo, 'to command.' See COMMAND."

     Need I say any more on this word? The reader can explore it
more under the words commandment and command in Vine's or some
other lexicon.

     There is POWER and there is AUTHORITY in the sound speech,
doctrines, and word of the Lord. It is the duty of elders to
"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth
not be ashamed, rightly dividing(handling correctly, cutting
straight, being faithfully honest with) the word of truth" (2
tim.2: 15). The Greek word used for "study" means to "be
diligent, zealous."

     It is let me again EMPHASIS, an awesome responsibility for a
man to take on the function of being a spiritual elder and
teacher in the church. When James was inspired to write the words
he did in chapter three, verse one, of his letter, he was not
talking about one on one personal evangelism(which usually only
cover the simple basic truths of sin, repentance, salvation,
etc.). He was talking about men desiring the function of
overseer, elder (1 Tim.3:1). While that desire is not wrong as
Paul told Timothy, there are important qualifications to attain,
and James said, "My brethren, be not many teachers...." He had
very good reasons to say it!

     Paul finishes his letter to Titus with still more
instructions for the duties of functioning elders. He mentions
more things to teach in verses one and two. Certain things a
minister is to avoid in verse nine. And even people (heretics) to
reject in verse ten.

     It would not be correct for me to leave this without
commenting on still one more important section of NT scripture
that pertains to the function of Elders and not deacons. It is
the instructions of the apostle and elder Peter, found in his
first letter, chapter five, verses one to eleven.

     Elders NOT deacons are to "feed the flock of God....taking
the oversight (overseership/shepherding).......willingly......."
They are to do it without money being an issue. They are to
oversee not as pompous dictatorial masters, but by example
mainly. Yet we have also seen they do have some authority(the
word of God is authority) in the truth of God they are to teach,
preach, and proclaim.
     The younger (in age and length of time as elders) are to
submit to the older(in age and length of service) elders. Yet,
ALL elders are to submit to each other and be clothed with
humility.

     Yes, sure.......it is true, the basic principles of the
above can be taken and used by ALL THE SAINTS, including those in
the deaconship. But that still does not negate the truth of the
matter that all of the instructions we have covered, were first
given to officially appointed Elders in the church, in order to
elucidate more fully upon their functioning duty.

THERE IS A LARGE FUNCTIONING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINISTERS AND
DEACONS!

     As this work and study of mine has now evolved over the
years from a relatively lengthy paper(the first section written
in 1983) into a full size book(at the close of this third
section), I will not move on to another argument in the study by
Norman Edwards, without quoting in some length, from the book MAN
and WOMAN in Biblical Perspective by James B. Hurley. The
pertinent section of his book to our present study is found in
chapter 8, page 224, beginning with the sub-heading Church office
in the New Testament.

Quote:

     ".......The book of Acts gives indications of an emerging
structure, but does not give sufficient detail to gain a full
picture. The letters provide more insight.......The elders are
to nurture, guard, teach, build up, and be examples to the flock.
Deacons minister to it. Responsibility to foster growth and to
ensure faithful teaching necessarily entails authority.
Authority can be abused. We have already noted Jesus' concern to
prevent abuse of authority (Lk.22:24-26). His concern is
reflected by Peter (1 Pet.5:1-2). I hope that the concentration
on authority in the study which follows will not mislead any into
thinking that I am suggesting that the eldership should be
conceived of primarily in terms of authority and the right to
command. The eldership should be seen primarily in terms of
shepherding.
     In Acts we see apostles and 'elders' (Acts 11:30; 14:23;
15:2-23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18) and the appointment of 'deacons'
(diakonoi, men who serve needs) to ensure fair treatment of
Hebrew and Hellenistic widows (Acts 6).......Acts witnesses the
appointment of 'elders' (presbytery in cities such as
Ephesus.......We get some indication of their function when Paul
charges them, 'guard....all the flock over which the Holy Spirit
has made you overseers (episkopoi, 'bishops'). Be shepherds of
the church of God....' (Acts 20:28). The elders (or bishops or
presbyters; the terms are used interchangeably in the New
Testament) were charged with the welfare of the congregations.
Their shepherding responsibilities involved guarding their people
against false teaching (20:29) and teaching them by word and
example to live as Christians (1 Pet.5:1-3; Eph.4:1, 12). Acts
knows other roles in the church such as prophet and
evangelist.....
     The New Testament letters, especially those of Timothy,
Titus and the Philippians, witness to the establishment of the
categories of elder and deacon in a formal way. Paul and Timothy
are teachers of the apostolic message and Timothy is charged to
entrust that message to qualified men who will in turn teach
others (2 Tim.2:2). These men are not just congregational
members, but have formal responsibility for passing on correct
teaching, which teaching is to be lived out in the lives of the
Christian (2 Tim.1:13-14; 3:10-12). Such men are elders who
direct the life and work of the church.
     Paul commands that 'the elders who direct the affairs of the
church well are worthy of double honour(possibly 'honorarium',
i.e. wage), especially those whose work is preaching and
teaching' (1 Tim.5:17). The author of the letter to the Hebrews
comments on such men from a slightly different perspective. He
calls upon his readers to be mindful of those who rule over them
(13:7) and to 'obey those who rule over you and submit yourselves
to them, for they watch over your souls, and they must give
account' (13:17). Paul charged the elders/shepherds to watch over
the sheep which God had placed in their charge. The author to the
Hebrews charged the sheep to obey and noted that the shepherds
are accountable for them. These texts from the letters to Timothy
and Hebrews supplement what we have seen in Acts and provide a
picture of the elders as men who are involved in the direction of
the congregations and who are charged particularly with teaching,
ensuring that the message is faithfully taught and directing the
outworking of the message in the life of the church. These tasks
involve distinctive leadership and authority, extending to formal
actions to rid the flock of the 'savage wolves' whom the apostle
warned would rise up within the flock (Acts 20:29; cf. 1 Cor.5).
     We need not pursue the work of elders here at length.
Sufficient has been said to show that his task of instruction,
shepherding and discipline falls easily within the area of
'teaching and exercising authority over men' which Paul reserved
to men in 1 Timothy 2. These basic considerations will be of
importance when we look at 1 Timothy 3.

     The role of deacons is more difficult to define precisely
from Scripture.......

     We shall first consider the biblical data. The term diakonos
means 'one who serves', 'servant' or 'minister'. It can be used
to describe the activity of 'one who serves' the needs of another
(Mk.9:35; 10:43). It can also describe one who represents or acts
on behalf of another as his servant or minister (Acts 6;
Eph.3:7). In this sense it takes on a slightly more formal
meaning. The formal, representative aspect and the idea of
serving others can come together, as with the deacons of Acts 6
who ministered to the needs of the widows as representatives of
the church. The term 'deacon' points both to their representative
role and to their actual function in serving. It is clear that
the deacons of Acts 6 possessed a certain amount of authority in
their distribution of food......

     The biblical data are not the only data to be considered
when using the terms 'elder', 'bishop', 'minister', and 'deacon'
today.The terms are used differently in different forms of church
government. Virtually all are agreed that the role of the bishop,
elder or presbyter is one which involves responsibility to direct
the life of the flock, teaching with authority, and the exercise
of disciplinary authority to guard the faith. The term 'minister'
is most frequently used of a man who preaches regularly and
supervises the pastoral care of the congregation. His function is
that of elder. The term 'minister' can, however, be used in a
less technical way to describe someone who meets the needs of
others(ministers to their needs). In this sense it has little to
do with church office as such. It is important to be careful to
grasp which sense is intended in a given context........

     The 'deacons' of Acts 6 were men who were well respected in
the congregation and would not be suspected of favouring either
Jews or Greeks. Their task was not in directing the flock, but in
distributing resources. The apostles, on the other hand,
continued in prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4). The
basic division is not identified as corresponding to that of
elder and deacon in the letters to Timothy, but is very
suggestive, especially when coupled with those passages in the
letters to Timothy which call for the committing of apostolic
messages to men who will faithfully teach and for special respect
for elders who direct the church by teaching and preaching (1
Tim.5:17; 2 Tim.2:2). The impression is strengthened by the
coupling of apostles and elders in the authoritative decrees of
the Council held at Jerusalem (Acts 15). Those elders were
certainly carrying out functions parallel to those of the
apostles.

     If the elders preach and teach and shepherd, what did the
deacons do? 1 Timothy 3 isolates elders and deacons as special
classes of persons, with special qualifications, and also clearly
distinguishes them from one another. In Acts 20 Paul met with the
elders, but not with the deacons of Ephesus, addressing them as
the shepherds of the flock (Acts 20:28). The deacons of Acts 6
did not teach and rule but served physical needs.

     Could it be that the deacons of 1 Timothy 3 are to be
distinguished from the bishops by similar division of labour? I
think so.

     The discussion which follows will presume that both deacons
and elders are congregational representatives and are
distinguished by their tasks. The elder's calling is to foster
the spiritual growth of the congregation, and the deacons lead in
ministering to its physical needs and showing the love of Christ
to outsiders through meeting their physical needs. Elders teach
with formal authority and exercise disciplinary authority to
protect the flock, deacons do not share this task. As described,
the task of a deacon does not involve the sort of teaching and
exercising of authority which 1 Timothy 2:11-12 reserves for men.
With this understanding of the office of deacon, therefore, there
is no violation of biblical restrictions on authority if women
serve as deacons. This fact does not authorize the appointment of
women deacons, but it does remove a problem which many
face when they think of women deacons......."

     For those interested in an in-depth study on the subject of
the role of men and women in the church, I do recommend James
Hurley's book "Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective" published
by Zondervan. 

                 

                      .......................................................

          TO BE CONTINUED 

Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, October 11, 2026

THANKSGIVING DAY-- THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER

 

Thanksgiving Day

Do you really Love the Truth?

A MAN MADE FESTIVAL DAY!
THANKSGIVING DAY

by
Bradley D. Richardson


FORWORD by Keith Hunt


Jesus taught us, "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after
righteousness, for they shall be filled." (Mat.5:6).   Peter was
inspired to admonish us to "grow in grace and knowledge."
(2 Pet.3:18).  Paul said to "prove all things - hold fast to that
which is good." (1 Thes.5:21).

How many in the Christian community really practice the above
Scriptures? Not many!  What about those of us in the Sabbath
keeping churches? Do we earnestly apply those teachings of Jesus,
Peter, Paul?

Do we have our hearts always wanting to LEARN, to be CORRECTED,
to DESIRE to know the TRUTH of the matter?
Jesus said once, "you do not know the DEPTHS of Satan." The
apostle Paul was inspired to tell us that Satan and his co-
workers do not always come bold-face in your face, like they do
with Halloween celebrations, but they come sometimes as angels of
LIGHT! (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). Until we have the MIND of Christ
in us (Phil.2:5) we just do not see things as God sees them.
Jesus said that in the last time of this age, DECEPTION would be
so HUGE, that IF it was possible even the VERY ELECT would be
deceived (Mat.24:24). The elect will not be deceived because they
will have a mind that is willing to prove all things, and to hold
fast to that which is correct. They will have a heart that is
willing to be TAUGHT, willing to be CORRECTED, willing to grow in
grace and KNOWLEDGE!

So for many of you out there in this world, especially in some
countries like the United States of America, this study we are
about to embark upon, will be somewhat of a test for you. Many
who were in the old Worldwide Church of God, and are now in many
of its off-shoot (who are correctly taught the truths about
January 1st; Easter; Halloween; Christ-mass) - well you were not
taught the truth of the matter about "Thanksgiving Day" - so you
might want to check your mind's attitude towards the plain truth
as we start this study.

I am, as a servant of the Most High, commissioned to "spare not,
cry aloud, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people
their transgressions, and the house of Israel their sins"
(Isa.58:1).

Back in the 1960s and 1970s I for one had not given much thought
to the world's THANKSGIVING DAY - I had never done any research
on it's origin. I had seen  (for many years) that God's commanded
"thanksgiving time" was His Feast of TABERNACLES, but I had not
quite put "Thanksgiving Day" into the same basket as Christmas
Day or Easter Day. I personally have never taken much notice of
Thanksgiving Day when it came along in the Roman calendar, but I
had also never taught others not to do so if they desired.

That all changed in the middle 1980s, thanks to Mr.Bradley
Richardson who so kindly sent me a copy of his article on
THANKSGIVING DAY. His research on this festival is profound. The
Biblical truths presented, are in my judgment, correct and
unanswerable. Truth is truth, and Jesus said that the Holy Spirit
would lead us into ALL truth, maybe not all at once, but little
by little, some now, some later, as long as we loved truth, and
as long as we hungered for righteousness.

