Friday, 2 May 2014

Black Obelisk: Front.

















RELIEF CAPTIONS






Tribute of Sûa, the Gilzânite. I received from him: silver, gold, lead, copper vessels, staves for the hand of the king, horses, two-humped camels.














Tribute of Jehu, son of Omri. I received from him: silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden beaker, golden goblets, pitchers of gold, lead, staves for the hand of the king, javelins.














Tribute of the land of Musri. I received from him: two-humped camels, a river-ox, a sakêa, a sûsu, elephants, monkeys, apes.














Tribute of Marduk-apal-usur of Suhi. I received from him: silver, gold, pitchers of gold, ivory, javelins, bûia, brightly colored linen garments.


















Tribute of Karparunda of Hattina. I received from him: silver, gold, lead, copper, copper vessels, ivory, cypress (timbers).




Black Obelisk: Front.


The second panel down shows Jehu giving obeisance to Shalmaneser III King of Assyria, surrounded by Assyrian officials.


The inscription in cuneiform reads: “Tribute of Jehu, son of Omri. I received from him: silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden beaker, golden goblets, pitchers of gold, lead, staves for the hand of the king, javelins.”


Jehu in the biblical text is not son of Omri but was famous for ending the Omrid dynasty. Omri at the time was well known as a having been successful king, Israel for a time was known as the land of Omri. Added to this, the paying of tribute was paid in Jehu’s first year as king and the reference is easy to understand. It may even be that the Assyrians used the term “Jehu son of Omri” as a deliberate put down, as a show of strength that Jehu could not question or counteract as leader of an inferior kingdom.











The Kurkh Stele








The Kurkh Stele


The Kurkh Stele was discovered in south eastern Turkey at Kurkh on the river Tigris. It shows a relief of Shalmaneser III and details the first six years of his reign. There are images of Assyrian gods curling away from Shalmaneser’s raised hand. These are Sin, Anu, Ishtar and Assur. (See the image below)
From a biblical point of view the interest comes in the record of Shalmaneser’s sixth year. He details a battle against an alliance of kings from the Levant area at Qarqar on the river Orontes. As you would expect the Assyrian king recounts a famous victory against the alliance with whom he fought. One of the kings in the alliance was “Adad-idri” who is identified as the biblical Ben-Hadad of Syria (2Kings 6v24 and 8v7), Of greater Biblical interest is his ally “Ahaabbu sir ilaaa”, Ahab the Israelite. It seems that Ahab was a significant force in the battle. The Assyrian account claims almost total annihilation of the allied forces, however this seems to be an exaggeration as later monuments show that Shalmaneser III needed to return on several occasions and fight the alliance in one form or another over the next several years. The battle at Qarqar is not mentioned in the Bible, what is interesting however is that this battle must have marked the final year of Ahab’s life. The Bible chronology when combined with this monument and the Black Obeliskimply that this is the case. It is possible that Ahab returned with his forces in somewhat better shape than those of Hadadezer. The Biblical record shows that once the battle was over Ahab took the opportunity to fight with Hadadezer and try to recover the territory of Ramoth-Gilead which his “ally of convenience” had taken from Israel at a previous time. Ahab called on his long time ally, Jehoshaphat of Judah for help:


1Ki 22:1-4 Now three years passed without war between Syria and Israel. Then it came to pass, in the third year, that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went down to visit the king of Israel. And the king of Israel said to his servants, "Do you know that Ramoth in Gilead is ours, but we hesitate to take it out of the hand of the king of Syria?" So he said to Jehoshaphat, "Will you go with me to fight at Ramoth Gilead?" Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, "I am as you are, my people as your people, my horses as your horses."










1Ki 22:29-35 So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth Gilead. And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "I will disguise myself and go into battle; but you put on your robes." So the king of Israel disguised himself and went into battle. Now the king of Syria had commanded the thirty-two captains of his chariots, saying, "Fight with no one small or great, but only with the king of Israel." So it was, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, "Surely it is the king of Israel!" Therefore they turned aside to fight against him, and Jehoshaphat cried out. And it happened, when the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him. Now a certain man drew a bow at random, and struck the king of Israel between the joints of his armor. So he said to the driver of his chariot, "Turn around and take me out of the battle, for I am wounded." The battle increased that day; and the king was propped up in his chariot, facing the Syrians, and died at evening. The blood ran out from the wound onto the floor of the chariot.


A translation from a part of the Kurkh Stele.


