Tuesday, July 19, 2022

Is Mount Karkum Mount Sinai of the Bible?

    Mount Sinai/Horeb isn't where they say it is!


      In this article, we will follow the children of Israel as they journey from Egypt thru the wilderness to Mount Horeb, and then on to Kadesh-barnea. We will show that Mount Sinai near the southern tip of the Sinai Peninsula is not Mount Horeb. We will not prove but will strongly suggest that what is known as Mount Karkum today is Mount Horeb. We will also show the true location of Kadesh-barnea. One thing to keep in mind as we follow the children of Israel during their journeys before they entered the promised land, is that they never camped or traveled within the land while Moses and Aaron were alive. 

Let us start with the crossing of the Red Sea.

Exodus 14:22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.

Exodus 15:4 Pharaoh’s chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.

Israel crossed the Red Sea on dry ground, what we call the Gulf of Suez today. When the Egyptians tried to cross they all drowned.

Exodus 15:22 So Moses brought Israel from the Red sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water.

The Wilderness of Shur is between Egypt and Canaan. The traditional view is that they turned back to the Gulf of Suez and then went south. It is my opinion that they continued east. They next come to a place called Elim that had twelve wells and seventy palm trees. 

Numbers 33:10 And they removed from Elim, and encamped by the Red sea. 11 And they removed from the Red sea, and encamped in the wilderness of Sin. 12 And they took their journey out of the wilderness of Sin, and encamped in Dophkah. 13 And they departed from Dophkah, and encamped in Alush. 14 And they removed from Alush, and encamped at Rephidim, where was no water for the people to drink.

If they continued east and camped by the Red Sea as Numbers 33:11 tells us, then this would be the Gulf of Aqaba, which is also part of the Red Sea, near the modern city of Eilat Israel. From the Red Sea, they travel to the Wilderness of Sin, from there to Dopkah, Alush, and then Rephidim. At the camp in the Wilderness of Sin God gave them quail to eat in the evening and manna in the morning. They stayed there for seven days, gathering manna in the morning for six days, then they rested on the seventh day as God commanded.

Exodus 16:1 And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai,

If the Wilderness of Sin is between Sinai and Elim then it should also be between Sinai and the camp at the Red Sea. It was at the camp at Rephidim that Moses struck the rock of Meribah and water came out. Afterward, the Amalekites came out and fought against the Israelites. The Amalekites lived in the southeast corner of Canaan. It is my opinion that the camp at Rephidim and the rock of Meribah were on the border of the land of the Amalekites, which is over two hundred miles north of the traditional Mount Sinai. It seems unreasonable to me that the Amalekites would come out of their border and pursue after the children of Israel two hundred miles to the south. Especially since the children of Israel would be going away from them and not toward their border. If Rephidim is on the border of Amalek then that means it is north of the Wilderness of Sin, which means that Sinai is north of the Wilderness of Sin. Elim and the camp at the Red Sea would be south of the Wilderness of Sin. So the traditional site of Mount Sinai/Horeb can not be true, as it is two hundred miles to the south.

Exodus 19:1 In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. For they were departed from Rephidim, and were come to the desert of Sinai, and had pitched in the wilderness; and there Israel camped before the mount.

 They left Rephidim and camped in the Wilderness of Sinai at Mount Horeb. It is my opinion that Mount Horeb is north of the Wilderness of Sin not far from the border of the Amalekites. They stay at Mount Sinai for one year and then they travel north to go into the promised land.

Numbers 10:12 And the children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai; and the cloud rested in the wilderness of Paran. 

The Wilderness of Paran is north of Mount Horeb where Kadesh is, this is where Moses sends out the spies. The Bible tells us it was three days journey from Mount Horeb to Kadesh, what Moses thirty-eight years later would call Kadesh-barnea when referring to the land or the spies. It is never called Kadesh-barnea when referring to their wilderness journeys.

Numbers 10:33 And they departed from the mount of the Lord three days’ journey: and the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days’ journey, to search out a resting place for them.

The resting place was in the Wilderness of Paran where Moses sent out the spies and where they returned to him. This place was called Kadesh, and years later Moses would refer to it as Kadesh-barnea. After forty years in the wilderness, Moses writes the book of Deuteronomy. In chapter one verse 19 when talking about the land that God has promised them he calls it Kadesh-barnea. Then in verse 42 when referring to the camp in the wilderness he calls it Kadesh. This proves that Kadesh-barnea and Kadesh are the same place.

Numbers 13:26 And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land.

After leaving Mount Horeb they camped twice before they arrived at Kadesh. 

Numbers 11: 34 And he called the name of that place Kibroth-hattaavah: because there they buried the people that lusted. 35 And the people journeyed from Kibroth-hattaavah unto Hazeroth; and abode at Hazeroth.
Numbers 12:16 And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.
Numbers 33:16 And they removed from the desert of Sinai, and pitched at Kibroth-hattaavah. 17 And they departed from Kibroth-hattaavah, and encamped at Hazeroth. 18 And they departed from Hazeroth, and pitched in Rithmah.

In these verses, we see that they left Mount Horeb, which is Sinai, and camped at Kibroth-hattaavah, and then at Hazeroth, and then the Wilderness of Paran or Rithmah. We know this is where Kadesh is from Numbers 13:26. They did not camp in Kadesh because Kadesh is within the border of the Promised Land, Numbers 34:4, Moses and Aaron never entered the Promised Land. They camped outside the city in the Wilderness of Zin, and the camp was called Rithmah. Three camps suggest three days of travel. If they traveled twenty miles a day that would be sixty miles from Mount Horeb to Kadesh-barnea. Taberah, which is mentioned in Numbers 11:3 should not be considered a separate camp because it is not listed in Numbers 33:16. It is the same place as Kibroth-hattaavah. 