Those who know me will agree that I am not easily or quickly
moved to a given persuasion unless all major objections are
answered by the presentation. I find Mr.Richardson does answer
all serious arguments in his presenting us with the historical
and Biblical facts concerning this popular feast day.

I thank our Lord for many wonderful truths He has shown me over
the years - truths that have been a warm pleasure to find. I must
now add one more to that list - the truth about THANKSGIVING DAY.

So we start Mr.Richardson's study:

THANKSGIVING DAY 

     Many individuals within the various congregations of the
Church of God are fully aware of the TRUTH about Christmas,
Easter, Halloween, Valentines Day, etc., etc. Pagan through and
through, unauthorized by God. Nothing need be said further
concerning these days.
     But what about Thanksgiving Day, occurring during the latter
part of each November? Could this be a day acceptable to God, to
thank Him for our many blessings, or could it be just as pagan
and unauthorized as "man's" other days? That is the purpose of
this study. All we ask is keep an open mind, and consult God in
prayer on this and all subjects. If we ALL remember that we were
wrong before, and wrong on some very 'major' points concerning
God's word, just maybe we could be wrong again. Or, we could go
in with the attitude of one individual we are acquainted with
who, on one Sabbath, held up his Bible and said, "I have my
diploma. For over twenty years I've been studying this book. I
don't know all the minor points, BUT ON EVERY MAJOR POINT I KNOW
GOD'S WORD." This gentleman truly does know a lot of God's
truths, but does he have the 'open mind' that will allow him to
accept that even though he thought he was no longer keeping pagan
holidays, but was keeping God's Holydays, he may be wrong?

     Before getting into the actual history of Thanksgiving,
which will shock and surprise many people, let's look at some
arguments this writer has heard.

1. "I do not keep Thanksgiving holy. It is a national day of
thanksgiving for what God has provided. It is not a Holy day." 

     Is this not virtually the same response others use for their
justification for keeping Christmas, Easter, etc.? Many do not
keep those days as Holy Days. Is it therefore alright, before
God's eyes, to keep those days? We do not think so! Many are
aware of the Catholic Church's stand on Christmas, Easter, and so
forth. The Catholic Church expects a 'good Catholic' to be in
church those days. The Catholic Church considers those days
'Holy' days. How many of you are aware this same Babylonish group
feels much the same way concerning Thanksgiving Day? There are
also Protestant groups that keep Thanksgiving Day as a Holy Day.
Should not this tell us something???

2. "The Feast of Dedication in the Bible was not ordained by God,
yet it is still kept by the Jews. Where does God say it is
wrong?" 

This line of thinking seems to be lacking the obvious. WHERE DOES
GOD SAY IT IS RIGHT? Just because the Jews keep a feast, and God
doesn't specifically say it is wrong, does that make it right?
There are many many instances in the Bible where someone, or some
group of people did things that were obviously wrong, yet God
never said specifically it was wrong. Remember, it's not just
what the Bible says, it's what it doesn't say also!!!

(Then, national "historic" days - to remember certain events in a
nations history is NOT "theological" per se. It is just an
historical event. But creating "holy days" and "festivals" is an
altogether different matter. As we proceed we shall see that
"Thanksgiving Day" was established as a "religious holy day" when
introduced, and brought into being - Keith Hunt)

     What we do have is God saying in Leviticus 23:2, "These are
my feasts." He doesn't say we can add to His feasts, He doesn't
say we can subtract from them, He plainly says, "These" are the
ones. He doesn't make us follow His wishes. That is up to us. We
of course all know that God says repeatedly in His WORD to not
add to it, or subtract from it. He tells us which days are to be
permanently kept as days of thanks to God. Why does man think he
can add to that? Follow Christ's example and you cannot go wrong!

3. "In 2 Chronicles 30:23-27, we are told the people kept an
extra seven days, making the Feast of Unleavened Bread 14 days
long. We are told that God approved of it, by citing verse 27."

     Now, this line of thinking does not seem to make much sense.
Just because God approved of a one-time extension, brought on by
the festivities and great joy, then we have the right to add a
permanent day of thanks to God, i.e.: Thanksgiving Day? How does
this follow? Do we have the right to permanently increase God's
Feasts? I for one love the Feast of the Tabernacles. An extra
week or two all the time would suit me just fine. Do I have the
right to change God's word? NO! He did not say keep the feast at
least seven days, He said to keep it seven days. That's it! If
occasionally, throughout our lifetimes, a feast of particular joy
is extended, God's word possibly authorizes that in 2 Chronicles
30:27, but we are stretching God's word too far to use that verse
to say, "Thus we can set up a permanent day to give God thanks,
Thanksgiving Day." We should tremble at the thought of doing
this, for God's word will judge us.
     Finally, without going into detail, I would like to point
something out that many may have missed in 2 Chronicles 30:27,
"Then, the priests and Levites arose and blessed the people: and
their voice was heard, and their prayer came up to His Holy
dwelling place, even unto Heaven." Did you notice the first word
in that sentence? "Then," after the 14-day feast, after it was
over, then the prayers were heard by God. It does not
say their prayers were heard by God during the second seven days.
It does not even say God approved of the extra seven days, as
many would like us to believe. All it says is after it was all
over, "Then" God heard their voices. Let us be careful not to
read something into God's word that isn't there.

(As we can see in 2 Chronicles 30 and the context. This was an
INDIVIDUAL SPECIAL historic context of events in Israel. And the
extra 7 days was still concerning the Feast of Passover, NOT some
other man-made feast to replace God's feast - Keith Hunt)

4. "Thanksgiving is not from pagan times, hence we are at liberty
to keep it, and God will appreciate it." 

     It is true, God's word commands us to not be like the pagans
and heathens, to not worship Him like they do. People seem to
have forgotten another attribute to the pagan people; they set up
their own holidays (holydays). Since they worship gods who are
not gods, these gods cannot give them the days of gathering, etc.
Only God can do this, by definition. Hence, since their gods do
not talk, the heathens invent their own days. This is a practice
of heathens, of pagans. Are we to follow their example, or do we
listen to God, follow His days, and add not to them? Does it have
to be old to be pagan? NO!!!

     However, concerning whether or not Thanksgiving itself comes
from ancient days, read on.

     We have tried to show so far the excuses people use for
justifying the keeping of Thanksgiving. Many of these same
excuses are used by other people to justify Christmas, Easter,
etc. If they are not justification enough for those days (which
they are not), then they are not enough to justify Thanksgiving
Day. That should be plain, yet many will still keep Thanksgiving,
because to change is to admit error, one thing we humans do not
like to do. Are we willing to "Grow in grace and knowledge"?
It is hard to understand one's stand concerning the right to keep
Thanksgiving. Even if it doesn't go back to pagan times (which we
will show it does), have pagan times ended, really? If not, pagan
times are now also. At some point, the pagan holidays were only a
few years old,'not thousands.' But did that make them right then,
and wrong now? That line of reasoning seems to be lacking
something.

     Thanksgiving is not a day ordained by God to be kept. Yet it
is, and is considered by many to be a Christian holiday. A lady
this last November '85, upon finding out I didn't keep
Thanksgiving said, "Why, isn't it a Christian holiday?" This lady
is not even a practicing churchianity believer. Yet this is her
understanding of the holiday. What a witness to God we proclaim
by keeping such days.
     It is not a Christian holiday. To keep it as such is adding
to the word of God. Where does God give man the right to set up a
holiday to honor and give thanks to God? Show me the verse! God
does that, not man, at least the God I try to follow does. How
about yours?
     Do you realize how silly and stupid we sound when we try and
tell someone, "Don't keep Christmas, Easter, Valentine's Day,
etc., because they're pagan, and God didn't authorize them. But
do keep Thanksgiving, a day to God. Sure, He didn't say to do it,
but He's sure to appreciate it."
     For us Christians who keep God's Holy days, like Jesus did,
have  you ever thought of this? 

     Just what is Thanksgiving? It is a proclaimed holiday for
the purpose of giving thanks to God for the many blessings we
received, especially agriculturally. (Let me quote my
six-year-old daughter's response just now, after asking me what I
just wrote, "That's what we do everyday, not just one day, except
on the days God says to do it." Out of the mouth of babes...) Why
do we need ANOTHER fall harvest festival? We have the Feast of
Tabernacles! It seems apparent Christians who keep the Feast of
Tabernacles, and then keep, only 30 or so days later, another
harvest day of thanks to God, must think that God's ORDAINED
feast is not good enough. Perhaps they think God didn't hear them
the first time. God's days are good enough!

A COPY

     The day of Thanksgiving is at the very least, an outright
copy of the Feast of Tabernacles. It is a day when people thank
God for His blessings. Does God hear people on this copied day? I
don't know, only He does. But what do you think? Who is the great
copier? Do we need another harvest festival? Do we need Satan's
copy? Isn't God's good enough? Do the majority of people keep any
day important to God??? The majority are deceived by Satan. The
majority keep Thanksgiving. That in itself ought to tell the
Christian something. However, there is more, much more. We don't
have to 'think,' we can KNOW.

HISTORY SAY:

     Let's go on to what we have found concerning the actual
history of Thanksgiving. This is not a complete study, but it was
more than enough to convince us. If there's even a slim chance
Thanksgiving is wrong, and pagan on top of that, we should drop
it like a HOT POTATO. My wife and I did just that. Until shown
where this study is wrong, we will continue to keep the only fall
festival God authorized.

     Most history books would like to convince us that
Thanksgiving goes back to Plymouth Rock, in the 1600's, or
thereabouts. Even though we were personally convinced prior to
looking into the history of the day (based on the above and
proceeding paragraphs), we were surprised just how right we were
concerning the non-appropriateness of Thanksgiving. Plymouth Rock
was not the first Thanksgiving, although history books would like
us to believe that. You can bank on the fact that Satan would
like us to believe that, too. This non-authorized feast day to
God goes back thousands of years, in one form or another; that is
Thanksgiving.

     The following quotes will not be attempted to be placed in
perfect order. We will basically quote from one source
completely, then go on to the next. This may not be the ideal
presentation method, but the seeker of God's truth will be able
in his or her own mind to put the information in whatever order
will help him or her in coming to a conclusion. We do ask you to
prayerfully consider the following. God will provide the answer,
if we let Him, if we keep our minds open, and if we are willing
to admit that even "Christians" may still be keeping pagan
holidays.

From the WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1992 Edition, Article entitled
'Thanksgiving Day.' 

"Thanksgiving Day, in the United States and Canada, a day set
apart for the giving of thanks to God for the blessings of the
year. Originally, it was a harvest thanksgiving, and while the
purpose has become less specific, the festival still takes place
late in autumn, after the crops have been gathered." (Doesn't
this sound like God's Feast?) "Indeed, it is probably an
outgrowth of the Harvest-Home celebrations in England. Such
celebrations are of very ancient origin, being nearly universal
among primitive peoples." (Do you really want to be a part of
this, after receiving so much of God's truth?)
     Continuing on in the same reference, until otherwise noted,
let's see just how much Thanksgiving is a copy of God's Feast. I
bet you thought Thanksgiving was just one day, right? Even the
supposed original one in the 1600's?

"The first Thanksgiving in the new world...," (Notice the
wordings, not the first, but just the first in the new world),
"...however, was not merely a feast - there were prayers and
sermons and songs of praise; and three days had gone by before
the Indians returned to their forest and the colonists to their
tasks."
"In 1789 ... the Protestant Episcopal Church in America announced
the first Thursday in November as a regular annual day for giving
thanks."
"It was not until 1888, however, that the Roman Catholic Church
formally recognized the day."
"Throughout the country, but especially in New England, where the
custom originated, the day is looked upon with great reverence."
(This sounds like more than just a holiday, rapidly approaching
Holy Day status.)
"Thanksgiving Day in Canada. The Dominion, too, has an annual
Thanksgiving day, which is celebrated in much the same way, with
family reunions and religious services." (Did you note that -
religious services!!!) "It is proclaimed by the Governor-General
as a harvest festival, but although it is a public statutory
holiday, it is not traditional in date. Usually, it falls on the
last  Monday in October, but if harvest is especially early, an
earlier date may be appointed." (Sounds like God's Feast, not on
the same day each year. Satan is a great copier!)
"When the corn crop was gathered, in the fall of 1621, Governor
Bradford decreed a day of Thanksgiving." (Please notice the type
of crop, CORN. This will be important later in this study.)

From the book, SPECIAL DAYS;  History Folklore and What Not, by
Sharon Cade - 1984. 

