ARCHEOLOGY AND ANCIENT ISRAEL--- #5

 

Missing Links in Assyrian Tablets #5

Israel and Judah in Captivity

MISSING LINKS IN ISRAEL'S CAPTIVITY IN ASSYRIAN TABLETS           by E. Roymond Capt M.A. A.I.A., F.S.A. SCOT.  CHAPTER 5 THE CAPTIVITY OF ISRAEL The story of the Israelites downfall and deportation to Assyria is well known to any student of the Bible. "And they transgressed against the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land whom God destroyed before them. And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tiglath pileser, king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Hazor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day" (I Chron.5:25,26). The same account is given in 2 Kings 15:29, "in the day of Pekah, king of Israel came Tiglath-pileser (PUL), king of Assyria, and took Ijon, ,and Abelbeth-maachah, and Janoah and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead and Galilee and the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria." From the annals of Tiglathpileser 111 (745 B.C.) we find he also carried away three other tribes of Israel: Asher, Issachar, and Zebulun, and distributed them in and on the borders of Assyria, where he built cities. In his annals, he wrote: "People the conquest of my hand in the midst of them I place" (Assyrian Discoveries - Smith, Pg. 281). From other inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, we find some of the cities he built were named "Sakka," "Danium," "Elisansa," "Abrania," "Evasa," etc. Probably these cities were named to commemorate his victories over them or to distinguish the different people he had placed there. The names are distinctly traceable to Israelitish origin. The policy of deportation of rebellious subjects and the importation of foreign subjects to take their place was inaugurated by Tiglathpileser III. This was to compensate for the deportation of the people in captured territories and the depletion of land values. The vacated lands were not to be left to grow wild and to be the haunts of wild beasts. They were to be worked to provide continuing tribute for the Assyrian king. As motivation, the subjugated people were given a certain degree of freedom which enabled them to cultivate the country according to the experience which they had acquired in their own land. Those classified as "artisans," no doubt, were employed in the building of the cities in which they were placed. During his reign, Tiglath-pileser III restored all the old empire of Babylonia as far as the Mediterranean. He subjected the Hittite peoples on the Orontes and in northern Syria. He occupied the city of Babylon and legitimized his title by receiving the crown of Asia in the holy city of western Asia. This powerful king aimed at the conquest of the whole civilized world. He began by building up a great organization of which Nineveh and its succeeding rulers were the head. To achieve this goal he built up an army whose training, discipline and arms were such as the world had never seen before. In addition to this, he established a civil administration in his vassal states (wherever possible) instead of a military one; one in which the populace would have some part or word. Tiglathpileser died December 725 B.C. and his son, Ulula, another usurper, possessed himself of the throne and assumed the name of "Shalmaneser V." His reign, however, was short. He died while besieging Samaria, which had revolted after the death of Tiglath-pileser. The invasion of Samaria is found recorded in II Kings 17:6: "In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." It is generally accepted that Shalmaneser V captured Samaria, and this is certainly the impression which the Scriptural narrative leaves. However, the assertion is not expressly made. If we accept the direct statement of Sargon 2, successor of Shalmaneser V to the Assyrian throne, we must consider that he, and not Shalmaneser V, was the actual captor of the Samarians. Sargon II relates in his annals, that he took Samaria; "I surrounded and deported as prisoners 27, 290 of its inhabitants, together with their chariots ... and the gods in whom they trusted. From them I equipped 200 chariots for my army units, while the rest I made to take up their lot within Assyria. I restored the city of Samaria and made it more habitable than before. I brought into it people from the countries conquered by my hands. My official I set over them as governor and reckoned them as people of Assyria itself. (Numrud Prism IV, 25-41) ASSYRIANS RECORDING SPOIL FROM SAMARIA It would appear therefore that Shalmaneser died, or was deposed, while Hoshea still held out, and that the final captivity of Israel fell into the hands of his successor. In the latter trans portation of Israel, we have mention of "the cities of the Medes" as a fresh locality where the captives were placed by the king of Assyria. The other areas received a supplementary portion from the later captives of Samaria. The condition of Media during this period, like that of the other countries bordering on the great Assyrian kingdom, was subjugation but enjoying a relative independence. The Assyrians claimed tribute as due them. But the Medes, whenever they dared withheld payment, probably paid tribute only when the demand was enforced by the presence of an army. Those Israelites forced into co-existence with the Medes, no doubt enjoyed equal freedom and privileges with them. Thus, they were able to carry out many of their old customs and manners unmolested, perhaps governed by their own elders and chieftains. It was not long before the two races acted in concert in resisting the demands and encroachments of Assyria. From Tobit, himself a captive, we get some information on the social state of the Israelites in Assyria and Media during Sargon's reign. He relates that he and his wife (who both belonged to the tribe of Naphtali) were carried away from Thisbe into Assyria, whence he seems to have acquired favor, for he became purveyor to the king Enemassar (Sargon). Others had been placed in Rages and Ecbatana, and cities of the Medes. Tobit also wrote that he "went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the brother of Gabrias at Rages a city of Media, ten talents of silver," (Tobit 1:14) evidently believing it was the safest place. Thus, it appears the captives had sufficient freedom to journey from one part of the empire to another, and to hold intercourse with their relatives and countrymen in Media. Josephus also records Israel as having been placed in MediaPersia. Writing of the 721 B.C. conquest of Samaria, he says: "This conquest proved wholly destructive of the kingdom of Israel, Hoshea being made prisoner, and his subjects being transported to Media, in Persia, and replaced by people whom Shalmaneser caused to remove from the borders of Chuthah, a river in Persia, for the purpose of settling in the land of Samaria (Antiquities IX, 13,14). The inhabitants of other captured cities which Sargon imported into Samaria to repopulate it were regarded as heathens by the remnant of Judah who later returned to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity. In fact, great hostility existed between the two peoples. This is reflected in the parable of the Good Samaritan, as related by Jesus. The Samaritans, as the imported people became known, accepted the authority of the Pentateuch, but not the Prophets or the Talmud. They preserve to this day their own customs and Scriptures and even their own version of the Old Phoenician Alphabet. The areas where the captive Israelites were settled (as given in 2 Kings and 2 Chron.) have been located. Most were in Upper Mesopotamia which at that time formed part of the Assyrian Empire, Gozan was the area of Bilikh (ancient Besilius) and Khabour (formerly called the Araxes, or Chaboras). These areas joined with Halah, (Chalcitis of Ptolemy), Habor (the Khabour) and Hara (Harran or Carrhae). They are now found in modern Alleppo and Kurdistan, districts of Turkey and Asia. The ancient city of Halah is unidentified. But Habor is the city of Guzana - on the River Habur (in north Syria), which was conquered by Adad-Nirari III (in 794 B.C.) and made into an Assyrian province. Ezekiel confirms Habor as one area occupied by the captive Israelites. He wrote that God came to him, saying: "Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the House of Israel," (Ezekiel 3:17) and he expressly states that he "came to them of the captivity at Tel-abib, that dwelt by the river of Chebar." (Ezekiel 3:15) Chebar is ancient Khabour. In 705 B.C., Sargon II was assassinated and Sennacherib assumed the throne of Assyria. Of all the Assyrian kings, none were more famous, or infamous, than Sennacherib. His terrifying assault upon Judah, his blasphemous defiance of the Lord beneath the very walls of Jerusalem, and his miraculous repulse at the eleventh hour through the unshaken faith of Isaiah the prophet and the prayers of the faithful King Hezekiah are all well known to every student of the Old Testament. Sennacherib ordered accounts of his military exploits to be recorded on a number of hexagonal prisms. One of them, known as the "Taylor Prism," after the name of its first owner (found at Nineveh) can be seen today in the British Museum. It was probably made in 691 B.C. and contains the last of Sennacherib's records. After first enumerating successful victories over Sidon, Ascalon, and others, the inscriptions record Sennacherib's own contemporary and unusually detailed account of his historical assault upon the Kingdom of Judah. Thus, we have the Assyrian version to compare with the Hebrew record as found in 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 36 and 37. Needless to say, the Assyrian version shows Sennacherib in a far more favorable and successful light. The Biblical account of Sennacherib's seige of Jerusalem describes how the city was dramatically saved from destruction when "the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand (185,000) and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib, king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt at Nineveh." (2 Kings 19:36,37 - Isa. 37:36,37) Sennacharib's own account of this episode, recorded on the Taylor Prism, presents a very different picture. The language is