Deuteronomy 1:2 (There are eleven days’ journey from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadesh-barnea.)

This verse tells us as they traveled north they went by way of Mount Seir, which is east of Mount Ramon and the Ramon crater. This proves that Kadesh-barnea is to the east of Mount Ramon and the Ramon crater. It is also south of the Scorpian Pass (ascent of Akrabbim), Numbers 34:4. Therefore, the mountain that is the best candidate for Mount Horeb is called Mount Karkum today. In Deuteronomy 1:2 the word journey is not in the original Hebrew, it was added by the English translators. We should understand this verse to mean that it took eleven days to get from Mount Horeb to Kadesh-barnea, and not that they traveled or journeyed eleven days. If we count the days we will see that it took eleven days. One day from Horeb to Kibroth-hattaavah, one day to gather the quail, one day to travel from Kibroth-hattaavah to Hazeroth, that makes three days, and then seven days while Miriam was shut out of the camp because she was leprose (Numbers 12) makes ten days. Then one day from Hazeroth to Kadesh-barnea makes eleven days. Where is Kadesh-barnea? In my opinion the site known as tel-Tamar, also called Ir Ovot today is Kadesh-barnea. The site on the west side of Mount Ramon identified as Kadesh-barnea on most Bible maps, is also called Ain el-Qudeiat, can not possibly be Kadesh-barnea of the Bible because it is on the west side of Mount Ramon and not near Mount Seir or Edom. In my opinion, this place is Azmon in the Bible, Numbers 34:4.

Feel free to copy and share my little hand-drawn map as much as you like.










Tuesday, March 6, 2018

The Assembly of God's war against the King James Bible

The King James Bible vs. the New Age Bibles.


    This could be called a war against the Traditional Text. There are basically two streams or families of text that have come down to us through the centuries. The Traditional or Byzantine, from which we get the Textus Receptus (Received Text), and the Alexandrian, from which we get the critical text of Westcott-Hort, and the Nestle-Aland. It is from the Traditional stream that we get the King James Version (KJV), and from the Alexandrian stream that we get the English Standard Version (ESV), American Standard Version (ASV), New International Version (NIV). The New King James Version (NKJV) is a mix of both streams. From the Traditional stream, there are thousands of manuscripts that have come down to us through the centuries, some are over a thousand years old. From the Alexandrian stream, there are but a few dozen manuscripts, some are over sixteen hundred years old. Two of the most important manuscripts from the Alexandrian stream were "found" after hundreds of years in the library at Saint Catherines Monastery in the Sinai (Textus Sinaiticus), and the library at the Vatican in Rome (Textus Vaticanus). Modern textual critics use these manuscripts to make "corrections" to the Traditional or Received text. Their logic is that these manuscripts are older and therefore closer to the originals written by the authors, and where there are differences in the text, they should be given precedence over the Traditional text. They ignore the fact that what might be called "textual critics"  of sixteen hundred years ago rejected the Alexandrian text, and stopped making copies of them, but continued to make thousands of copies of the Traditional or Received text.
    When the Protestant Reformation began, and Martin Luther nailed his Ninty Five theses on the door of the church in Wittenburg and challenged some of the teachings and doctrine of the Catholic church, he was subsequently ordered by the church to recant his writings. His answer was if it could be shown from scriptures that he was wrong he would recant, but if not "here I stand". What followed are called the Three Solas of the Protestant Reformation.  Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) Sola Fide (faith alone) Sola Gratia (grace alone). These were foundational doctrines of the movement. Sola Scriptura, on which the other Solas were based, was to be the final authority of the Protestant movement. If it couldn't be supported by scripture it was to be rejected.
    For Catholics, scripture is not the final authority, the Vatican and the Pope are. What are Protestants to do when the Bible, their final authority is challenged? When the reliability of scripture is questioned where do you turn for your final authority? Well, the Assembly of God church in America has an answer. The foundational document of the church states in article one, "The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man - the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct (2 Timothy 3:15-17; I Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21)". To further explain the church's position on the scriptures a position paper was written by the General Presbytery in August 2015. This is one of the most subtle papers I have ever read. For decades the Assembly of God has been promoting the NIV in its literature, one of the new age versions from the Alexandrian stream of text. In this paper, they elevate it and all other "major translations" above the Traditional text of the KJV. They do this by telling us that these major translations "are continuously reviewed by, reputable scholars who are committed to the task of conveying accurately the Word of God from the original languages to the modern readers". Those of us who use the KJV, we're not "modern readers". What is the final authority as stated by the General Presbytery in their position paper, "experts in textual criticism"! It doesn't matter if these experts are Protestant, Catholic, or agnostic, as long as they are experts in textual criticism. When another manuscript is discovered these textual critics will issue another edition of these new age bibles, and that will be the final authority until another manuscript is found.
    Where does this position paper of the Assembly of God leave the Traditional Text or the KJV? On the dusty floor of the old country church, or in the straw on the ground under the tent of an old-time revival meeting.  You'd be hard-pressed to find an Assembly of God church in America where the pastor regularly preached from the Traditional Text. Sola Scriptura has been replaced by what the scholars or experts in textual criticism say. If you object you are labeled as a member of the King James Only cult. As if you and the Traditional Text are the problems, and you are holding back the new age church. " For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way." 2 Thessalonians 2:7


Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Is the Bible Wrong about the Value of Pi?

                      The Value for Pi is Hidden in 1 Kings 7:23!


