For PERSPECTIVES Vol. 6 No. 4 [October-December 2003]   

Please feel free to submit short questions or your comments. We reserve the right to answer and publish those we believe to be in the public interest. We reserve the right to use or not use submitted material (in whole or in part), to include your name, and to edit or condense your questions for clarity and space. Click here to submit a question or comment to the editor.

Accession and Regnal Years 

What are the definitions of the terms "accession year" and "regnal year"? I have seen that on your site and they seem to be different. Perhaps you could add these terms to your "Words and Phrases" section on your site. I didn't find them there.

−Wendell Slattery

regnal year (REG�nal year). The year of a monarch's reign, e.g., the fifth year of Cyrus, calculated in many cultures beginning with the year the monarch ascended the throne. This results in the monarch's first regnal year actually constituting only a fraction of a literal calendar year in that culture. In other cultures the first regnal year is the first full year of the monarch's reign. In this case the monarch ascended the throne in the year of his or her predecessor but the first regnal year does not include that fractional period. Credit for the year goes to the previous monarch. Thus a regnal year may or may not be the same as the monarch's accession year.

accession year (ac�CES�sion year). The actual year in which a monarch ascends the throne. See regnal year.

�Editor

Temple Squabble

I am trying to locate a critique of Ernest Martin's 'Lost Temples of Jerusalem', which was written by Leen Ritmeyer about three years ago. Part of the critique is available on the ASK website, with intercalated rebuttals by Martin, but I would be most grateful if you were able to refer me to a complete text. David Sielaff, of ASK, informs me that there is also a commentary on the exchange by Michael Germano. This, too, would be of interest if it is available.

�Ashley Cummins (Anglican Chaplain)

Please go to http://www.bibarch.com/Contents.htm where you can link to the MPG article there. In the MPG article is a box with the link to Ritmeyer. Hope this helps.

--Editor

The Last Seder

I just read some of your incredibly well-researched article titled: "The Last Seder: Unscrambling Its Baffling Chronology." In the beginning of the article you mention how the Pharisaic element of Judaism substituted their own way of counting the timing of the Feast of Weeks, which in essence guarantees the Jewish observance of it never really coincides with the Christian and biblical calculation of the day (always on a Sunday, as I believe, counting from the first weekly Sabbath after Passover). After 70 AD and especially after 135 AD, the Jewish Wars with Rome, the Jews were scattered far and abroad, and to preserve their Sabbath/Holy Day observances, it seems, if I'm reading you correctly, the Sadducees and Scribes and Priests lost out to the Pharisees, who may have survived better and thus it was by their reckoning that the days for observance was implemented to the dispersed Jewish population in order to keep Holy Day observances alive.

You mention how the calculation for the Feast of Weeks was thrown off by this Pharisaic interpretation for its timing. What about at the other end, Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles? I have noticed in the Old Testament where the Feast of Tabernacles was commanded, it was supposed to be observed in a place of God's choosing, and everyone was supposed to go to that place and keep it there (in tents or temporary dwellings I believe). Was it the Pharisees, seeing the impossibility of keeping it this way in Jerusalem after 135 AD (where the Jews would gather en masse for the Feast of Tabernacles before 70 AD), who made the "custom" that it could be observed by every Jew by simply building a Sukkot (tent) in his backyard? Could you expound on this "custom" of the Jews, which seems to run contrary to the Old Testament commands about this Feast of Tabernacles. Your article seems to indicate that most of Christianity has the wrong idea about Passover and the "Lord's Supper", or what we Christians call Communion.

�Ben Folger

The Tent of Meeting and later the Temples at Jerusalem  were the venues for offering sacrifices for the nation. There were some exceptions, see our material on Altars, where those are explained. You will find no prohibition in the Hebrew Scriptures for celebrating weekly Sabbaths, annual Sabbaths, or the festivals outside Jerusalem. However, where a sacrifice was to be offered such as the lamb at the Passover, it had to occur at the national sanctuary. As there is no official sanctuary today Jews do not offer animal sacrifices.

--Editor

Who Are You? 

I just found your site, and in reading your doctrinal statement it appears at times that your group could be Reformed, but at other times it appears that your group may be Mormon, or Latter Day saints. Regardless, I did not find a clear identification of which camp you fall into. Please do not say that we are just independent Bible believers. Theology has been to categorized for such a statement. Even if you are truly independent, there is a theology that your group falls within the boundaries of. Therefore, I am asking that you identify your organizational views by theological affiliation.

