Those Sophisticated Cave Men



Taken from: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1616697176973091291#editor/target=post;postID=5178291178604779880

....

These Pages Print Best In Landscape Mode

Ever notice how hard it is to find a real nice cave man picture these days? Take it from me--it's not as easy as it used to be. Those classic artist renderings from a single tooth, from small bone fragments or from skull pieces -and on occasion, entire skulls permitted artists to let their imaginations run wild and silmultaneously to support the idea that our ancestors were primitive.

Click and drag photo to resize.

This of course supported evolutionary theory and caused many who believed in the Biblical view of creation to perplexedly wonder where cave men fit in.

As time goes by, the truth of what our ancestors actually looked like became more and more evident--like us, pretty much. That's why it's becoming more difficult to find those old cave man characterizations, even most "knowledgeable" evolutionists have to admit that "Cro-Magnon" and "Neanderthal man" are fully human. (Photo:top left; recent computer and/or forensic recreations of "Neanderthal", right and "Cro-Magnon", left who is scowling, of course. Far right: Cro-Magnon steps out.)

So while, in the past evolutionists have been drawing them as ape-like and brutish to drive home the notion that we have "evolved"--we now both (Christians & evolutionists) know that they look like what a Christian or Bible believer would expect--us. Not only that, when " "they" drew themselves from life, (15,000 years ago according to evolutionary time) they tended to look more like this (Photo: Below, left "caveman" self portrait) (more on these self portraits on page 2).

Obviously, this kind of look is more like what Christians might have expected. When's the last time you saw a representation of our supposed evolutionary ancestors with a Supercuts like trim and hat at a jaunty angle?

In Genesis, Adam and Eve are created without dragging knuckles--they raise children and carry on conversations just like "normal" people. They tilled the soil. They spoke to God. Evolutionists, however are tied to the idea of very primitive beginnings--where for long periods, our ancestors were not even fully men.

We've even come to accept the idea that larger brows or thicker bodies necessarily suggests less sophistication--less advancement. I laughed when I read this morning that this particular evolutionist had to admit that "Neanderthal" looked a lot like us but--probably was short and had sloping shoulders.

(See Also the cosmetic surgery performed on Neanderthal,in Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo--See page 8 of this section)That's still supposed to suggest that he was less advanced than modern man--but when you really think about it, --even if it were true about the shortness and sloping shoulders--all that would really mean is that there was little chance he could make it as a runway model.

Shortness and sloping shoulders--even a prominent brow have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence, survival or level of "advancement".

You yourself may be short, have sloping shoulders and/or a prominent forehead. Even so, the evidence is that our ancestors were smarter, faster, and larger--had better eyesight, better technology than we suppose and were as "handsome" as we are.

And by the way, a cave man is simply a man (or woman) who lives in a cave! If they stooped, it was because the roof was low. Why were they in there in the first place? Perhaps war, pestilence, Flood, tower of Babel or other hardships forced men into caves for protection in certain locales and from time to time.

One of the items we discuss here below is suppressed information (over 100 stone tablets) that "cave men" had an early written language--much, much earlier than science admits.

See also: Scientists: Neanderthal More Like "Modern Man" Than Previously Thought

Artifacts of Ancient Man

ANCIENT HUMAN CULTURES APPEAR IN SOPHISTICATED FORM

"...A more exact profile on ancient man can be derived from examination of actual artifacts which reveal his extensive sophistication. Rene Noorbergen writes that "for the past thirty years there has been a steadily increasing number of historical and archaeological discoveries made at various sites around the world, which, because of their mysterious and highly controversial nature, have been classified as 'out-of-place' artifacts.

....The reason for this designation is that they are found in geological strata where they shouldn't be, and their sudden appearance in these layers of ancient dirt has baffled the minds of many a trained scientific observer.

They emerge from among the remains of the treasured past sans evidence of any preceding period of culture or technological growth. In many cases, the technical sophistication of the (out-of-place artifacts) extends far beyond the inventive capabilities of the ancient peoples among whose remains they were discovered.''

Site Medzamor in Soviet Armenia is of intriguing interest. An international scientific report published in 1969 expressed the belief that these finds point to an unknown period of technological development.

"Medzamor was founded by the wise men of earlier civilizations. They possessed knowledge they had acquired during a remote age unknown to us that deserves to be called scientific and industrial.'

The preceding year Koriun Megurtchian of the Soviet Union unearthed the oldest large-scale metallurgical factory currently known. At this site over 4,500 years ago an unknown prehistoric people worked with over 200 furnaces, producing an assortment of vases, knives, spearheads, rings, bracelets, etc.

The Medzamor craftsmen wore mouth-filters and gloves while they labored and expertly fashioned their wares of copper, lead, zinc, iron, gold, tin, manganese, and fourteen kinds of bronze.

The smelters also produced an assortment of metallic paints, ceramics and glass. Scientific organizations from the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, France and Germany verified that several pairs of tweezers made of exceptionally high grade steel were taken from layers predating the first millennium B.C.

In Scientific American (June 1951, Vol. 7, p. 298) a report was given concerning a metallic vase that had been dynamited out of solid rock on Meeting Horse Hill in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The report read, "On putting the two parts together it formed a bell-shaped vessel, 4 1/2 inches high, 6 l/2 inches at the base, 2 1/2 inches at the top and about an eighth of an inch in thickness.