From the sixth year of
Shalmaneser III (853 BC)






…I approached the city of Qarqar.
I razed, destroyed and burned the city of Qarqar , his royal city.
1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry, and 20,000 troops of Hadad-ezer of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 cavalry, 10,000 troops of Irhuleni, the Hamathite;2,000 chariots, and 10,000 troops of Ahab, the Israelite;
500 troops of Byblos;
1,000 troops of Egypt;
10 chariots and 10,000 troops of the land of Irqanatu;
200 troops of Matinu-ba'al of the city of Arvad;
200 troops of the land of Usanatu;
30 chariots and X,000 troops of Adon-ba'al of the land of Shianu, 1,000 camels of Gindibu of Arabia; X hundred troops of Ba'asa, the man of Bit ruhubi, the Ammonite--these twelve kings he took as his allies....






I decisively defeated them from the city of Qarqar to the city of Gilzau. I felled with the sword 14,000 troops, their fighting men. Like Adad, I rained down upon them a devastating flood. I spread out their corpses and I filled the plain. I felled with the sword their extensive troops. I made their blood flow in the wadis. The field was too small for laying flat their bodies; the broad countryside had been consumed in burying them. I blocked the Orontes River with their corpses as with a causeway. In the midst of this battle I took away from them chariots, cavalry, and teams of horses.






The Woman at the Window



The Woman at the Window






The Ivory inlays like the ones below have been found in the area of Israel, although the two here were found at Lachish in Judah and at Nimrud in Assyria. They were used to adorn furniture in wealthy households or in temples. Ahab King of Israel is credited with having a “house of ivory”, which would have been a building full of furniture and ornaments decorated in ivory like the ones below.


1Ki 22:39 Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, andthe ivory house which he made, and all the cities that he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?


Plaques like the ones shown here have been found all over Assyria, Syria and Israel. Their exact meaning is not known but they are often thought to represent some of the worst aspects of idol worship, that of a sacred prostitute. There is a reference to something similar in real life in the history of Israel. Jezebel the widow of Ahab when confronted by Jehu at Jezreel presents herself in a similar way.


2Ki 9:30 When Jehu came to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it. And she painted her eyes and adorned her head and looked out of the window.


The character of Jezebel is one to be avoided and is in keeping with the representation here. Jehu describes her to Joram the then King of Israel, Jezebel’s son, this way…


2Ki 9:22 And when Joram saw Jehu, he said, "Is it peace, Jehu?" He answered, "What peace can there be, so long as the whorings and the sorceries of your mother Jezebel are so many?"


Jezebel is vilified with good reason in the biblical record for turning both Ahab (who is given the greater responsibility in the bible record) and almost the whole of Israel to the worship of Baal.


1Ki 16:30-33 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD, more than all who were before him. And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, he took for his wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal and worshiped him. He erected an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria. And Ahab made an Asherah. Ahab did more to provoke the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him.




Discovered at the Fosse Temple at Lachish.


Now housed in the British Museum, Levant Room.


Discovered at Nimrud.


Now displayed in the Levant Room at the British Museum









The Tel Dan Stela



The Tel Dan Stela


2Kings 9 v 1 to 29 describes the coup d’etat of Jehu, a Commander in the army of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. He was prompted to move by the actions of Elisha the prophet of God. Elisha had sent an emissary from among the prophets to anoint Jehu as king. It appears that this action was a cementation of the inevitable because on hearing the prophets message from Jehu’s own lips the other commanders declare him as king.


The back story is that Joram and his ally Ahaziah of Judah were in a lull in their fight with Hazael king of Aram of Damascus.


So Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi, conspired against Joram. (Now Joram had been defending Ramoth Gilead, he and all Israel, against Hazael king of Syria. But King Joram had returned to Jezreel to recover from the wounds which the Syrians had inflicted on him when he fought with Hazael king of Syria.)” 2Kings 9 v 14-15


As a result of the insurrection, King Joram (also known as Jehoram) was killed by Jehu at Jezreel and Ahaziah was shot during his escape from Jehu’s men and died at Megiddo, before his body was transported to Jerusalem for burial.


The political context then is one of war between nations. Hazael of Syria is in a state of war with Israel. Joram of Israel has been wounded in battle in his fight with Hazael and Ahaziah his ally is with him to support him. This is the moment Jehu strikes and performs his successful revolt.