"Fourth Thursday in November (observed the second Monday in
October in Canada)."
"Thanksgiving is a day to give thanks for the harvest and for
other blessings of the past year."
"Governor Bradford of Plymouth Colony ordered the day for
feasting and thanks."
(Follow this carefully.) "Although we have nationalized
Thanksgiving, celebrations were held in ancient times to give
thanks for bountiful harvests. The Greeks honored Demeter, the
goddess of agriculture, with a nine-day celebration" (sounds like
Christ's eight-day feast of Tabernacles copied); "the Romans
honored Ceres, Anglo-Saxons rejoiced with a feast to celebrate
the reaping of the harvest; and the Jews have given thanks for
bountiful harvests with their eight-day Feast of Tabernacles."
"Thanksgiving is a sports holiday.... It is a religious holiday
(welcomes the Christmas season), as well as a civil holiday (most
offices and shops are closed)." Notice this writer called
Thanksgiving a religious holiday. Why are Christ's people keeping
this day? Let us pull away and ask His forgiveness.

From the book, WE GATHER TOGETHER - The Story of Thanksgiving, by
Ralph and Adelin Linton, 1949.     

"Thanksgiving is ... a giving of thanks for divine bounty coupled
with a practical demonstration of that bounty. Churches of all
denominations are open for services on this particular Thursday
every year .... Quite as important as worship on this day is the
renewal of family ties." (Why are churches open for services on a
non-religious day? Do they consider it a religious day? They
must!)
"Pilgrims and Indians, turkey and pumpkin pie are so much a part
of the American tradition that it is hard for us to realize that
the beginnings of Thanksgiving go back not only to the old world
but to the early world." (READ THAT AGAIN!) "The Pilgrims frowned
on all the holidays of merrie England and refused to celebrate
even Christmas because they knew of its pagan origins." (Yet
Satan still got them.) "In proclaiming a day of Thanksgiving
after the crops were gathered and before winter set in, they may
have taken a hint from the Old Testament, but they certainly did
not know that they were acting in a tradition which went back to
the time when men first began to sow and reap. Long before the
dwellers by the Nile learned to measure the year, or dreamed of
building pyramids, all people who grew grain gave thanks at
harvest time to the beings who had given them their daily bread
for the hard winter months. Moreover, these ancient farmers
sensed in the changing seasons and in the cycle of
seed-to-plant-to-seed again the miracle of death and resurrection
and turned their wonder of it into legends."
"The Old Testament includes many references to harvest
festivals... It is recorded that Moses gave instructions to the
Hebrews for the celebration of their harvest festival, which was
called the Feast of the Tabernacles." (The same feast our Lord
and Savior kept. Can you find where He kept Thanksgiving?)
"Even before Biblical times the ancient people of the
Mediterranean Basin held festivals at harvest time in honor of
the Earth Mother. The goddess of the corn ('corn' is the European
term for any grain; Indian corn - our American 'corn' - is called
maize), was always one of the most important deities in the
hierarchy of the gods, and her child was the young god of
vegetation."
"The ancient Semites called the earth mother Astarte.... The
Phrygians called her Semele.... The Minoans had an earth mother
for each district. All these local deities were absorbed by the
Greeks into the one great goddess, Demeter."
"Besides eating, feasting, etc., the married women practiced in
special rites, under the cover of night. The matrons spent the
next day bathing nude in the sea and dancing and playing games on
the shore. Then they fasted, sang songs, then feasted, sang, and
had general gaiety. All this lasted over a period of several
days." (Where were the men, I ask the reader? The writer of this
book did not say. But it does somewhat remind us of even today,
when on Thanksgiving, the men get together and watch football,
leaving the women to get together! Sure, the women may not
practice their gatherings the same way as the pagans, but the
gatherings are there.)
"The Roman harvest festival ... was called the Cerelia, after
Ceres, the Roman goddess of the corn."
"With the acceptance of Christianity as the official religion of
Rome and the conversion of the barbarians who had invaded the
crumbling empire, these pagan rituals were frowned upon and even
forbidden by law. However, the peasants clung to them with a
tenacity which has made the word 'pagan' (originally meaning
simply 'villager') a synonym for 'heathen.' As late as the sixth
century,... St.Benedict.... found the local peasantry worshipping
Apollo in a sacred grove. Even after conversion, old habits and
beliefs died hard, and the church was too busy trying to keep the
flame of civilization alive to trouble with minor heresies."
"The benevolent earth mother ... blended with the equally
benevolent mother of Christ. Folk memory of local deities fused
with the Christian tales of saints to provide patrons for
villages, and the white robed goddess of grain lived on in
various guises. To those who live close to the soil, the harvest
has an emotional and religious significance...their gratitude
finds expression in rites in honor of the being who they feel is
most closely related to fruitfulness: a being of warm earth
rather than cold Heaven."
"Even today a half-pagan belief in the corn mother still survives
among the peasants in many parts of Europe."
(Everyone should pay close attention to the following paragraph.)
"The Pilgrims undoubtedly brought memories of such English
harvest-home celebrations with them when they came to the new
world. They had also witnessed 'thanksgiving' ceremonies during
their sojourn in Holland .... The  Pilgrims themselves would have
denied that the Thanksgiving feast in honor of their first
harvest in 1621 was evoked by memories of the profane practices
of the old world; however, all revolutionaries, political or
religious, once their goal is accomplished, turn back to the
patterns of the society in which they have been reared, and the
Pilgrims, at the time of the first Thanksgiving, were no
exception."

(When will we learn, if God doesn't say it, don't do it. Keep
Satan and his lies and copies out of our lives.)

"Quote from LINCOLN's ADDRESS on October 3, 1863, when
Thanksgiving was declared a national holiday, after he discussed
the many gifts we received from God in mines of iron and coal,
industry, defense, population increase, etc.).

"They are the gracious gifts of the most high God, who, while
dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath never the less
remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they
should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as
with one heart and one voice by the whole American people. I do,
therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United
States, and also those who are at sea and those who are
sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last
Thursday of November next as a day of Thanksgiving and praise to
our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens."

     With the Lincoln proclamation, Thanksgiving became a legal
holiday on which the whole nation closes its shops, offices,
schools, and banks, and offers its thanks to the Deity for the
blessings of this free and bountiful land.

     Who gave him the right? Did you notice the words? It seemed
to him (Lincoln) fit and proper to set up a RELIGIOUS HOLYDAY!

     Was Lincoln even a member of God's Church? Only God knows.
However, he believed in ghosts, his wife had seances in the White
House. By all rights the man, no matter how great he was as a
President, was apparently a pagan. And it is he, a heathen, who
officially set up the day everyone just keeps like sheep to the
slaughter, even members of God's Church. Truly Satan has deceived
the whole world, not most, all, even the Church of God. Can we
ever come completely out? Maybe, maybe not, but we sure should
try!

(While Lincoln may have been a sincere Christian, the fact is he
was like MOST "Christians" of his time and of today - sincere
maybe, but sincerely wrong - sincerely deceived. He had NOT been
led by the Holy Spirit to see the truths contained in the Word of
God, hence he could not see and teach and proclaim to the
American people, the FEAST of God and the feast that is the REAL
"thanksgiving" feast to God - the Feast of Tabernacles - Keith
Hunt)
 
     Notice the following, taken from a most unusual source, but
even this writer knew the truth! From ORGANIC GARDENING and
FARMING, November 1975, page 132 article entitled 'Thanksgiving
Day.'

"The day is fixed by proclamation of the president. It is "an
annual festival of thanks for the mercies of the closing year,
celebrated by prayers and feasting."
"The earliest harvest Thanksgiving in this country was held by
the Pilgrim fathers at Plymouth Colony in 1621."
"But long before the Pilgrims held their first Thanksgiving
dinner, harvest festivals were observed in this country. Among
the North Dakota tribes, the corn spirit was known as the 'old
woman who never dies.'"
"In Peru, the ancient Indians worshipped the "Mother of Maize,'
and tried every year to persuade her to bring in another good
harvest."
"In Europe, the Austrians also had a 'Corn mother' doll fashioned
from the last sheaf of grain cut in the field and then brought
home to the village in the last wagon." (Notice Satan's poor
attempts at copies, so obvious; the last sheaf instead of the
first sheaf, done at the Fall festival instead of the Spring
festival.)
"In Upper Burma, the friends of the household are invited to the
barn for a feast when the rice has been piled in its husks on the
threshing floor. After a prayer, to the 'father and mother,' for
a good harvest next year, then, much as we do, the entire party
celebrates this year's harvest with a feast." (End of quotes from
this book.)

(There are indications in history books that the Indians of our
early country, when invited to that 'Thanksgiving' in 1621,
thought they were coming to the pagan feast they were used to
keeping at that time. That's why they came!)

(This is not just an indication. I was present in Florida at a
lecture given by a literal descendant of those Indians of 1621.
He told the factual story of it all. Those Indians back then, DID
think they were coming to celebrate with those pilgrims, their
"thanksgiving feast" or put it another way. Those Indians thought
the pilgrims HAD ACCEPTED the Indian's "thanksgiving day" - Keith
Hunt)

     There are also indications that the Pilgrims, out of shame,
invited the Indians to that feast, for the corn they harvested
was stolen from the Indians earlier that year (the seeds for
planting).

THE PILGRIMS AND ENGLAND

     A substantial portion of our ancestors in 1621 came from
England. Let's look into English history to see if we can
determine what festivals they were used to, etc.

From the book, A YEAR OF FESTIVALS - A Guide to British Calendar
Customs, by Geoffrey Palmer and Noel Lloyd, 1972. 

"Thanksgiving for the harvest is one of the oldest and the most
joyous festivals that man has created."
"Most of the pagan customs that gathered round the harvest season
have either disappeared or have sunk under the weight of
Christian disapproval and have radically changed. Today, the
climax of the season is the picturesque but genteel harvest
festival celebrated in churches."
"However innocuous harvest rites are today, they are a relic of
the great drama of the season when the fruits of the earth were
collected and the means of life ensured for another year, and the
thankfulness had a hidden stratum of cruelty."    
"The leading role in the drama was taken by Ceres, the Roman
Corn-Goddess. In Britain she was later known by several names;
the Maiden, the Harvest Queen, the Kern or Corn Baby, the Kern
Doll, the Ivy Girl, the Neck and the Mare. Sometimes she was
simply the stalks of corn; sometimes she was represented by a
sheaf dressed in many-coloured clothes which were decorated with
flowing ribbons and the finest lace. Whatever her form, she
dominated the banquets, harvest suppers, and merry-making of
early times." (Even though we may not have the exact physical
items in our homes, how many homes around Thanksgiving have at
least pictures of wicker 'horn' baskets holding vegetables,
fruits, etc., stalks of corn, etc.? Where did these come from? We
just read part of it. Also, it is a custom for the ladies to
dress the table up with a lacy tablecloth. Could this be related
to 'the finest lace' on the corn doll?)
"The Kern Baby," (an image!), "was made either from the last of
the corn left standing .... or from the biggest and ripest ears
to be found in the field .... The spirit herself dwelt in the
corn, and mere mortals shirked the responsibility of cutting her
down. So, often the act was left to chance. All those present
threw their sickles at the lone sheaf from a respectable
distance, thus no one could be said to have deliberately
performed the act. In the depths of folk memory there was still
the awareness of the death and resurrection cycle. The vegetation
deity of the remote past needed to be propitiated by a human
sacrifice.
"When the feast was over, the Kern Baby was taken to the farm
house and kept there until the next harvest supper. The symbol of
the previous year's harvest was ceremoniously burned in the
farmyard.
"The Kern Baby is by no means extinct, and can be seen in some
churches as part of the harvest festival decorations, though she
has been divested of her divine powers. At Little Walthem in
Essex and Whalton in North Umberland, for example, Kern Babies
are attached to one of the pews, 'the custom of crying the neck,'
once prevalent in the west of England, is still observed here and
there, though now it is incorporated in the harvest festival held
in the church. The origin of the word 'Neck,' or 'Nack,' is
obscure. It may come from an old Norse word for sheaf of corn, or
it may have a connection with 'Nix,' a water spirit that is
supposed to be from where we get Old Nick, one of the Devil's
names.
"Crying the neck - "While the labourers were reaping the last
field of wheat, one of them went to each group of sheaves and
selected the best of the ears, which he then tied up neatly,
'plaiting and arranging the straws most tastefully.' When the
labourer's work was done, and the last of the wheat cut, the
entire company of reapers, binders and gleaners would form a
circle round the man with the neck. He then stooped down, grasped
the neck with both hands, and held it near to the earth. The
people surrounding him removed their hats and held them
downwards, too, a gesture of homage to the soil which had
nurtured the crops.
"Most countries had their own special way of celebrating the
'ingathering,' but they all sprang from the same pre-Christian
impulse," (pre-Christian is earlier than 1611), "the act of
sacrifice which had to be performed at the end of the harvest....
The cries when the neck was held up were originally the wails of
death, and the shouting and dancing which followed captured the
joy of resurrection." (End of quotations.)