boastful, referring to Hezekiah "Like a caged bird . . . shut up in Jerusalem, his royal city." (An analogy for his being unable to capture Jerusalem). It also describes Sennacherib's capture of "forty-six strong walled cities" and the taking of many prisoners and much spoil: "Two hundred thousand, one hundred and fifty people, great and small, male and female, horses, mules, asses, camels, cattle and sheep without number." In addition, Sennacharib records annual tributes he claims he was able to exact from Hezekiah. One of the "strong walled cities" was Lachish. The site of ancient Lachish is known today as "Tell ed-Duweir" and it has been extensively excavated. It was found to be one of the largest cities discovered in Judah. The flat summit of the mound covers about 18 acres. (Megiddo has an area of about 13 acres). Rehoboam had built a double-wall round the city. The higher one was of sun-dried bricks about 20 feet thick; the lower one of stone and brick nearly 49 feet high and 13 feet thick. On the north-west slope of the mound a pit was found into which over 1500 bodies had been thrown, probably during a cleaning-up operation following Sennacherib's siege of the city. Jehoiakim later rebuilt Lachish, but it was heavily attacked by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar and thoroughly destroyed by fire in 589 B.C. The famous "Lachish Letters" are dated from this period. (The Lachish Letters are first hand documents dealing with the uneasy political and military situation reigning in Judah on the eve of Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem). Sennacherib was slain by two of his sons. Esarhaddon, a third son and successor to the throne, in his records, corroborates the Biblical account of this slaying. "In the month Nisan," writes Esarhaddon in 680 B.C., "I entered the royal palace, the awesome place wherein abides the fate of kings. A fierce determination fell upon my brothers. They forsook the gods and returned to their deeds of violence, plotting evil and revolting. To gain the kingship they slew Sennacherib their father. The gods looked with disfavor upon the deed of the villains ... and made them submit themselves to me ... As for those villains who instigated revolt, they fled to parts unknown." From the Biblical account we learn that the assassination took place in the temple of Nisroch, and that the names of the "villains" were Adrammelech and Sharezer, and that it was to Armenia that they fled (2 Kings 19:37). Esarhaddon rebuilt Babylon which his father had destroyed. He then engaged in an endless succession of expeditions against the people of the mountainous north, against the Chaldeans, and against Syria. He even invaded Egypt, forcing the king of Ethiopia to flee; advancing up the Nile Valley he captured Thebes the capital. After dividing Egypt among twenty petty kings who recognized his supremacy and vowed to pay tribute to him, Esarhaddon conferred upon himself the title of "King of Kings of Egypt" (671 B.C.). In 688 B.C., Esarhaddon retired and handed over the throne to his son, Ashurbanipal. Ashurbanipal who is called in Ezra "the great and noble Asnappar," (Ezra 4:10) was the last of the great Assyrian kings. During his reign a new round of wars took place. He had to reconquer the whole of Egypt, put down rebellions in Syria, Armenia and Susiana. The worst carnage took place in Susiana. The king of Susiana, Teuman, was captured and beheaded in the presence of the entire army and his head taken back to Nineveh to be left impaled on a spear outside one of the gates of the city. Two messengers, whom Teuman had dispatched to the king of Assyria before his defeat, reached Nineveh without having learned of the intervening events. Upon seeing their master's head, one of them committed suicide and the other one was put into chains. Two other officials of the city of Susa (capital of Susiana) were taken to Arbela, where their tongues were cut out before they were flayed alive and tossed into a red-hot furnace. As a deterrent to any would-be insurgents in Susiana, the Assyrians cut off the lips of Teuman's sons and sent them back home in this badly mutilated state. Esarhaddon showed no mercy to his younger brother, the governor of Babylon, after he revolted against his rule. After a siege of the city in which the inhabitants were forced to eat the flesh of their own children to survive, the brother was captured and burnt alive. Those of his soldiers who had not starved to death or killed themselves were treated, in Ashurbanipal's own words, in the following way: "I ripped out the tongues of those officers whose mouths had blasphemed against Ashur, my master, and then slaughtered them. Any soldiers who were found still alive were flogged in front of the winged bulls built by Sennacherib, my grandfather; I whipped them on Sennacherib's tomb, and then tossed their quivering flesh for the jackals, the birds and the fish to eat. In this way I placated the wrath of the gods who had become incensed by their ignominious deeds." A later revolt brought Ashurbanipal back to Susa. Again, the city was ransacked. All the gold, silver and statues of the deities were removed to Nineveh. This time, he took into captivity all the royal family, the officers and most of the men of the army. Ashurbanipal recorded the storming of Susa in bas-reliefs of his palace. These showed scenes of prisoners being flayed alive, having their eyes gouged out, their ears chopped off, and their beard and nails torn out. Ashurbanipal held a triumphal parade in Nineveh, in which he was pulled along in a chariot drawn by four captive kings. Ashurbanipal did much to enhance the beauty of Nineveh. He repaired the palace of Sennacherib and added several new rooms. He accumulated a library of clay tablets dealing with all manner of subjects. The inscriptions showed they had been arranged according to their subjects in different positions in the library (as found by Sir Henry Layard in 1850 A.D.). The writings included astronomical books with observations of the planets, astrological and magical texts, mathematical calculations, medical prescriptions, business documents, historical records of different reigns, and personal correspondence of the kings. It was among the royal correspondence that the archaeological "links" (covered in chapter 6) were found. The great Assyrian Empire was beginning to crumble before Ashurbanipal died in 626 B.C. Of Ashurbanipal's successor, Ashur-etil-ilani, little is known. One of his acts was to assign a Chaldean, "Nabopolassar," as viceroy of Babylon in 625 B.C. Nabopolassar seized complete control of the city and by the tenth year (616 B.C.) of his reign he became master of North Babylonia, calling himself "the king of Akkad." In 612 B.C., the combined armies of Nabopolassar and the Medes assaulted, captured, and destroyed Nineveh. The destruction of Nineveh had been prophesied by the prophets of the Old Testament. Zephaniah wrote: "And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria, and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like the wilderness. And herds shall lie down in the midst of her, all beasts of the nations; both the pelican and the porcupine shall lodge in the capitals thereof; their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he hath laid bare the cedarwork. This is the joyous city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none besides me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie in! Every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand" (Zeph.2:13-15). Nahum is the prophet-artist who gives us the most vivid and detailed description of the final fall of the "blood stained city" of Nineveh and cites the distress of the hated Assyrians. His descrip tions of the methods of defense, of the movements of the army in the streets and numerous other data, mark his account at the word of an eye-witness, or of one very familiar with life in the capital. We see the dash of the enemy, with his glittering and bounding chariots, and flashing weapons, and prancing horses, as the walls are stormed. The attackers prepared a protection over their heads as they came close to the walls (Nahum 2:5). But by some means or other, possibly, as sometimes suggested, by the rising and roaring river, the walls were undermined and the river-gates carried away (though this is tradition) "the palace is dissolved" (Nahum 2:6). The bloody combat and noisy confusion in the streets result (Nahum 3:3) in "a multitude of slain, and a great heap of corpses, and there is no end of the bodies; for they stumble upon their bodies." "Take ye the spoil of silver, take the spoil of gold; for there is no end of the store, the glory of all goodly furniture" (Nahum 2:9) gathered from the ends of the earth. Nahum's final words depict the end of the nation that roared "like a lion," (Isa.5:29) whose chief sport was hunting and slaying lions, and whose ravages were most fittingly compared with those of lions: "Thy shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria: thy nobles shall dwell in the dust: thy people are scattered upon the mountains, and no man gathereth them. There is no healing o f thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?" (Nahum 3:18,19). At the fall of Nineveh, the king (Sin-shar-ishkun) of Assyria disappeared and in Harran (in northwestern Mesopotamia) Ashuruballit was made king of Assyria. In the sixteenth year (610 B.C.) the Babylonians and the Medes, who had combined their forces to destroy Nineveh, again united their armies to attack Harran. This was the new western capital of Assyria occupied by the Assyrian warriors who had escaped Nineveh. The new capital fell to the attackers but the king and most of the Assyrian army escaped across the Euphrates. After the fall of Harran, the Medes took over the lands to the north and northwest, while the Babylonians occupied the territory to the south and southwest. Babylon also claimed Syria and the Holy Land, and required tribute formerly paid to the king of Assyria. With the tribute, Nabopolassar did much to rebuild Babylon as well as the other cities of Chaldea that had suffered immense devastation during the reign of Ashurbanipal. However, he was of advanced age when he began and died (604 B.C.) before he could finish his planned restorations. Nabopolassar's