ABC Sampler: Insight into Scripture

I'm trying to figure out what to talk about. Sometimes in the ABC samplers I do some of my finance things and other speech stuff, but I thought I would do some things that I talk to students about in forums and other places. There are things in the Bible that we run into that you try to prove. You don't know. What you do is like, this one I'm starting with is Moses and the Ethiopian wife. All we have is Numbers 12.1. Maryam and Erem spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman who he had married, for he had married an Ethiopian woman. That's all we have. We don't have anything else about this woman. The question is, where do you come from? We know the Bible is true, but where does she come from? That's the question we ask there.

Exodus 2.21. Moses was content to dwell with the man, and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. This is Jethro. According to the Bible, Moses married Jethro's daughter and took her wife. Who, then, is this Ethiopian wife? Again, some people try to say that Zipporah was really Ethiopians, and that's what it was. No, it was Midianite. He was from Midian, not Ethiopia.

In the Bible, when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses, and where did Moses go? To the land of Midian. The priest of Midian had seven daughters. They drew water and filled their troughs and watered their father's flock. Acts 7.29. Moses, at this time, was a stranger in the land of Midia, where he begat two sons. Gershwin and the others.

The Bible says it was Midia, not to Ethiopia, so you can try to make that argument. Josephus talks about Moses. I'll throw this up here for you so you can see it up there and tell you what it is. Again, according to Josephus' account about Moses, the Bible pretty well, as far as the angle of the biblical parents, his mom and dad of Amran and Jacobed.

He has a lot of distinguishing things he says about Moses. He said Moses was born in a time of great stress, which we know of, slavery and the Exodus. He was killing the male babies, which they did. The Pharaoh was afraid of the numbers growing in Egypt. All things he could give the Bible as well. He emphasizes in his writings the beauty of Moses and the desperation of his mom putting on the basket. But he's supposedly a remarkably beautiful baby and a remarkably handsome man. According to Jesus, the beauty was striking, so it was noted to many people who saw him. His beauty is highlighted as Moses grows strong and becomes an handsome man. Again, he talks about Moses in that sense. Pharaoh's daughter, while bathing in the Nile, sends him out because he's such a beautiful baby. Joseph portrays it as a divine thing sending her out there, which more likely was. He adds that Pharaoh's daughter decided to raise Moses as her own and brought up in the Egyptian royal house, which we verify from Scripture as well.

It makes it obvious that if the Ethiopians and the Egyptians were different colors, then you'd know if it was a white baby in a dark world. Apparently, they were pretty close to the same, so you didn't necessarily know where he was. He adds that Pharaoh's daughter wanted to raise Moses as her own and she was brought up in their royal household. He mentions Miriam, Moses' sister, who had been watching with the baby, the same as the biblical account.

He said, hey, I've got a woman that can nurse your baby. There are probably quite a few women able to nurse babies. If they were killing all the male babies, that means there are a lot of pregnant women out there without a baby. Or people that had babies. So it did. Acts 7.20 says, In which time Moses was born and was exceeding fair and nourished up in his father's house three months.

Acts 7.20 verifies that as well. Moses was raised in the Egyptian palace and received a royal education. He highlights Moses was well-educated, Egyptian knowledge and culture, which would later influence his leadership and understanding of both the Egyptian and the wisdom of the Egyptians. And Hebrew matters. Acts 7.27 verifies that. Moses was learned and all the wisdom of the Egyptians was mighty in words indeed.

Again, his account emphasizes over the miraculous nature of Moses' survival and his exceptional beauty, which played a role in his adoption and rise to prominence. That's antiquity of the Jews, Book 2, chapters 9 and 10. It's easy to find this now because I read Josephus when I was 12 years old. My dad had a copy. The ministers kept mentioning it, so I read it. I'm not sure I understood a whole lot of it, but it was a big, thick book, and I learned to read smaller books after that.

But it's interesting. You can ask the question now and look these things up. Again, Josephus is on Moses as an adult. He's raised in the Egyptian royal family. We know that from Acts and from Josephus as well. He says Moses was a general in the Egyptian army, which, because he was so strategic, he understood how to do things. According to Josephus, Moses was chosen to lead the military expedition against the Ethiopians who had invaded Egypt.

Now, again, archaeologists will say that there was never a time that Ethiopia was strong enough to invade Egypt. But a few years ago, they dug up some ruins on the northern side of Egypt that shows the Ethiopians did attack Egypt in the Middle Kingdom, which, if you've seen patterns of evidence, kind of matches up with that. And they were driven back. Again, Josephus' account of his strategic acumen and military strategy that he imploded, he said he used snakes that took and dropped them among the Ethiopians when they were fighting, and different things he did.

Also, he had birds that would find water. He talks about all these things that Moses had as strategies to help him go attack the Ethiopians and had incredible victories with them. So, again, through these ingenious tactics, his campaign was very successful, and he went all the way up to the gates of the capital city. And he was going to destroy the capital city, is what Josephus says.

And the city was fortified, hard to conquer, so there would be a prolonged siege. It says, Tharbus, the daughter of the Ethiopian king, observed Moses, bravery, and the leadership that he had from the walls. She was struck by his appearance, again, the great beauty thing, and valored and developed an admiration for him.

Tharbus sent a messenger to Moses, proposing marriage. She offered to help Moses and the Egyptians in exchange for becoming his wife. Recognizing the strategic advantage and seeking to end the conflict, he accepted her proposal, so he got a wife. Same thing happened in Europe, between Spain and France and England, and everybody they married each other. It didn't necessarily stop wars, but it was supposed to help.

And so Moses married Tharbus, which led to the end of the hostilities. So it secured a peace, but also formed an alliance between the Ethiopians and the Egyptians. So again, after the successful campaign of marriage, Moses returned to Egypt.

His marriage to Tharbus has depicted a pragmatic decision that showcases diplomatic and leadership abilities. So that's it. So what do we take away from that? Because not Scripture, all we have is for he had married an Ethiopian woman. But to try to put meat on the bones, wouldn't God make a baby so beautiful that if you're out there in a princess, and you see this incredibly beautiful baby, that you'd want to take it for yourself and raise it as a prince?