�Buck Yancey

High Top Media the publisher of BibArch^TM is a small Christian, family-oriented company concerned with fostering moral leadership and the betterment of individual, family, and community life (see Who We Are). We believe that building strong families not only strengthens the church and our communities but our nation as well. Our goal is to assist others in building commitments and values leading to their happiness, success, and well-being.

Our vision is to advance the Judeo-Christian ethic and to help improve the quality of human life. We like to think of ourselves as the spiritual descendants of St. James of Jerusalem and the Judeo-Christian congregations of the first century. We are not Reformed, nor Mormon, nor Messianic Jews, nor Ebionites. We subscribe to a Judeo-Christian theology in the tradition of the Church which Jesus of Nazareth founded in the first century as governed by the apostles.

�Editor

Wrong teachings? 

While I have so far enjoyed what I have found on your website, I just ran across something that I found extremely disturbing. I have quoted it in it's entirety below. In your response, you state several theories as if they were proven facts, which of course they aren't, they are theories only. Until such time as they become a proven fact, you should state them as just a theory, one that you happen to agree with but still just a theory.

You also state that "Many people believe that God created the earth and all life forms on the earth about 6,000 years ago. This is not biblical." I respectfully ask you to show how this is not biblical, especially in light of the fact that that is precisely what the Bible does state.

Since your response also states that the dinosaurs became extinct about 65,000,000 years ago, would you please explain the detailed descriptions of dinosaurs found in Job chapters 40 and 41? In that explanation, please don't ignore that in the book of Job, God is telling Job to LOOK at these animals, meaning that they were very much alive at that time and place.

I have no problems with your archeological articles. They are very informative and deal with facts. Items that we can actually touch and feel and how they tie in with Scripture, thus helping to prove that the Bible is real and true. However your theology does not fit in with that same Bible that you profess as being true and should not be espoused on a website devoted to archeology.

�Scott Branson

Egg on Our Teeth? 

Although it is true that Jesus was not a vegetarian (see Was Jesus a Vegetarian? The Billboard Says So! But Was He?), it is nonsense to believe that you can tell that from the kind of teeth that people have. From the shape of teeth you can tell how people eat, but not what people eat. There are basically three kinds of teeth: Cutting teeth (incisors) tearing teeth (canines) and grinding teeth (molars). So you can tell if the creature cut, tore or ground their food (we do all three) but you cannot tell what the creature cut, tore or ground since herbivores, omnivores, insectivores and carnivores of different species will often have all three. I guess Dave Hunt and Michael P. Germano need to do more research before saying something that leaves egg on their teeth.

�David Harris

Differentiation of teeth is an important mammalian trait. That aside, nowhere in the article did we claim we can tell from the kind of teeth people have whether or not they elected to follow a vegetarian lifestyle. That is a matter of exercising freewill, a gift that God did not give animals. They are creatures of instinct and habit. Rather we addressed the issue of God creating human beings to consume both meat and vegetables. You obviously did not read the article but rather skimmed it.

Nevertheless, anthropologists can discern information about human diet from both dental and skeletal remains. Take a look at the dentition of a carnivore in your cat or dog. Compare that with the omnivore in your own mouth. The teeth of the carnivore are all pointed and sharp, adapted for grasping, piercing, cutting, crushing, and shredding. The design of their teeth is to enable them to kill prey and rip away pieces of flesh.

Our human teeth, on the other hand, were created by God for a greater variety of operations including eating a wider variety of food types. Our dentition includes a mixture of knifelike teeth (incisors), modified for sheering, and grinding teeth (molars), specialized for crushing. Their design is for consuming both meat and plant materials. Are you so naive as to believe God made you to eat only plant materials? Both your body design and the Bible show that God designed you to enjoy both meat and plant materials.

Moreover, certain wear patterns on the teeth, when examined under a microscope, reveal whether the diet was made up of soft fruits, or more abrasive, gritty foods like grains or roots. We can also examine the bones for the proportion of strontium, calcium, and other elements in them to determine whether plants or meats made up the bulk of the diet.

�Editor

Did the Apostle Peter Visit Rome?

Have been reading on you bibarch site and found some good information on it. I was a little surprised to learn from your source that you have found  evidence that the Apostle Peter was in Rome (see article Peter's Tomb). I have looked and looked and read from sources but cannot find anywhere that Peter was ever in Rome. What you quote from could be applied to anyone that has ever lived. I believe if Peter was ever in Rome it would be in the Scripture and I have yet to find even one shred of information contained therein to support your theory that  Peter was in Rome.