son, Nebuchadnezzar (who bore the title "King" even before his father's death) was one of the most famous monarchs of antiquity. He fought several wars putting down rebellions of the petty Syrian kingdoms and was victorious over an Egyptian army, under Pharaoh Necho, on the banks of the Euphrates River at Carchemish. The Egyptian army was forced to retreat to Egypt. The Book of 2 Kings refers (but does not describe) to the results of this battle. "In his (Jehoiakim's) days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him" (2 Kings 24:1). BABYLONIAN CLAY TABLET The Babylonian Chronicle (B.M. 21901) describes the events leading to the final collapse of Assyrian power. The Chronicle records that in the 17th year of Nabopolassar, (607 B.C.) in the month of Tammuz, an Egyptian army reinforced by Assyrian units under Ashur-uballit, advanced on Harran but they abandoned the seige on the approach of the Babylonian army led by Nabopolassar (in Elud - August, September). Obviously, the Egyptian army could not have gotten to Harran (to the east of Carchemish) in the Upper Euphrates basin, without passing through the land of Palestine. The Bible records (2 kings 23:29) that King Josiah of Judah, was killed opposing an Egyptian army under Pharaoh Necho (Nekau) which was on its way to the Euphrates. According to the chronology of the kings of Judah, as given in the Bible, this incident took place in 607 B.C. Obviously, this was the same army reported in the Babylonian Chronicles. Thus, the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles confirm each other both as regards the circumstances and the date. With the defeat of the Egyptians and Assyrians in 607 B.C., the domination of the peoples of Syria and Palestine passed from Assyria to Babylon. This assumption of Babylonian authority over all western Asia is confirmed by Jeremiah as dating from the accession year of Jehoiakim. Jehoiakim had been placed on the throne of Judah by Pharaoh Necho, but transferred his allegiance under pressure of Babylon. 2 Kings 24, vs.1 records that he served the Babylonian king for three years and then rebelled against him. Consequently, Nebuchadnezzar, who had been virtually acting as king during the latter half of his father's reign, sent an army of mixed nationalities against Jerusalem. Daniel 1:1 gives the date of this attack as the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, which was just three years after his accession year. This confirms II Kings 24: vs.1, that he was vassal three years before he rebelled. NEBUCHADNEZZAR Jehoiakim's rebellion was short lived. When Nebuchadnezzar's army came up against Jerusalem, in Jehoiakim's third year, "the Lord gave Jehoiakim, king of Judah, into his hand" (Daniel 1:1-2). The Babylonian Chronicles reveal details of the capture of Jehoiakim: "In the seventh year (of Nebuchadnezzar) in the month of Kislev, the Babylonian king mustered his troops and, having marched to the land of Hatti, beseiged the city of Judah. On the second day of the month Adar, he captured the city and seized the King. He set up in it a king after his heart and having received its heavy tribute sent (them) off to Babylon." (Compare this with 2 Kings 24:10-17) 2 Chronicles 36:6 states that Jehoiakim was bound in fetters and carried to Babylon. Jeremiah prophesied regarding Jehoiakim that "he shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem" (Jer.22:19). Jeremiah further prophesied that "his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost" (Jer.36:30). Although the Scriptures and the Chronicles are seemingly at odds with each other, it is not inconceivable that all the records are true. In the general capture of the city, Jehoiakim could have been taken with the other captives to Babylon, but later on examination was found to show a rebellious spirit, so was ordered slain by the king and disgraced by being cast without the city (Jerusalem) and left unburied for a time. Nebuchadnezzar placed Jehoiakim's son, Jehoiachin, to succeed his father. However, within a few months, the new king's haughtiness and defiance of Babylonian authority brought another Babylonian army to Jerusalem. When the Babylonian army surrounded the city, Jehoiachin surrendered, "he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes and his officers." (2 Kings 24:12) This time Jerusalem was plundered and immense quantities of goods and treasure was carried to Babylon. Along with the booty, the Babylonian king deported some 7,000 workers, 1,000 craftsmen and smiths and 2,000 of the most influential citizens of Jerusalem. Thus, Nebuchadnezzar was guaranteed, for a period of time at least, the respectful submission of this western district. Also, he was supplied with skilled craftsmen for the execution of his elaborate plans to refurbish Babylonia. Zedekiah (Mattaniah) the third son of Josiah, was chosen by Nebuchadnezzar to replace Johoiachin as king of Judah. Like his predecessor, Zedekiah defied Nebuchadnezzar and entered into an alliance with a new king of Egypt, Hophra (Apries) who was challenging Babylonian control of Syria. Zedekiah's refusal to pay the annual tribute caused Nebuchadnezzar to order his army to attack Jerusalem. When the city refused to surrender, the Babylonians settled down for a long seige. Jeremiah, the prophet, advised Zedekiah to capitulate, and consequently gain mercy and life for the inhabitants. Zedekiah refused, confident that his pact with Egypt would bring their forces to the defense of the city. The Egyptian allies, true to their oath, sent an army to the rescue of Zedekiah. The Babylonians raised the siege just long enough to meet the Egyptian forces somewhere between Jerusalem and Egypt and drove them back to the Nile-land. The siege of Jerusalem lasted about a year and a half. On the ninth day of the fourth month, (July) 586 B.C., the city walls yielded to the strokes of battering-rams and the Babylonians took the city. Zedekiah made a vain attempt to escape but was captured on the plains of Jericho. The Judean king was carried to Riblah and in the presence of Nebuchadnezzar, the king against whom he had rebelled, was forced to witness his own sons slain. Then Zedekiah was manacled in fetters, his own eyes put out, (probably in the manner indicated on the Assyrian monuments, by the use of short swords) and carried prisoner to Babylon. To forestall the possibility of any future rebellion in the strong fortress, Jerusalem was thoroughly plundered and burned. Its walls were leveled to the ground, and the better part of the population transported to Babylon (2 Kings 25:1-11). The main cause of the overthrow and destruction of the Judean kingdom was the unfaithfulness of Zedekiah to his oath and his refusal to obey the words of the Lord that he should serve Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah spoke the words of the Lord unto Zedekiah: "I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and the beasts of the field have I also to serve him. And all nations (shall) serve him, and his son, and his son's son, until the very time of his land shall come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand. But the nations that bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, those will I let remain still in their own land, saith the Lord; and they shall till it, and dwell therein" (Jer.27:5-11). In Babylonian captivity, the Judeans enjoyed many of the privileges of citizens, with settled homes and fixed communities. Nebuchadnezzar made it one of the chief aims of his life to bring prosperity to his subjects in order to bind them to him with ties stronger than fetters. Contrary to popular belief, the Hebrews in exile enjoyed a peaceful and prosperous time, aside from the tearful memories of the desolation of their native land. Seventy years later when the exiles were given their freedom to return to Palestine, chose to remain in Babylon, content with their life in their many new homes. CUNEIFORM TABLET RECORDING LIST OF RATIONS GIVEN TO HEBREW PRISONERS HELD AT BABYLON. JEHOIACHIN (KING OF JUDAH) AND HIS SONS ARE NAMED AMONG THE RECIPIENTS. After the Babylonian empire was overthrown by Cyrus, king of the Persians, the exiled Judeans were allowed to return to their homeland. Of the hundreds of thousands originally taken captive, less than 50,000 accepted the invitation to return to Palestine. It is this 'remnant' that became known as the "Jews" a name meaning "remnant of Judah, and never having been applied to any branch of the Semitic peoples prior to the Babylonian captivity. (The name "Jew" is a mistranslation of the word "Ioudaious," meaning from, or being of: as a country - Judea, and "Ioudaismos," meaning Judaism: the religion of Judah. The name "Jew" cannot be correctly utilized to designate any of the other "Lost Tribes of Israel"). During the Babylonian captivity, Edomites settled in Jerusalem and they together with the Babylonians who migrated with the Israelites to Palestine and the returning Judeans collectively, became known as the "Nation of the Jew." Modern Jewry includes a further in-mixing with Mongol-Turkish people (Khazar kingdom of Russia that contained some infusion of Hebrews-Jews of the Diaspora). A great majority of the Jews today, are Semites only in speech. It should be noted that Idumea was conquered by the Jews during the time of the Maccabees and thus a considerable number of "Edomites" was added to Jewry. By the time of Christ, they had become so powerful that one of their number, Herod, was king in Jerusalem. The second chapter of Matthew's Gospel shows that the hatred of Esau's descendants against the Israelites had continued to that time (Read Exodus 7: vv. 8-16). It is generally believed, by Bible scholars, that the Israelites carried away captive from their homelands, other than the Israelites that returned to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity, amalgamated with the peoples of the lands of their captivity (Assyria and Babylon) never again to emerge into world history. However, the error of this belief becomes evident as one examines the Assyrian records of a people bearing the name "Gamir" (later "Gamera" and "Gimira") suddenly appearing in the very lands to which the exiled Israelites had been placed just a few years earlier. .................. To be continued

