Title & Purpose

Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble:

for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand, Joel 2:1.


All quotations from the Scriptures will be from the Authorised Version - the best and most accurate English translation of the Scriptures.

Please see sermons down the left hand column of the Blog about why the Authorised Version is the best and most accurate English translation of the Scriptures

and why we reject the many perversions of the Scriptures, including those so beloved of many neo-evangelicals at present such as ESV & NKJV.

Beware of the Errors in The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible! 
Featured Sermon -

Friday, 3 April 2015

Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible is wrong on a second count about the crossing of the Red Sea

Laying aside for a moment the serious issue of the map 'visualising' the Exodus from Egypt, which contains no actual crossing of the Red Sea, the 'Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible' also fails to accurately show the true route that Israel took.

In Numbers 33:5-8 we read of the route taken by Israel when existing Egypt: And the children of Israel removed from Rameses, and pitched in Succoth. And they departed from Succoth, and pitched in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness. And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pihahiroth, which is before Baalzephon: and they pitched before Migdol. And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days’ journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah.

The record in the book of Exodus is equally clear about this 180˚ turn around and also gives us the reason for it taking place, cf. Exodus 14:1-4: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn and encamp before Pihahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Baalzephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea. For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so.

The Word of God teaches that the Israelites came to a dead end at the place called Etham, which was on the edge of the wilderness, cf. Exodus 13:20: And they took their journey from Succoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness. From here God told the Israelites to turn around and retrace their steps and camp directly between Migdol and the Red Sea.

The purpose for this 'about turn' was for Pharaoh to regret what he had done and to pursue after Israel: For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in. And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD, Exodus 14:3,4. 

By this 'about turn' on the part of the Israelites Pharoah would be convinced that the Israelites had lost their way already, that the wilderness hath shut them in,  and that there was an early opportunity for the Egyptians to bring them back to slavery.

The Lord would do all this to harden Pharaoh's heart and hasten his destruction, cf. Romans 9:17: For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

There are numerous words for 'turn' in the Old Testament language. There are almost 30 different words, translated as 'turn' at various times, in the Old Testament alone.

1. There is a word translated 'turn in', cf. Genesis 19:2: And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways, or it can also be translated 'turn aside', cf. Exodus 3:3,4: And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

2. There is another word translated 'turn' in the Authorised Version which can mean to turn to the left hand or to the right, cf. Genesis 24:49: And now if ye will deal kindly and truly with my master, tell me: and if not, tell me; that I may turn to the right hand, or to the left.

3. Another word translated 'turn' has the idea of turning something over, such as a cake, or a dish or turning something around, such as, your hand, or side or neck or back, cf. Joshua 7:8: O Lord, what shall I say, when Israel turneth their backs before their enemies!

4. There is also a word translated 'turn' which means to do an 'about turn'. This word appears over 1,000 times in the Old Testament. In over 400 of these appearances it is translated by the English word 'return'. It is also used of Joshua 'turning back' in Joshua 11:10: And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms.

There are also verses in the Old Testament where this word is tripled and doubled to denote repentance, cf. Ezekiel 14:6: Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations; Ezekiel 18:30: Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. 'Repent' and 'turn' are the same word in these verses. Repentance is doing an 'about turn' and forsaking sin. It is a turning away from sin and a turning unto God.

It is this word that is used of Israel and their 'about turn' after coming out of Egypt. They came as afar as Etham, then they were 'turned back' at the direction of the Lord. This brought them to the Red Sea, with no way through until the Lord opened up a way for them.

Very few Bible maps and atlases show this turning by the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. Out of a number of Bibles/books, with maps, that are in my possession, there is one that shows this 'about turn' on the part of the Israelites. It would have been helpful if The 'Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible' had shown this 'about turn' too!

19 comments:

william gladstone said...

another post about the reformation heritage study bible exodus route map and still no counter map showing us the true route. is it too much to expect you to post a map showing the true route according to the scriptures?

Rev Brian McClung said...

William

I have no intention of producing a route map of the Exodus, for as the Reformation Heritage Study KJV Study Bible rightly admits with respect to the places mentioned in Israel's Exodus: "The precise locations of these sites are uncertain"

Which by the way seems to me to be a contradiction when they then supply a map with these same locations!