The body of the vessel resembles zinc in color, or a composition metal in which there is a considerable portion of silver. On the sides there are six figures of a flower, a bouquet, beautifully inlaid with pure silver, and around the lower part of the vessel, a vine, or wreath, inlaid also with silver.

The chasing, carving and inlaying are exquisitely done by the art of some cunning craftsman. This curious and unknown vessel was blown out of the solid pudding stone, fifteen feet below the surface."

The scientific journals Nature (London,1886) and L'Astronomie (Paris,1887) published confirmation that in 1886, in the foundry of the Austrian Isador Braun of Vocklabruck, a block of coal dating from the Tertiary period was broken open.

A small metal cube was discovered inside. Tests indicated that the cube was composed of a steel-nickel alloy. It measured 2.64 by 2.64 by 1.85 inches, weighed 1.73 pounds, and had a specific gravity of 7.75.

The edges of this ancient cube were perfectly straight and sharp; four of its sides were flat, while the two remaining opposite sides were convex. A deep groove had been cut all the way around the cube. It appeared that the cube had been machine made and was part of a larger mechanism.

It was perhaps with uncanny insight that historian Will Durant wrote, "Immense volumes have been written to expound our knowledge, and conceal our ignorance, of primitive man...primitive cultures were not necessarily the ancestors of our own; for all we know they may be the degenerate remnants of higher cultures..."

Prehistorian Robert Silverberg describes the sophistication of Paleolithic art in terms which equate with the thesis of this dissertation: "The cave paintings are upsetting to those who prefer to think of Quaternary man as little more than an ape.

Not only do they indicate great craftsmanship, but they point to a whole constellation of conclusions: That primitive man had an organized society with continuity and shape, religion and art.

It was so dismaying to learn that the earliest inhabitants of Western Europe...had scaled heights of artistic achievement that would not be reached again until late in the Christian era. That exploded the theory [that] man's rise from barbarism had been steady and always upward.'' From the facts at hand there is warrant for the concept that barbarism occurred after the great heights of achievement were manifest.

The great archaeologist, William F. Albright, in From The Stone Age To Christianity, gave his expert impressions about Paleolithic art: "...though the number of motifs, techniques and media available to him now is, of course, immeasurably greater, it is very doubtful whether man's artistic capabilities are actually any higher today than they were in late prehistoric times."

Research has supported the concept that Stone Age man lived in well-constructed houses. The Magdalenian paintings have been admired for their originality and profusion. Yet, in these Lascaux Caverns one can still see the holes in the rock that supported wooden crossbeams.

These crossbeams held scaffolding that enabled Cro-Magnon artists to execute their works on the cave ceilings ten to twelve feet above the cavern floor, much like Michelangelo constructed many millennia later.

Rene Noorbergen sheds revealing light on this subject of Stone Age sophistication:

What are perhaps the most disturbing prehistoric construction and civilization finds were uncovered in 1965 by archaeologist Dragoslav Srejovic at a site now called Starveco, on the Danube River, on the Yugoslavian and Rumanian border.

Digging into the Yugoslavian bank, Srejovic first encountered traces of a Roman road; beneath this were fragments of proto-Greek pottery, and below these were Neolithic remnants and traces of Mesolithic cultural artifacts.

Deeper still, Srejovic came upon something totally out of place: the remains of a cement floor. More specifically, the material was an amalgam of local limestone, sand and water, considered a feat of chemistry and construction several millennia ahead of its time. The cement surfaces were not placed haphazardly, but were carefully laid out in large slabs to form the foundations of houses.

Several foundations were built one on top of another, indicating that buildings had been constructed and reconstructed over an indeterminate period. Yet there was also remarkable uniformity. (Photo:some of the Starveco foundations) The layout of the houses in the later periods was the same as that in the earlier periods - there was no evidence of a gradual development from a simple to a complex pattern.

Rather, the Starveco village suddenly appeared, fully mature, flourished, then decayed and was abandoned in the same advanced state. In addition to the foundations, the individual Starveco buildings also showed a high order of architectural sophistication. They all had one side larger in size than the other three, with proportions of either 3:1 or 4:1. The larger side was shaped like a 60-degree segment of a circle.

This larger side always faced toward the river, providing the occupants with the maximum view of the Danube and the surrounding hilly country. Inside each house, the shape of the dwelling was repeated in the hearth or oven, which was bounded by carefully shaped stone slabs and always located in the eastern or sunny end of the house.

Srejovic noted that the position of the hearth was significant, as it was situated in the exact center of an equilateral triangle if the lines of the house were extended....The implications of the mathematical and geometrical knowledge cannot be ignored.

The same precision and order evident in the architecture is also found in the arrangement of the dwellings at the Starveco site. The structures were laid out in what appears to have been a planned fan shape, opening toward the riverbank.

The larger buildings, presumably those belonging to members of a higher class or governing body, were located toward the center, surrounding a paved plaza...

The Starveco site has yielded a number of other cultural characteristics previously thought to have been developed thousands of years later, in the Middle East. Behind the hearth in each house, laborers unearthed the remains of altars, indicating religious beliefs and practices.