 

A Shepherd looks at the GOOD SHEPHERD #10

The Hireling

But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep (John 10:12-13). OUR LORD USED contrast for dynamic effect. It was one of the secrets of His remarkable, arresting teaching. He used contrast to display in bold, bright strokes the great truths we human beings have such difficulty in comprehending. He told about the rich man and the poor beggar Lazarus who lay at his doorstep. He recounted the incident of the haughty, proud Pharisee praying while the contrite publican struck his breast begging for mercy. He contrasted the prodigal with his very "proper" elder brother. And now, in this parable, Christ brings before us the behavior of a hireling as it is contrasted with the Good Shepherd in caring for sheep. Our Lord previously pointed out how the people of God's pasture could, under His control, enjoy an abundant, rich life with Him. He made clear how God's life, poured out in rich measure on my behalf, enables me to enjoy abundant living in every area: physical, mental, moral, emotional, and spiritual. He told how life in Him contributes to a wholesomeness and holiness of unique quality; that it is entirely possible for a man or woman to be so intimately associated with God as to reflect His character to a sceptical society. Yet, in bold contrast to all of the foregoing, Jesus made it clear that not all sheep were under a good shepherd. Some suffered because of the bad behavior of hireling shepherds. During the time of our Lord's sojourn in Palestine, servants were of two sorts. They were either bond or free. They were either slaves owned outright by their masters or free people who worked temporarily for meager wages. In fact, because of slavery, the worth and dignity of a human being was much less esteemed than it was in a free society. After all, if people could be bought and sold at random in a slave market they were really not of much more value than cattle or furniture. It will be recalled that when Judas bartered with the high priests for the betrayal of his Master, the price of thirty pieces of silver was agreed upon. This was the going price, then, of a slave in the slave market. If a slave served his owner well and the two became attached to each other, the master often offered to set him free. The slave could then choose either to go free or become a bond slave or bond servant. Of his own free will he could choose to remain, for the rest of his life, as a servant who, because of his love for the master, chose to remain in his family. To confirm this the owner would take his slave to the doorpost of his home. Placing the slave's ear against it, he would pierce the lobe with an awl, pinning it momentarily to the post. This drew blood. This indicated that a bond was sealed for life, and that this slave had in fact become a love servant for the remainder of his days. He would never leave that family. He would be ever faithful to his owner. He was a part of that household. Their life was his. His life was theirs. There was none of this devotion about a hireling. A hireling had no permanence. He was a casual laborer who came and went at will in a rather haphazard way. He would be here today and gone tomorrow. He was essentially a transient worker. He took no special interest in his job. As soon as a few shekels jingled in the deep folds of his loin cloth he was gone. He would seldom settle down or take any responsibility seriously. His average wage in Jesus' day was a penny a day. The less work he could do to earn this the better it suited him. Like a dandelion seed drifting on the wind he floated about the country looking for the softest spot to land. And if the place did not please him he would soon take off for another. Sometimes, but not often, one of these drifters would be employed to tend sheep in the owner's absence. It was seldom a satisfactory arrangement. For that reason our Lord used the hireling to represent those who were entrusted with the sheep, but had no real love or concern for them. The secret to successful livestock husbandry is an essential love for the animals under one's care. And this the hireling lacked. He had no stake in the flock. They were not his. He could care less what became of them. They were but the means whereby he could make his "fast buck," and then get out. As a young man of twenty-five I was entrusted with the management and development of a large livestock ranching operation in central British Columbia. There were thirty-six men on the various crews hired to run the ranch. We were in a rather remote, though choice, area, where the glamor and glitter of cities seemed far away. Among us there was a common joke that we really had three crews: one was coming; the second was working temporarily; and the third was leaving. These were all hired men, passing through, who stayed in this remote and lonely location only until they had gathered up enough to move on to a more desirable job. In bold contrast I recall vividly the love, loyalty, and undivided devotion of the Masai in East Africa to their animals. For the years we lived among them I never ceased to marvel at the incredible fortitude of these people in providing the best care they could for their livestock. No price was too high to pay to protect their stock from predators. Why? Because they owned them. They had a stake in them. They loved them. They were not hirelings. Just a few days after we moved into the Masai country, a small, slim boy about ten years old was carried up to our house. He had, single-handed, tackled a young lioness that tried to kill one of his flock. In total self-abandonment and utter bravery he had managed to spear the lion. The mauling he took almost cost him his life. We rushed him to the nearest hospital twenty-seven miles away where his young life was spared, as by a thread. But why did he do this? Because the sheep were his. His love and honor and loyalty were at stake. He would not spare himself. He was not a hireling. God has, all through history, entrusted the care of His sheep to so-called undershepherds. And not all of them have proven to be as loyal as the Masai lad, nor as brave as young David, later Israel's great king, who slew the lion and the bear that came to raid his father's flock. Inevitably in the nature of human affairs there appear those who pretend to be genuine but are not. The ancient prophets of Israel cried out again and again against those who posed as shepherds to God's people, but who instead only plundered them for their own selfish ends. "And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should not the Shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; But with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them. And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: Yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them" (Ezek.34:1-6). The same situation prevailed in Jesus' time. Those who posed as the protectors and leaders of the people, the priests, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, were but rank opportunists who plundered and abused the people. The rake-off in the temple trade alone in Jerusalem exceeded $35,000,000 a year. Most of it went to line the pockets and oil the palms of the oppressors. Little wonder Christ went storming through the temple to clear it of its counterfeit activities shouting, "You will not make my Father's house, a place of plunder ... a den of thieves!" His confrontation was always with the ecclesiastical hierarchy of His times. They were not true shepherds. They did not love their charges. They did not care deeply for those in their care. They never wept over the plight of their people who were sheep gone astray. They were hirelings. They were there to grab what they could get for themselves. Is it any wonder our Lord thundered out His great imprecations against them? Here, He the great Good Shepherd, saw His people abused and betrayed by those who had no interest in them whatever. And the same applies to all church history since His day. God's people have always been parasitized by imposters. Men have worked with the flock only for what they could get out of it, not for what they could contribute to the well-being of their people. It was this sort of thing that nearly ruined me as a young man. There was within my spirit a strange, powerful, deep desire to know God. I literally thirsted and hungered for spiritual sustenance. I longed to be fed truth that would satisfy my innermost craving. Sunday after Sunday my wife and I would attend whatever churches we could. Some of them were small and struggling. Others were large and pretentious. Some of the preachers were proper and orthodox but seldom shepherds. Again and again I came hoping to be fed, but there was nothing. Frustrated and angry I would storm home, and vow never to enter a church again. "I'm like a sheep going to the feed trough hoping to find hay or grain, and there is only dust and chaff!" I would storm to my gentle wife. In her wisdom, kindness, and patience she would prevail on me to keep going, for sooner or later she was sure a few straws would be found here and there. Why was this? Because many of the men who were supposed to be shepherding God's people were only hirelings. They were in the job for what they could get out of it. It was obvious they spent no time communing with Christ. It was clear the Scriptures were not a living Word to them. They had no great love either for God or for His people. What happened to their charges really did not seem to matter. Eventually some of these men came to know me personally, but even after they had entered into our lives, their casual indifference and lack of genuine concern astonished me. In one community I attended services diligently for nearly four years. At the end of that time I had been taught virtually nothing. I was a stranger in a far country, away from my home land, but no shepherd seemed to care for my soul. At that period in my life I was under tremendous attack from the enemy of my soul. Almost daily I was exposed to onslaughts against the great truths of God's revelation in His Word. Subtle suggestions and crafty cynicism were working havoc in my convictions. The wolves were at work on me but there was no shepherd around who really seemed to be concerned about this wandering sheep. Alone and unattended I fled for safety. I knew not really where to run. Like a sheep blinded with fear and seized with panic I simply turned to run in my own stupid way. And the result was that I went far astray. I ended up far from my Good Shepherd. The hirelings had literally let me fend for myself. The net result can be expressed in the words of the grand old prophet Ezekiel: "For thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day" (Ezek. 34:11-12). Only the tender compassion of Christ, only the understanding of the true Shepherd of my soul, only the gentle overtures of the gracious Spirit of God could ever retrieve this wild and wayward one from the cloudy and dark days of his despair. Because in His patience and perseverance He pursued me along my wayward path, because He gathered me up again and drew me back once more in selfless love, was I saved. And for this I shall be eternally grateful to my God. But what desperate despair I could have been spared if only someone had cared for my soul at that stage of my life. Those to whom I looked for help were only hirelings. They would not stand up to the enemy. They would not engage the wolves that were raiding my life and the lives of others. They would not risk a confrontation. They simply turned tail and left us to be torn and scattered. The same is still true. There are ministers, teachers, scholars, writers, and leaders who pose as champions of Christianity. But when the enemy comes in they are shown in their true colors. They back away rather than risk a confrontation. They settle for withdrawal rather than beard the lion or bear, or assail the wolf. They turn and flee in the face of violent attack. Others remain silent while their people are deceived, harried, and driven to despair. Only the Good Shepherd cares enough for His own to lay down His life for them. It must be He who, living His life through and in His true undershepherds, enables them also to lay down their lives for the sheep. They must be prepared and willing to be expendable for the sake of others. They are not hirelings, they are His slaves of love. Paul calls himself "a bondservant of Jesus Christ." Men or women who enter God's service should regard this as an enormous responsibility not only before God but also to those whom they serve. It is something which is not undertaken lightly or casually for personal gain, but with an eye to eternal consequences. In any enterprise where we are coworkers with Christ there is incumbent upon us the obligation to realize that this is not a hit-or-miss affair. His view of His work in the world is a sincere and serious one. And He expects that those who enter His enterprises will take a similar attitude. When we give ourselves to serve the Lord, the primary motivation should not be one of personal gain or advantage. Rather, the predominant desire ought to be one of serving the Master out of love and gratitude for His goodness to us. We are freely, willingly choosing to be a benefit to others, not just for their sakes or our own self-gratification, but for His sake. It is only the undershepherd, whose first and foremost devotion and consecration is to Christ, who can stand up to the strains and stresses of shepherding. If one's devotion is only to people, deep, disappointing disillusionments are bound to come. But for the one whose service is centered in Christ there comes the strength and serenity to meet all the storms. We love Him because He first loved us. We love others because He first loved us. We love at all because He first loved us. This is what it means to be a love slave and not a hireling. ................ To be continued