This I do know for sure, Israel went through the Red Sea

Brian McClung

william gladstone said...

so you admit that "the precise locations of these sites are uncertain" yet you dare to assert that the route provided by this map in the rhs bible is wrong? if you google for "true exodus route" no map has the isrealites crossing the red sea. did the isrealites trudge hundred of miles south to cross the red sea into saudia arabia, cross the gulf of suez, or cross the gulf of aquaba? since you refuse to provide a map showing the true route and since you admit "the precise locations of theses sites are unknown" then what right have you to criticise this bibles map and especially to criticise it in a manner that insinuates that beeke is corrupting the faith?

Rev Brian McClung said...

William

The route in the RHKJVSB is wrong because it shows no crossing of the Red Sea at all! The Bible says they crossed the Red Sea, the map in the Study Bible says they didn't. Therefore the map is wrong. Can't be any plainer than that!

Everything is just a distraction to muddy the waters.

It would seem you are more interested in defending a man than defending the truth of the Bible!

Brian McClung

william gladstone said...

the bible gives a detailed itinerary of the isrealites journey from goshen to jordan. it cannot be 100% impossible to draw a map despite, as you confess, "The precise locations of these sites are uncertain." it is possible to estimate the locations based on geographical and geological evidence. yet you refuse to draw a map of any kind. even a map showing the isrealites marching hundreds of miles south and crossing the red sea into saudia arabia. do you believe they marched all the way down the coast of egypt and crossed the red sea and entered saudia arabia or not? if you do then why not draw us a map showing us that route?

your criticism boils down to saying "the map is wrong because it is wrong" yet without providing a correct map you are doing both your cause and your readership a grave disservice. to say the map is wrong and yet confess "The precise locations of these sites are uncertain" is to contradict yourself since you admit the exact path of the route is unknown.

i am very much interested in the truth. so show us a map of the true exodus route.

why engage in an ad hominem logical fallacy? I'm more interested in defending a man than the truth of the bible? that is utter rubbish and deflection from the substance of this discussion about the true route of the exodus! show us the true route and stop prevaricating.

Andrew Stewart said...

Is it muddying the waters to point out the Study Bible's explicit promotion of the Israelites' crossing the Red Sea in its notes on the exodus? (I doubt these state otherwise.)

So if the map gives that impression, I venture it's an out-of-place suggestion that jars with the rest of the Study Bible's overwhelming testimony to the contrary.

Is the map issue one that anyone but the eagle-eyed or pedants would be inclined to spot? Most likely. It seems anyway that only someone who desires to find a liberal agenda there will insist there is one at play.

Rev Brian McClung said...

William

You are indeed correct, the Bible does indeed give considerable detail about Israel's Exodus from Egypt. But where those specific places are today I am not going, even, to hazard a guess. I am in agreement with the Study Bible on this point.

I have yet to see a Bible map that has the majority of these places mentioned marked on it, never mind them all. If precise locations are uncertain then any map marking locations is speculation at best. What's the point of speculating?

Locations on land may indeed be uncertain but this we can be absolutely sure of - Israel went through the depths of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Suez as we know it today, and not some reedy swamp. As someone else pointed out to me in an email, the riders of Pharaoh's chariots were thrown into the sea and not into the mud!

Now, I don't know exactly where they did cross the Red Sea/Gulf of Suez but they did do so. This the Bible makes abundantly clear and this we can be absolutely sure about. That alone is the issue in dispute with this post and nothing else. The Study Bible doesn't show any crossing of the Red Sea at all. Yet this is the one thing we can be absolutely sure about! It is the worst of all maps to include.

Now, if you wish to distract from that, well I can't help that. If you wish to start a discussion about the location on land of certain places then feel free to do so somewhere else. That's not the topic here.

No, I do not believe that the Israelites crossed over into Arabia. Where is there any Bible evidence for that!

Do you believe that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea/Gulf of Suez or somewhere else north of this? Or do you believe they crossed in Arabia?

Brian McClung

Rev Brian McClung said...

Andrew

So you are excusing/justifying the inclusion of a map that shows no crossing of the Red Sea? Interesting!