1 King 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.


      Solomon brings a man named Hiram the widows' son, who was of the tribe of Naphtali, from the city of Tyre where he was living, to make the items for the Temple that were made of brass. For it is said that "he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass". But we are presented with a problem in 1 Kings 7:23, Hiram makes a "molten sea". This thing is the size of a backyard swimming pool. It's about 15 feet across and 7 feet deep. You could swim in it! The problem is verse 23 says that the diameter of this pool is 10 cubits, and the circumference is 30 cubits. Now there is much debate over the value of a cubit, but for our problem, it doesn't matter. We're not going to convert the values to inches or feet, we're going to leave them as cubits. We could be saying 10 feet, 10 yards, or 10 cubits, for our problem it doesn't matter. The circumference of a circle is the diameter times pi, or 3.1416. But in verse 23 the circumference is said to be 10 cubits (diameter) times 3 equaling 30 cubits. Now that would be about 2 feet short. If you are making a swimming pool and you leave a hole in the side it's not going to hold any water. 
     Solomon built the Temple between 900 and 1000 B.C. The problem of finding the circumference of a circle had been roughly solved about a 1000 years earlier. Hiram was a man of wisdom, he would have known how to figure the circumference of a circle. So, how do we defend this verse from the Bible critics? Do we say the Bible is just rounding off the number, or do we look for a better answer? The Internet is a great place to look for a better answer, and I found one. History of Pi, by David Wilson, third paragraph, we find an answer. 
     We all have heard that the Hebrew letters have numerical values, and if you add up the values of each letter in a word you will get it's numerical value. Now we are going to see something very interesting in verse 23 using this information. But first, there are two things to keep in mind. First, Hebrew is written from right to left. We are going to use the online  Hebrew Bible to look at 1 Kings 7:23. The Hebrew sentences, for our convenience, are printed from left to right, but the words are printed right to left as they should be, so the last letter is the first letter of the Hebrew word. To compare it to Hebrew that is printed right to left follow this link. Looking at 1 Kings 7:23 using the online Hebrew Bible we see that it is tied to the Strong's Concordance. Using the Strong's numbering system you can look up the Hebrew word in the back of your Strong's concordance. There are two Hebrew words we want to look at, printed right to left in the Hebrew, the second word appears in brackets,    (וקוה (וְקָו, and is translated in the KJV as "and a line of". In the online Hebrew Bible, this is printed left to right,  וקוה and corresponds to H6961 in the Strong's Hebrew dictionary, followed by  (וְקָו) which corresponds to H6957 in the Strong's dictionary. These two words have very similar meanings; to take a cord and measure something. Having these two words together is redundant, and that is the clue that there is something significant about them. So, if we take the two root words and calculate their numerical value using the chart for numerical values for Hebrew letters, we find the first word, H6961 in our Strong's dictionary,(not the one in brackets) the first letter is ק, it has a value of 100; the second letter is ו, it has a value of 6; the third letter is ה, it has a value of 5; the numerical value of the first word is 100+6+5=111. The second word, H6957 in our Strong's dictionary, the first letter is ק, value equals 100; the second letter is ו, value equals 6; The numerical value of the second word is 100+6=106. Notice that each word begins with the letter ו, but it is not part of the root word found in our Strong's dictionary, and therefore it is not counted.
     If Hiram measured around his circle he would have found that 30 cubits came up short but by how much? We can express that this way, where the unknown amount is represented by "n". We have (30+n)/30= 1+(n/30). Now we know, today, what the value of n is because we know what the value of pi is. Pi times the diameter equals the circumference. Or 3.1416 X 10 cubits = 31.416 cubits. So, what is the value of n? It is 1.416 cubits. If we plug that number into our equation, 1+(1.416/30) =1.0472. That number times 30 cubits gives us 31.416 cubits. Which plugs the hole in Hiram's pool. Now here is something really cool. The two Hebrew words 111/106=1.0472. Multiple this number by 30 cubits and we get the circumference of the pool, 31.416. This can be expressed in the following formula; circumference = 3 x diameter x 111/106. This is true for any circle. To find the diameter you divide the circumference by pi. To find pi, you divide the circumference by the diameter or 31.416 cubits divided by 10 cubits equals 3.1416. The value of Pi! Right there in the Bible 3000 years ago. This is a more accurate value for pi that was being used by anyone else at that time.




Friday, October 4, 2013

Does Satan have access to Heaven? NO!!

                                                                   

                                              The Accuser of the Brethren

Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

      
     Satan does not have access to heaven to accuse Christians, and he never has! Satan only came before God to accuse those that were identified as God's people that were trying to be justified by works, or those that were under the law of Moses.
      
     FirstThat Satan (before the new covenant) accuses those that are living by works or the law, is found in scripture. 
     Second. There is no accusation or condemnation against those that are living by Grace, all others are condemned already. 

Now, let me support and defend these statements from the word of God. 
      