     Now, we are aware most Americans do not follow the above
described rituals. Yet, does that make it alright? Is it
acceptable for me to celebrate Christmas, as long as I don't have
a tree, a yule log, etc., etc.? We would all say a resounding NO!
So, why would Thanksgiving be acceptable?

     We who have come out of so much, out of Babylon, do we cling
to this Thanksgiving Day? At best a copy of God's fall festival,
at worst, pagan through and through, should we be keeping
something like this? We are to be like Christ. Did He keep this
day?

You have obviously noted that this study has not quoted extensive
scriptures from the Bible, concerning wrongful practices, etc. We
all have studies on Christmas, Easter, etc., etc. The references
from God's Holy Scriptures concerning those pagan practices, not
adding to His word, not following the ways of the world, etc.,
are just as applicable here. It is assumed the reader knows of
these scriptures.

     However, there is a most important part of the Bible that
must be considered when one is searching for God's will
concerning the appropriateness of Thanksgiving. Since these
verses are not quoted in most pagan holiday studies, it seems
appropriate to make the special effort to list them here.

     The question at hand is, can MAN SET UP DAYS ON HIS OWN, or
is that up to God only? Even if Thanksgiving isn't thousands of
years old (which it is), it is at best a COPY of God's fall
festival of thanks, the one He DID COMMAND to be kept, the Feast
of TABERNACLES, the 15th to the 21st day of the 7th month of
God's sacred calendar.

     Read 1 Kings 12:26 to 13:5. Here we have Jeroboam, the King,
setting up golden calves as gods. He institutes a substitute
feast in the 8th month, on the 15th day, and offers sacrifices on
the altar. Obviously, God was displeased, and sent His signs
signifying this displeasure.
     The standard teaching is the punishment was solely for
setting up calves as gods, and sacrificing to and worshipping
them. And indeed, this is so, but not the only reason!
     What about other reasons? Notice 12:33, God specifically
chose these words. God does nothing in vain, therefore, these
words have a meaning, also. So, what was another reason God was
not pleased? 

From the King James version, Jeroboam set up a feast in "the
month which he had devised of his own heart."

From the NIV."a month of his own choosing." 

Lamsa says, "in the month which he had devised of his own heart."

     Notice Jeroboam instituted a feast "like the festival held
in Judah" (12:32 NIV).

     Why would God specifically use the words "own choosing,"
unless it was to show us WE DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to set up
dates?

     Continuing with 12:33, from the New English Bible, "In a
month of his own choosing." 

The N.A.S., "In the month which he had devised in his own heart."

The Amplified, "A date which he chose individually."

     The picture seems clear. We should not, cannot, ignore the
additional words God chose to be written concerning this
SUBSTITUTE Fall festival (just like Thanksgiving is); the words
are there. 
     MAN DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SET UP DAYS OF THANKS TO GOD
TO BE CONTINUALLY KEPT!

     Do we dictate to God? NO! He tells us what His will is, and
we either follow or not. The choice is ours. But the Scriptures
sited above seem pretty clear, MAN cannot set up substitute days.

     There are only the times God ordained, all else are days of
tradition, which Jesus Himself said was worship in VAIN.

     The question demands repeating. Do God's servants need a
substitute, SECOND Fall festival, that at the very best is a copy
(who is the great copier?), and most likely pagan in addition?

     The choice is ours. May God guide us, and lead us all to the
truth.

     Do not change God's days, do not add to them, do not keep
duplicate days. Notice Jeroboam's day was the 15th day of the 8th
month, around mid-October to early November, which is when
Thanksgiving was originally kept in the U.S., and possibly the
very beginnings of Thanksgiving, and pagan, (GOING BACK THOUSANDS
OF YEARS - Keith Hunt)

     It is Satan who copies, who seeks to change times and days.
God is the same today, yesterday, and forever. If we keep
Thanksgiving, and claim it is acceptable to God, we therefore say
that God changes. After all, His word does not indicate
Thanksgiving ever was, or ever will be acceptable in His eyes. He
is all that matters, along with His Son, our glorious Savior. If
it wasn't an acceptable day to God 1,000 years ago (due either to
non-existence or pagan beginnings), if it won't be acceptable to
Him in the world tomorrow (after all, it's not mentioned
anywheres in the Bible), then by what twisted logic do we say it
is pleasing to God now?

     My God ... does not let man set up, or dictate to Him, which
days are acceptable days of permanent thanks or worship.

What about your God???

Bradley D. Richardson 
Permission is granted to reproduce and distribute this study.

                             .........................................

There are TWO serious sides to this topic. 

1. GOD HAS HIS **OWN** THANKSGIVING FEAST. HE SET IT DOWN FOR US
IN LEVITICUS 23. IT IS A 7 DAY FEAST OF THANKSGIVING!

2. GOD DOES NOT GIVE THE RIGHT FOR MAN TO ESTABLISH HOLY DAYS OR
RELIGIOUS FESTIVALS, TO WORSHIP HIM WITH. IT IS CLEAR FROM
HISTORY THAT PRESIDENT LINCOLN **DID** PROCLAIM AND ESTABLISH
THIS "THANKSGIVING DAY" AS A RELIGIOUS HOLY DAY OF WORSHIP.

AS WE HAVE SEEN, SATAN IS THE GREAT CHANGER OF TIMES AND SEASONS
(Daniel 7:25). IT WAS PROPHESIED HE WOULD. THE CHRISTIAN WORLD
AND THE UN-CHRISTIAN WORLD FOLLOWS FESTIVALS THAT ARE NOT FROM
GOD, NEVER ESTABLISHED BY GOD, AND NEVER WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY
HIM. THE MOST HIGH ALREADY HAS ESTABLISHED HIS FESTIVALS.

THE WHOLE WESTERN WORLD HAS BEEN DECEIVED INTO HOLDING A FALSE
SUBSTITUTE DAY OF THANKS TO GOD, WHILE **COMPLETELY FORGETTING**
ABOUT GOD'S FEAST OF TABERNACLES. THE CHRISTIAN WORLD WOULD LIKE
YOU TO STOP WORKING, COME TO CHURCH, GATHER IN RELIGIOUS
SERVICES, ON ITS THANKSGIVING DAY .... YES THEY WOULD .... BUT
THEN TELL YOU THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES IS "DONE AWAY WITH" -
"JUST FOR JEWS" - "ONLY FOR OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL."

TRULY, TRULY, SATAN AND HIS BABYLON WHORE WOMAN OF REVELATION HAS
DECEIVED THE WHOLE WORLD (Revelation 12:9)

Keith Hunt
                                  ........................................


In 1996 when on a "religious forum" the topic of "Thanksgiving
Day" came up for debate. 

A lady by the name of Renetta posted the below (plus a lot more
I'm not uploading) - a list of "books" showing the origin of
Thanksgiving Day from thousands of years ago - Keith Hunt



Dear Kevin,
You sound a lot like me, SHOW ME, don't tell me! So, the
following reference list will show you if you are willing to
research it. You will be able to find a link with the ancient
harvest pagan/heathen festivals and Thanksgiving, guaranteed!
IMO, this will be a much better way than if someone else wrote up
a paper and sent it to you. This way you can see for your self,
no color added, a research method we've all learned to use over
the years. If you live in an area of a good library, they should
be able to help you with some of these references. I own some of
them, but not all.

1. THANKSGIVING, Robert Haven Schauffler, Dodd-Mead, 1957.

2. THE BOOK OF HOLIDAYS, J.Walker McSpadden, Thomas Y. Crowell,
Co., NY, 1958.

3. ALL ABOUT AMERICAN HOLIDAYS, Maymie R. Krythe, Harper &
Brothers, NY, 1962.

THE BOOK OF FESTIVAL HOLIDAYS, Marguerite Tckis, Dodd Mead & Co.,
1964.

5. THE GOLDEN BOUGH, THE ROOTS OF RELIGION AND FOLKLORE, John G.
Frazer, Random House, 1981. (Full of Information)

6. THE BOOK OF FESTIVALS, Dorothy Gladys Spicer, 1937.

7. THE YEARBOOK OF ENGLISH FESTIVALS, Dorothy Gladys Spicer,
1954.

8. OUR WONDERFUL WORLD, by Grolier Incorporated, NY, Vo.,17, p.
220.

9. ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 1980, Vol.5.

10. THANKSGIVING, AN AMERICAN HOLIDAY, AN AMERICAN HISTORY, Diana
Darter Applebaum, 1984.

11. CELEBRATIONS: THE COMPREHENSIVE BOOK OF AMERICAN HOLIDAYS,
Robert J. Myers, 1972.

12. THE AMERICAN BOOK OF DAYS, Jane M. Hatch, 1978.

                          ...................................................

Posted by at No comments:

EZEKIEL FOR TOMORROW CHAPT. 37

 

Ezekiel For Tomorrow

Chapter 37

                                   
The Valley of Dry Bones and 
the Reunion of Israel and Judah


     Once more the CONTEXT of this chapter shows clearly that it
has NEVER YET come to pass. That it WILL come to pass when 
God shall set His dwelling and tabernacle in the midst of 
regathered Israel. It is a prophecy for the Kingdom of God on earth.

     The hand of the Lord was upon Ezekiel and he was carried in
spirit or vision and set down in a valley of dry bones. The
prophecy is upon the dry bones, breath will come into them;
sinews will be laid; skin will cover the bones; and the covered
bones will LIVE!. Ezekiel gave the prophecy and indeed the bones
came together and skin covered them and they DID LIVE!
     
     The wind is to come on these SLAIN AND BREATH ON THEM AND
THEY WILL LIVE!

     And SO IT WAS, they did live and stood upon their feet like
a great army (verses 1-10).

     What is this? The answer is in verse 11. The House of Israel
says their bones are dried up; their hope is gone; they are cut off.

     The House of Israel has fallen; they have gone into
captivity; they have been punished for their sins. It is the last
days of this age, the last 42 months of this age. Israel (the
peoples of North-West Europe, the British Commonwealth and the
United States of America) have met their doom, their destruction,
at the hands of the last resurrected Babylon Holy Roman Beast who
is guided by a false prophet and his Babylon Mystery religion
church. Israel has sinned, their iniquity and wicked abominations
have reached up to heaven. God has finally said they must be
brought to DEEP REPENTANCE through the fires of literal
destruction. Israel is now in the mental state of thinking all is
truly LOST, that there is no hope of them ever being a great
peoples again. Indeed, how can such a MIGHTY AND GREAT a people
as Britain and the United States believe they can ever be so
great again, when their people have been so hugely destroyed,
when what is left of them are in captivity in the lands of their
enemy lovers, scattered, and so many of them now lying dead. 
     Their heart is in despair; they believe there is no more
hope for them; they now believe they will go down in history as a
"once upon a time a great people, who like other Empires, finally
came to and end" (verse 11).

     But GOD CRIES OUT, "Behold, O my people, I WILL OPEN YOUR
GRAVES, AND CAUSE YOU TO COME OUT OF YOUR GRAVES, AND BRING YOU
INTO THE LAND OF ISRAEL. And you shall KNOW that I AM THE LORD,
when I OPEN your graves, and bring you UP out of your graves, and
shall PUT MY SPIRIT IN YOU, and you SHALL LIVE. I will place you
in your own land: then shall you KNOW that I THE LORD HAVE SPOKEN
IT, AND PERFORMED IT, says the Lord" (verses 12-14).  

     Have you ever read anything like this? The world will see
many MIRACLES in the last days! THERE WILL BE THE MIRACLES OF THE
FALSE PROPHET. THERE WILL BE THE MIRACLES OF THE TWO WITNESSES IN
JERUSALEM. There will be MIGHTY SIGNS in the earth, the sea, and
in the heavens. The world will never have ever seen such a time
as the last 42 months of this age. The Great Tribulation will
bring such death and horror that there will be no time before or
after it that will be the like. The Day of the Lord will be the
time when, if Jesus did not come back to save us from ourselves,
no human flesh would remain alive. The Battle of Armageddon will
be horrific as Jesus and His armies destroy the armies of the
Europe Beast power and the kings of the East. Jesus said in Luke
21 that the last years of this age would be the time when all
things that are written will come to pass. THERE IS MUCH WRITTEN -
 THERE IS MUCH TO COME TO PASS!