Each altar was composed of a flat stone, with a cup impression for burning a sacriffce, which faced two or more upright stones of reddish sandstone. This sandstone has been excavated from an outcrop, located in a ravine several miles away, and many of the stones had carved wavy lines or chevrons in low relief, considered the oldest examples of architectural decoration. Even more significant was the discovery of twenty sculpted life-size human faces of stone....

An interesting aspect of the site was the evidence of very good health among the Starveco population. There was a striking absence of deformed or diseased bones, and the women were so robustly built that it was difficult to tell their skeletal remains from those of the men.'

In spite of his absence from Western culture and history "Stone Age" man is seen to equal or, in some cases, to surpass our own modern accomplishments."...

Source:Rene Noorbergen

Melchizedek not an ‘Enlightened Pagan’



Bible Critics Can Overstate Idea Of ‘Enlightened Pagan’

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22)

“I will arouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece” (Zechariah 9:13)

 

 

PART ONE

 

Here it will be argued that - contrary to what is often believed about the following biblical characters - none of these can really accurately be designated as an ‘enlightened pagan’:

 

1.      MELCHIZEDEK

2.      RAHAB (in genealogy of David and Jesus)

3.      RUTH

4.      ACHIOR (in my Catholic Bible, Book of Judith)

5.      JOB

6.      (Probably also) the Magi.

 

Let us consider why.

 

1.      MELCHIZEDEK was not an enlightened Canaanite priest-king. Melchizedek was the great Shem, son of Noah. This is apparently a Jewish tradition and I have long accepted it. Now, this is all explained very well in a recent article that I have posted at: http://amaic-abraham.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/melchizedek-was-shem-son-of-noah.html

 

 

Regarding 2, 3 and 4, for Rahab (as specified above), Ruth and Achior to have been former Gentile pagans, Canaanite in the first case (2.) and Moabites in the other two instances (3. and 4.), then this would have meant a serious flouting of Mosaic law and prohibitions: Deuteronomy 7 in the case of Rahab (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-genealogical-rachab-was-not.html), and Deuteronomy 23:3 for the presumed Moabites (see article posted at: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ruth-was-israelite.html).

 

 

2.      RAHAB. The Canaanite harlot, Rahab, whose ‘faith’ both Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and James (2:25) praised incidentally (like Jesus with the Roman centurion, Luke 7:1-10), was not she who became the ancestress of David and Jesus, despite what is universally taught. The true situation, as well explained in the above-mentioned “Rachab” article, is that Rahab the harlot is to be distinguished from the Israelite woman, Rachab (note different spelling), whose name is to be found in the Davidic genealogical list.

 

3.      RUTH. I have long believed, too, that Ruth of the Judges era could not plausibly have been a Moabitess for reasons already explained (Deuteronomy 23:3), but considered especially in my extensive research on the identity of Achior, presumably a Moabite, in the Book of Judith (see 4. next). I discussed Achior at length in Volume Two of my university thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973). Whilst Ruth, a woman, apparently gets away with it, Achior, a male, does not (see 4. next). Then necessity of Ruth’s being an Israelite is well argued in the above-mentioned “Ruth” article.

 

4.      ACHIOR. I argued at length in the above-mentioned university thesis that Achior was not a Moabite at all but a Naphtalian Israelite. He was Ahikar (var. Achior, Vulgate), the nephew of Tobit (Book of Tobit 1:22). The mistaken notion that Achior was a Moabite leader is perhaps the primary reason why the Jews have not accepted the Book of Judith as part of the scriptural canon. I live in the hope that this can one day be rectified.   

 

5.      JOB I have firmly identified as Tobit’s very son, Tobias. See our site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”, http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/ Thus the righteous Job was, not an enlightened Edomite (and not an Arabian sheikh), but a sage of Israel.

 

6.      THE MAGI. There is some tradition that has them descending from the family of Job. I would suspect that the “east” in which the Magi dwelt was, not Persia by any means, but the same approximate “east” wherein Job dwelt, in the land of Uz, in Transjordanian Bashan. See our Jobian articles at site, “Holy Job Was An Israelite”. 

 

PART TWO

 

Our {AMAIC} appreciation of the cultural, sapiential and spiritual supremacy of the holy people of Israel (the sincere Yahwists) has led to further important Israelitic identifications of certain famous historical characters (even dynasties), such as:

 

-          the gifted Senenmut (Senmut) of 18^th dynasty Egyptian history, consort of Hatshepsut, with King Solomon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/ Hatshepsut herself rightly being identified by Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I) with the biblical Queen [of] Sheba. See our site: http://hatshepsut-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

-          King Hammurabi the Lawgiver as King Solomon again, this time in his guise as ruler of Babylon. See our site: http://amaic-kingdavid.blogspot.com.au/

 

And, selectively following Dr. E. Metzler, “Conflict of Laws in the Israelite Dynasty of Egypt” (http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm), I have accepted his identification of Egypt’s 18^th dynasty as Israelite, with the mighty Thutmoside pharaohs as Davidide.

The El Amarna dynasty was, I believe, a Baalistic Israelite resurgence under King Ahab (Akhnaton) and his wicked Phoenician wife, Queen Nefertiti (Jezebel). See e.g. our: http://queennefertiti-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

General Jehu is the ambiguous Horemheb, making the 19^th dynasty that he (Horemheb) initiated, as Syro-(Israelite?).