      In the book of Job, Satan comes before God and accuses Job. Job 1:9 Doth Job fear God for nought? Now Job was a man who crossed all his t's and dotted all his i's when it came to work's. God uses Satan's accusation to bring Job to a new understanding. At first Job is proclaiming his innocence and he doesn't understand why God is allowing this to happen to him. Job 9:33 Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both. 34 Let him take his rod away from me, and let not his fear terrify me: 35 Then would I speak, and not fear him; but it is not so with me. Job is  asking for a mediator. If only he had someone who could make God set down and listen to him, he and God could come to some kind of understanding. We make the same mistake as Job, we look for a mediator that can bring us and God to the table so we can negotiate an understanding for our sin. But when we come to God, we must come through Christ Jesus, and Jesus stands between us and the Father. The Father sees us through the shed blood of his Son. 1 Timothy 2:For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 
      After some time Job would make what I think is one of the greatest statements of the Old Testament. Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.  We can't come to God by our own merit, Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Jesus is the sacrifice for our sins!
      Zechariah 3:1 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. Joshua's righteousness was "as filthy rags" just as ours is. Joshua was living by the law of Moses, but he wasn't made righteous by the law. When we come to God through the blood of Jesus he gives us clean garments just like he did Joshua. So it isn't our righteousness that we are clothed in when we stand before God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

      One of the most egregious allegorical interpretations of scripture is to use 1 John 2:1 (My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.) and make Jesus our defense attorney and Satan the prosecuting attorney. A prosecutor is a prestigious position, an officer of the court, and is sworn to seek justice. To make Satan the prosecuting attorney gives him a position he does not deserve, and puts him on a par with Jesus. The Greek word parakletos, translated "advocate" in 1 John 2:1 is also the same word translated as "comforter" in John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;  To see our relationship with Christ our Advocate, as a relationship between an attorney and his client is wrong. Christ gave his life in our stead, go find an attorney who would do that. When we as Christians sin, we have an intercessor at the right hand of God, Christ Jesus, Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Why would God hear an accusation against a Christian from Satan who is a liar and a murderer, John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Satan has never been able to enter heaven and make an accusation against a Christian saved by the blood of Jesus. Romans 14: Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. And again, Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. And one more, John 3:1He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 

      And now to the proof text that is used to teach that Satan accuses Christians before God today. Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 
      In this chapter we see Satan and his angels cast out of heaven. There is a woman and a man child. If you believe that the man child is the church, then when the church is taken out of the world Satan will be cast out. This view would seem to support a mid-tribulation rapture of believers. Daniels 70 weeks is seen as 490 years. 483 of those years were fulfilled with the death of Christ. The last 7 years is called the great tribulation. After the woman in Revelation 12 gives birth to the man child she is protected for 3 and a half years. I believe in a pre-tribulation rapture of believers. This is the event that will begin Daniels 70th week. The anti-christ will make a 7 year treaty with the Jewish nation, and he will restore order after all the Christians are ruptured. Jesus warned his people, the Jews of this, Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) In the middle of the 7 years the anti-christ will break his treaty with the Jews and will go into the temple and declare himself to be god. 2 Thessalonians 2:Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 
      I believe that Jesus is the man child, we know that Jesus didn't ascend into heaven in the middle of the tribulation, so how do we interpret Revelation chapter 12? I believe that most of Revelation is yet to be fulfilled. I think that chapter 12 is here to bridge the gap in Daniels 70 weeks called the church age. When Jesus ascended into heaven that ended Daniels 69th week, with the rapture of the church Daniels 70th week will begin. Revelations, after chapter 3, is about tribulations and God dealing with his people Israel. So the brethren in chapter 12 would be Jewish brethren and not Christians of the church age. 
      If you believe that Jesus is the man child it will be very difficult to support the position that Satan can go before God in heaven and accuse Christians, with Jesus, his hands and feet pierced,  setting on God's right hand. If Satan was cast out when Jesus ascended to heaven, well, that happened two thousand years ago.
John 12:23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
Verse 31 says "now shall the prince of this world be cast out." What event is going to bring this about? The death of Jesus, and his ascension back to the Father. Satan has never had access to heaven during the church age, therefore he has never come into the presence of God and accused any born again Christian. 

      
      




Sunday, July 22, 2012

Where will the antichrist come from?

                      
                          Satan and the Antichrist
                                          

                                                 
                                                                                  Genesis 3:15
                                                   "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
                         and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,
                                            and thou shalt bruise his heel." 

                                                
                                               Satan
      
      Genesis 3:1 tells us that the serpent "was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made". From this we can see that the serpent was an animal created by God at the time of creation. When you consider what John tells us about the serpent in Rev. 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years; we understand that the serpent is Satan. Or, more appropriately, a beast of the field that was used by Satan. Because the serpent had a part in the fall of man, and the power of death being given to Satan, Hebrews 2:14, he would be cursed to crawl on his belly. The punishment for disobeying God is death, and Satan now holds this power over man. Man now has the knowledge of good and evil, to do evil is to sin against God, Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death", all are under the penalty of death, Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned". But for those that have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus they can say with Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:55  O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? God, speaking to the serpent in Genesis 3:15 says, I will make your seed and the seed of woman enemies, and he will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel. If God was speaking to the beast of the field, this would be a forgotten verse, but, if God was speaking to Satan who was working through the serpent, then this becomes very important. And that is how most Christians understand this verse.
       Satan - adversary, arch-enemy of good. Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. In the book of Job we learn that Satan moves about freely on earth and also is allowed by God to come into his presence. He was in the world when Jesus walked the earth, Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. And and after Jesus had ascended into heaven, 1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. And he is still "going to and fro in the earth". James the Just, tells Christians, James 4:7b Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Jesus said in Luke 10:18 I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. On the eve of his death, burial, and resurrection, Jesus says in John 12:31  Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. Revelation chapter 12 is a parenthetical insertion into the prophesy of John to bring together (Daniel 9:25) Daniels sixty ninth week, that ended with the crucifixion of Christ (Daniel 9:26a), with the seventieth week (Daniel 9:26b-27), which is the beginning of the great tribulation. It is inserted here to introduce God's provision for the remnant of the nation of Israel during the tribulation. The man child is Christ, and the woman is the nation of Israel. Micah 5:2 tells us that the Christ will be born in Bethlehem. Micah 5:3  foreshadows Revelation chapter 12. At the ascension of Christ, Satan is cast out of heaven and the church age begins. The end of the church age will signal the beginning of Daniels seventieth week. Revelation 12:10 is a proclamation of victory by Christ over Satan. The end of the seventieth week will see victory by Christ over the armies of Satan, and Satan will be bound and cast into the bottomless pit for a thousand years, Revelation 20:1-3.