     BUT HERE IN EZEKIEL 37 YOU ARE READING ABOUT A MIRACLE FOR
THE LAST DAYS THAT REALLY BLOWS THE MIND!!!
     GOD WILL PERFORM A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF SO MANY SLAIN
ISRAELITES THAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE A MASSIVE ARMY. THEY WILL RISE,
THEY WILL COME BACK TO THE LAND GOD PROMISED THEIR FATHERS
ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB.

     TRULY NO SUCH MIGHTY A MIRACLE HAS EVER TAKEN PLACE IN THE
HISTORY OF ISRAEL. BUT HERE YOU HAVE THE WORD OF THE LORD THAT IT
WILL TAKE PLACE!! IS ANYTHING IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE LORD? NO! NO!
NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE LORD TO DO. HE HAS WRITTEN WHAT YOU
HAVE JUST READ, AND HE WILL PERFORM IT!! 

     ISRAEL - YOU ARE SINNERS - YOU ARE A WICKED GENERATION. YOUR
EVIL AND ABOMINATIONS REACH TO HEAVEN. YOU WILL BE PUNISHED. YOUR
DAY OF RECKONING IS COMING. WHAT YOU HAVE SOWN YOU WILL REAP. GOD
IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS. ALL PEOPLES WHO HAVE SINNED AS MIGHTY
AS YOUR SINS ARE, HAVE INDEED FALLEN, HAVE DESTROYED THEMSELVES.
MANY MIGHTY AND GREAT NATIONS AND EMPIRES HAVE WRITTEN THEIR
HISTORY IN FINAL DESTRUCTION. YOU WILL BE NO DIFFERENT. IF YOU DO
NOT REPENT AS NATIONS I TELL YOU YOU WILL PERISH BY FAMINE,
PESTILENCE AND THE SWORD OF WAR!

     YET GOD TELLS YOU THE HAPPY ENDING - YOUR SLAIN WILL RISE
AGAIN - AS A GREAT ARMY YOUR PEOPLE WILL RISE FROM THE GRAVE AND
GOD WILL PUT HIS SPIRIT IN YOU. THEN YOU WILL INDEED KNOW THAT
GOD IS ALIVE, THAT HE DOES EXIST, THAT HE WILL STILL LOVE YOU,
TO YOU HE WILL GIVE THE LAND THAT HE PROMISED TO ABRAHAM.


Judah and Israel REUNITED


     It is the time in earth's history that Israel and Judah be
brought back as ONE PEOPLES again. All Jews of any scholastic
mind of Old Testament history KNOW that the House of Israel and
the House of Judah since their SEPARATION after the death of
Solomon, HAVE NEVER BEEN RESTORED AS ONE PEOPLE - AS ONE NATION
OF 13 FAMILIES OR TRIBES OF JACOB ISRAEL.

     THE TWO STICKS - ONE FOR JUDAH AND HIS COMPANIONS OF ISRAEL
- ONE FOR JOSEPH, THE STICK OF EPHRAIM AND ALL THE HOUSE OF
ISRAEL.

     THE TWO STICKS GOD WILL MAKE AS ONE STICK. THE CHILDREN OF
ISRAEL AND JUDAH WILL BE GATHERED OUT OF THE NATIONS AND THEY
WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE HOLY LAND. THERE THEY WILL BE ONE
NATION AGAIN. THEY WILL BE CLEANSED OF THEIR SINS AND GOD SAYS,
"SO SHALL THEY BE MY PEOPLE AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD" (verses 15-
23).


     Ah, LOOK, see what it to happen, DAVID (RAISED FROM THE DEAD
AT THE RESURRECTION OF THE SAINTS AT CHRIST'S COMING) WILL BE
THEIR KING. THEY WILL WALK IN THE JUDGMENT AND STATUTES OF GOD.
THEY WILL DWELL IN THE LAND GIVEN TO JACOB, THEY AND THEIR
CHILDREN AND THE CHILDREN OF THEIR CHILDREN, FOREVER; AND DAVID
SHALL BE THEIR PRINCE (verses 24-25).

     IT IS THE TRUTH WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN IN ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH.
A TRUTH YET FOR THE FUTURE AHEAD OF US TODAY. YES IT IS THE TIME
GOD MAKES A COVENANT OF **PEACE** WITH THEM; AND SAYS GOD, "WILL
SET MY SANCTUARY IN THE MIDST OF THEM FOR EVERMORE. MY TABERNACLE
ALSO SHALL BE WITH THEM: YES, I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL
BE NY PEOPLE. AND THE HEATHEN SHALL KNOW THAT I THE LORD DO
SANCTIFY ISRAEL, WHEN MY SANCTUARY SHALL BE IN THE MIDST OF THEM
FOR EVERMORE" (verses 26-280.

     A most remarkable, sober, but very INSPIRING chapter of
Ezekiel.

     Jesus will return; He will raise from the death many slain
Israelites, they with the ones still alive, shall return to the
Holy Land. David (the king of old Israel) will be raised to
immortal life as will thousands of saints. David will be the king
again over them, the 12 apostles, as Jesus promised in the
Gospels, will each rule one of the twelve tribes. 
     God in the form of Christ Jesus will dwell among them, plant
His sanctuary in their midst forever more. Oh yes, the nations as
well as the people of Israel will then KNOW THAT GOD IS GOD.

     IT IS THE TIME OF THE START OF THE EARTH BEING FULL OF THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE LORD AS THE WATERS COVER THE SEA BEDS! 

     SO IT IS WRITTEN AND SO IT WILL COME TO PASS!

                         ......................................................

To be continued

Posted by at No comments:

NOAH'S FLOOD-- WAS IT UNIVERSAL? #1, #2, #3

 

Noah's Flood - Universal? #1

Things that may surprise you

                                     Written and Compiled

                                                    by

                                             Keith Hunt


INTRODUCTION 

I grew up like MANY believing that Noah's flood was word-wide,
covering the entire planet earth. I never really proved it,
though I thought at one time I did by reading books like "The
Genesis Flood" - but I never read the other side of the question.
I was challenged on the matter, when reading a book by Ralph
Woodrow. When I read his study on it all, in 1999, I was indeed
challenged. After much meditation, and not being able to answer
the main arguments put forth by Woodrow, I have to agree with him
that Noah's flood was REGIONAL and NOT universal. Others I have
discovered down through the last few hundred years have also
written on this subject, claiming Noah's flood was REGIONAL and
not all over the entire globe.

WAS THE FLOOD UNIVERSAL?

     Many if not most "religious" people of different faiths have
grown up being taught about Noah's flood and that it was a flood
that covered the whole planet earth. Some books down through the
last canruties have been written by well meaning people, I'm sure
quite sincere, trying to prove and uphold the teaching that
Noah's flood covered all the surface of the earth and all the
mountains upon it, and that all present human life and animal
life are so descended from the eight humans and the animal
creatures on board that ship Noah built.
 
     But was the flood universal, covering the entire globe? Or
was it regional, involving human and animal life in one specific
area of land on earth? There are, of course, dedicated Christians
on both sides of this question, and each side has its able
defenders. But looking at the main evidence, I believe the bulk
of that evidence favors Noah's flood as being REGIONAL, and not
universal, covering the entire planet.

     If the flood was universal, then as stated before every
animal on earth today would have descended from those on that
ark. As Woodrow has stated in his book "This raises questions, of
course, as to how this many animals would be able to fit into
Noah's ark, how they were able to cross vast continents to get to
the ark, and how they managed, after the flood, to get back
home."

     According to Ussher the flood was in 2,348 B.C. Does this
really give enough time for tiny creatures like the worm and
snail (and we all know how fast they travel) to get from Noah's
ark to the other side of the world.  

     The snail, some could argue got to North America by catching
a ride with the Indians, but could snails, or say worms, get to
cover North America in such a relatively short time (if we go
with Ussher's chronology of the Bible)? Then they say there are
more "species" of insects than any other living thing. Sure, as
the argument goes, all "flies" (fruit and other) come from the
same stock, but could Noah really have all "species" of insects
from around the whole earth come to him and be on the ark, and
then get back to all parts of the globe again, in such a
relatively short time (if we go with Ussher's chronology that
is)? As Woodrow says, that part of it is just the tip of the
iceberg.

     Many will point to the verse in Genesis six, and say, "There
you are, this verse say Noah's flood was world-wide, for the
verse reads, 'A flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all
flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and
every thing that is in the earth shall die'" (Genesis 6:17).

     The same people will then take you to Genesis chapter seven:

     "The waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all
the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered
... and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved
upon the earth ... Noah only remained alive, and they that were
with him in the ark (verses 19-23).

     Hummmm, does kinda sound like Noah's flood covered the
entire globe. But don't run off into the sunset too quickly, not
without taking a good long look at the Hebrew word used -
"erets." The Englishman's Concordance of the Hebrew Old
Testament, will give you every place where this word "erets" is
used. by looking at the context where this Hebrew word is found,
we can clearly see the word itself does not mean a dogmatic
"universal" aspect. many passages certainly within the very
context cannot mean, or canot have, a GLOBAL meaning! 

     "Erets" (#776 in Strong's Concordance'), if you want to use
that popular concordance of the Bible, will show you  it is
translated "country" 140 times, and 1,476 times it is translated
"land."  Hence we can see the word "erets" is used with
LIMITATIONS!

     The example of Abraham:

     "Get thee out of thy country [erets]... unto a land [erets]
that I will shew thee" (Genesis 12:1). 

     Was Abraham told to leave planet earth? 

     Later, "Abraham journeyed from there toward the south
country [erets], and dwelt between Kadesh and Shur" (Genesis
20:1). 

     Does this mean there are to plantes being talked about?
Obviously that was not the case.

     As Woodrow points out we also have these verses:

     "the whole land [erets] of Havilah," "the whole land [erets]
of Ethiopia," "the land [erets] of Nod, on the east of Eden,"
"the land [erets] of Shinar," "the land [erets] of Canaan," "the
land [erets] of Egypt," "the Philistines' land [erets]," "the
land [erets] of Moriah" (Genesis 2:11,13,etc.). 

     No one would think of the entire earth, or the entire planet
from these verses.

     Also as Woodrow discovered "erets" is used in the plural. We
read of Gentiles "in their lands [erets]," of "enemies' lands
[erets]," and of various nations called "lands [erets]" (Genesis
10:5; Lev. 26:36; 2 Kings 19:11,17; etc.). The word "every" is
used with erets: "I will get them praise and fame in every land
[erets] where they have been put to shame" (Zeph.3:19). 

     Again to think these verses mean entire planets is quite
rediculous and nobody jumps to so understand those verses.
     
     Genesis 41:54,57. People from different planets are not here
being taught as coming to Egypt.

     The reader can look at MANY more places from the above two
Bible Concordances aforementioned, and see for themselves that
the Hebrew word "erets" HARDLY EVER means the ENTIRE GLOBE of
this earth.

     So, it is not then at all out of the question that this word
"erets" as used in the account of Noah's flood, was NOT meaning
the entire earth being covered with water. The word "erets"
itself and the context it is used in for Noah and the flood of
his days,does not automatically mean we are to understand the
account as a UNIVERSAL flood, covering ALL nations and ALL the
mountains on the earth.
     
     When we understand "erets" as used with reference to Naoh's
flood, with our English words "land" and "country" we can readily
see that Moses (who most argee wrote the first five books of the
Bible) was NOT trying to teach us that the flood of Noah's time
covered the entire planet earth.

     In other words, the use of the Hebrew word "erets" with
Noah's flood does NOT automatically prove THAT flood was over the
entire globe we call "earth." If you are going to try and prove
Noah's flood was a world-wide flood you will have to do it
another way entirely than from the argument of the word "erets"
and the context it is used for Noah's flood.
          
WITHIN THE CONTEXT

     Why a flood to destroy? We are told the "wickedness of man
was great in the earth (erets)" Genesis 6:5. Did man inhabit
every single nation or land mass on the planet at this time in
human history? It is very doubtful that this was so. And even if
it was, were the reletively few, say in Alaska (if mankind was
all over the globe) so sinnful that they also had to be destroyed
together with obviously the sinful ones in Noah's land? and why
did God have to destroy the animals, creeping things, and fowls
of the air, say in Alaska, or Australia? 
     