AFTER ITS KIND #2

 AFTER  ITS  KIND

From  the  book  by  the  same  name

Their Strong Reasons.

THE ground having been cleared somewhat by the foregoing remarks, the reader is invited to proceed to an examination of those "proofs" and "evidences" of evolution that are said to be overwhelming when once they are frankly considered. Each proof will be presented just as fairly as possible. Errors in statements of fact or interpretation will then be pointed out, and the reader left to judge for himself as to whether the proofs offered are as impressive as many have been led to believe.

THE  "PROOF"  FROM  CLASSIFICATIONS

This proof is taken first, because it is usually so considered in books that are written to advance the theory. The evolutionist looks about the world of living organisms and observes that organisms are very simple of structure and some are very complex. It occurs to him that it is possible to arrange or classify these organisms in a fairly graded system from the most simple to the most complex,,  or,  as  the  evolutionist  would  say,  from  the "lowest" to the "highest." He therefore proceeds to make an arrangement or classification of all these living things. He begins with the simplest form, some single-celled animal like the amoeba. Next to it, or "above" it that he places a "higher" invertebrate like the star-fish. Next to or above that he places the simplest form of vertebrate, a chordate like amphioxus. Next to that a fish. Above that an amphibian. Next to that a lower mammal.  Above that one of the lower apes.  Above that, one of the higher apes, and above that man. When he is done arranging these creatures, he has a graded system from the simplest living form to the most complex. Then he turns to the creationist and says. "Here is a proof of evolution."

The reader has no doubt already seen the ridiculous absurdity of this mode of reasoning. He has also seen the subtlety of it. Absurd as this proof is, because it assumes the thing to be proved, it nevertheless has deceived thousands. We know that old shoes have never evolved. Yet by the above mode of reasoning we could prove that old shoes have evolved, merely by collecting samples of every known kind, and, starting with the smallest and simplest dolls slippers, grade them up in a series through baby's shoes, little brother's shoes, big brother's shoes, mamma's shoes, grandma's shoes, daddy's low shoe's, daddy's high shoes, ending with daddy's high-boots. Taking every kind of shoes known—wooden shoes, sandals, rubber shoes, Chinese shoes, we could grade them all so as to fit them into a tree as the evolutionists do with creatures they wish to prove have evolved, showing how the wooden shoes branched off millions of years ago 1ow down in the stem, how the patent-leather oxfords branched off higher up on the other side, and thus we could prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that no shoe was ever made as it is, but—has come into its present state by evolution. We might prove the evolution of the White House by starting with the "lowest" form of house—the grass hut of the savage— placing next in succession all the "higher" houses known, and ending finally with the White House. 

The well known biologist and evolutionist, T. H. Morgan, in his book A Critique of the Theory of Evolution, admits hat the proof from classification sin fact no real proof at all. He says that when the fallacy of the argument is pointed out to pupils of his who believe in evolution they are resentful.

As far, therefore, as the evidence from classification is concerned evolution is not established. It merely begs the question. All creatures, whether simple or complex, may have come into existence at one time, or even the most complex first.

THE "PROOF" FROM COMPARATIVE ANATOMY

This second proof is based on the facts that come to light through a study and comparison of the physical structures of unrelated species. It will be presented and considered in three parts.  (1) The proof from comparative anatomy of adult organisms. The student of anatomy studies carefully the skeleton, the muscles, the nerves of one creature., for example, the cat. Then he goes to another species, the dog for instance, and studies the bones, muscles, nerves, of this species and compares them with the same structures in the cat. From the dog the student goes to the monkey and examines very carefully the structures he finds there and compares them with the same structures in the dog. From the monkey the student proceeds to man and observes carefully the structure of the human skeleton, muscles, nerves, and compares them with what he has already found, in the monkey, the dog, and the cat. As he does so it becomes apparent to him that there is a certain similarity of structure underlying them all. The skeletons have all a general similarity in plan. The nerves are alike in design. The muscles are alike.

The student goes to the head of the horse. He finds there certain muscles, some used for twitching the skin of the forehead, some used for moving the ears. He comes back to the head of man. He finds there muscles that correspond to those in a horse. The muscles by which the horse can move his ears well correspond to those by which the man can move his ears poorly. The muscles by which the horse can vigorously twitch the skin of his forehead correspond closely to those by which man slightly moves his scalp. The design or plan of structure of the head muscles of these two unrelated creatures, horse and man, are similar.

Thus the student of comparative anatomy goes the whole round of living things, from those that live, in the air to those that live in the sea, and finds the same general plan underlying the structures of vast numbers of them.

Seeing this similarity of pattern or design in so large a number of living things, the student, if he is an evolutionist, says to the creationist, "How can you account for this similarity in so many creatures except on the basis of evolution, except on the basis that one living organism grew out of another, or that all had a common ancestor?" If the creationist is not able to see how it could be otherwise, he becomes an evolutionist, or remains a bewildered creationist.  It is the fact of a general similarity in the structures of many animals, together with the suggestion that this similarity is to be accounted for only on the basis of a common evolutionary descent, that constitutes what is said to be one of the strongest arguments for evolution.

Perhaps the reader, if he has never been over this ground, is considerably worried by this "proof." It may seem as overwhelming to him as it has to thousands of misguided young Christians in the colleges and universities where the evolutionary theory is taught. As this sort of evidence is presented in great detail by those who have studied comparative anatomy, and numerous minute likenesses of plan or pattern between creatures pointed out, it often takes greater stubbornness of faith in the Bible, and greater analyzing powers than many young Christians possess, to discern the grave error this line of reasoning contains. The reader is therefore invited to proceed until the mask is pulled off this argument and the fallacy in it revealed.

The criticism of this "proof" does not consist in denying the similarity in plan or structure that comparative anatomy reveals. The likenesses can be admitted in as great detail as the evolutionists care to have them asserted. The criticism of the argument from comparative anatomy from the creation point of view consists in admitting the similarity of structure, but in denying the interpretation put upon it. and offering instead another interpretation equally as reasonable and perfectly in harmony with the doctrine of special creation.

Similarity of plan, pattern, or design may well be a proof of creation. To impress upon himself this fact the reader is asked to call up in his mind a large number of church buildings of various sizes and shapes, none of which are exactly alike, but in all of which there is a general similarity of design. (Fig. 4.) Each may have a tower or steeple. Each may have a large front door. Earn may have similar rows of windows. Inside is the same seating

Fig. 4. Above, from left to right, are corresponding parts of four widely different species: A. wing of bat, B. forefoot of turtle, C. forefoot of frog, D. arm of man, all built with modifications on the same general plan. This similarity in structure is supposed to prove the evolution of these species from a common ancestral form. Below are four churches built with modifications on the same general plan. Since these churches did not evolve, similarity of design can not of itself be said to prove evolution. Similarities in animal structures may be looked upon  as  evidence  of  a   common  plan  in  the  mind  of  the   Creator.

arrangement. Galleries, similar, yet not identical, are found in them all. Seeing this similarity of plan in all these various churches, would any man be so foolish as to contend because of it that the churches evolved from one another or from a common ancestor? Hardly. They were all made separately. They may well have been planner and constructed by one architect at one and the same time. Similarity in design in the case of churches, does not prove their evolution. Nor does similarity of design prove evolution in the case of living organisms. The two cases are identical as far as the reasoning in the case is concerned. Similarity in itself proves evolution no more than it proves creation. To the believer in the Bible the similarity of structure in living organisms merely establishes the fact that there was one Great Architect, or Creator, who, when He was about to build many of His species, had in mind one plan or pattern, and this He used for as many creatures as possible with such modifications of the general plan as were necessary for different conditions of existence. Granting there was a special Creator such as the Bible