                                         Antichrist

       In Genesis 3:15 we see the first reference to Satan's progeny, Cain being the first of many, 1 John 3:8-12. Jesus speaking to the Jews in the temple tells them in John 8:44a Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. Satan has many spiritual children, but we want to concentrate on one, the one that is called the Antichrist. The Apostle Paul in, 2 Thessalonians 2:3, calls him the son of perdition. And John calls him the antichrist, 1 John 2:18. In Revelation 13, he is called a beast and identified as a man. He is called prince in Daniel 9:26. He is identified as the Assyrian in    Micah 5:5-6. Daniel 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. He'll be a descendant of Jacob (Israel), and a homosexual.
      Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who was born about one hundred years after Jesus was crucified (130-202 A.D.) believed that the Antichrist would come from the nation of Israel, and he named the tribe. In his book Against Heresies (180 A.D.) book 5 chapter 30: And Jeremiah does not merely point out his sudden coming, but he even indicates the tribe from which he shall come, where he says, “We shall hear the voice of his swift horses from Dan; the whole earth shall be moved by the voice of the neighing of his galloping horses: he shall also come and devour the earth, and the fulness thereof, the city also, and they that dwell therein.”4704  This, too, is the reason that this tribe is not reckoned in the Apocalypse along with those which are saved.   In this passage he quotes Jeremiah 8:16, and refers to Revelation 7, were the tribe of Dan isn't listed among the 144,000. When you reflect on Jacobs words in Genesis 49:1  And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days. What does he mean by last days? Is he talking about the end of time? And in verses 16-18: 16 Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel. 17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward. 18 I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord.   Is he referring to the salvation promised in Genesis 3:15?  
      When you consider the idolatry of Dan in Judges chapter 18, and that they were carried away into captivity to Assyria with the other northern tribes, never to return, you can begin to see how a descendant of the tribe of Dan could fulfill the prophecies of the Antichrist. 
      Today, given the political and religious bent of the nations that were ancient Assyria, you would have to conclude that any powerful leader that would come from that area would be a Muslim, a caliphate, who will unite the Muslim world. 
      
                              The Dragon and the Beast

       Christ will defeat the Beast, who is the Antichrist, Revelation 19:20  And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. And then an angel will bind Satan and cast him into a bottomless pit for a thousand years. Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, and then he will be loosed and he will deceive the nations and they will go up against the saints. But God will destroy them. Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Revelation 20:15  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire
                               
                    Is your name written in the Lamb's book of life?

      Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

How Long Did Saul Reign? 40 Years!

 

                                  How Long Did Saul Reign?
  
                                        King Saul reigned from 1061 BC to 1021 BC
                                         The Ages, by Gregory Hamm, Amazon.com
   Acts 13:21 And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.

      How long did Saul reign? To answer that question isn't easy. You'll get a different answer with each version of the Bible you consult. Luke records in Acts 13:21 a statement by Paul saying that Saul reigned "by the space of 40 years". Now you have to wonder, did Luke agree with this statement? It would seem that Luke had a very good understanding of the Old Testament. Would he simply record what Paul said if he didn't agree with it? How did Paul come up with this number? Did he learn it at "the feet of Gamaliel" Acts 22:3, or did he discern it by his own study of the scriptures? Or, did the Holy Ghost reveal it to him? Remember, he was trying to persuade Jews that Jesus is Christ, and he was leading them to that point by recounting their history, if he had said something that wasn't generally believed, he would have lost his audience right there. Also, notice that he said, "by the space of 40 Years". That's not precise, it would seem to me to suggest a little longer or a little less, maybe. Now you might be thinking why is there a controversy? Hasn't Paul settled the issue? The answer to that is, no!
    The controversy comes about because of 1 Samuel 13:1 "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel," as translated in the King James Version (KJV). It would seem that most Bible scholars believe that the original text has been corrupted. Either the parchment was damaged and the text was lost, or a scribe failed to copy the complete text. They believe that the verse originally told how old Saul was when he began to reign, and how long he reigned. This is typically the way the Bible recorded the reign of a king. Now let's look at some of the English translations to see these scholars at work.
                                                      New International Version (NIV)     
13 Saul was thirty[a] years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-[b] two years

                                                       English Standard Version (ESV)
13 Saul lived for one year and then became king, and when he had reigned for two years over Israel

                                                      American Standard Version (ASV)
1 Saul was forty years old when he began to reign; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

                                                    Contemporary English Version (CEV)
 13 Saul was a young man[a] when he became king, and he ruled Israel for two years.

                                                        Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
  1A son of a year [is] Saul in his reigning, yea, two years he hath reigned over Israel,

                                                                    Wycliffe (WYC)
 1 Saul was a son of one year, that is, as innocent and clean of sin as a child of one year, when he began to reign; and he reigned upon Israel two (and twenty) years. (Saul was fifty years old when he began to reign; and he reigned over Israel for twenty-two years.) 