And again, often princes are, you know, all the royal family in England, the royal officers in the armies and things as well. So he'd be a commander. And wouldn't Moses' attraction and the things he did be attractive to a young princess who's probably going to get married off to somebody anyway? He may as well pick somebody you like. And marriage cements deals between countries. It still does, you know, up until the last couple of centuries.

And it was always done. And what would your status be if you married a prince of Egypt? Which Moses was. It would be pretty high. A princess marries a prince, and you're both royalty, and you're great. Okay. Biblical. Historical perspective. Moses kills the Egyptian, becomes a criminal, and runs for his life. Okay, we know that happened. What status would Tharbus have? All of a sudden your husband's a criminal.

He's not a prince of Egypt anymore. You don't have much status. I don't know if she went back to you, though. We don't know anything about her other than what Josephus says there. But when you think about Moses, again, Moses fled 40 years, goes to Midia, marries Japuara. He doesn't think he's coming back to Egypt.

And this woman, he doesn't know what's happened to her. If he goes back to Egypt, he can get killed. And so he's not coming back. She may have gone home, or maybe she wouldn't be accepted back home, or maybe she stayed in Egypt. I don't know. It doesn't say what happened to her. So again, after 40 years, God drafts Moses back into service again. He tells me to go back and conquer Egypt. To me, it would be like being a general in this country, fleeing for your life, and having God tell you, come back and attack America.

I mean, he led the greatest army on earth at the time, and now he's being told to go back and, yeah, right, God. I can see how Bill Cosby is retaining this. Sure, God. To do what? But that's kind of where he is. And so now he comes back. He's the leader of a nation that defeated Egypt. Okay, Tharberus has got to be at least 60 years old by now, because he's gone 40 years.

He's already married to her before that for who knows how long. She obviously had to be of age to marry. I mean, it could be young, 15, 16, or whatever, but she'd still be 60 or 70 or whatever. And for 40 years, having no status, or that of your husband's a criminal, now all of a sudden, hey, he's back ahead of the country. Wouldn't you show up? I mean, status again. So again, now Moses, knowing God, he would not marry somebody. I mean, he already married Zipporah. He's not going to marry another wife. But if a wife that he had before that he's bound and needs to take care of shows up, he's not going to put her away.

And so that answers the question about the Ethiopian woman. Again, speculation in one sense, but it's educated speculation. All we know is he had married an Ethiopian woman. That's a wife. And so that part's true. But to me, some of these external sources can give you some meat of why it may have happened. Because obviously, it doesn't make sense. I mean, Moses is 80 years old, and he's going to marry another woman. He's not going to do that. And so it puts that in there.

So anyway, I think it's fascinating to me. I like to read historical things that put some meat on the bones of some of the things that we know are true, but we don't know how it happened, because it doesn't make any sense.

But with the pieces we do have, it gives you a narrative that's plausible for sure. And you've got some historical things with it. Let's estate get to a different one here. Okay. Let's...oh, this is good on...we did Daniel today, so we'll do this one. When was Daniel written? That's another one that's...since we did Daniel today, we'll go to that one. Again, Daniel's prophecies are so accurate that everybody wants Daniel to have lived two or three hundred years after he actually lived. Because no one can know those things.

They don't believe in God, so they throw that thing in there. So they try to say it was written, you know, two or three hundred BC after Alexander and what possibly when Rome was rising, because they don't believe in God. And that's the case. So timeline. Daniel states it was the conquest of Babylon, or Jerusalem by Babylon, the main conquest for 604 to 585 BC, three different sieges. Nebuchadnezzar ruled from 605 to 562, give or take a year or two, depending on which historian you read. The Babylonian Empire ended at 539 or 538 BC. Alexander conquered the world in three years, defeating the Persians Empire.

So his empire started at 331. Well, obviously Daniel didn't live 200 and some years, so it has to be something different. Again, scholars admit the accuracy of Daniel, so that's through ruling empires. He didn't live 300 years from 600 to 300 after Alexander. And again, they don't believe the Bible, so they want to write it off as something written as a prophecy when he already knew what happened.

And so I know that Obama was going to be president. I can write something now, and say I wrote it 100 years ago. Yeah, it's easy to create a prophecy that way. But the key is how do we know Daniel was written earlier than that?

Okay. Is there any reference to Daniel to prove it was written before Alexander the Great? I love the story in Josephus. Again, the first century historian, wrote in the first century, commissioned by the Jews, had all the documents in the libraries and things that were commissioned by the Romans, I mean, to do history. And he writes in there about an account of Alexander the Great going to Jerusalem, because Alexander didn't destroy Jerusalem when he went there. He destroyed a lot of other cities. Some of them he did, and some he didn't, depending on the people.

But he talks about the high priest, Jadua, who had a vision before Alexander was coming to Jerusalem. And in that vision, God told him that when Alexander shows up at Jerusalem, put on all your priests in the robes, take the other priests out there, line up the city, and cheer him in. And Josephus says that's what the vision he had. So Alexander is coming to approach Jerusalem, and he's met by a high priest, and all these things that God had told the high priest to do, the vision, the garments, like that. Interesting enough, he tells about Alexander having had a dream of his own back in Macedonia of this person in priestly garbs that looks exactly like the priests that he sees when he's arriving up to Jerusalem. And so he's going to attack it, and he sees that scene from his dream, and he bows to the priests, claims before he had his campaign, he had that vision of the priests, and that vision encouraged him to embark on his conquest of the world. Okay? That's all well and good. The high priest then shows Alexander the book of Daniel, and tells him that you are the third kingdom in this thing, and you're the leper that's conquering the world so fast. And so Josephus states that Alexander didn't plunder Jerusalem, offered sacrifices to God in the temple, and he gave him privileges. They didn't have to pay the tribute every seventh year or whatever. So again, what are the takeaways from Josephus and that? Well, obviously Daniel had to be a book already written for the high priest to go in there and get it and show Alexander. And so, now Alexander conquered the world so fast, unless Daniel was alive right then and riding really fast, maybe he had a word processor. I don't know. But there's no way he would have known any of these things to write them. And so, he couldn't have known by Alexander the Great or the Roman Empire if the book was already in print, which it was on scrolls as such. And so he wouldn't know. So it seems unlikely Josephus would need to create a story about this. Again, the book of Daniel was well established. They would have all known and had scrolls back then to see when it was. So again, using an outside source, something there. And even writes that Daniel was encouraged by this. If that's the case, I'm going to conquer Persia. And he went out and finished his thing. So again, another case where we have a biblical narrative that we can look at and play. This next one is interesting as well. Filling in the gaps of other sources, again, other things. They always try to date Christ's birth by Herod's death. And so in Herod, there was an eclipse before he died. There's a couple of eclipses that happened. Again, we talked about Moses' marriage, death through his daughter and Daniel. Again, since Herod tried to kill Jesus, obviously Herod was alive when Jesus was born. You can't kill somebody after you're dead. And in Matthew 2.16, it tells us clearly, Again, who were these wise men? Now, if Herod died in 4 BC, which is what they used to think, and a lot of them still do, then Jesus had to be born before that. Which would make him too old to die in 31 AD. If Herod died in 1 BC, then Jesus could be born after 4 BC, obviously. And how did all these things come about? Herod was the most inscrupulous ruler. He killed anybody that got in his way. He killed his own children, even, if they thought they were going to take over. So Herod, why didn't he just go with the wise men to kill him? That's kind of the question.