Yes I would certainly hope indeed that it is an out-of-place suggestion that jars with the rest of the Study Bible's overwhelming testimony to the contrary.

But you can't encourage people at the front of the Study Bible to visualise the location of various Bible events and then include a map visualising an Exodus with no crossing of the Red Sea at all. Especially when we know that Bible maps are notorious for being wrong/liberal on this very point.

Is it too much to expect that those who put themselves forward as being capable of producing a Study Bible at least make doubly sure that where there is an orthodox/liberal controversy they are on the side of right?

As I explained in the original post I do that simple check with virtually every Bible or atlas that I pick up. I don't think it is being eagle eyed or pedantic. It is a well known battleground between orthodoxy and liberalism. One you would expect editors of a Study Bible to be well aware of. If they aren't, then there is something seriously wrong considering the positions they hold! I wonder did anyone edit these maps? If someone did, then how did this one get included?

A little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump!

Brian McClung

PS You mentioned earlier about a comment you submitted sometime ago. Do you still have that comment. Blogging/responding to comments was very light and non-existent for a number of months due to workload.

william gladstone said...

brian clung says: "Israel went through the depths of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Suez as we know it today"

so you don't even believe israel crossed the red sea. the bible says they crossed the red sea. not the gulf of suez. this means, taken literally as it should be, that they marched hundreds of miles down south and crossed the read sea, probably over a period of a few days because it is a large expanse, and into saudia arabia.

how can you accuse this bible of not teaching the red sea crossing when you deny it yourself?

of course your admission "Now, I don't know exactly where they did cross" should end the whole argument. you cannot even provide an accurate route.

musing over your assertion that i am "more interested in defending a man" it occurs to me that for you this whole issue really is about dr beeke. for some unknown reason you wish to pull him down. why?

major major major major said...

i am well aware you will not approve a comment that has a link in it so i do not expect you to approve this comment. here is a link to a pdf that has a list of (presumably) all the contributors to the joel beeke crypto-catholic unreformed study bible. i am looking forward to watching you tear down all their ministries the same way you are attempting to tear down dr beekes ministry. but the fact of the matter is that dr beeke is a faithful minister who teaches from the three forms of unity. there is nothing you can say against him without resorting into petty, trifling nitpicking such as you are doing with the map. and you won't even submit a counter map and you admit that the exact route is unkown. what a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black!

why dont't you get off your petty high horse and get on the big tank? bring out the big guns! DR BEEKE IS A DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MAN! this alone disqualifies him from the pulpit. he is an adulterer. neither you nor ovadal nor foster will touch that issue with a 89 and a half foot pole!

and as much as you criticise beeke for his associates you still remain one degree removed from dr beeke by using sermonaudio. sermonaudio is an active ministry partner with dr beeke. they are not merely a neutral 3rd party. the participate in ministry together! stop using sermonaudio.com or stop trying to tear down dr beeke. be consistent.

heres the link: http://www.joelbeeke.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/KJV-Study-Bible-ad.pdf

Anonymous said...

Rev McClung, perhaps if you were to post a copy of the map in your Bible with reference to the movements of the Children of Israel it might provide clarity.

Thanks
Joe

Andrew Stewart said...

I'm not concerned to justify or excuse the map's inclusion.

I'm more intrigued by your rather fevered and alarmist reaction to this new publication. It's patent nonsense that there could a liberal agenda on the part of the RHKJVSB's editors and contributors, and so I presume you're not going to push that line of thought very far, content instead merely to toy with the idea by the use of suspicion and insinuation that something more sinister might be at play.

Your responses indicate that you see more mileage in casting aspersions on the competency of those involved. However, there is another danger for you in this approach, namely that you might come off looking like someone standing on the sidelines being critical and yet having none of the wherewithal to conceive of or produce such a resource. In addition, it is lacking in grace to criticise with such intemperate severity an elaborate and involved piece of work which, in its first edition, is likely to suffer some teething problems. Are there other, unspoken, issues at play on your side, I wonder?

P.S. Thanks for getting back to me re: an unpublished response on a C.S. Lewis thread from Jan 2014. I will resubmit it. There were a few other comments I sent that weren't published on other posts -- I can resubmit those if you'd like.

Rev Brian McClung said...