These are all 1Samuel 13:1. So now you can see the controversy.  These are all the results of scholarly work. I don't want anyone to think that I don't like scholars. Would we have an English Bible if not for scholars? William Tyndale was a scholar. He was burnt at the stake on Sept. 6, 1536. His crime, translating the Bible into English. It has been said that 80 percent of the King James Bible is from Tyndale's translation. So when you pick up your Bible, remember, a lot of people, scholars, gave their lives to bring the Word of God to the average man. So my point is, I appreciate scholars, but that doesn't mean that I have to go along with them on everything. I believe we should use the King James translation of this verse, and I will explain why later. But first, we need to consider the Septuagint (LXX) reported to be the oldest translation of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint is reported to be a translation from the original Hebrew into Greek starting in the third century BCE. So presumably it would have been around during the time of Paul. And if so, Paul might have studied it. Scholars today hold it in very high regard. It predates the Masoretic Text by hundreds of years. This would put it closer to the original Hebrew in history. So how does the Septuagint translate 1 Samuel 13:1? It doesn't! It completely leaves that verse out. Does this mean that verse 1 wasn't in the Hebrew text when the Septuagint was translated? Or did the translator think verse 1 didn't make sense, so he left it out? Let's look at an early Latin translation of the Hebrew Text.

                                                             Latin Vulgate
                      By Jerome in the 4th century CE. Translated from the Hebrew.
                                                    (Translated into English.)
Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.

Jerome liked the Septuagint at first, but later in life, he turned away from it in favor of the Hebrew. He and Augustine had a long and sometimes angry debate over the subject of the Septuagint vs. the Original Hebrew. Jerome favored the Hebrew and Augustine favored the Septuagint. As we can see, in the 4th century, verse 1 was in the Hebrew text that Jerome used to translate the Vulgate. Jerome must have thought that it was in the original Hebrew and had been left out of the Septuagint, and not that it was added to the Hebrew text after the Septuagint translation.
      Seeing that modern scholars hold the Septuagint in such high regard, why don't they leave verse 1 out of modern translations? If verse 1 goes away, the controversy goes away. With that, you would be left with what Paul said, and the narrative of the story of Saul's reign to try and figure out how long he reigned. If you read the narrative it would suggest a very long reign. As we have seen from the examples of translations above, some scholars support a longer reign, and some do not, and they have taken great liberties in the translation of verse 1. The King James is said to be a more literal translation of this verse that supports the narrative.  I think that with a controversial text that's the best approach. I like the King James translation of 1 Samuel 13:1, and I'm going to use it and Paul's 40 years and the narrative of Saul's life to build a chronology of his reign. 