It is amazing that other people went there and the bible records it but here is the one who is supposed to be the head of the Church of Rome and not even one word that Peter was ever there has ever been found. I believe that if we let the truth prevail it would support the fact that Peter was never in Rome, or if he was it was not as the head of any church. If you can help me clarify this feel free to contact me and update me on the information that is factual not theory or obscure in someone else's remarks taken out of context.

We should be careful not to read into something that was never intended to be there in the first place. I have found it a good rule that if I have to twist a man's writing, to get something out of it I believe, then that man did not believe what I'm trying to prove. Thanks for making the site available because it does offer a lot of good information to us average people.

−Al Lawson

I assume we occupy the same planet. We do not now nor have we in the past suggested or insinuated that the apostle Peter ever visited Rome. He didn't. You better go back and read the article more carefully and stop assuming when you just skim an article.

�Editor

Unpardonable Sin?

I thought your apologetic regarding a Christian losing his salvation pretty scary (see Once Saved Always Saved?). At what point does he lose it? I have never met a sinless Christian. Is not that the point of grace?

What do you think about what Paul said in Romans 7? I have heard the word antinomianism used to describe Christians who do what they want and I think you are interpreting Hebrews wrongly.

What about the unpardonable sin? You should be careful about sending people to Hell; that is not your job. "love the Lord thy God.....love thy neighbor as yourself." Jesus loves you. There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus...Romans 8:1

These are not out of context scriptures; I know my Bible and the various approaches to interpretation...the various doctrines...

Thank God your apologetics regarding keeping or losing one's salvation were poor. One wonders what is with you with such a poorly- developed response and throwing the word heresy around? Paul said the law showed sin, but no one can keep it. He included himself. Enter God's grace.

�Nancy Sweet

You must have a problem with Jesus' teaching at Matthew7:21-24. Here Jesus points out the future some people who accepted him as their personal savior await. From your remarks you obviously have no concept of free will, its biblical meaning, nor its consequences. Moreover, you twisted the words of our statement presumably to justify your own concept of God's word. While you seem to think so, antinomians are not spirit-filled Christians they are lawless false believers. Instead of being closed-minded and critical why don't you go back and prayerfully study the statement again. Hopefully it will help you live God's Way (see our statement in Perspectives). For a more in-depth understanding see our critical perspective article entitled Once Saved, Always Saved?

�Editor

The "Lost Ten Tribes" 

The 10 "lost" tribes have never been lost but are all noted as returnees from the land of Babylon and are mentioned by name in Ezra and Nehemiah. This is so obvious to even the casual reader of the Word that any talk of British Israelism should immediately be seen as the false teaching it is. If the United States and Britain were so important in prophesy then why are they not mentioned by name while obscure and lesser countries are? Finally, the fact that Mormonism believes this to be true also should the clincher.

�Steve P. Panther

In 722 BCE Samaria fell to the Assyrians. Hundreds of refugees escaped to Judea fleeing the Assyrian army. In Judea it was a period of many new settlements. Archaeology confirms that. The Assyrians deported tens of thousands of defeated Israelites in a population exchange, the first exile, and repopulated Samaria with Gentile peoples from whom the Samaritans descend. The Assyrians thought that if defeated people didn't live in their own land they would be less likely to revolt.

Where, however, in Ezra and Nehemiah can you verify that all the 12 tribes in the Diaspora left the land of Babylon for the land of Israel? Even the rabbis don't claim that. The Hebrew Scriptures record that there were some members of various tribes who returned to Judea from Babylon. However, that fact alone does not falsify the theory that most northern Europeans descended from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

�Editor

Ops, We Goofed! 

I just wanted to let you know that there is an error on one of your WebPages. It is on the page, "The Apostolic Church: Its Distinctive Teachings". The error is in footnote two, which reads, "...From a legal perspective the basic difference between the Ten Commandments under the Mosaic Code and the New Testament Law of Christ is that the violation of the former necessitated mens rea (a bad act) while a breach of the latter simply required actus reus (a guilty mind)...". Mens rea is "guilty mind", while Actus reus is "bad act". I'm sure this was a transcription error, but I just wanted to point it out. I love you website.

�Justin Mundy

Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
Please Visit Our Site Often