Fig. 5. The "proof" from comparative anatomy in its most subtile and impressive form. The visual impression from such comparisons has a hypnotic influence which leads to a false conclusion that only clear, logical thinking can dispel. What actually is shown by the illustration is that the gibbon, orang, chimpanzee, gorilla and man have somewhat of a similarity in skeletal structure, a fact which there is no reason to deny, since it proves that God created all on a common plan as much as it proves common ancestry. To the illustration could be added in the same position the skeleton of a rabbit, squirrel, sheep, horse and even bird, and the same general similarity would be noted. Until the creationist learns instantly to  see  the logical  fallacy  of all  such  evolutionary  illustrations he  will  be  in  trouble.

portrays, that Creator might have made His creatures all on a different plan. He might readily have created the dog with four legs, the horse with five, the cow with six, the elephant with ten. He might have shown His ingenuity, by making man with three legs and nineteen arms. He might have so constructed sheep that the species might have its nostrils in its back and its ears on its legs. He might have put one kind of nerves or digestive system in man and a totally different system in all of the apes. Is there any reason why He would not do so? Yes. Since all creatures were to live on the same earth under similar conditions, breathing the same kind of air, drinking the same kind of water, eating the same kind of food—it seems reasonable that a Creator would have conceived of one good and excellent plan for all creatures to be constructed upon, the crown of His creation as well as the dumb brutes over which man was to rule, and then modified this plan when modification was wise or necessary. The common plan observable in all creatures may with as good grounds point to one great, economical, and wise Creator as to any evolutionary process.

(IF  MAN  WAS  ORIGINALLY  A  GATHER/HUNTER  AND  HAD  TO  CONTEND  WITH  WILD  ANIMALS  TRACKING  HIM  DOWN  TO  EAT,  WHY  DID  NOT  EVOLUTION  PUT  MAN'S  EYES  ON  THE  SIDE  OF  HIS  HEAD,  LIKE  THE  HORSE.  THE  HORSE  CAN  SEE  ABOUT  340  DEGREES  WHEN  ITS  HEAD  IS  FACING  STRAIGHT-AHEAD.  THE  HORSE  IS  KNOWN  AS  A  PREY  ANIMAL;  OTHER  ANIMALS  ATTACK  AND  EAT  HORSES.  HORSES  THEREFORE  WERE  GIVEN  EYES  ON  THE  SIDE  OF  THEIR  HEAD,  AS  LIKE  MANY  OTHER  WILD  ANIMALS  HAVE,  FOR  MANY  HUNT  AND  EAT  EACH  OTHER.  WITH  SO  MANY  WILD [AND  DOMESTICATE]  ANIMALS  WITH  EYES  ON  THE  SIDE  OF  THEIR  HEAD,  FOR  PROTECTION,  WHY  WAS  IT  MAN,  WHO  EVENTUALLY  OUT-MASTERED  ALL  WILD  ANIMALS,  DID  NOT  EVOLVE  WITH  EYES  ON  THE  SIDE  OF  THE  HEAD,  ESPECIALLY  IF  MAN  WAS  PART  OF  THE  WILD  ANIMAL  KINGDOM  FOR  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS.  THE  HORSE  ALSO  HAS  MUCH  GREATER  EYESIGHT,  SMELL  AND  HEARING  ABILITIES  THAN  MAN,  BEING  A  PREY  ANIMAL.  WHY  DID  NOT  MAN  HAVE  OR  EVOLVE  THE  SAME  ABILITIES  IN  THESE  AREAS  AS  THE  HORSE,  SEEING  HE  WAS  PART  OF  THE  WILD  ANIMAL  KINGDOM  FOR  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS,  AS  EVOLUTION  WOULD  TEACH?  SIMPLE  ANSWER:  MAN  WAS  CREATED  BY  GOD  AS  WERE  ANIMALS  -  Keith Hunt)

COMMON ANCESTRY

Fig.    6.   One   may   take   his   choice.      Granting   the   existence   of   God,   the   top   explanation   of   the   similarity   between   "faces"   is   as   reasonable   as   the   bottom.  Fish  -  God  -  Ape  -  Man.  Anyone  can  kind  similarities  in  all  of  them.

Consideration of the argument from comparative anatomy might well be left with what has already been said. There remains, however, another angle from which the faultiness of the reasoning underlying it can be seen.

If, as is said, similarity proves that different species have had a common ancestry, then it follows that the greater the similarity between two species, the more closely they are related, and that, conversely, the more unlike two species are, the more distantly they are related. To illustrate, sheep and goats are more closely related than sheep and cats, since there is a greater similarity between sheep and goats than between sheep and cats. But sheep and cats are more closely related than sheep and ostriches, since sheep and cats are more alike than sheep and ostriches. Resemblance as a proof of evolution carries with it the implication that the degree of similarity between species shows the closeness of the relationship between them, and is used by evolutionists as a guide in tracing the supposed lines of evolutionary descent, in making evolutionary "trees." in constructing "phylogenies."

But here, in getting away from generalities and down to concrete facts, is where the evolutionary theorist meets his difficulties, for it is utterly impossible very often for him to decide what particular point of similarity in species he shall choose as the basis of their supposed relationships, and the more he studies and becomes familiar with the complexities of living things the more tangled and confused does the situation become for him. God created living things with a common pattern or design in mind, but He varied the pattern so often and so intricately—making forms so much alike in one respect and so different in others, making resemblances between species where the evolutionist would prefer non-resemblances and non-resemblances where he would prefer resemblances-—-that those who would take the organic world as God has made it and try to fit it into hypothetical trees showing evolutional lines of descent are continually at a loss what to do. Biologists are continually altering the "genera" and even the "families" to which many species belong, which in other words means that they are changing the species back and forth from one branch of the mythical tree of evolution to another. They are unable to agree among themselves on which branch vast numbers of species belong because these species are similar to species on one branch in one respect and similar to species on another branch in another respect. The great difficulty for the evolutionary tree-makers is that, on the basis of their own argument for evolution from comparative anatomy, species have, as has been said, "too many ancestors."

What we mean will now be shown by a number of definite illustrations. The case of the dolphin, porpoises and whales may first be taken. These aquatic animals are commonly thought to be fish, for in appearance and mode of life they are like fish. On the basis of the argument for evolution based on similarity it is proved, if the argument is valid, that modern fishes and modern whales, dolphins and porpoises are all close relatives, having descended from a common ancestor in very recent times. How else, the evolutionists may ask, can such a similarity as exists between whales and fish be accounted for?

But then, look at the matter from another point of view. Whales, porpoises and dolphins are mammals. Like cats, horses, apes. Fishes are cold-blooded creatures, laying eggs. Dolphins, porpoises and whales are warm-blooded animals, which develop their young within their own bodies, and suckle them on milk. Since there is this inner resemblance among whales, porpoises and dolphins and land animals, whales must have evolved not from fish, but from land animals. According to the "proof" of evolution from blood-tests, later to be considered, evolutionists say it is from "the hoofed mammals, especially the swine" that whales have descended. Manifestly, however, this and the other can not both be proved by similarity. The whale can not

Fig. 7. Too many ancestors. In shape and mode of existence whales are fishes, while in inner structure they are land mammals, like cattle and horses. If similarity of structure is a proof of evolution a contradiction is seen in whales, since they are similar in opposite directions at the same time. Similarity of structure cannot, then,  be  a  proof  of  evolution.

be descended from a land animal and also from a fish, at the same time. Similarity, then proving a contradiction, is worthless as a proof of evolutionary descent.

We pursue the matter farther. There lives in Tasmania an animal called the "Tasmanian wolf." Its scientific name is "thylacine." In outward appearance it is exactly like a dog. It runs and kills sheep in a dog-like manner. Even from close observation one would say that the thylacine belonged to the dog or wolf tribe of animals. In skeletal structure, head, teeth and so on the thylacine is so dog-like

Copyright, D. Appleton Q Co., N. Y.  and  Constable S  Co., London—Dendy—Outlines   of  Evolutionary   Biology,   part   "Convergent  Evolution."

Fig. 8. A. skull of dog. B. skull of thylacine. The skulls (and skeletons generally) of these two species are exceedingly alike. Bone for bone, tooth for tooth they are practically identical. This close similarity proves, according to evolutionary reasoning, that they are very closely related. In other respects these species are totally unlike, since one is a mammal and the other a marsupial, wherefore the evolutionists say they are very distantly related. A contradiction is thus "proved" by comparative anatomy.

that scarcely any difference can be discerned even by the trained anatomist. (Fig. 8.) Surely therefore if as evolutionists say, anatomical resemblances prove evolution, the wolf, dog, coyote, and thylacine are, on the basis of their skeletal similarity, all very closely related to one another by evolutionary descent. 