                                            Chronology of the Reign of King Saul
       The elders of Israel come to Samuel the Prophet and say, "make us a king to judge us" 1Sa. 8:5. God said to Samuel they rejected me not you, 1 Sa. 8:7. They wanted a king to fight their battles, they didn't want to trust God to fight for them, 1 Sa. 8:20. God told Samuel to anoint Saul captain over his people, and that Saul would save them from the hand of the Philistines. 1 Sa. 9:16. Samuel anoints Saul with oil. 1Sa. 10:1. Samuel tells Saul to go before him to Gilgal and wait seven days, and that he will come down and offer burnt offerings and show him what he should do. 1 Sa. 10:8. Samuel calls all the people of Israel to Mizpeh, and God picks Saul from among the people to be king. But Saul is a reluctant king. And when some of the people rejected him, Saul said nothing but held his peace. 1 Sa. 10:17-27. And Saul goes home and tends his flocks. The appointed time to go to Gilgal has not yet arrived.
      While the reluctant and backward King Saul waits at home for the appointed time set by Samuel to go to Gilgal, Nahash, king of the Ammonites attacks Jabesh-gilead of Israel. 1Sa. 11:1-3. This event will transform Saul from a reluctant backward king into a strong and forceful king. Also, we see in verses 12-13 that he shows mercy and honors God for their victory, in that he doesn't have those who rejected him put to death. Saul's victory over Nahash establishes his position as king in the eyes of the people. And they go to Gilgal and the people make Saul king. 1 Sa. 11:15. As we shall see, the opinion of the people and their desires becomes more important to Saul than the desires of God. 
      Some points to keep in mind. First. Saul was grown when Samuel anoints him to be king. Second. The minimum military age in Israel is 20 years of age. Third. Jonathan isn't mentioned in the battle against the Ammonites. Which would suggest that he wasn't yet of military age. Fourth. Jonathan is given command of one thousand men after the people made Saul king. So now let us look at 1 Sa 13:1a. Saul reigned one year;  this is the time that Saul spent in the fields with his herds after Samuel had anointed him king and presented him to the people at Mizpeh. At this point, Saul is a reluctant king. Let's go back a little, God said that Saul would save the people from the hand of the Philistines. 1 Sa 9:16. After Samuel anoints him king, God leads him to the "hill of God," 1 Sa. 10:5. Where there is a garrison of the Philistines. Verse 7 says after these signs, do as occasion serve you; for God is with you. God had told him who the enemy was, and now he showed him the enemy. Was this the first test of Saul, to see if he would be a man of God, and fight the enemies of God's people? When Nahash attacks Jabesh-gilead, Saul calls the men of Israel to gather and numbers them, three hundred and thirty thousand. He doesn't ask of God, shall I go up against the Ammonites, like David will do before battle, but Saul goes up by the strength of the numbers of the people that are with him. By going up against Nahash, Saul is doing what the people had wanted when they ask for a king, 1 Sa. 12:12. As we shall see it is very important to Saul that the people be with him when he should be concerned that God is with him. Now let's look at 1 Sa. 13:1b. and when he had reigned two years over Israel, his stature has now risen, he has defeated the Ammonites, he has been established as king, and he raised a permanent army to serve with him and Jonathan. Since the military age is 20, for Jonathan to be the captain of a thousand men he would need to be at least 20 years old. If we say that Saul was 20 when Jonathan was born, that would make Saul 40 years old, two years into his reign. So he would have been 38 when Samuel anointed him king. If we say that he reigned for 40 years, that would make him 78 when he is killed on the battlefield. Later I will show why he would be on the battlefield at such an advanced age. Saul will have other sons who aren't mentioned here, or in this first battle with the Philistines, it would seem that they were not yet of military age.
      Jonathan attacks and destroys a garrison of the Philistines. 1Sa. 13:3. And this is the event that finally brings Saul to Gilgal to wait on Samuel. But here we see Saul's desire to have man on his side more than he desires God to be with him. And Saul disobeys God by offering the burnt offering because he wanted to please the people more than he feared God. So Samuel says his kingdom will not continue. 1 Sa 13:14. So Samuel departs from Saul, and what is the first thing that Saul does? He numbers the people that are with him. Six hundred men! That must have been disheartening to a man who depended on men more than on God. Will this man stop here, and ask God what he should do? No, he will not. Only after Jonathan has engaged the enemy and God has moved against them and turned them on each other, does Saul turn to the priest to inquire of God. But even then he stops the priest. Saul never inquired of God by means of the ark while he was king, 1 Chr. 13:3. This man is the exact opposite of David. Saul seems to be loathed to consult God, and David won't do anything without consulting God. (Saul is careful not to transgress the law of God, and David always obeys the word of God).  After the battle is over and he has a victory over the Philistines because of Jonathan, Saul asks counsel of God. 1 Sa. 14:37. But God does not answer, because Jonathan had eaten the honey. Saul had charged the army with an oath that no man was to eat anything until evening, but Jonathan was unaware of the oath and he ate of the honey that was on the ground. 1 Sa. 14:24-28. Now, this was a sin because Saul had made the oath and he is God's anointed. The men in the army would not eat the honey because they feared the oath, verse 26. A greater victory would have been had, had the men ate the honey provided by God, a victory by God's providence, and not by Saul's strength. But notice in vs. 32-34, in the evening the men took livestock from the spoil and ate it with the blood. It would seem that the men feared Saul but not God, in that they broke the law of Moses. But Saul being a religious man builds an altar and he has the men bring their ox and sheep there and slay them and eat. Now the battle against the Philistines ends because of Saul's oath, and the Philistines are saved from a much greater slaughter, and they go back to their place. Saul will have future battles with the Philistines and all the other nations that are the enemies of Israel, and he will have victories over them all. 1 Sa 14:47. This would seem to me to be something that would take a period of a few years at least.
      Samuel had told Saul at Gilgal that his kingdom would not continue. But, God is not done with Saul, he will give him one more opportunity to obey his word. Samuel tells Saul to go and destroy Amalek. 1 Sa. 15:3  Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. But Saul fails this test and disobeys God, and Samuel tells Saul that God has rejected him from being king. 1Sa 15:28. God will take the kingdom from Saul and give it to a man who is better than he is. And v29 says God will not repent. Saul will not get another chance. God has turned away from him and rejected him, but notice in verses 30-31 who it is that Saul is concerned about. He pleads with Samuel to turn and worship with him in the presence of the elders and of Israel because he fears the people will reject him if they see that God has rejected him. The narrative of Saul's reign ends until David is anointed king. If Paul's statement of a 40-year reign is correct, then we have a period of 20 to 25 years where nothing is recorded about Saul's reign. I'm going to refer to this period as the Interim Period.
       It would seem to me that the events up to the point where Saul is rejected, would have taken several years. I'm going to say that it has taken five years, and I'll explain why later. But now let's look at the sons of Saul. There are five lists given of Saul's sons. Three of these lists are genealogical, and two are obituaries.
Genealogical List: The first list is at the beginning of Saul's reign, the other two are after.
List One: 1 Sa 14:49              Jonathan       - Jehovah-given
                                                Ishui             - Level
                                                Melchishua  - King of Wealth

List Two: 1 Chr. 8:33            Jonathan       - Jehovah-given
                                               Malchishua   - King of Wealth
                                               Abinadab      - Father of generosity
                                               Eshbaal         - Man of Baal

List Three: 1 Chr. 9:39         Jonathan       - Jehovah-given
                                               Malchishua   - King of Wealth
                                               Abinadab      - Father of generosity
                                               Eshbaal         - Man of Baal

Jonathan appears first in all three lists, he is the oldest, and therefore the heir. Melchishua appears in all three lists. Two of the list are the same, but the first list is different. Eshbaal is born in the Interim Period so he is not in the first list. It's possible that Ishui and Abinadab are the same person, but here is another possibility. Abinadab is Ishui's son; he is born in the Interim Period a little before Eshbaal. His father Ishui dies at the time of his birth and his death is not recorded. Abinadab is then listed as Saul's son and not his grandson.
Obituary List: Remember, Saul dies with his sons, and this is the end of his reign.
List One: 1 Sa. 31:2             Jonathan       - Jehovah-given
                                              Abinadab      - Father of generosity
                                              Melchishua  - King of Wealth 

List Two: 1 Chr. 10:2          Jonathan       - Jehovah-given  
                                             Abinadab      - Father of generosity
                                             Malchishua   - King of Wealth