      Genesis 7:17. The water were lifted above the "eret" -
earth or land. This again cannot by itself prove "above the hight
of the planet, or highest mountains anywhere on the globe.
  
     "God made a wind to pass over the earth [erets -land]" and
the waters receded (Genesis 8:1). A wind picks up water (though
we do not see it happening per se) and the vapore water rises to
form clouds that float away (excuse the pun), but the water does
not DISAPPEAR into space. It moves on in those clouds to be
dropped as rain on another part of the globe. If the entire
planet was covered with water this would be like scouping out
water from a bath tub with one hand and putting it back in with
the other hand. The logic of the sentence does not make any
logic, unless you take these words to be telling us in a kind of
human way that God worked a miracle. But Moses knew all about
miracles, so he could have simply told us that the Lord worked a
miracle and "just made the water go away." But he put it the way
he did because it was a logical and human way to tell us what
happens everyday, wind or air evaporates water, carries it up to
form clouds and the clouds move on to later drop that wtaer in
other parts of the globe. So indeed the water that Noah and the
ark was floating on did recede in a natural way, for it was taken
by the wind and dropped on to dry parts of other lands at a later
time.
     This I maintain is the normal logical sense of the sentence
here used in genesis 8:1 and 3.
              
     "The waters were dried up from off the earth [erets - land]"
(Genesis 8:13). 
     If we understand this to mean the whole planet, in the
context of Noah's flood, then there is a large problem, when you
think of three-quarters or so of the globe is covered with water.
but if the context is talking only about a reginal flood then it
can be understood with normal logic.
     
UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN WAS COVERED?

     "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth
[erets]; and all the high hills, that were under the whole
heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters
prevail; and the mountains were covered" (Genesis 7:19,20). 
     Sounds like this is saying the whole globe was covered with
water, well if you again take the word "erets" to mean the entire
planet.
     And "under the whole heaven" - surely some will say, that
phrase clinches it, the flood of Noah's day covered the entire
planet.
     Once more, this expression and other very similar in the
Bible are there for all to read if they will but look for them,
and many times the context is clearly of a LIMITED nature.

     Deuteronomy 2:25: "...the nations which are under the whole
heaven," is limited by the context. The nations and tribes of
people on the African continent or over in India or China are NOT
meant by this phrase.
     Please note such passages as Isaiah 13:5,7. Did "end of
heaven" mean they came from Spain or Brazil?  Cities that were
"walled up to heaven" (Deut.1:28) did not mean the walls rose
thousands of feet into the sky. The context limits the phrase
used.
     Note the phrase "all the world should be taxed" in Luke 2:1.
Obviously such a phrase used in the context did not mean for us
to understand that it meant people from Japan were to come to
Palestine to be taxed.

     The Bible uses MANY types of "figures of speech" just as we
use figures of speech today in our writings and in our
conversations. If we say about some great Olympic wrestler that
"he was as big and as strong as a bull" it is a figure of speech,
and not a phrase we should take to its literal end. It gets a
point across but no Olympic wrestler is as big as a bull, let
alone as strong as one.
     Figures of speech are so numberous in the Bible that 
Dr.Bullinger thought it important enough to write a 1,000 page
book on the subject. I have that book of his in my personal
library.
          
     I agree with the conclusion Ralph Woodrow came to when he
wrote in his book on this subject, "the expression about all the
high hills 'under the whole heaven' is best understood as all
hills a person might see from one place - from horizon to
horizon. There is no reason to suppose this included hills
thousands of miles away on the other side of the planet!"

     The "local flood" advocates try to argue that the waters
would have been just way to high to have covered Mount Everest,
way over 30,000 feet.
     Then of course the argument put forth by the "entire globe
covered by water" advocates is that mountains like Everest, did
not form until AFTER the universal food of Noah's time - but that
is EVERY QUESTIONABLE indeed. It is more probable that mountain
chains like Everest is in and the great Canadian Rockies were
formed in Genesis chapter one, when God made the dry land appear
from the waters. The fact is there is no concrete proof for any
date as to when the largest mountain chains on earth were formed.

     The natural logic to my mind is that the Genesis flood of
Noah's time is talking within a context of REGINAL scope, and not
addressing the thought of vastly larger in height, mountain
ranges being covered than those in Noah's part of the world. But
again I know the "world-wide" flood advocates would like to say
those mountain ranges like the one where Everest stands, did not
form until after Noah's flood. But I say again, such an idea
cannot be proved.
     We shall discuss later again, the idea that the waters did
cover Everest, if believing Everest was created in Genesis
chapter one. Which of course also cannot be positively proved to
have been created in that first chapter of Genesis. 
  
THE WATER FROM WHERE?

     Believing the flood covered every mountain on earth, we must
ask the questions, "Where did all this amount of water come from?
And what became of the water when the flood subsided? The classic
book "The Genesis Flood," (I have it in my library), a book
written to uphold the universal flood concept, admits:

"A global rain continuing for forty days, as described in the
Bible, would have required a completely different mechanism for
its production than is available at the present day. If all
the water in our present atmosphere were suddenly precipitated,
it would only suffice to cover the ground to an average depth of
less than two inches."

     Yes, the Bible does say the spings of the deep also opened
up, water then under the earth came forth. And I guess if you
want to argue that with God nothing is impossible, you have an
answer as to where all the water came from to cover the entire
planet. Then add to that argument the argument that mountain
ranges like the Canadian Rockies did not exist or were not formed
until after Noah's flood, then you could come away believing
Noah's flood did cover the whole globe.
     But, as we shall see in more chapters, there are many other
factors to consider and to answer, before we can come to a
dogmatic conclusion that Noah's flood did in fact engulf the
entire planet earth.    

     Continuing now to quote from The Genesis Flood:

"The process of evaporation could not have been effective during
the rain, of course, since the atmosphere immediately above the
earth was already at saturation level. The normal hydrologic
cycle would, therefore, have been incapable of supplying the
tremendous amounts of rain the Bible record describes."

     Some of course would argue that, "Well with God anything is
possible. He just makes a miracle." Such arguing cannot
be answered per se. But the book "The Genesis Flood" at least
looks at the normal sight of things, and admits it just could not
be possible in the world as we have it today.

    It is really futile to try and argue as Woodrow does in his
book on this subject that in forty days "ex" amount of water
would have to come and rise on the earth (an amount per day or
hour that would amount to hundreds of feet) to cover Mount
Everest, for as stated above the universal flood advocates would
simply dismiss his reasoning with their teaching that Everest and
other mighty high mountains, did not exist until after the days
of Noah's flood. 
    
     Woodrow does argue this: "After it stopped raining and the
water began to go back down, the Bible implies the water receded
at the rate of 15 cubits in 74 days (Genesis 7:20; 8:4,5). A
number of recognized commentators have mentioned this point? If
we figure a cubit at about 18 inches, the water level would have
dropped 270 inches during this time or, to round it off, 4 inches
a day. If the flood depth was 29,050 feet (348,600 inches) and
the water level dropped 4 inches a day, it would take 87,150 days
to get back down to normal sea level. That would be almost 239
years! The whole time of the flood is normally figured at around
a year in duration certainly not 239 years! All of this argues
against the idea that the flood was thousands of feet in depth
and strongly suggests, rather, that it was a flood of regional
proportions."

     A nice try on Woodrow's part, but once more the universal
flood advocates would answer with, "The mountain ranges like that
in which Mount Everest is found were not created until AFTER the
time of Noah's flood, so no need to be thousands of feet in
depth. And, with God anything is possible, He is a miracle
working God, and hence the waters could have receded in other
parts of the world MUCH faster than in the Ararat area where Noah
was in the ark."

     And they do, I admit, have an argument with those arguments.
But there is more to this subject, we have to have the rest of
the story.

                         ...............................................

TO BE CONTINUED


Noah's Flood - Universal? #2

More on the rest of the story

  			  
			                 Written and Compiled 

                                                        by 

                                                Keith Hunt



CREATURES OF ALL KINDS

     It is true, as the "world-wide flood" advocates say, only
one pair of bears, one pair of snakes, one pair of dogs etc.
would be needed, as all dogs can come from just one pair of dogs.
Science knows that animals of their kind can mutate. A well known
book in the 13th printing of 1958 (which I still have in my
library) was called "After Its Kind" - showing how indeed animals
after their kind can mutate to give us the variety of say the
domestic dog.
     While this argument at first may seem to answer how all the
creatures got on Noah's ark. If we stop and think about even just
the insect world, I think the argument starts to fall. Science
tells us that there are WAY MORE insects on the earth than
humans. Their variety of kind is massive. Are we to suppose all
their variety came from two of a kind of each kind? And how did
some kinds of insect that are only found in a certain part of the
world, cross oceans to be with Noah? Yes, of course some will say
that that action of insects was all a miracle from God. And
naturally I have no answer for those who use at every turn the
"miracle of God" reply.
     There are some creatures, like the Australian Platypus,
that only lives in Australia. How did they get to Noah? Somewhat
very puzzling I would say, unless you again use the "miracle"
reply, or the argument that maybe Australia was not an island
back in Noah's time.

     Even with the size of the ark, which no one for sure really
knows for no one for sure knows exactly how long a cubit was in
Noah's time, there is I believe a large problem with believing
ALL the pairs of all the different kinds of animals, insects,
fowl, managed to fit on the ark.
     Also remember that according to Genesis, we had SEVEN PAIR
of the CLEAN animals on the ark. Seven pair of cows would take up
a reasonable amount of space, even if Noah penned them together
in pairs of two. Sure I guess seven pairs of chickens could all
fit in one pen, and so also you could get seven pair of goats in
one pen. Yet, to think that one pair of all unclean animals and
seven pair of clean animals, birds, and insects, from ALL AROUND
the planet not only came to Noah, but all managed to be houses on
the ark, to me stretches the logic, unless again you answer with
the "miracle" argument.

     The people who wrote the "Genesis Flood" book arguing with
with a certain framework of certain inches to the cubit, say
about 522 railroad stock-cars would fit on the ark, and so argue
from the position of every kind of pairs of animals, fowl, and
insects, could be put on the ark. Be that as it may (no one
really knows what the length of a cubit was in Noah's time), and
allowing them that side of their reasoning to be correct, we
still have the problem of some creatures and insects crossing
water masses or oceans. And then we have not yet come to the
space and volume of FOOD needed to feed all those creatures. We
shall look at that aspect closer later on in this study. 

     But if we take the word "erets" - earth - to mean what it
usually means in a lot of other places in the Bible, as "land" -
then the whole animal, fowl, insect, situation takes on quite a
different set of proportions.

     To argue as Woodrow does that some crocodiles are 14 to 16
feet while others are 20 feet, and certain lizards in some parts
of the world are about 8 feet in length, and there are about
3,000 species of lizards in the world, is no argument to be used
by the "local flood" advocates, as the "world-wide flood" people
answer that all lizards come from one pair, and that pair on the
ark may have been quite small. They would answer with the
"mutation" reply, which could be a very reasonable argument -
a valid answer. And if God worked "mutation miracles" I will call
them, AFTER Noah's flood, then that would account for the 3,000
species of lizards on earth today. And so with the species of
dogs, cats, horses, etc.
                  
     As to the argument that Woodrow tries to use about the
peacock having a plumage spread of 7 feet, and the albertross of
the southern oceans having a wing span of over 10 feet. This is a
very weak argument insomuch that for the length of time on the
ark, God could have worked His work by not having the albertross
needing to spread its wings, and the peacock not needing to
spread its plumage.    
     
     I do believe Woodrow has a valid point in his example of him
owning a house on a lot slightly larger than 100 feet by 100
feet, all lots in that section being about the same, and putting
10 of those lots together would give an area within a fence of
318 feet by 318 feet, which would be about the area of ALL THREE
levels of the ark. And to think that all the pairs of animals,
fowl, insects, from around the world, got into that space, does
stretch the imagination.    
     And still remember we have not yet meditated upon all the
foods stuffs to be stored on the ark for about a year to feed all
those creatures.

     As for the argument by some "local flood" advocates that
many of these animals needed to roam, to run around, keep fit,
fly, chase, jump, as they naturally do in the wild, can be
answered by the "world-wide flood" advocates reply that God
suspended those needs for those creatures during the stay on the
ark. Like turning a tap for water on or off. And certainly as all
things are possible with God, He could have done so. Hence I find
that argument of logic by some local flood people, no valid
argument for their position.
     