And I further suspect that Egypt’s 20^th dynasty was Judaean again, with pharaoh Ramses III as the mighty King Amaziah of Judah. See our: http://ramsesiii-amaic.blogspot.com.au/

 

 

To conclude

 

Whilst there are indeed to be found in the Scriptures some highly ‘enlightened pagans’ or Gentiles of ‘faith’, such as Rahab the harlot and the Roman centurion, the Old Testament ones at least would not have been allowed into the Yahwistic fold according to the very strict Laws of Moses.

Melchizedek Was Shem Son of Noah



The Identity of Melchizedek

by

Bill Lavers

So many have sought the identity of Melchizedek, yet nothing of a definitive nature has ever been forthcoming from their deliberations. The reason for their failure - their stumbling block may be a more apt way of putting it - has always been that single verse to be found in the seventh chapter of the Book of Hebrews, namely, verse 3, which says of him that he was: “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abiding a priest continually.”

____________ _ ____________

Before we consider the reason why the author of Hebrews made this seemingly sweeping statement about Melchizedek, I want you to take particular note that, in the three verses where he is spoken of in Genesis 14, verses 18 to 20, nothing whatever is said that would intimate that he was anything more than a normal human being. Yes, he was a king; but so was David. He was also the priest of the Most High God; yet, in Psalm 82:6, God refers to His people as children of the Most High, and adds in verse 7: “but ye shall die like men.”

Where, then, did the author of Hebrews get the idea that Melchizedek was anything more than a mortal man - if, indeed, that is what he was seeking to convey? The only other place in the Old Testament where Melchizedek is mentioned is in Psalm 110:4; but, again, there is nothing in that verse that would depict him as being an immortal being, although some might argue otherwise, in view of the reference God made to the age-abiding nature of Christ’s affirmed priesthood: “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.”

God was there simply expressing the unique nature of Melchizedek’s priesthood - that it did not pass to another as did that of Aaron. In like manner, therefore, the priesthood He was conferring on Christ, being in resurrection life and glory, would never be taken from him, that it would remain his unique status in the Father’s eyes. There can be no doubt that the author of Hebrews understood this to be the meaning and intent of the Father’s words by what he says in Hebrews 7:20-25. Here is what we are told in that passage of scripture, as recorded in The Jerusalem Bible.

“What is more, this was not done without the taking of an oath. The others, indeed, were made priests without an oath; but he with an oath sworn by the one who declared to him: The Lord has sworn an oath which he will never retract: you are a priest, and for ever. And it follows that it is a greater covenant for which Jesus has become our guarantee. Then there used to be a great number of those other priests, because death put an end to each one of them; but this one, because he remains for ever, can never lose his priesthood. It follows, then, that his power to save is utterly certain, since he is living for ever to intercede for all who come to God through him.”

In no way was God confirming some type of immortal status upon Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4; and certainly not with the meaning that we have so erroneously and so foolishly assigned to the words of the author of Hebrews 7:3. Had that been the case, then God would have been placing Melchizedek on a par with Himself, proclaiming him as an ever existent being, having neither a beginning nor an end of life. Why, even Christ was born from a mother’s womb.

Hebrews 7:3

How, then, are we to understand Hebrews 7:3? Before I ventured on writing this paper, I browsed through a number of Bible Commentaries and Bible Dictionaries to find out which, if any, actually backed up what I believed to be the answer to the problem, and gave a simple and perfectly rational approach by which the solution could best be explained and most easily understood. The one I found which best met these criteria was the Dictionary of the Bible, edited by James Hastings, under the article, Epistle to the Hebrews in the second volume of the set. The following, therefore, is basically a brief summary of that part of the article having particular relevance to our subject.

The article shows that the answer we are seeking actually becomes abundantly clear when we simply consider the intention that the author had in mind when he wrote those first three verses of chapter 7. Notice that he was giving a summary of the facts about Melchizedek as they were stated in Genesis 14:18-20, adding a brief commentary to point out their religious significance, and extracting from those facts exactly what were the determining marks of the Melchizedek order. To make the facts serve his purpose, the writer found it necessary to attach importance, not merely to what is said of Melchizedek, but to what is not said - to the silences as well as the utterances of history. He was also giving ideal meaning to the names occurring in the story.

By this means, he attains what he set out to do. He defines and clarifies the typology of the Melchizedek priesthood. Look at those first three verses and read them with this in mind. You will see that he brings five distinct types to our attention. Taking them in the order of presentation, we are shown that the Melchizedek priesthood is, first, a royal priesthood, Melchizedek having kingly status. Secondly it is a righteous priesthood; he is said to have been king of righteousness in verse 2. Thirdly, and again emphasized in verse 2, his priesthood promoted and exercised peace; he was “also king of Salem, which is king of peace.” Fourthly, and I want you to notice this carefully, his priesthood was a personal, not an inherited dignity, because, as far as the record was concerned, he was without father and without mother; and only in that sense. Fifth, and lastly, it is an eternal priesthood; without beginning of days or end of life - again, so far as the record is concerned.