So the date of Herod's death, again, they used the eclipses. A partial lunar eclipse happened in March 12 and 13 of 4 BC. A total lunar eclipse occurred in January 10th, 1 BC. That's kind of what they try to use those eclipses to put his date together of his death, to come up with this. In Scripture, Joseph was born in Bethlehem, Judea, and the days of Herod. So then they came, wise men from the east, to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born, king of the Jews? We have seen his star in the east. Come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. Who were these men? Why was Herod troubled? That's a question you might ask. Who were the Parthians? Because the wise men came from the east. Parthia was a kingdom east and north of Jerusalem.

Syria, when it conquered Israel, took the people over toward the Caspian Sea to that area where Parthia was in 721 to 718 BC. The location is where the northern ten tribes were taken. Somewhere northern Iraq and a little lower, but that whole region basically were Israelites where they were relocated to make sure they didn't try to rise up again at that time.

While they may have been the lost tribes, God didn't lose them. They still knew a lot about what they had at that time. Names and other historical migration evidence show that Israel was where the northern tribes of Israel moved. They had been relocated and not returned to Palestine. They kept many of the traditions and the traits of Israel when you're looking at the Parthians.

Why was King Herod troubled with these wise men coming? Because, again, he didn't really care about anybody except Rome and his power and killing anybody that got into that. Again, Josephus gives some insight, including Parthia. There are also some Roman writings, if not at the time, to look those up.

In the historical context of the time, Josephus talks about the Parthians in light of broader events in the antiquity of the Jews and the Jewish wars. He said their primary interactions were at war because they were the enemy. Rome tried to take them. Parthians actually helped support antagonists. They actually took Herod out of power for a while, drove him up to Masada in that area. Then Herod, with the help of Rome, came back into power again. There was this Parthian supposedly that helped and Anagonus from pushing him out and deposing that. Roman politics, again. Josephus states the Parthians' involvement in Roman political affairs played a significant role during the period of the civil wars in Rome. They often supported the rivals to Rome.

Okay. Matthew 2.4. When he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes together, he demanded of where Christ should be born. They said to him, Bethlehem of Judea, for thus is written by the prophet. You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judea, are not the least among the princes of Judah. For out of thee shall come a governor that shall rule my people. Then Herod, when he had privately called the wise men, inquired diligently what time the start appeared. He wanted to know when this was. This guy's a threat to his throne, so we want to know where he is. He was jealous. Why did he care about these men? Why did he seek information on the birth of the wise men? Why didn't he just wait and go with them as such? When did you see the star? What was that? Again, was it only a few wise men? We always have the three wise men and things. Would he be troubled by these men if they were from Parthia? If they were enemies, why not just kill them? You know? Okay. He sent to Bethlehem, go and search diligently for the child. When you have found him, bring me word again that I may come and worship him. Herod didn't worship anybody. But that's what he told him. Why did he do this? When they heard the king, they departed and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them till it came and stood over where the young child was. Obviously, there was some kind of miracle there to do that. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with excellent great joy. And when they were coming to the house, they saw the young child with Mary's mother, fell down, worshipped him. When they opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Again, everything on TV is you got three wise men there, and here's your coins, and here's a little bottle of oil, and whatever. And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed in their own country another way. So they wouldn't go back to Herod, because God told them not to. Again, was it only a few wise men? And then again, why was Herod so timid with them by just, well, hey, would you just come back and tell me where he is? Again, why didn't he just, you know, why did he say, I'll worship him? Why didn't he send soldiers with him? Obviously, if they wanted to see this king and they respected him, Herod's being, oh, I want to worship him too. So he's playing up to the Parthians, really. And again, he didn't send soldiers with them. Why would men from Parthia look for a king in Judea? They were coming to see a king, so what did they actually bring with them? Was it a few gold coins, some incense, some myrrh?

Parthian tradition. If you read the Parthian tradition, they had traditions, biblically, kind of like the Messiah, that a king was going to be born in Judea. So they had different people out looking for a king for Parthia. Again, do you know of any nation that has a potential king that comes from another country, other than someone biblically, that had some kind of basis for that? And what do you bring as gifts to a potential king of your country?

And what was security like on the roads at that time? We talk about the bandits and things on the roads. Again, the Roman Parthian War. Now we go back to historical context of Parthia and Rome. Joseph doesn't give extensive details on the culture and things there, but he acknowledges a significant role of Parthians in Romans' expansion. Again, military encounter. Crazius. Julius Caesar sent Crazius to take Rome. He was building his empire, so he sends him to take Parthia. It's an enemy to the east, and we want to take over the thing. He sends Crazius, and Crazius is soundly defeated. He's defeated so badly that Rome is scared on that thing. Caesar feared Parthia might attack them and come to Rome, and so he makes a decree. In his decree after defeat, because of the power of the Parthians and their ability to challenge the Romans in military might, after his defeat, Caesar issued a decree to avoid provoking the Parthians. Do not provoke the Parthians. Again, Caesar recognizes the strength of it if you provoke them while our army just got destroyed, and we need to rebuild and do something. We'll be in trouble. So he says, refrain from engaging in any hostile actions against the Parthians, and the penalty for any provocation was death.