    Then again some of the "universal" advocates will probably
come back  with "God had all the animals go to sleep for the
year." And if people want to believe that, there is no more
debate, for how do you debate with such an idea, which is an idea
by the way, NOT found and NOT mentioned in the Bible. So people
can come up with all kinds of none-rational ideas of the
"miracles" God performed, but I say again, such "miracles" or
"special effects" [like they do in movies these days] like
falling asleep for a year, from God, are not mentioned as ever
being done in this whole account, EXCEPT that at the beginning
God did lead the animals to Noah. 
     The coming of water in the account is from heavenly rain,
and under-water springs, all VERY NATURAL things.
     God simply used them all at the same time for that "earth"
or land area where Noah was, to be covered. I read the coming of
the waters as from natural things that God used and not some type
of Niagra Falls that would have been necessary to cover the
highest mountain on earth all over the globe, in such a
relatively short time as recorded in Genesis.

     So overall, when we take ALL aspects of this flood so far
considered, the local flood is to me still the best thought in
keeping with the whole context of this passage of Scripture and
the context of the natural physical earth and all the creatures
upon it.
              
     Let me state again, just think about, for starters, seven
pairs of cows, seven pair of sheep, seven pair of goats, and go
from there with all the "clean" animals (Gen.7:1-2). Think of the
space needed for just ONE pair of Elephants, even if lying down
in hibernation for a year. Even if arguing from an hibernation
point of invention [I say invention because the Bible gives no
evidence the animals on Noah's ark hibernated - the ones that
usually never hibernate that is], it still is beyond physical
reason that such a ship could contain pairs on all the unclean
animals, fowls of the air, and every creeping thing (fish of the
seas were not include), showing a proof that goes better with a
regional food than a WILD STRATA LAYING deluge that many want to
teach that Noah's flood was.  The vast and main strata laying
deluge took place in the UNIVERSAL food that DID actually happen
on the ENTIRE globe, the flood we see of Genesis 1:2, when the
waters did indeed cover the ENTIRE planet and everything on it
[including fish in the seas] was killed and wiped off the face of
the earth. THAT flood and how it came to be, I have covered in
other studies on this Website.

     There is the argument put forth by some who hold to a local
flood that says nothing is told to us that Noah separated the
animals and so reproduction could have taken place, hence the ark
would have been too crowded by the time a year had ended. This
cannot be used as any viable argument to support a local and not
universal flood, simply by the fact that God could easily have
"turned off the reproductive" tap in those creatures for a year
or so, after all doing such a thing for Him would be nothing,
He just has to speak and it is done.
     Also as Woodrow argues there had to be reproduction on the
ark, because as he says some creatures (and he gives examples of
some, like the fly, and the grasshopper) do not live over a year,
much less in many cases.
     But that argument presupposes that things were normal for
those creatures on the ark. If God did a miracle by having those
creatures that die under a year, live to over a year, then that
argument falls flat. It is just impossible to be dogmatic that
God did not intervene with certain miracles for that duration on
the ark for certain creatures.  
     We are given very few in-depth details in Genesis concerning
ALL the things God did or did not do, in the period Noah and the
creatures lived on the ark. We must try to build our case of a
regional or universal flood from what is told us, and not from
suppositions of "normal" conditions or "miraculous" conditions
which are not told us. We simply do not know all the details of
all those conditions during that year of living on the ark.
   
DISCOVERING MALE AND FEMALE

     A valid argument I believe Woodrow does have is in stating
that it must have been very difficult if not impossible in some
cases to know male from female in some creatures, if he was to
take on board the ark pairs from all creatures of the world.
     The wording in Genesis 7:2 and "THOU shall take to thee ..."
indicates it was Noah who had to pick and sort the male and the
female from all the beasts after their kind, the cattle after
their kind, every creeping thing after its kind, and every bird
after its kind (verse 14). The wording of "THOU" does NOT
indicate God did the sorting of male and female for Noah. 
     It would have been easy for Noah to find male from female in
animals like horses, cows and bulls. But in the case of other
creatures indeed very difficult and if not impossible at times.
How do you find the male and female in creatures like ants, or
flies, or snakes, or creeping things that can hardly be seen with
the human eye?
     Unless you again argue that God miraculously told Noah which
was the male and female in some creatures, we have to face the
fact that sometimes it would have been impossible for Noah to
have known male from female in many of the living creatures and
insects on the entire earth, if Noah's flood was indeed a global
happening.
          
     Once more the "universal flood" advocates would have to
resort to "the miracle" answer. God brought the pairs to Noah,
God knows male and female, so Noah did not have to. You cannot
debate with such "miracle" answers. So many miracles would have
to be done for a "universal Noah's flood" idea that it is really
not understandable by the human mind, though books like
"The Genesis Flood" and "After It's Kind" and "Deluge Story in
Stone" try to make it all humanly understandable. Just the
thought of God bringing to Noah all those TINY creeping things
that are practically INVISIBLE to the human eye, is enough to
blow my mind away. Remember, for those who think "erets" means
the whole globe of the earth, it is written that ALL living
things, on the land, in the air, and all things that creep, were
to be destroyed (life from off the earth was to be destroyed, so
that was vegetation life also) - only that which was in the seas
were to be spared from death, as life in the seas is not
mentioned as going to be killed or destroyed.

THE AMOUNT OF FOOD FOR ANIMALS

     Some creatures eat creatures to live. This alone is mind
bending to think about in connection to keeping creatures alive
on the ark for a whole year.
     
     Of course "miracle universal flood" advocates would respond
by saying God made a miracle and no animals would eat one another
during life on the ark. Or they would argue it was not the nature
of creatures to eat creatures until AFTER Noah's flood.
     Okay, let's give them that, let's say either one of their
responses to animals eating animals was the fact. I want you to
notice carefully Genesis 6:17-22. Did you catch it? We cannot use
the argument that God put all the creatures into a hibernation
"sleep" for a year and so they needed NO food!  Mark verses 20,
and 21. Noah was to take FOOD onto the ark for himself (his wife
and three sons and their wives) and FOOD FOR THE CREATURES, to
KEEP THEM ALIVE!! The food was FOR "THEE AND FOR THEM"!!

     I am a horseman. The average principle for feeding a horse
is dividing the body weight by 100 and times it by 2.5, so an
eleven hundred pound saddle horse, NOT working, should be given
about 30 pounds of hay per day. Let's round it out at 25 pounds
of hay, which is half a bail of a 50 pound hay bail per day. And
that is three and a half bails (50 pound bails) of hay per week.
We have two horses (male and female - one pair of unclean animals
in the horse kind) on board Noah's ark, that is 7 bails of hay
per week. Now times that by 52 weeks for the year on the ark
during the flood, and we get 364 bails of hay needed just to
feed TWO horses!! You put 364 fifty pound bails of hay together
and it would amount to a fairly good size room on the ark, just
to feed two horses for a year.

     Now that is for two horses. As Woodrow points out, consider
just ONE Elephant. His study showed him that one elephant ate
about 62,000 pounds of food a year. I will not question his
figure, for it should be very obvious to all that an elephant
would eat WAY more than a horse each and every day. The amount of
food needed to feed TWO elephants for a year would have been
mind-bending to imagine, going on to the ark, with all the other
food needed for all the other animals from around the world.

     Woodrow gives the example of the domestic cow, with about 20
pounds of hay and 50 pounds of silage per day, or 25,550 pounds
for the year. And as he points out THERE WERE SEVEN PAIRS (God
commanded Noah to take seven pair of clean animals onto the ark),
7 bulls and 7 cows, a total of FOURTEEN! Multiple 25,550 pounds
by FOURTEEN. The amount of space needed on the ark just for the
storage of food to feed 7 cows and 7 bulls was huge. 
                      
     Probably our "miracle flood" advocates would say "well God
worked a miracle and they did not need anywhere as near as much
food as usual" - but how much not as usual is the question -
maybe only a tenth as much or a one hundredth as much?  Even a
one hundredth as much would still amount to a HUGE tonnage for
all the animals of the entire globe. Then the Scriptures say
NOTHING on any such miracle given by God as animals reducing
their amount of food eating by anything. Maybe because they did
not run around they needed slightly less food. I am a horseman
and  saddle horses, even when not working on the trail or range,
still need about 25 to 30 pounds of hay per day.

     Ralph Woodrow also points out that some creatures have a
specialized diet. He gives the example of the giant Panda of
China, which lives pretty well only on bamboo, and the Koala bear
of Australia feeds exclusively on the leaves of a species of
eucalyptus tree.
     Did Noah travel around the world before the flood gathering
the food for these animals?
     
     Our " many miracle" flood advocates would probably want to
argue that those animals just mentioned did not have this
"special" diet back then, but were given it later by God after
the flood, or God worked a miracle by changing their specialized
dieting during the year on the ark. But nowhere in the Bible is
such a miracle taught or even close to being mentioned.
     
     A local flood for the time of Noah would solve many of the
above staggering facts on just the amount of food needed to be
taken onto the ark.

WATER WATER EVERYWHERE - BUT FRESH?

     Woodrow shows in his book on this subject that WATER,
drinking water, would also be a MASSIVE problem to solve for all
on the ark.
     Sure "fresh" water poured onto the land from springs and
from the clouds of heaven, but it would still have been mingled
with salt water from the oceans, and unless God once more worked
a miracle, the water all around them would not have been "good
water" per se. And if we take the idea from some "universal
flood" advocates that the high mountain ranges of the Canadian
Rockies and those in Alaska, and other mighty mountain ranges of
the world, did NOT exist until AFTER Noah's flood, then no where
near as much fresh water from springs and the clouds was needed
to cover the earth, and so the salt water of the oceans was even
more present in all that water now covering the planet. But yes
of course our "miracle" flood people would say God made all the
water "fresh" for that particular situation and for that
particular year that the globe was covered with water.
     
     The universal flood advocates must argue with such arguments
because they know how much fresh water would be needed per day
for creatures like Elephants. Horses alone if not grazing on
pasture (which contains water) but only eating dry hay, would
require a good big jug of water per day. And TWO Elephants,
dozens of gallons of water per day is what they drink. 

     The fresh water problem alone would have been a HUGE
problem for Noah if all creatures from around the world was on
the ark. Unless Noah had a way of making all that water around
him fresh and drinkable. Maybe he did have a way, or maybe the
Lord worked another miracle.
         
FOOD FOR THE HUMANS

     Food just for the humans aboard that ark would have been
significant. Yes, the SEVEN pairs of "clean" animals were
probably indeed intended for food for the eight people on the
ark. 
     Yet MUCH other food varieties would be needed to keep the
physical body healthy during that year floating around only on
water, water everywhere and no land to spare.
     You can figure what your family eats in a week. If you have
two or three teenage children, then you will get an even better
idea of the food needed for a whole year to feed 8 adult people,
who would indeed be getting a pretty good amount of exercise each
day from just looking after all those small to massive creatures
on the ark from around the world, if Noah's flood was indeed a
global flood.

     Yes, the food and water supply and STORAGE would have taken
up a very large part of the ark, for the humans and all the
creatures on it, from around the world, if THAT flood covered the
entire earth. Even if you want to reduce everything normally
needed by all to HALF the usual amount for the year-long stay on
the ark, the space required to store even that amount would have
been very considerable.

                          ................................................

TO BE CONTINUED


Noah's Flood - Universal? #3

More reasons it was not


                             
                                   Written and compiled

                                                  by 

                                          Keith hunt


CARE AND MANAGEMENT

     An argument put forth by those who hold to a local flood is
that it is hard to imagine how all those animals from around the
world were cared for, as some animals need mud and water to live
in. Some live in trees, some under ground, and others need this
or that physical environment to exist.

     The counter argument by the "universal flood" advocates
would be that God "worked miracles"  and the animals, for a year,
were just not "themselves" but completely different, or they did
not have this type of living nature before Noah's flood - only
after Noah's flood did they live and act the way they do today on
the earth. 

     Yet surely if such miracles were done by God, Moses would
have mentioned a few at least, or just told us that God worked
many mighty miracles for all the animals to survive out of their
natural habitat for a year - nothing by Moses comes close to
stating such a thing.
       
     But again our "universal flood" advocates would dismiss such
thoughts as "none-essentials" because God worked miracles, or the
animals did not do these things until after Noah's flood. They
would say wood-peckers did not peck wood until after Noah's day
or that God made them not to want to peck wood while on the ark.
Yet Moses recorded no such miracles being done by God while the
animals were on the ark for a year.

     As Woodrow points out, we also have the huge problem of all
the manure from all these world-wide animals while on the ark for
a year. We have only EIGHT people to feed and care for and remove
manure. Those eight people also have to feed themselves and
sleep.