However, the thylacine is totally unlike the dog in matters other than skeleton. There is a large group of animals called the "marsupials." The group includes the kangaroo, opossums, wombats and others. This group is said by the transformists to be very "primitive" in structure and is supposed by them to have evolved directly from the reptiles. The strange feature about the marsupials is that they do not develop their young within the body of the female until they mature, as do dogs and wolves, but bring them forth, when they are exceedingly tiny and carry them about in a pouch on the stomach of the female until they are mature. The thylacine is one of the "marsupial" group. It is therefore very closely related by evolutionary descent to the kangaroos, and far, far away from the dogs. This is proved by comparative anatomy, the evolutionists say. But, we ask, how can comparative anatomy prove that the thylacine is very close to the dog and very far away from it at the same time? Something must be wrong with the argument from comparative anatomy.

Still  another  example  is  the  duck-billed  platypus  of Australia (Fig. 9). This animal has a bill like a duck and webbed feet. It makes a grass-lined nest and lays eggs which it hatches by curling up on the nest and warming the eggs against its body like a fowl. It must, therefore, have evolved on the same evolutionary stem as the birds. How else  can  this  similarity be explained?  But on the other hand, the platypus has four legs, a fur hide, a tail and claws like many mammals. When it is small it has teeth like a beaver. From these things the platypus must be judged to have evolved with the mammals  not the birds.

Again, too many ancestors.

Merely to suggest how numerous are the mixtures of similarities and dissimilarities in the created world of organisms, a few of many more illustrations of this kind may be given. There are two common butterflies in America, one called the Viceroy, and the other called the Monarch. The average person would never distinguish them. They are about of the same size and both have orange and black wings of similar pattern. On the basis of outward appearance the Viceroy and the Monarch butterflies are descended from a close common ancestor, reasoning as do evolutionists. Their inside structures, however, tell a different story. Inwardly these two species are very unlike and are therefore said by evolutionists not to have descended from a common ancestor at all. Again, there is

Fig. 9. The duck-billed platypus, a native of the streams of Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania. It has four feet, fur, tail, teeth and claws, but it also has a bill and webbed toes, it makes a nest, lays eggs and hatches them. Hence  it  must  have  evolved  both   from   beasts  and  birds-—-which   is   contradictory.

an insect called Criorhina which looks so much like the bumble-bee that bumble-bees receive it as a welcome guest in their nests. Criorhina and bumble-bees must have descended from a close common ancestor if similarity proves evolutionary descent. Inwardly however, Criorhina is related to the flies and is classified by biologists as a fly and must, therefore, have evolved from that direction. 

Again, there is an animal called the "Slow Worm" or "Blind Worm" - which is indistinguishable outwardly from a worm. Yet inwardly it has the structure of lizards. Evolutionists long called barnacles "mollusks" because of their hard shells, and had them evolving along with clams and oysters, but when it was discovered from an examination of the larvae of barnacles that they were not mollusks but crustaceans (like crabs and lobsters) they transferred the barnacles to the crustacean branch of the evolutionary tree. On the basis of outward form the sea-squirt was also, for many years, regarded as a mollusk, but it was transferred to the vertebrate stem of the evolutionary tree when it was learned that young sea-squirts are tad-poles.

''Convergence" is the name given to the process by which the evolutionists seek to account for the similarities of organisms described above. They say that species have branched away from one another, becoming different, and then   have   "converged,"   becoming   alike   again—This is what makes the whale both like and unlike the fish About ''convergence" we wil1 say nothing except this: if the proof of both evolutionary divergence and evolutionary convergence is comparative anatomy, comparative anatomy must be able to blow both hot and cold in one breath. 

(2) The proof from blood-tests. It is in connection with the proof of evolution from comparative anatomy that the much talked of "evidence from blood-tests" should be considered, since it is nothing but the proof from comparative anatomy in another guise.

As a by-product of the scientific investigations which led to the discovery of vaccination there was found about 1900 a test for human blood, a discovery of far-reaching importance in criminal investigations. It is called the "precipitin" test. A liquid called an anti-human serum is made, 15 which, when mixed in certain amounts with the human blood in solution, causes a heavy white precipitate to be formed. When this anti-human serum is mixed in the same amounts with the blood of other animals. e.g.—the frog, horse, dog, monkey, not so much precipitate formed. Thus a fairly reliable test for human blood exists. 

In 1902 an English evolutionist named Nuttall made use of this precipitin test to find what he called the "blood-relationships" of man to the lower animals. Applying the test—using anti-human serum—to many species, he found that the more nearly like man a species is, the more like man's is that species' blood—that is the greater the amount of the white precipitate does the test produce. In the case of reptiles, for instance, he got no precipitate. In the case of the birds he got only the faintest suggestion of a precipitate. In the case of marsupials (e.g., kangaroos) he got very little. In the case of the carnivora (e.g. dogs, cats) he got more. In the case of the ungulates (e.g., pigs, sheep, horses) he got still more. In the case of the monkeys he got still more. In the case of the apes he got most. Of

the last two gave the greatest amounts of precipitate. And these results, this proof that there are various degrees of similarity between human and other bloods—the least similarity in bloods being between that of men and that of  reptiles (between whom also there is the least similarity in general physical appearance) and the greatest similarity in bloods being between that of men and that of apes (between whom also there is the greatest likeness in general physical appearance)-—-is said to prove the theory of evolution.

We have stated the case in the most favorable way possible for the cause of the evolutionists. But who can not see that we have here, only in a different garb, the same false reasoning we have been considering, namely,—the erroneous argument that similarity proves evolution? Simi-

15 It is made as follows: The clear, colorless serum of human blood is injected in increasing amounts into some animal like the rabbit. After a large amount has been injected and the animal has become used to it, the animal is killed. Its colorless blood serum is then drawn off and is the anti-human serum used in the tests.

larity does not prove evolution any more than it proves creation, whether that similarity is found in structure of skeleton, muscles, nerves, blood or anything else. Similarities existing between different organisms may be said to show that there was one Great Architect who, when He made the organic world, used a common plan. In this case the common plan is seen in the structure of the blood.

If close similarity in blood structure proves the evolution of certain animals from one another, what must the evolutionists conclude from the established fact that the chemical substance called thyroidin—-the active principle—of the thyroid gland-—-has precisely the same composition in sheep as in man and as far as we know in all other animals with a thyroid? If similarity proves evolution, what does identity argue? What is argued by the fact that the milk of asses is more like that of human beings than is the milk of any other animal? What is argued by the fact that when a man is sick with "Haemophilia," a disease which causes profuse bleeding even from slight wounds, and the blood-serum of a rabbit is injected into him, very favorable and curative results follow, whereas, if the blood-serum of an ox is injected it acts as a poison and dangerous symptoms result? What is argued from the fact that Malta fever affects, so far as we know, only man and goats, while plague occurs only in man and rats? 16

Facts such as the above display a side of the matter which evolutionists do not emphasize. Nevertheless—such facts do not offer the best answer to the evolutionary argument based on blood-tests. It can and should be admitted by the creationist with perfect readiness that blood-tests such as Nuttall carried out, point to the same general sort of similarity between God's creatures as do other tests of comparative anatomy. The ape is certainty, when we consider its bones, muscles, nerves and so on, more like man than is a turtle or a fish, and we would be much surprised if Nuttall did not find that the blood of an ape and that of a man showed greater similarity also than did the blood of a fish or turtle and that of a man. The horse, when we consider the structure of its bones, muscles, nerves and so

16 See Zinsser, Infection and Resistance, pages 52-55.

on, is more like a man than is a fish or turtle, though less like a man than is an ape, and it would be odd indeed if blood-tests did not reveal that the blood of a horse is more like that of a man than are the bloods of snakes and turtles, although less like man's than is the blood of an ape. Sheep and deer are certainly more alike than are sheep and tigers, and it is not strange at all that the bloods of sheep and deer are more similar than are the bloods of sheep and tigers. Such things have been shown by blood-tests. But these things, we maintain, do not prove evolution any more than they prove that God created all these creatures on a common plan with modifications.

(3) The proof from comparative embryology.  It is in association with the proof from comparative anatomy that one phase of the so-called proof from embryology ought also to be considered.

Just as the student of comparative anatomy has made a comparison of the structure: (skeleton, muscles, nerves, of man) adult forms of life, and found them to reveal a common plan, so the student of comparative embryology has made a comparison of the modes of development of the various embryos and found there also a common plan.