So if you do something to stir these people up, I'm going to kill you. That was his decree. Again, Caesar was driven by the need to stabilize Roman Empire before Parthia would get strong again and not antagonize him. Again, the decree influenced the Roman-Parthian relations and maintained a period of cautious diplomacy, avoiding direct military confrontation for some time, and Rome was allowed to recover during that period of time.

Okay. How much gold? Okay. 1 Kings 10.1. The Queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon, and she came to prove him with hard questions. She came to Jerusalem with a great train. Camels, spices, much gold, precious stones. When she was come to Solomon, she communed with him all that was in her heart. When the Queen of Sheba heard of his fame, she came to prove him with hard questions. That's Chronicles. It's the same thing. Very large company. Camels, spices, gold, and abundance.

Chronicles 9-9, she gave the King 120 talents of gold. That's about 9,000 pounds of gold. And spices, great abundance, precious stones. Neither was there much. Spices, the Queen of Sheba, gave King Solomon. So when you come to see a king, Mr. Armstrong visited an emperor, leaders and stuff. He'd give a stubborn crystal, which is a traditional gift from your country, as such. But when they gave it to a king, they brought a lot of stuff with them.

Okay. Herod's position. If the wise men are from Parthia, which I believe they were, if you were sending enough gold for a king, would you send just a... Here's a courier. You don't bring this stuff. And if you had 9,000 pounds of gold, and maybe it wasn't that much, I don't know what they brought. But obviously they brought a bunch of wealth. And so the bandits on the road, you didn't need to send an army to protect it. Okay. Parthia helped antagonists make Herod flee. Rome would put Herod back in power. So who did Herod fear? He feared Rome. Seizure to decree. If Herod said, hey, I'm going to send soldiers along with you, or I'm going to kill this baby, or whatever, he'd be defying Rome. And it kind of explains why Herod, who is so evil and terrible and killing people, would back off.

If these people who have parthia came and an army shows up on your doorstep, and hey, I can't antagonize these people. What am I supposed to do here? What are you here for, guys? Oh, you want to see for a baby? Okay, well, where is it? You play the game with them. It just adds some context. Again, how much do we know about it? Not a whole lot. But just trying to add some context. Would killing the king while they were there cause repercussions? Obviously it would. And you'd have trouble with Rome.

Okay, another thing. Matthew 2.13. When they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in the dream, saying, Arise, take the young child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and be there till I bring you word. For Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. So he arose, took the child and his mother to Egypt, and was there until the day death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord the prophet out of Egypt, and I have called my son. Okay, how much money do you bring to the feast when you go to the feast? Do you bring enough money to stay two years in Egypt? Probably not. Okay. Maybe Mr. Miller, he might be able to make it. But unless you're really, really successful, you're probably not going to have much, and they didn't have credit cards at the time, so what did they have?

Matthew 2.16. Herod, when he saw that he was mocked to the wise men, was wroth, sent forth, slew the children that were unmet with him, and all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which spoke of the prophet, Rachel weeping for her children. And okay, when Herod was dead, Matthew 2.19, an angel, the Lord appeared to the dream, to Joseph, saying, Arise, take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel, for they are dead, which sought your young child's life.

So we know that scriptural straight out. Again, how could Joseph afford to go to Egypt and stay there for a year or two? You know, unless they were given a bunch of money. And again, Herod was mad, the wise men disappeared without telling him. Now he's gone, he proceeds to kill the children. God tells Joseph, hey, get out of here, go to Egypt. Again, were the gifts enough to live in Egypt two years? I would say, probably so. Because if you're giving a gift for a king, it's not just a couple of gold coins and a bottle of oil, and here's some myrrh.

I mean, this was expensive stuff, and I'm sure there was quite a bit of it. And then they returned after the death of Herod. Again, Herod tried to kill any who took his position. He was no longer a threat, so they returned to Nazareth at that time. Again, the biblical account gives you little pieces. Yeah, they were going to kill him. There were wise men there, they got some gifts, and they went to Egypt. It's kind of bare bones. And if you look at some of the things that happened in Parthia and with Herod and with the decree from Caesar, it just fills in a few things that are probably, again, historically, it's shallow in the sense that we don't have a lot of detail.

But otherwise, how did Herod...it was totally out of character not to just go kill the baby and go with him and do those things. And so this gives you a bit of a framework on which to put it.

And again, speculation with historical references that there tend to make sense, just like the Ethiopian one, it makes sense that Moses would have married her. Again, those are the type of things I think are fascinating that tend to prove a lot of what the Bible says. So when he's dead, he returns and takes the young child. So when did Herod die? Herod wrote 37 years, being proclaimed king in Rome, 34 years from the death of Antigonus.

In the antiquities written there, Josephus says specifically, Herod captured the city of Jerusalem 27 years to the day after Rome's General Pompeii had done so in 63 BC. The day was memorable. The day of Atonement, the fall of 36 BC. Herod carried Antigonus away in bonds from that conquest. Josephus, the words from him, require Herod to have captured Jerusalem in the fall of 36 BC, 27 years after Pompeii's victory.

Herod ruled 34 years from the death of Antigonus. He cannot have died in 4 BC, only later. So 4 BC or 1 BC. Again, historians have their reasons for insisting on 4 BC. They try to make it work as the year of Herod's death. There's been debates on that in Voggins' book. The main character people believed, actually, Finnegan, was a 4 BC person. But we see in the bottom there, he changed his mind.

Finnegan's handbook, he writes that. Again, he writes in 4 BC, but then it's noteworthy. Finnegan wrote his revised edition, primarily because he changed his mind on the death of Herod. He had earlier accepted 4 BC. More evidence led him to a new conclusion of 1 BC, which tends to fit with Christ's birth and when it would be before that.