     Well, as the animals were sleeping, so our universal Noah's
flood people would say, little manure was made by them. But we
have already seen, from the Scriptures, that Noah was told by God
to take food enough for the humans and FOR the animals. So
the animals DID eat and did NOT sleep for a year. Even if some
followed their hibernation nature, that would still only account
for a VERY SMALL animal population on the ark, and hibernation is
only for a number of months, not a year. Elephants do not
hibernate - think of the feed needed and manure produced just
from ONE pair of Elephants. I know what a horse eats and how much
manure it produces in ONE day, then double that. For a pair of
Elephants - eating as much as they do each day, the manure is
LARGE to say the least. Then we have all the other large animals
of the world - seven cows and seven bulls for a while (until some
were killed for human food), and the food and manure to move
would have been reasonable, maybe not that much manure to remove
for eight people, but we have to add ALL the other large animals
of the world also, under the universal flood teaching.

     As for the various climates that some animals live in, and
even survive in only certain parts of the earth; i.e. the
Platypus of Australia only survives in Australia. Have you ever
seen a Platypus in a zoo outside of Australia? It is one of the
strangest creatures to see and surely would be in any large zoo
in any country IF it could survive outside of Australia.

     Yes, the global flood advocates would reply with "miracle" -
God performed miracles with these world-wide animals. Of course
God could do miracles with them so none of their way of living
today, their specialized environment, was needed on the ark. But
if such miracles was done by the Lord, it is not recorded in the
words of the book of Genesis.

     The local flood advocates mention the mighty changes of
climate, temperature, and so forth with the ark rising to a
height that was over the top of Mount Everest, to a height that a
lot of airliners fly, and say it just could not be possible for
humans and animals (maybe polar bears could if there was still
enough oxygen up there above Everest).

     Our "universal flood" advocates will again dismiss this 
and say that the mountains were not very high. They try to tell
us the Canadian Rockies did not exist until after Noah's flood,
and the climate was temperate all over the world until after
Noah's flood, and the animals did not live in a climate like they
do today. Or they will have God performing yet more miracles. But
Moses recorded no such miracles done by God for the year on
Noah's ark. I will not dogmatically try to claim those great
mountain chains like the Canadian Rockies existed BEFORE the days
of Noah, maybe they did and then maybe they did not. I know of no
way to prove either view. If those mountain ranges did exist
before Noah, then for most of the life, if not all of it, going
above Mount Everest would have meant sure death. I know of no
bird that flies over the top of Mount Everest.

     But for local flood advocates to use all this to say the
waters would have frozen solid at such a height as to cover
Everest, and other arguments that go along with that supposition,
is rather silly to my thought. Why? Well IF indeed Everest
existed at Noah's time, and the waters did extend over its peak,
we know from the Scriptures that the water REMAINED as water with
the ark floating upon it. So what is the obvious conclusion? It
is simply that God CHANGED the climate, the air pressure, the
oxygen content and anything else needing to be changed to have
the Genesis Scriptures read the way they do. Once more with God
He only needs to speak and it is done.
     If mountain ranges of today did NOT exist in Noah's time, if
the climate of the earth was different, if creatures then were
adapted for that different world climate (and many even today can
adapt - the horse left outside in the Canadian winter grows a
good winter coat and with some trees or shelter to keep out of
the wind, that horse can survive even in minus 30 or 40 degree
weather. The horse in warm Florida or southern California, never
grows a winter coat when left outside), then we have an
altogether different picture for the belief of a universal world-
wide Noah's flood.

     I do have in my library two books that show you the various
objects, maps, drawings, inventions, etc. that have been
discovered in different parts of the world, discovered from the
distant past. Modern evolutionary science does not know where to
place them, so most of the time, such items are never shown to
the public at large. Those items smack in the face the concept of
gradual evolution of mankind. They show that sometime in the
distant past parts of the earth were VERY ADVANCED. There was a
time in the past when much of the world was NOT what evolution
would have you believe, it was way different than evolution wants
to portray to you.

     The argument put forth by Woodrow and others that plant life
would have been totally destroyed under 800 tons of pressure per
each square inch of the earth's surface, is based on the waters
covering Mount Everest. But if such mountain ranges as what
Everest dwells in did NOT exist at Noah's time, if oceans were no
where near as large or as deep as they are today (salt water
damage argument) then again we have a totally different set of
circumstances for mainly fresh water from springs and from clouds
to come and cover the earth.
    
     On the other hand the argument of universal Noah's flood
people that God did some RE-creating AFTER Noah's flood, is also
very weak in evidence, if not plainly NOT provable in any way.
      They will try to tell you that God re-created again after
Noah's flood, and will try to show you a few verses in the Psalms
that they claim prove their point of re-creation once more after
Noah's flood. Such verses prove no such thing. They read INTO
those verses what they want to believe. God had Moses tell us
plainly about "creation" in Genesis chapter one. Surely if God
did more "creating" after Noah's flood it would have been
recorded in clear words for us such as the words we find in
Genesis one - no such words can be found anywhere in the Bible of
another re-creation after Noah's flood.

     The argument by local flood believers about "fish" - that
some live in salt water and others in fresh, that some need warm
water and others cold, is also a pretty fishy argument. First, we
do not know how large the oceans were at Noah's time and how
salty they were. Second, we must take God's will and command into
consideration as how He would preserve the various fish. Thirdly,
we know that today there are "water" currents of cold and warm
water, where cold and warm water fish seem to natural know and
stay within the bounds they need to be in, to live and reproduce
and exist. It could well have been this way during the year of
Noah's flood. Fourthly, we have fish today like salmon that are
BOTH fresh and salt water fish. There may have been many more so
adaptable fish at Noah's time.
     Even if many fish did die when fresh and salt water
collided, we know like many other creatures, nature is adaptable.
What they have now found in the North Pole and way down deep in
the blackest depths of the oceans, is truly amazing. Either such
water creatures were created for that environment or they
adapted.
     It would have been nothing for God to have said the word
"adapt" and it would be done - in a second. He only has to speak
and it is done.
 
     Also as being very weak is the argument by the local flood
advocates that animals coming from different parts of the world
with different climates, and food, etc. to Noah, would find great
danger in their new environment.
     It is a weak argument, because it is based upon the climate
of the world THEN, as being what it is TODAY. And from the Bible
at least, there is no mention that what we have today for
climates in different parts of the world, were the climates in
those parts of the world in Noah's life before the flood.
     Even in our time, the last 40 years, there has been a HUGE
climate change in Canada, and the far north even to the extent of
the North Pole. I can well remember in the 1960s on the prairies
of Canada we often got minus 30 and minus 40 degrees for 4 or 5
weeks at a time in the winter months. Today (as I write in 2004)
IF (and that is an "if") we get minus 30 or 40 for a WEEK on the
prairies, it is on NATIONAL news! The icebergs are melting! The
ice-fields all over the planet are melting! The polar bears are
in danger because their winter is shorter! What is happening in
the far north concerning climate changes is breath-taking! You
see all this reported in detail on various TV programs. And this
is all happening within the last 30 years.
     Who knows what the climate of the earth in all its regions
was like in Noah's life. It may well have been vastly different
than the climate modern man has been accustomed to.

     So there indeed could be a point of truth in what our
universal flood teachers say, in that in Noah's life, the world
was not anywhere near like it is today, that there was a
different climate, less oceans, or land masses joined together in
certain ways. Their view on this cannot be dismissed or lightly
thrown out. With the changes we have seen and are continuing
to see since about 1970, the physical world Noah lived in MAY
have been quite different from the physical world we know.

     Going back to the Platypus of Australia. It is only found in
Australia. How did it get to Noah? How did it jump the ocean? And
why did it head back to Australia, and why can it not live
outside of Australia? At first these questions may seem concrete
arguments for the local flood advocates. But if we take the
possibility that Australia was not an island like it is today, if
we take of course God's guidance in bring the Platypus to Noah,
and if we take the hand and guidance of God to return the
Platypus back to the land of Australia. Then add to that God's
WILL that this creature only lives in Australia, just to throw a
curve ball at the evolutionists, the concrete argument above is
not so concrete at all.

     I'm just going back and worth with all this, to show you
that the evidence for a local flood or the evidence for a global
flood CANNOT be built upon such argument reasonings as many would
like to cling to, to try and prove their side and their teaching
of the topic is the correct one.
     
     And so in saying this, it is also true that Australia may
have been an island all along, the Platypus created there, meant
to stay there, and was not effected by Noah's flood because that
flood was local and not world-wide.     

A PROMISE

     Woodrow does point out an interesting phrase of words as
used in Genesis 9:8-10 " ...from all that go out of the ark, to
every beast of the earth" (Genesis 9:8-10). He says that some
people do recognize a distinction with the beasts that went "out
of the ark" and with "every beast of the earth" - animals not in
the ark, who were never in the ark. He admits this is only "a
theory" but then gives the Pulpit Commentary as saying it may
have been an idiomatic expression for the totality of the animal
creation, yet the same Commentary, Woodrow shows, goes on to say
that in all probability there were animals which never had been
in the ark.
     It is an interesting set of words used in this part of
Genesis, and while it gives no concrete proof for either position
taken on the local or universal Noah's flood topic, it does show
that some have questioned before now, the thoughts that Noah's
flood was regional and not world-wide. 

     Woodrow does return to the "snail" example, and I believe he
has a valid point. I do indeed find it beyond my human mind to
think that a pair of snails could leave the ark, not get trampled
upon (unless they were the very last to leave) and multiply in
whatever numbers, and that "kind" make it all the way across to
the west coast of the United States of America, taking the speed
they travel. How many thousands of years would it take a snail to
walk from the middle east to California? How many thousands of
years would it take a snail to walk across North America, let
alone from the Middle East.
     You may argue the snails got a ride on some Indian canoe or
wagon train that was going west (the Indians have been in North
America for THOUSANDS of years), but what about the worm, and all
kinds of other small creatures and insects, that are on the west
coast of North America (or South America for that matter)? Did
they all get rides on Indian boats or wagon trains?
     It just seems too improbable that it could all happen that
way. 
     Maybe some would argue the tiny eggs or whatever of all
these small creatures were "picked up by the wind" and with God's
miraculous hand carried around the earth to be planted by the
Lord on all the lands He had created. And if the land masses were
closer together in Noah's time, than they are today, I guess such
a spreading abroad of all the small and tiny creatures and
insects of the world would have been relatively easy for the Lord
to do. But then anything is easy for the Lord if He so desires to
do it.

     Woodrow gives the example of the "sloth" - with a ground
speed of 0.068 miles per hour, only twice as fast as a snail. As
he points out it is a South America animal. How did they get from
the ark to South America? 
     It may have been possible they also caught the wagon train
of the Indians and ended up in South America, in a much faster
time than Woodrow ever thinks of. The horse in North America did
not come with the Indians, it came via the Spanish as they moved
into America. It did not take that long to have THOUSANDS of
horses on this side of the pond. 

     Such arguments by local Noah's flood advocates do not
conclusively prove that Noah's flood was NOT universal. It is at
best a thought, but certainly no concrete proof they have the
correct belief on the subject of Noah's flood.

EVERY ANIMAL DIED?

     Woodrow correctly points out that though Genesis 6:17 says
"every" animal in the earth died, the Hebrew word for "earth" is
"erets" which can often mean "land." He gives the example of the
plagues upon Egypt with the use of "every" herb of "erets" being
destroyed (Exodus 10:5-15). And as he points out no one takes
this to mean every herb of the planet was destroyed. Hence the
same can be said of the context of Noah's flood. Only the animals
and creeping things and fowls of the air, were destroyed in that
land area where Moses lived.
     The universal flood advocates would probably reply to the
fowl being destroyed with, "If this flood was only local or
regional, the birds could have just flown away from that region."
But we must remember the skies opened up with rain, and probably
a rain not seen by mankind since, and continued with that rain
for 40 days. Such a storm of rain together with the waters of the
deep coming forth would have made it impossible for the birds to
have flown away to distant lands.

     As local flood advocates like Ralph Woodrow say, if China
was NOT meant by the word "erets" then the giant panda that lives
there would not be on the ark. Same goes for the Platypus of
Australia, and the Giraffes and Elephants of central Africa were
not on the ark, nor the Buffalo of North America.
 
     A local or regional flood would mean Noah was only saving
from extinction animals, creeping insects, and fowl of the air,
that were peculiar to that region, which would also make the
storage of food for them, and the care of them while on the ark
for a year, very manageable for only EIGHT people to supervise.
     
            
                     .....................................................

TO BE CONTINUED

 

 

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)