Each individual organism, whether very simple or very complex, begins its existence as a single cell. That one, cell divides to form two cells.  Each of these two  cells divides to form four cells. These again divide to form eight, then sixteen, then thirtv-two and so on up until the adult form is complete. All species, from man down to the simplest invertebrates, thus begin as single cells smaller than the head of a pin and similarly increase by division and growth and redivision and growth. As the masses of tiny embryonic cells grow in size, the embryos of all species form what is called a "blastula," which, though it is not necessary to describe it, may be said to be roughly similar in all embryos. Some very simple creatures which live in ponds (e.g., volvox) practically cease development with the blastula stage and after some further modification live as adults in a form which looks like a blastula. The "blastula" stage is followed in the course of growth by a formation called the "gastrula," which is also a parallel stage in most embryonic developments.  The gastrula is the beginning of the stomach. Some form of life (e g jellyfish) cease development at the gastrula stage. Here they turn off and are developed for adult existence in water as gastrula-like animals. After the gastrula stage has been passed a faint streak appears, called the primitive streak. It marks the beginning of the spinal column. One creature, the lancelet, turns off here and becomes modified for adult life in this form. As development continues a very simply constructed heart and certain
arteries are added. 17  Here the fish turns off the common road and becomes modified into a true fish. The arteries become modified into the gills of the adult fish. As development continues a simply constructed kidney is added and the heart and arteries are made a little more complex in structure. About here the frog turns off from the common course. Thus,   step   by   step,   new   structures   are   added,  which   

17 The simple heart and the arteries   (called "aortic arches"), which in the embryonic development of the fish become modified into gills after the turn-off from the common path, are also present in a somewhat similar form in the human embryo. These fact form the basis of the statement made by evolutionists that each man is at one stage in his life a "gilled-creature." This matter will be discussed more fully in the section on embryology, but here it may be said that no structures in the human embryo are gills or ever become gills. Even in the fish embryo the arteries are not gills. They are structures which, only after much modification and further development, become gills.

roughly resemble one another in all vertebrate embryos, and the old structures are made more intricate and complicated, until finally all structures are present and developed into their most perfect and ideal form in man.

That there is this similarity in the development of creatures is undeniable. Since each species develops in its own peculiar way the similarity is often much concealed, yet it is there. This similarity in development is pointed to by the evolutionist as a "proof" of evolution, for how else he asks, can it be accounted for. The answer is simple. As the similarity between adult forms can be accounted for on the basis of a common plan in the mind of the Creator, so the similarity in the development of the adult forms can also be accounted for. Both, showing a common plan, furnish arguments for special creation.

……….

AS  WE  HAVE  SEEN  DIFFERENT  HOUSES  CAN  LOOK  SOMEWHAT  ALIKE,  AND  SOMEWHAT  DIFFERENT.  I  LIVE  IN  AN  OLDER  PART  OF  CALGARY,  USED  TO  BE  ITS  OWN  KINDA  WESTERN  LOOKING  VILLAGE  AT  ONE  TIME.  NOW  OLD  HOUSES  ARE  BEING  TORN  DOWN  AND  NEW  ONES  GOING  UP.  SOME  ARE  SPACIOUS  ON  THE  SAME  LOT,  SOME  LOTS  WITH  TWO  THIN  BUT  LONG  HOUSES,  QUITE  CLOSE  TO  EACH  OTHER.  SOME  OF  THOSE  LOOK  VERY  SIMILAR,  LONG  THIN  HOUSES,  BUT  STILL  HAVE  SOME  DIFFERENCES.  THE  INDIVIDUAL  LARGE  LOT  HOUSES….WELL  THEY  ARE  VERY  DIFFERENT  FROM  EACH  OTHER.  THEY  ALL  CONTAIN  CERTAIN  THINGS  ALIKE;  DOORS,  WINDOWS,  ROOFS,  LIVING-ROOMS,  KITCHENS,  BEDROOMS.  ALL  HAVE  SOME  FORM  OF  HEATING  FOR  CANADIAN  WINTERS;  THEY  ALL  HAVE  THE  SAME  RUNNING  WATER  SUPPLY  FROM  THE  SAME  CITY  HOOK-UP;  THEY  ALL  HAVE  THE  SAME  ELECTRICAL  SUPPLY;  THEY  ARE  ALL  HOOKED  UP  TO  THE SAME  SEWER  CONNECTIONS.  THEY  ALL  HAVE  SOME  SORT  OF  FRONT  AND  BACK  YARDS.  NOW  SOME  BUILDER  MAY  HAVE  PUT  SOLAR  PANELS  IN  THE  HOUSE  FOR  SPACE-AGE  HEATING  AND  POWER.  SOME  WILL  HAVE  DIRECT  CABEL [LIKE I DO] FOR  INTERNET  USE,  OTHERS  SOME  FORM  OF  WIFI.  SOME  HOUSES  WILL  LOOK  MORE  ALIKE  AND  HAVE  MORE  OF  THE  SAME  FEATURES;  OTHERS  WILL  LOOK  VERY  DIFFERENT  AND  HAVE  DIFFERENT  INNER  FEATURES  THAN  OTHERS [SOME  ELECTRIC  RANGE,  ANOTHER  A  GAS  RANGE];  SOME  CARPETS,  OTHERS  WOOD  OR  TILE  FLOORS.  SOME  WILL  HAVE  BUILT  IN  AIR-CONDITION,  OTHERS  WILL  NOT.  SOME  MAY  HAVE  AN  AIR-TIGHT  WOOD  STOVE  FOR  HEATING,  OTHERS  WILL  NOT. 

ALL  WILL  BE  HOUSES;  ALL  WILL  BE  OF  THE  GENERAL  CATEGORY  OF  HOUSES;  SOME  OUTSIDE  AND  INSIDE  MORE  LIKE  EACH  OTHER;  SOME  OUTSIDE  AND  INSIDE  WAY  DIFFERENT;  SOME  INSIDE  CLOSER  TO  OTHERS  ON  THE  INSIDE,  SOME  FURTHER  AWAY  IN  THE  INSIDE  THAN  OTHERS.

NO  ONE  WOULD  COME  CLOSE  TO  TEACHING  THE  HOUSES  JUST  APPEARED  KINDA  BY  ACCIDENT;  BY  JUST  THROWING  CEMENT,  WATER,  WOOD,  ELECTRIC  WIRES,  GLASS  WINDOWS,  WOODEN  DOORS,  ROOF  SHINGLES,  ALL  ONTO  A  LOT  AND  EXPECTING  THE  HOUSE  TO  BUILD  ITSELF.  NO  ONE  WOULD  EVER  THINK  THAT  A  DESIGNER  AND  BUILDER  WAS  NOT  BEHIND  THE  BUILDING  OF  THE  HOUSES.  OFTEN  ONE  COMPANY  THAT  DESIGNS  AND  BUILDS  HOUSES  MAKES  THEM  SOMETIMES  LOOKING  CLOSE  TO  OTHERS  AND  SOMETIMES  VERY  DIFFERENT  THAN  OTHERS;  BUT  ALL  FROM  THE  ONE  DESIGNER  AND  BUILDER.

THERE  CAN  BE  A  NUMBER  OF  MODEL  CARS  FROM  THE  SAME  DESIGNER  AND  MANUFACTURER,  DIFFERENT  ON  THE  OUTSIDE,  DIFFERENT  ON  THE  INSIDE;  SOME  LIKE  EACH  OTHER  ON  THE  OUTSIDE,  SOME  LIKE  EACH  OTHER  ON  THE  INSIDE;  THEN  SOME  CLOSER  TO  EACH  OTHER  ON  THE  INSIDE,  THEN  OTHERS  NOT  AS  CLOSE;  YOU  KNOW  THE  "OPTION"  PACKAGE….. YOU  CAN  ASK  FOR  THIS  ON  THE  INSIDE  OR  THAT;  HENCE  I  MAY  HAVE  THE  SAME  MODEL  BUT  WITH  LESS  OR  MORE  OF  THE  SAME  FROM  THE  FRIEND  WITH  THE  SAME  MODEL,  OR  ONE  MODEL  DOWN  OR  UP.  BUT  WE  ALL  KNOW  THE  VARIETY  OF  MODELS  FROM  THAT  COMPANY,  WAS  MADE  BY  THAT  SAME  DESIGNER  AND  MANUFACTURER.

SO  IT  IS  WITH  THE  CREATIONS  OF  GOD.  THE  SAME  DESIGNER  WITH  MORE  OR  LESS  "OPTIONS"  FOR  ALL  HE  CREATED,  SOME  CLOSE  TO  EACH  OTHER,  SOME  MUCH  FURTHER  AWAY  FROM  OTHERS,  BUT  ALL  THE  SAME  CREATOR.

Keith Hunt