Again, more evidence. Herod's last days. Josephus writes about Herod asking... Herod is sick, close to death. He's in incredible pain. He calls his people there and he says, Bring me an apple to eat and a knife. I want an apple and a knife. He takes a knife and he's going to kill himself because it's not the pain. His aides see it and grab the knife, take it away from him, according to Josephus. There's all sorts of commotion and noise.

His one son, Harold Antipater, heard this from his cell because he was in prison there by his father. He thought that he died and so he bribes the guy to be released. Herod finds out about and kills him. He dies five days later after that. Here we have that time. In the final days, he ordered the execution of two religious leaders that were going to remove the Roman ego from the gate of the temple. On that night, there was an eclipse of the moon. That's in Tech, what he's 1764.

In 4 BC, there's a partial eclipse of the moon, happened on March 12th or 13th, that night, in 1 BC. A total eclipse in January 10th of 1 BC. So 4 BC was March and 1 BC is January. It's interesting, the Apple incident followed the eclipse, whichever eclipse it was, in a land without refrigeration besides cool caves. How long can an apple last? Most of us don't eat apples that are 6-8 months old. A farmer actually took apples, placed them in cold storage with things there, and saved them.

This was the apple on January 10th, which would have been when the total eclipse would have happened in 1 BC. It's in pretty good shape. How many of you would like to eat the one on March 8th with a knife? I don't think anybody would want to eat that. I certainly wouldn't want to serve it to Herod. He'd probably use the knife on you. It's just an interesting thing a farmer did to put that up there. There's also some other things that I find fascinating. I came across this thing.

Somebody did it. I'm going to play a thing for you. Revelation 12. We read Revelation all sorts of figures and things and armies and wonders. Babylon, the harlot, the gold at her feet, and all these things. Revelation 12.1 says, It's not a salvation issue to know when Christ was born, but I'm going to pull something up here. I've already loaded it, so it should be coming up.

See if I can find it. Not that one, not that one. No, no, no, it's not there. Where did it go? That's not the one I wanted. I'm going to switch. Do a quick... I'll just take and paste this in. I'll open a window. That's not what I wanted. Don't need that. I'll pull up this one. There we go. That's another one we'll go to. Let rules turn icy cold instantly without a seat. I hate the ads.

Paul is associating the knowledge of the Messiah King, his arrival. He is going to be in the skies with something going on in the skies. That much we can say. Revelation 12 gives us a pretty easy thing to track in an astronomy program. If you plug it in, you get some really interesting things that are the outcome. I'm going to go through some of this. Before I do it, let me say what I'm not saying.

There are those in evangelical circles who...evangelical is the right word, even though they're kind of dated, except for D. James Kennedy. If you've heard of D. James Kennedy, he has a book on the Gospel and the Stars. E. W. Bullinger had a book like that. Sice had a book like that. Their belief was that you could look at the constellations of the skies, and they told you the entire plan of salvation. Like they went through the Romans Road, the heavens. I don't believe that.

That overclaims the data. What I do believe is that, like the Magi, there's something going on at a certain time in history that told them, there's going to be a divine king born in Bethlehem. Saddle up the camels. We have to go see. Jews would have noticed it. Gentiles like the Magi would have noticed it. Because they were watching.

And they believed that the creator God, the God of Israel, was capable of telegraphing stuff like this. This is the time. You could calculate it depending on what calendar you used by calendar. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Dead Sea Scrolls calendar that the Qumran people used is the only calendar in the ancient world that creates a time window for the Messiah's arrival that matches Jesus. I don't think that's a coincidence. So having said that, let's get into what I think we can claim. On your screen, you see a few things. There's the sun and the moon, and then there's a line. The line is called the ecliptic. This is a line that astronomers will draw to track the movement of the constellations.

Here's a blowout of that with the constellation pictures superimposed on the line. You notice the sun and the moon there. The sun is in the midst of the woman, the virgin, Virgo. It's the only woman in the constellation. It's not a hard thing to figure out.

And Virgo, again, there's different ways to understand the 12 stars around her head depending on which astronomer you would read. You can get 12 stars in this or that method. But again, she's the woman with the 12 stars, the virgin, who is about to give birth. The sun is in her midst. It's Revelation 12. And the moon is at her feet.

There she is, just alone. You'll notice above her head, I've included, I've let my astronomy program show, Regulus and Jupiter. Now, they are not mentioned in Revelation 12, but if you put the information in Revelation 12 into an astronomy program, this is produced.

What's the big deal about Regulus and Jupiter? Jupiter was the king planet because it's the biggest one. Regulus was viewed as the king star because of its brightness. Here, they are overlapped. They are superimposed on each other. If you are one of these old ancient astronomy guys, that's going to draw your attention because both are associated with kingship.

Constellation Virgo is the only constellation that represents a woman. For 20 days, Virgo was clothed with the sun. But the exact day when the moon was under her feet at the same time, and by the way, when Regulus and Jupiter intersect, and this is the view over Jerusalem, by the way, that could only occur during an 80-minute period within those 20 days. Okay, astronomy is linked to time, so we can calculate. You'll notice I've put the stick figures in now for the constellation so you can see this a little better. We've got in the center there, that's Virgo. She doesn't look as attractive as a stick figure. Sun, moon at her feet. Jupiter and Regulus co-joined. And what is the constellation above Virgo?

It's the lion. It's Leo. What does that mean to a Jew?

The lion is the sign of what? The tribe of Judah. Judah, Regulus and Jupiter are intersecting in Leo.

I can imagine the conversation between them. What was that king? What tribe was he supposed to be from?

Oh yeah, yeah, Judah. And you notice below her feet, in modern astronomy programs, we have two constellations. One is Libra, the other is Scorpio. In the ancient world, they were one constellation and it was like a scorpion with pinchers. And scorpions were at times referred to as a dragon, but you have another option for the dragon.

That is Hydra, also located below Virgo, but off the ecliptic. So astronomers and people who are into this kind of subject matter, Jewish astronomy, would they have thought of Hydra as the dragon under the woman's feet? Or would they have thought of Scorpio, the combination? It doesn't really matter. You've got two choices.