William

You say that Israel marched hundreds of miles down south and crossed the read (sic) sea, probably over a period of a few days because it is a large expanse, and into saudia (sic) arabia.

Maybe you could explain then a couple of Bible verses:
1. Numbers 33:7,8: And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pihahiroth, which is before Baalzephon: and they pitched before Migdol. And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days’ journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah.

After three days journey they had already crossed the Red Sea, journeyed through the wilderness of Etham and reached the bitter waters of Marah. Now if according to you they had to travel hundreds of miles to cross the Red Sea into Arabia, this would require in excess of 2 million Israelites to travel at 100 miles per day? That is quite some pace to be walking.

2. Exodus 14:21,27: And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.…And Moses stretched forth his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to his strength when the morning appeared; and the Egyptians fled against it; and the LORD overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea.

Israel crossed the Red Sea in a single night. Not a period of a few days as you claim. They crossed what we know as the Gulf of Suez.

These verses are not therefore in keeping with your thesis!

You were the first to mention Joel Beeke is this conversation not me. These posts are solely about the Study Bible. If I wanted to make them about Joel Beeke he certainly gives plenty of ammunition such as with his latest assertion that Thomas Aquinas, the Romanist priest, and the man who introduced the blasphemous doctrine of Transubstantiation into the Roman Catholic church, is a 'Christian'!

These posts are about the serious errors in the Study Bible and nothing else.

As regards the map of the exodus I have already explained, I won't be uploading one for following reasons:
1. As the Study Bible admits these place names are uncertain to locate
2. This is a distraction from the issue at hand and therefore off topic. We are dealing with the actual crossing of the Red Sea, or not, as the case is with the Study Bible.
3. Virtually every Bible map is copyrighted.

If you are genuinely interested in viewing a Bible map of the Exodus, look up,or buy, one of those which the Trinitarian Bible Society publish.

Brian McClung

Rev Brian McClung said...

major

Post the comment without the link and I will happily upload it. Although by acknowledging I don't upload comments which contain links, you maybe don't want the comment uploaded.

I'll respond here to you:
1. The pdf link does not contain a list of all the contributors. Read the 'Acknowledgements' at the back of the Study Bible and you will find there are 'dozens' of unnamed contributors. It would be interesting to know who they are.

2. Visualising an Exodus from Egypt with no crossing of the Red Sea may be a light matter to you but not to many others. Your dismissive attitude is the same as many liberals, past and present.

3. I would be very careful calling any man an adulterer. The Bible permits divorce. I have no problem with biblical divorce. Maybe that is the reason why I have never raised the issue. Personally I would have more concern about who he associates with and who he calls a Christian.

4. Google who host this Blog, and others that I am involved with, endorse many a thing I don't agree with. Should I break with them as well?

Brian McClung

Rev Brian McClung said...

Joe

See reasons for not uploading a map as given in a previous reply.

Brian McClung

Rev Brian McClung said...

Andrew

Time will tell what the agenda is. It will eventually come out. I would say these are more than teething problems. These are not common mistakes of mis-spelling or punctuation or type setting. These are errors that have a doctrinal slant on them.

As I pointed out in a previous post some of these issues are known by the publishers and yet have not been drawn to readers attention. Why not?

Brian McClung

Rev Brian McClung said...

William

I happily upload your comment and answer it when you do the same with my last reply to you.

If we are going to have a profitable conversation about the matter, that conversation requires you to answer some points as well. Otherwise it is a one-sided, unprofitable conversation!

So after you…

Brian McClung

Rev Brian McClung said...

major

We have jumped over a posting from yourself and therefore the conversation is disjointed and no one else can follow it on the Blog, for no one else knows what you have submitted!

Can you please re-submit the missing comment, without the link, and I will upload it and the conversation can continue. I don't have the ability to edit your comment.

Brian McClung

Andrew Stewart said...

You are now aware that Dr. Joel Beeke has publicly accounted for two of the four areas of concern you have with the RHKJVSB. It is hoped that these will be rectified in future editions. Will you be as hyperactive in your approval of this acknowledgement and his stated intention to correct these errors as you were to implicate the editors, publishers and contributors in an imaginary papist conspiracy? Will you rush to retract any of the specific insinuations you have made in this regard? I hope so.