Notice that Abinadab is listed before Melchishua in the obituary list, but after him in the genealogical list. If he is younger than Melchishua he would be listed after him in the genealogical list. And it could be that when he is killed in battle he is given the place in the obituary list that his father would have held. If Abinadab is Ishui's son, and he is born in the Interim Period, this would support a long reign for Saul, as the minimum military age is 20. So Abinadab would have been 20 years old or older when he died in battle. Abinadab appears before Eshbaal in the genealogical list, so I think that makes him older than Eshbaal. But I think that he is older by only a few weeks or months. I believe that Eshbaal is 35 when Saul dies so Abinadab would have been a little older than that when he was killed in battle. I'll explain more about Eshbaal and why I think he was 35 years old at the death of Saul near the end of my essay.
      Let's look at the priest who served while Saul was king. This also suggests a very long reign for Saul. When Saul goes to fight the Philistines we see in 1 Sa. 14:3 that the priest Ahiah, the great-grandson of Eli is there wearing an ephod. And in v18 we are told that the ark of God is there also. Ahiah is said to be the son of Ahitub, the grandson of Eli. When David is fleeing from Saul he goes to Nob, and to Ahimelech the high priest, 1 Sa. 21:1, who is said in 1 Sa 22:11 to also be the son of Ahitub. Some believe that Ahiah and Ahimelech are the same person, I'm going to suggest that they are brothers, that Ahiah is the older, and that he dies in the Interim Period, and he has no sons or they are too young to become high priest, so his younger brother Ahimelech becomes the high priest. After this Saul has Ahimelech killed and all of his house, his son Abiathar escapes and goes to David. Abiathar becomes the priest to David. The minimum age to be a priest is 30 years old so this would suggest that Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was an older man. The lives of these men would seem to suggest a period of many years, all during the reign of Saul.
      God says to Samuel "How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel?"  1 Sa. 16:1. And Samuel goes and anoints David to be king. The younger that we say David is at this time, the stronger the argument for a longer reign for Saul. But regardless, I'm going to say that David was at least 18 years old when Samuel anoints him to be king. There are many words used in the text that suggests a younger David. I think these words are used to illuminate the great differences between Saul, the aged warrior-king,  and the zealous but youthful David, who is willing to fight the giant when no one else will. Also, I think the narrative as a whole suggests a David of military age. When Saul's servants suggest that he needs someone who can play the harp, to relax the king when he is troubled, one of his servants tells of David, how he can play the harp, "a mighty valiant man, and a man of war"   1 Sa 16:18. And they send and get David and he is made Saul's armourbearer. By being made Saul's armourbearer suggests that he is at least 20 when he comes before Saul. And then when he goes to fight Goliath, if he had been a teenage boy and Saul had allowed him to fight, and he had been killed, his death would have been on Saul. And Saul would have looked to be very foolish and desperate. But if David was of military age and he volunteered, if he won, that would be good, but if he was killed, Saul could say, he was a brave man who took his life into his own hands. Saul didn't think that David could defeat Goliath, and he said as much. And then Saul offers David his armour (1Sa. 17:38) knowing that it wouldn't fit, as Saul was a head taller than all the men of Israel, 1 Sa. 10:23. What's being illustrated here is the difference between David and Saul. Saul is the type of king that the people would choose, and David is the type of man God would choose. And further, after he kills Goliath he is made captain over a thousand men. I believe that this proves that he was of military age, but also that he had a very youthful appearance.
      When David is about to flee from Saul, he makes a covenant with Jonathan; 1 Sa. 20:42. David promises not to cut off the seed of Jonathan. Jonathan knows that God has anointed David to be king, Jonathan isn't concerned about himself, he's concerned about his only son Mephibosheth - dispeller of shame. Mephibosheth was five years old when his father Jonathan was killed. 2 Sa. 4:4. It would seem that David fled from Saul and made his covenant with Jonathan sometime after Mephibosheth was born. Saul is an old man and is on the field of battle fighting the Philistines, and he and Jonathan are killed, 1 Sa. 31:6. The reason I believe that Saul is on the field of battle in command of his army at his age, he can't trust Jonathan with command of the army, he would turn it over to David. In 1 Sa 22:8, Saul laments; That all of you have conspired against me, and there is none that sheweth me that my son hath made a league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for me, or sheweth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as at this day?
        After Saul's death, the men of Israel fled and the Philistines came and dwelt in their cities. 1 Sa. 31:7. David goes to Hebron and is anointed king over the tribe of Judah. 2 Sa 2:1-4. David is 30 years old when he becomes king and he reigns for 40 years and six months. 2 Sa. 5:4-5. He reigns for 7 and a half years over Judah in Hebron, and 33 years over Judah and all of Israel from Jerusalem. After Saul is killed, Abner escapes with Saul's son Ishbosheth, also called Eshbaal, across the Jordan river to Gilead, and makes him king over Israel. Ishbosheth was 40 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 2 years. 2 Sa. 2:8-10. After Ishbosheth is murdered all of Israel comes to Hebron and anoints David king over Israel. 2 Sa. 5:1-5. From the narrative, we can see that it took Abner 5 years to recover from the defeat by the Philistines and consolidate his power and make Ishbosheth king. Ishbosheth reigned over Israel for 2 years and David reigned over Judah from Hebron for 7 and a half years, so it took 5 years after the death of Saul before Ishbosheth is made king. That would have made him 35 when Saul died, as he was 40 years old when he began to reign. Usually, it is the mother who names the children in the Bible, and you have to wonder why anyone would name their son Ishbosheth, which means man of shame. I have a theory that the name marks an event in his father's life. That event would be when God rejects Saul. This child is then a reminder to Saul that he has been rejected by God, and this could explain why Ishbosheth isn't with Saul and Jonathan when they are killed. Also, Ishbosheth is a timid man faint of heart, and probably not much of a soldier.
       I said earlier that I thought that it was 5 years into Saul's reign when God rejected him, add this to the age of Ishbosheth at the death of Saul, 35 years plus 5 years equals 40 years. The Apostle Paul said that Saul reigned 40 years, and I agree.