He's ready to devour the child when the child is born. Now, if you look at this picture, there are a number of things going on here. There's the intersection of Regulus and Jupiter. It's in Leo, the Lion of Judah. You have the woman, the sun in her midst, the moon at her feet. You've got the twelve stars, the court, you know, all this stuff. You've got the dragon. There's a small window of time when all of these things are present.

And that time is 3 BC. And this is the part that freaks some people out. September 11. September 11, 3 BC is the window of time in which all of these things are present. Now, people would say, oh, well, I'll wait to get to an objection here. Let's just throw this in first.

September 11, 3 BC date also corresponded, what a coincidence, to Rosh Hashanah Tishri 1, New Year's Day for Jews and the Day of Trumpets. Tishri 1 was also the New Year's Day of the Civil Calendar, according to the calendar accepted in Judah during the divided monarchy. In other words, it marked the first day of the reign of every new Davidic king. What a coincidence.

September 12, 3 BC date also corresponded, according to the calendar accepted in Judah.

September 12, 3 BC date also corresponded, according to the calendar accepted in Judah.

In Egypt, in Exodus 1240, it says, now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. And so because of this, movies like The Ten Commandments will say things like this.

400 years, we're pledging. 400 years and five days, and today he won't move. 400 and yes, of slave land. And experts on the topic will say things like this. Israelites were there 430 years. We have the record in the Bible that tells us about the Israelites going into Egypt and moving there for 430 years. But if you do that math, you'll find that this is not mathematically possible.

You see, Moses was 80 years old when they left Egypt. His father Amraib lived to 137. His father Kohad lived to 133. And Kohad was one of the 66 persons who went with Jacob down into Egypt. Now, let's just stretch this out as much as we possibly can. Let's assume that Kohad was a newborn baby when he arrived in Egypt. Let's assume that Amraib was born near to his father Dai. And let's assume that Moses was born near to his father Dai. So take 133 plus 137 plus 80, and that equals 350.

Which means that the amount of time the Israelites were in Egypt could have been no longer than 350 years maximum. Now, more than likely, Kohad was probably not a newborn baby when he arrived in Egypt. More than likely, Moses was not born near to his father Dai. And more than likely, Amraib was not born near to his father Dai. Which means that the amount of time the Israelites were in Egypt would have been significantly less than 350 years.

So why is Exodus 1240 say the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years when this is not mathematically possible? The key is found in one of Paul's letters. In Galatians 3 16 and 17, Paul says, Now to Abraham and his seed, where the promise is made. And this I say that the law, which was 403 years later, cannot unload a covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ. Basically, Paul is saying that from the time that Abraham received the promise to the time that Moses received the law, there was 430 years, when Abraham received the promise when he entered Canaan when he was 75 years old.

Then 25 years later, when Abraham was 100 years old, that's when Isaac was born. Then 60 years later, when Isaac was 60 years old, that's when Jacob was born. Then 130 years later, when Jacob was 130 years old, that's when all of Israel arrived in Egypt. So take 25 plus 60 plus 139 equals 215, which means that there was 215 years from the time that Abraham entered Canaan to the time that all of Israel arrived in Egypt.

Now, Moses received the law at the same time that they left Egypt. Remember, the Israelites were living in Goshen, and then Moses led them out of Goshen, brought them through the wilderness, and brought them to the sea. Then God split the waters of the sea and had them, brought them into Midian, which is in Arabia, and brought them to Mount Sinai, which is where Moses received the law.

Moses received the law at the same time that they left Egypt. So Paul is saying that there was 430 years from this point to this point, and according to the Old Testament, there's 215 years from this point to this point. So it took 430 years and then subtract 215 years, and that equals 215, which means that the amount of time that the Israelites were in Egypt was 215 years.

215 in Egypt, 215 in Canaan, 430 total. Now, that is mathematically possible, because 215 is significantly less than 350. And that's exactly what the Greeks of 2 Egypt says in Exodus 12.40. It says, and the sujoring of the children of Israel, or the sujoring of the land of Egypt, and the land of Canaan, was 430 years. The Samir competitive says the same thing. It says, now the sujoring of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they had dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt, was 430 years. Plagius Josephus says they left Egypt 430 years after a fourth other Abraham came into Canaan, but 215 years only after Jacob removed into Egypt.

Plagius Josephus is saying the exact same thing. He's saying they left Egypt 430 years since their fourth other Abraham came into Canaan, but 215 years only since Jacob removed into Egypt. Plagius Josephus is saying the exact same thing. So why do modern translations say that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years when this is not mathematically possible?

The reason was because modern translations like the New King James, the NIV, the NASB, these are all translated from the Hebrew Mesorrhic text. But the Hebrew Mesorrhic text is not the original Hebrew text. The copy of the Mesorrhic text that most modern translations are translated from is called the Leningrad Codex, which was copied in the 11th century AD. But the Greek Septuagint was translated more than a thousand years before that in 250 BC, which means that the Greek Septuagint would not have been translated from the Hebrew Mesorrhic, but rather it would have been translated from a much older copy of the Hebrew, which is no longer around today.

The Samaritan Pentateuch also predates the Mesorrhic text and would also have been translated from a much older copy of the Hebrew. Plagus Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian. He lived long before the Mesorrhic text was copied, and Josephus had access to ancient Hebrew texts that have since been lost or destroyed. Paul the Apostle lived long before the Mesorrhic text was copied, and Paul lived in the Hebrew.

In Acts 26, when Paul talks about his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, he says that Jesus spoke to him in the Hebrew language, and Paul understood it. Paul understood Hebrew. And so Paul would also have studied from a much older copy of the Hebrew. And what Paul said in Galatians 3, 16, and 17 is consistent with the Greeks of two agendas, American Pentateuch and the writings of Plagus Josephus. Now, the Bible says, by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established.

We've got more than two or three witnesses here. We've got four witnesses, all bearing witness, and the original Hebrew text said that the Israelites were being Egypt and Canaan for 430 years. Only a thousand years later, when the Hebrew Mesorrhic text was copied, the phrase, and Canaan, was dropped out of the text. And all of our Bibles are translated from this corrupted copy of the Hebrew.