By making this ingenious commentary on the narrative in Genesis, the author is trying to fix the characters of an ideal priesthood. He is portraying to the minds of his readers the highest conceivable type of priesthood: that the priest must be really, not ritually, holy; one whose priestly ministry is a course of gracious condescension - a royal priest. He must also be one who, by his personal worth and official acts, can establish a reign of righteousness, peace, and perfect fellowship between man and God. Finally, he must be one who ever lives, whose priesthood does not pass from him to another, thereby giving an absolute guarantee for the preservation and maintenance of peace.

Order of Melchizedek

This was the perfect type of priesthood - after the order of Melchizedek - that the Most High God was conferring on Christ. As the author seeks to assure his readers in the last two verses of the sixth chapter of his epistle: “Here we have an anchor for our soul, as sure as it is firm, and reaching right through beyond the veil where Jesus has entered before us and on our behalf, to become a high priest of the order of Melchizedek, and for ever” (Jerusalem Bible).

With these facts in mind, therefore, allowing us to accept Melchizedek as a mortal human being, his identity need no longer remain an enigma. There really was only one renowned and august personage in that period of Old Testament history who could have held that divinely appointed office of authority. That person was Shem, one of Noah’s three sons who were born prior to the great Noachian Deluge and came through the Flood with their wives and their parents - the only eight souls saved from that old world.

Shem was 98 years of age when God brought the great flood upon the earth. He was not the eldest of Noah’s sons, as one would assume from the order in which they are each presented in Genesis 5:32; and the boys were certainly not triplets, all born together when Noah was five hundred years old. That was obviously the age of Noah when the first child was born, that son being Japheth. This is clear from Genesis 10:21, which specifically says that Japheth was the elder - and he was the elder by at least two years where Shem was concerned, as can easily be understood from what we are told in Genesis 10:1.

I don’t want to spend an unnecessary amount of time on the boys’ ages; but they do reveal an interesting trait that we find time and again in the scriptural record, that the one on whom the greatest blessings fell was often the youngest. I have no way of proving directly from the scriptures that Ham was Noah’s second son, thereby making Shem the third and last in the birth process, but Jewish tradition certainly holds this to be true. In volume 5 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, page 1195, under the sub-heading Jewish Tradition, we are told this:

“The Tannaitic and Amoraitic teachers considered Shem, Shem the Great, as he is called by some, Noah’s youngest son. They say that in the Bible he is mentioned first among the members of his family because he was the most righteous, wisest, and most important son, not because he was the oldest”

Generations of Shem

In that most important genealogical table, entitled The Generations of Shem, which begins with verse 10 in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, we are given the name and age of each of the patriarchs in the righteous line of descent from Shem. You will find those same patriarchs listed in Luke’s genealogical record of Christ’s ancestry from Adam. In Genesis 11, you will notice a break at the end of verse 26. It is interesting that, at that point in the patriarchal line of descent from Shem, we now find The Generations of Terah taking precedence. It is as though God is here saying: “I now want you to take particular note of the lineal relation of Shem to Abraham.”

There is an interesting note on this which is given in The New Bible Commentary Revised, page 92. The short account opens by saying that “Man’s kingship under God had found expression in Noah’s kingdom in the ark. Now the kingdom of God is given to Abram to be possessed in God’s promises, by faith.” In other words, from the time of Noah, God had given His kingdom inheritance into the charge of Shem and his patriarchal line, because it was through Shem that the righteousness of Noah, in God’s eyes, found its full expression.

Each of those ancient patriarchs, then, under the overall leadership and divinely directed and inspired guidance of their forefather, Shem, were responsible, before God, for governing that area of the world that God was later to give as an inheritance to Abraham and his seed. One might wonder, then, why the break in Shem’s genealogical record was made with Terah, and not with Terah’s son Abram. Isn’t it interesting, by the way, to see that Terah, like Noah, had three sons, named as Abram, Nahor, and Haran in verse 27, and that, like Shem, it was the youngest of the three, Abram, in whom the righteous line was destined to continue.

But to get back to the theme of our discussion; why do we find the break in Shem’s genealogical record made with Terah and not with Abram, or Abraham as he was later to be called. Again, we find the answer in The New Bible Commentary Revised that I quoted from above. “The appearance of Terah’s (not Abram’s) name in the 11:27a heading accords with the Genesis framework’s concern with the genealogical origins of the twelve tribes of Israel, for they stemmed from Terah not only through Abram but through Sarai (20:12) and through Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel of the lineage of Nahor, son of Terah.”

The answer to so many questions is so clearly answered in those genealogical records given us in Genesis if we only have the eyes to see what God is trying to show us there; and, most important from our present perspective is the answer to Melchizedek’s identity. From what we have already considered, who was better qualified to have held that most majestic office than Shem, the first patriarchal descendant of Noah in the righteous line of descent.

We have now seen that Shem was the lineal ancestor of the Jewish people. He lived for the first 98 years of his life in the pre-Flood world. Not only did he witness the build up of the evil that led to the total corruption of that ancient society before God, filling it with such violence that God had no alternative but to completely destroy it, but, having that same righteous mind that God saw in his father Noah, he would have had an abhorrence of all manner of ungodliness. He had seen and experienced the terrible end-result of unmitigated sin and evil, and there can be little doubt that he was determined to do all he could, led and directed by the power of God in that new world, to preach and teach the righteousness of God to his descendants.