The New King James, the Old King James, the NIV, the NASB, the ESV. If you go to BibleGateway.com, you'll find there's 50 English translations of the Bible on this website. Every single one of them say that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, which is incorrect and mathematically impossible. Every single one of these translations are inconsistent with the original Hebrew because they're all translated from the Hebrew Mesorrhic. And according to these four witnesses, the Mesorrhic text copied it incorrectly. As a matter of fact, these ages of Moses and his father and grandfather are recorded in the Mesorrhic text, and yet they only add up to 350 years maximum.

So in that sense, there's even a fifth witness, the Mesorrhic, there's witness against itself. And so the amount of time the Israelites were in Egypt was only 215 years. But the years of slavery was even less than that because the Israelites did not become slaves until after Joseph and all that generation died, and then a new king arose who did not know Joseph. Well, Joseph was 30 years old when he entered Pharaoh's service, and shortly after there were seven years of abundance and then seven years of famine.

So it would appear that after the seven years of abundance, Joseph would have been 37 years old. Then two years into the famine when he was 39, that's when all of Israel arrives in Egypt. So based on the information given, it appears as if Joseph was 39 years old at the beginning of that 215 years. Then Joseph died in 110, so take 110 and subtract 39, and that equals 71, which means that for 71 years, the Israelites were in Egypt under Joseph's rule, and they were not slaves during those 71 years.

So take the 215 years that the Israelites were in Egypt, subtract the 71 years that Joseph was in power, and that equals 144, which means that the Israelites were not slaves for any longer than 144 years maximum. Now, Moses was 80 years old when they left Egypt, and they were already enslaved when Moses was born, which means that they could not have been slaves for any less than 80 years minimum. So take the 215 years that the Israelites were in Egypt, subtract the 71 years that Joseph was in power, subtract the 80 years of Moses's life, and that equals 64, which means that there were 64 years in between Joseph's death and Moses's birth.

The Israelites became slaves sometime after Joseph died and sometime before Moses was born, sometime within that 64-year time period. Now, let's just assume that the Israelites became slaves at exactly the midpoint in between Joseph's death and Moses's birth. That would be 32 years after Joseph died and 32 years before Moses was born. If this is the case, then that would mean that the Israelites were slaves for 112 years.

And so the amount of time the Israelites were enslaved was probably about 112 years or so. Maybe a little bit more, maybe a little bit less, but definitely no more than a maximum of 144 and definitely no less than 80 years minimum. Whatever the case, the Israelites were definitely not slaves for nearly as long as the movies make it sound when they say, 400 years in bondage and today he won't move! The Israelites were not slaves for 400 years. They were only slaves for about 112 years or so, plus or minus 32 years.

But doesn't Genesis 15-13 say that they'll be enslaved 400 years? No, it doesn't. Is this they'll be enslaved and mistreated 400 years? You see, Genesis 15 does not say the Israelites will be enslaved in Egypt 400 years. It says Abraham's seed will be enslaved and mistreated and will land not their own 400 years. Canaan was a land not their own. Egypt was a land not their own. Isaac was Abraham's seed. Jacob was Abraham's seed. The altitudes in Egypt were Abraham's seed. Isaac was mistreated in Canaan. Genesis says that Ishmael, the son of Hagar, was scoffing at Isaac.

Paul says in Galatians, the son who was born according to the flesh was Ishmael. Persecuted the son who was born according to the Spirit was Isaac. Paul says that Ishmael persecuted Isaac. Isaac, Abraham's seed, was persecuted or mistreated in Canaan, a land not his own. Abraham's seed was mistreated in a land not his own. From the time that Abraham received the promise to the time that Moses received the law, it was 430 years according to Galatians 3.17. Twenty-five years after Abraham received the promise, that's when Isaac was born, that exit down to 405 years.

Now, Genesis says that Ishmael scoffed at Isaac on the same day that Isaac was weaned. Well, according to the Jewish Agency for Israel, in Talmud at times, it was the custom to celebrate the child of the weaned anytime from 18 months to five years. It goes on to say that according to Rabbi Joshua, a child should be allowed to nurse up to the age of five.

When if Isaac was weaned at five years of age, and Ishmael began to persecute Isaac on the same day that Isaac was weaned, then that would take it down to exactly 400 years. Abraham's seed was mistreated in Canaan, Abraham's seed was mistreated in Egypt, Abraham's seed was enslaved in Egypt, Abraham's seed was enslaved and mistreated in the land not their own 400 years.

You see, when you take the prophecy in Genesis and you mess that up with the timeline in Exodus, then you're able to understand how these puzzle pieces fit together. But the main thing that causes people to misinterpret this prophecy in Genesis, is the Hebrew Masoretic Text has dropped the phrase, and Canaan, out of the text. This is the main thing that causes people to believe that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years, but the truth is they were in Egypt for only half that time for 215 years.

According to the documentary Patterns of Evidence, The Exodus, the Israelites' arrival in Egypt was around 1665 B.C., and the Exodus took place at about 1450 B.C. This means that the Israelites were in Egypt for 215 years. This is the only thing that the archaeological evidence supports. The evidence does not support 430 years in Egypt. This is the reason why it's important to understand biblical history correctly first, in order to correctly understand how it correlates with Egyptian history and archaeology.

This is the only thing that can be done.

Anyway, I thought I'd show that to you because...

That's not what I want. Close that down. You never know what's going to come out from those things. When I was a kid, you read that 400, you see more people believe that from Sisabid, the Exodus 400 years. They also believe there was a death angel, which wasn't a death angel, it was Christ.

So there's things that we do. Again, none of these things I showed you today are salvation issues. Obviously, you learn how to follow God and Christ from the instructions we're doing. But it's interesting to me that sometimes if someone were to argue with you and say, the Bible's wrong, they weren't 430 years, then you'd have something you can look at to show them that, yeah, right, you can play with it. Why it was dropped into the Masoretic, I don't know. But if you were adamant about 430 years and someone said, well, look at the people, it just doesn't fit mathematically.