He had been blessed by God, together with his father and brothers, and heard God’s blessed pronouncement, to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth (Gen.9:1). He had also heard God establishing His covenant, not only with Noah, himself and his brothers, but with their seed after them. Furthermore, that covenant he knew to be all-inclusive, to the extent that it was made with every living creature that would come to exist on that new earth (9:10).

Shem had no illusions as to his God-given responsibilities, for Noah had conferred them on him with the words: “Blessed be the Lord God of Shem” as recorded in Genesis 9:26. The blessing was Shem’s identification with God’s covenant name, Yahweh, as was to be seen later in the Abrahamic covenant.

600 Years Old

From the opening two verses of Shem’s genealogical record in Genesis 11, you will see that Shem lived to be 600 years old, which means he outlived all in his patriarchal line, with but one exception, down to and including Terah, the father of Abraham. The one exception was Eber, whose death followed 29 years after that of Shem. But then, Eber was the third generation patriarchal descendant of Shem, Shem being already 165 years of age when Eber was born.

The important point I want to make here, however, is that Shem lived on into the lifetimes of both Abraham and Isaac. He was 450 years of age when Abraham was born, and 550 years old at the birth of Isaac. In fact, he died just 10 years before Jacob was born. As far as Abraham was concerned, he outlived Shem by only 25 years. That means that Shem would have known Abraham – and, indeed, would undoubtedly have had a long and paternal-like relationship with him, probably from the time that Abraham first came into the land of Canaan at age 75.

Of course, being the most renowned and, probably, the most revered figure on earth at that time, I am sure that Abraham would also have known Shem quite early in his life, throughout those first 75 years he had lived, first in Ur of the Chaldees, and then, of course, in Haran up until the death of his father Terah. At least, if he had not known him personally, which I doubt, he would certainly have known him by repute.

How natural, then, it would have been for Abraham to have given to this ancient and most esteemed personage, now revealed to us as Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God, the tithes of all when he returned from Hobah, having brought Lot and all those who had been taken captive with him, back to the safety of their own land once again (Gen.14:14-20).

It is so clear from that important passage of scripture contained in verses 18 to 20, that Melchizedek was very well acquainted with Abraham, and was thoroughly informed as to the unique role that God had called and chosen him to perform in His great plan of salvation for mankind. Just give a moment’s thought to the manner of his address to Abraham in the last two verses of that passage in particular: “And he blessed him, and said, ‘Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth: and blessed be the Most High God, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand…’”

As God’s highest representative on the earth at that time, I, personally, feel sure that Shem would have been fully informed of all that God intended to do through Abraham; and, what is more, all that He intended for that very same city that was later to be known as Jerusalem. We have only to look at Isaiah 22:11, and realise that it was undoubtedly Shem, king of Salem, and priest of the Most High God, who is there spoken of as the maker of the ancient pool at the Gihon spring. But that is a continuation of the story that must be reserved for another time.

Copyright 2002 - Bill Lavers

From www.godward.org

Under new listings

Burial Place of Joseph?

Why is Joseph buried in Shechem, the largest Arab city in Israel?

....

Joshua 24:32

And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for a hundred pieces of money; and they became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.



When we visit the remains of the site after the PLO burned it some 8 years ago, we find it in the middle of an Arab city:





But if you could only see how the site looked just 100 years ago, you would understand that Joseph has be sitting there patiently in Shechem for thousands of years, waiting for his people to return... and there are those who have come here less than 100 years ago:







Kever Yoseph = Joseph's Tomb in Shechem





More about Joseph in Shechem here.





The Burial of Jacob



Lesson 33

Genesis 50: Burial of Jacob

The Story

....

Jacob had died in Egypt, after blessing Joseph's sons and his own sons. Where was the family burying place? Turn back to chapter 23 and read again about the cave in the field of Machpelah before Hebron which Abraham bought for a burying place when Sarah died. Her body was buried there, and afterward Abraham (Gen. 25:8-10), and Isaac (Gen. 35:27-29), and Rebekah and Leah. (Gen. 49:31) Why is Rachel not mentioned? (Gen. 35:19, 20) Today a Mohammedan mosque stands over the cave. You can see its walls and towers in the pictures of Hebron. The Mohammedans do not let anyone go down into the cave, but it may very well be true, as they believe, that the bones of Abraham's family are still there.

The body of Jacob was embalmed in Egypt, and we know from those found in the Egyptian tombs and from old pictures with what great care this work was done by the physicians. You have perhaps seen in the museums the wooden mummy cases, painted all over with bright pictures. The wooden case was often placed in a heavy stone box, the sarcophagus. Inside the case was the body, preserved with resins and spices and wrapped in hundreds of yards of white linen strips. Wreaths of lotus flowers were laid in some of the coffins thousands of years ago, from which the color seems hardly gone as you see them opened today. The process of embalming took forty days, and there were thirty more days of mourning, making seventy days in all. (Compare the mourning for Aaron and for Moses. Numb. 20:29; Deut. 34:8) Pictures carved and painted on some of the walls in Egypt show us the funeral feasts, and how they used to carry the body of a king or a great man to the tomb with great pomp and ceremony. We can imagine the procession which started after the days of mourning, by the command of Pharaoh, to carry the body of Jacob to its resting place. The Egyptians seem to have stopped at the threshing-floor of Atad, or the "cactus," while Jacob's own sons carried the body of their father to the cave in Hebron.

The words "beyond Jordan" usually mean, on the east side of the river, which would imply that for some reason the funeral company took a roundabout journey. Swedenborg translates the phrase, "in the passage of Jordan," and speaks of their crossing the river after leaving the floor of Atad. (A. 6538, 6540)

They all went back to Egypt after the burial of Jacob, and Joseph renewed his promise of kindness.

Now Joseph's death was near, and he, too, charged the people, when the Lord should lead them back from Egypt, that they should take his bones with them and bury them in the land of Canaan. We look forward in the story and find that this was done. Read Exod. 13:19 and Josh. 24:32. This last verse tells us that Joseph's bones were buried "in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought." We remember this parcel of ground where Jacob dug his well, where Joseph came looking for his brethren, which Jacob gave to Joseph before his death, and where long afterward the Lord talked with the woman of Samaria by Jacob's well. A little building called the tomb of Joseph is still shown in the field. The building is not old, but it may mark the place where Joseph's bones were buried.

1. Where did Jacob die? Where was he buried? Where did Joseph die? Where was his burial place?

2. How did the cave at Hebron become the possession of Jacob and his sons? How did they gain possession of the parcel of ground at Shechem?

3. When the literal story of the Bible tells of death and burial, what do angels think of? How is one who dies gathered to his or her people?

4. What event in the Lord's life is connected with the parcel of ground where Joseph was buried?

Spiritual Study

Intermediate

Notice the words spoken of Jacob, that he was gathered to his people. (Gen. 49:33) It was a common saying in the old time. The wise ancients knew that when we die we awake in the spiritual world, and find our home there with those who are dear to us. All the particulars of this chapter, which tell so much about death and burial, mean to the angels things connected with the awakening and coming to the heavenly home. (A. 3255)

Does this suggest a beautiful meaning in the earnest request of Jacob, "Bury me not, I pray, in Egypt: but I will lie with my fathers, and thou shalt carry me out of Egypt, and bury me in their burying place"? (Gen. 47:29-30) And in Joseph's charge, "Ye shall carry up my bones from hence"? (Gen. 50:25) So we can look forward to heaven and desire, when we die, to come to the heavenly home. And we should desire, even in this world, not to remain always in the external, worldly state which Egypt represents, but, as regeneration advances, to return to spiritual states represented by the land of Canaan, and to the enjoyment of innocent things of earlier life which have been laid up within us by the Lord and carefully preserved. So, while we still live in this world, we come into association with those who have lived before us and gone on to heaven. (A. 3255, 6181-6185, 6451, 6589)

The Egyptians embalmed the bodies of the dead; not because they believed that these natural bodies rise again. The old books and pictures of Egypt plainly show that they knew the earthly body is left behind forever at death and that the spirit enters on a new life. Embalming the body represented the preservation of heavenly qualities of life, and was in general an image of immortality. There is in the embalming of Jacob and of Joseph, this thought of the preservation of the heavenly qualities which they represent - Jacob (who is here called Israel), a spiritual goodness, and Joseph, a more interior state of nearness to the Lord. The body of Jacob was buried as soon as the days of mourning were over, which means the revival and permanent establishment of this goodness after the necessary period of temptation and effort. (Notice especially the mourning at the threshing-floor.) But the burial of Joseph was long delayed, "and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt." The things of interior life and nearness to the Lord for a long time hardly exist, but they are preserved by being concealed in representative forms such as those of the Jewish Church. The charge to carry the bones of Joseph up from Egypt is a promise of return to interior life. (A. 6502-6516, 6592-6596)

....

Taken from: http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/sower/gen/gen33.htm

Abraham's Burial Place Found



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hidden Until Now:

Abraham's Burial Site

by News Agency NAI

(An exclusive story translated from German and reprinted with permission of News Agency NAI)

For 714 years, entering the Jewish forefathers' grave had been forbidden by law to all non-Muslims -and now it is once again.

In 1981, Dr. Seev Jevin, Director of the Israel Antiquities Authority, forced himself through a narrow opening in the underground grave chamber of the Machpela cave, where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were believed to be buried. He did this under strict observation by the Islamic Waqf. Behind bolted doors in Yitzhak Hall, the secret entrance in the southeast wall was opened. Jews had long suspected that the entrance to the real burial chamber must be here, and because of that they placed their prayer slips of paper in wall cracks on the exterior of the building at this same location.

The discovery that Dr. Jevin made in 1981 was concealed for political reasons. However, now that Hebron has been handed back to the Muslims, he has recounted to Nachrichten aus Israel (News from Israel) how he forced himself through a narrow entrance, went down 16 steps and crawled along a 20-meters long, 60-cm high and 100-cm wide tunnel in order to finally reach a 3.5 x 3.5 meter room. The chamber, tunnel and steps were all made of the same worked stones as the building exterior. They were a homogenous group of building materials belonging to Herodian-era construction, identical to those used in the Jerusalem temple.

Dr. Jevin determined that plaster covering the black walls in the grave chamber dated from a later time and was designed to hide the original Herodian stones. "This is a customary tactic of the Muslims by which they attempt to cover up the original," said Dr. Jevin.