I often found things as a kid when I was... because I was a math. That was the side of my brain that worked when I was a kid. I had to adult the other side. And some of the numbers never added up. And so when I saw some of these things, finally someone lays it out and it makes a lot more sense what actually happened, because it agrees with the New Testament and the Old and just those things. But I thought that'd be fascinating for you to have a little bit of... again, we show some of these things in ABC, because we cover the whole Bible literally.

The Bible is accurate in what it says. But some of these things like that, there's little pieces of mistranslation perhaps here and there, but the Bible is God's book for us. But you don't want to get in an argument with someone and try to argue numbers when they don't match up and to make it work.

So anyway, that's my presentation. I thought I would do something, some of the fun stuff that we do that's kind of different than Scripture. And like I said, I've had ministers from the Bible say, I've been there in Egypt 400 years, 430 years, and I kind of cringe when they do it because I usually send them the copy of this and they go, oh.

A number of ministers already knew that, but a lot of the other ones don't. So something to keep in mind. As far as Christ's birth, we're not told to celebrate His birth, although if He was born on Trump, we celebrate it every year. It kind of makes sense that it would add up that way, that the ecliptic, and like I said, in ancient times, Pisces and the other constellation was known as the dragon as well, also a hydra.

And why would you put that in Revelation the way it is? The woman clothed with the sun, the moon in her feet, the dragon, the troll, I mean, all those things, but they're there at that time. And so it could very well be that that was when Christ was born. People studied astronomy back then, and so I would say the Weizmann would have known that was coming, and that would be something for them to look for.

Again, it's irrelevant as to salvation, but it's a fascinating thing to think that something like that actually happened exactly when a time in the period that matches up with Herod and matches up with Scripture and things, and the fact of Herod and what he did and the Romans and who he's afraid of. You know, I guess he had some meat to the bones of a plausible thing, because like I said, otherwise, well, Herod would have just killed the baby. This is all wives' tale. They could say things like that. And the Ethiopian woman, how does she come up there?

Well, it makes sense. If Moses was a general and took that and married her, he would take care of a wife that showed up, and Maryam and Aaron, hey, here's this woman that hasn't been in your life all those years, she shows up again.

Most of you wives wouldn't like somebody to show up in your life and say, hey, here I am. Take care of me. And to have the status that she once had, because she had great status before that.

But it never said anything about Moses even being married at all when he goes to Jethro's, and frankly, he never plans to go back to Egypt. So again, all these little pieces of stories that Josephus and the Romans and different people that write about, they add some context to how it probably happened. Again, it's not Bible, per se, but the Bible, it gives us what we need to know and not what we want to know.

And sometimes the historical references to these things outside of the Bible put a context on it that, oh, that makes sense, because I said, Herod, I never could picture him. Oh, yes, you're so nice here. Yeah, go find out. Let me see.

I'll find out where he is. Oh, yes, it's the best time to go there. Come back and tell me. I mean, he killed everybody that he got his hands on. He killed his own son when his son tried to bribe the guard to go up there. So unless he's afraid of something, and if you look at the decree that Caesar made with Crass's loss, it makes sense that Herod would be kind of, he's part of the Inetra army showed up, if I start a war with them, I'm out with Rome.

So let's just be nice to them and let them go, and then after they're gone, well, I will kill this kid. And so it adds a context to something that's plausible. You know, they talk about plausible deniability of things. This is plausible acceptability, because it does make sense. And it's the only thing to me that makes sense with Herod, the only thing that makes sense with Moses.

Daniel already being a book. You know, there's no reason for Josephus to make up a story about that. So again, it's actually just some context that God does things right on time accurately the way it all works, and you can trust and count on it. But again, it's fun. So if you want to do some external reading and find some of those things, nothing I find externally ever disagrees with the Bible. That's why. You can't prove everything in the Bible from archaeology, but every time they find a new proof in archaeology, it always agrees with the Bible.

And the Bible is the one book that archaeologists don't want to accept. Now, if they had this much stuff in China, they'd have a whole litany of books about it. But because Bible and God, no, it didn't happen. Daniel had lived later. Nobody can depict that stuff in all these things. Anyway, I don't know of any questions you can ask. Are you going to ask some questions? You can. We've had our lecture hour, and time to go. I appreciate you all being here.

It's fun. If anyone wants to come to ABC, you're welcome to apply. At any age, we like to be 18 or above. It's fun to work with the students, and it's fun to work with God's people and present things, and just enjoy the things that God has for us. Again, we're close to the end. How much time we have, only God knows for sure. But keep a sense of urgency.

The one thing we've lost, we had it in the old days, more of a sense of urgency, that we tended to lose and gotten complacent. You do that with wealth. Solomon's very clear. Don't give me poverty that I steal. Don't give me wealth that I don't need you. Solomon had wealth. He didn't need God. He caused him problems. And so for us, this country, it has the same problem. And I'm concerned with the pride in America from the slogan with Donald Trump.

We're not political. I always ask my class when I start my finances, is God a socialist or a capitalist? And of course, he's both. Anything that agrees with the Bible and his plan is what God does. Obviously, if you don't work, you don't eat. That's capitalism. Gleaning in the field, that's socialism. So God had you work. There's a welfare system, but you had to work for it. Giving out free money is not God's system. And finding work and stuff, and being generous.

Capitalism with generosity and things. So it's a mix of both as they plan. People tend to think the church is more republican than the Democrat, which we're not. We want a culture that God has. If somebody says something that agrees with the Bible, we agree with that. No matter who says it. Somebody says, disagree with the Bible, we disagree with that. That's just the way it is. And so people that try to place us as conservative, liberal, republican, and democrat, that's not what we are. We are Christ's children, God's children. We're going to be in His kingdom, and then if this were His kingdom, we'd fight. We don't now, so it's coming.

But get the sense of urgency, because the key is you want to be there when Christ returns. You want to either rise to if you're dead, rise to be in Him, or if you're alive, hopefully you're in the place prepared for her, because that's the safest place, probably the only safe place to be. But those are the things that we're trying to instill in the ABC and the classes, is the context that, you know, put God first in your life.

It's the only way it works. With that, I will close. Have a good rest of your Sabbath and weekend, and we will see you up here sometime again, I imagine. I keep getting invited, so... Never know. Have a good night.

Thank you.