Behind broken-off plaster, he discovered Latin script, dating to Crusader times, containing the names Jacob and Abraham. It was obvious Christians regarded this location as a holy place. Could this room be the true burial chamber?

Earlier Moshe Dayan, both Israel's Defense Minister and an amateur archaeologist, had been curious about this site. Following the Six Day War, he and 12-year-old Michal lowered themselves with a rope through the 30-cm, narrow opening into this chamber, which was 20 cm from the blocked floor opening in Yitzhak Hall. They measured this chamber but found no bones. Now, Dr. Jevin was standing in this same underground chamber. He was prepared to break off his search when he stumbled on a floor plate. Suspecting a hollow space underneath, he lifted the plate, found a hole and slid through the narrow opening. Now Dr. Jevin found himself in a 3.5 x 4 meter room from which a passage to a second smaller oval room led. He recalled the Talmud (Baba Bathra 58,770), which indicated two caves and recalled that the name "Machpela" itself means "double cave."

So Dr. Seev Jevin became the first Jew to discover the true burial chamber of his ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-three floors below the north grave chamber. In a nearby chamber in the cave, their wives Sarah, Rebekah and Leah would be resting.

With uncanny silence surrounding him, Dr. Jevin looked around full of awe and found clay shards dating from Israelite times, perhaps from Abraham's era-artifacts almost 4,000 years old. He found pieces of a lamp and also an intact wine jug. Could this be the jug in which monks washed the bones of the forefathers in 1119 A.D., as old texts explain?

The archaeological find proves that Machpela is a Jewish burial place and that hundreds of years prior to Mohammed it had been a holy place for the Jews. Now Palestinians maintain that "Jews are foreigners in Hebron." Also, when the Muslims succeeded in removing almost all Jewish traces from the halls above, only the actual grave chamber itself remained Jewish. The still walled-in passage in the tunnel pointed towards an underground labyrinth, perhaps a Herodian necropolis.

Muslims falsified Jewish holy places, converting them into "lifelong" Muslim holy places. From the Jewish temple mount in Jerusalem they made their third holy place al-Aqsa and are now converting Solomon's stables into a mosque. At the same time they are protesting Israel's Judaizing of Jerusalem.

"And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had made in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant. And the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah which was before Mamre the field and the cave, which was therein, and all the trees which were in the field, that were in all the borders round about were made sure. Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of all the children of Heth and all went in the gate of the city and after this Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre, the same in Hebron the land of Canaan. And the field and the cave that is therein were made sure unto Abraham for a possession of a burying place by the sons of Heth." (Genesis 23:16-20) "...and his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him (Abraham) in the cave of Machpelah in the field of Ephron, the son of Zohar, the Hittite, which is before Mamre." (Genesis 25:9)

What is important is that Abraham obtained the burial place by paying the full price, which signified under law that he and his posterity had in so doing bought legal rights to this land. The Armana letter said this 1,400 years before Christ and it is still local legal custom today. Abraham rejected all offers of Ephron to bury his dead in Hittite graves, because that would not have given him perpetual rights. Abraham stood on the fact that the contract mentioned that he had obtained the cave and the trees which surrounded it and that according to both the law of that time and today he had rights to harvest from that ground.

In the Bible, Machpela is mentioned three times; this is the cave which has guarded its secret for 4,000 years as the burial place of the Jewish forefathers. Dr. Jevin was the first to bring its secret to light. He recounted to NAI that Hebron has once again become a political challenge.

Before King David conquered Jerusalem, he reigned for seven years from Hebron. Around the end of 1 B.C., Herod had artisans, who were adorning the second temple, construct a 60-meter long and 32-meter wide holy building, which has been regarded as a holy place to the present day. Whoever sees the construction over the Machpela cave site can imagine how the earlier exterior walls of Jerusalem appeared. Hebron and Jerusalem belong together.

The Byzantine Christians overlaid part of the Jewish construction and made a basilica out of it. The grave sites of the forefathers became from this time forward a holy place for Jews and Christians. An eyewitness from the sixth century, Antonius the Martyr, said, "Jews and Christians entered the four walls through separate entrances." After the Holy Land was conquered by the Muslims, the Jewish/Christian prayer site was converted to a Muslim one.

In the 12th century, the Crusaders made a church out of the site, and 150 years later the Mame-lukes made it a mosque once again and added two minarets, wall decorations, and a marble facade. For 700 years, from 1267 to June 8, 1967, the Muslims forbade Jews and Christians access to the Machpela cave. During this time, Jews could only approach the steps on the east side and only to the seventh step, where they would stick their prayer papers in wall crevices, behind which ran eight grave chambers-a newly discovered fact which they didn't know. So it was drafts of wind that carried their letters of petition directly to Abraham's bosom.

Around the turn of the century, archaeologists Aly Bey, L.H. Vincent, J.H. Mackay and Pierotti made more contemporaneous measurements of the site, but only Dr. Jevin got into the actual (and unknown) burial chambers, because the Waqf commissioned him to examine the already-known chamber to determine whether or not foreigners had caused damage. Thereby he had discovered the grave of his ancestors and proved that this spot was primarily a holy site of the Jews-which was not made known due to political considerations.

* * *

This article was originally published in the

June 1997 Personal Update NewsJournal.

....

Taken from: http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/13/