It is in the context of these events that the Tel Dan Stela was written. In the 1993/94 excavations at Tel Dan, the site of the ancient town of Dan, at the northern most tip of what was the northern kingdom of Israel, turned up two broken fragments of an inscription written in Aramaic. There are 13 lines of text visible, though parts are missing, these being broken pieces of a complete monument. A translation of the text is given below. Sections in square brackets are either reconstructions from missing areas of text or have been left blank to indicate breaks in the inscription
[ ]...[ ] and cut [ ]
[ ] my father went up [ ] he fought at [...]
And my father lay down; he went to his
[fathers]. Now the king of I[s]/rael had penetrated
into my father's land before. [But then] Hadad made me king,
And Hadad marched before me. So I went forth from [the] seven[...]/S
of my rule, and I killed [seve]nty kin[gs] who had harnessed thou[sands of cha]/riots
and thousands of cavalry. [And I killed ...]ram son of [...]
the king of Israel, and I killed [...]yahu son of [... the ki]/ng of
the House of David. And I made [their towns into ruins and turned]
their land into [a desolation ...]
others and [...Then...became ki]/ng
over Is[rael...And I laid] 13'. siege against [...]


As is common with many monuments from this period, the king is claiming numerous victories for himself. He is declaring his own greatness. The author describes himself as a king and claims his authority from the god Hadad, which identifies him as a Syrian King.


He is clearly at war with his neighbour Israel, who appears to be allied to the king of Judah, of the house of David. He claims to have killed two kings, one of Israel who’s name in only partly visible as […]ram and one of the house of David, again only part of the name is visible as [….]yahu (or equally rendered [….]iah.) There is only one king of all the kings of Israel who’s name ended in “ram” and that is Jehoram. Of the kings of Judah and of the line of David there are several kings who’s names end in “iah”, these are Ahaziah, Amaziah, Uzziah, Hezekiah and Zedekiah. Only Ahaziah fits the context, he being contemporary with and allied to Jehoram. All the other names appear too late in the history of Judah to qualify. It seems then inescapable that the author of the Stela was Hazael of Syria.


But what of Hazael’s claim to have finished Jehoram and Ahaziah? Surely this is at odds with the biblical record which records how is was Jehu’s mutiny that resulted in both kings death. There are several answers to this…
It was common for rulers to claim credit for another's actions, especially if it gave them extra gravitas.
Hazael may have considered the battle with Jehoram, where his enemy had been wounded, reason enough to claim he brought about the circumstances of Jehoram’s and Ahaziah’s death.
Hazael may have considered Jehu as a vassal and therefore claimed credit for anything that Jehu achieved.


There is another monument that fits the context of this one very well. That is the famous Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In one section it describes the tribute of Jehu king of Israel, an event that can only have happened in Jehu’s first year as king. It suggests he may have been seeking support from the Assyrian king in his fight against Hazael. In effect siding with the biggest bully in the playground. This was not a particularly unusual activity, Ahaz of Judah, did exactly the same thing with a later king of Assyria, Tiglath-pileser, when he was threatened by Israel and Syria.


“Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, saying, "I am your servant and your son. Come up and save me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel, who rise up against me." And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasuries of the king's house, and sent it as a present to the king of Assyria.”
2 Kings 16 v 7 - 8


The House of David…


There is one other point of interest regarding the Tel Dan Stela, and that is it’s reference to the “House of David”. This fragment was found at a time when a scholarly argument was raging about whether the kingdom of David and Solomon had ever existed. What archaeological evidence there was, happened to be more circumstantial than direct. As a result some scholars who identified themselves as biblical minimalists suggested that the powerful united monarchy of David and Solomon was little more than legend and perhaps the monarchs had never existed. The Tel Dan Stela put paid to this notion with it’s clear reference to the line of kings descended from the House of David in Judah, written only 130 years after the death of king David and 90 years after the death of Solomon his heir.









3D Petrie Museum

3D Petrie Museum
The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology has one of the largest ancient Egyptian and Sudanese collections in the world, named after pioneering Egyptologist, William Matthew Flinders Petrie.
With our 3D viewer, you can virtually handle some of our highlight objects.

Wednesday, 30 April 2014

Evolution in Bible Prophecy

Evolution in Bible Prophecy

Integrity in Serving the God of Truth

“Instruct me, O Lord, about your way. I shall walk in your truth.”—PSALM 86:11.

IMAGINE that you are walking in a barren desert, devoid of all life. Suddenly you come upon a beautiful house. It is air-conditioned and has heating, plumbing, and electricity. Its refrigerator and cupboards are filled with food. Its basement contains fuel and an abundance of other supplies. Would you say that all of it got there just by chance? Would you be thankful if the owner asked you to stay in that house and enjoy it?

2 Well, this delightful earth on which we live is just like that house. Long before mankind was created, our loving God prepared this earth to become our home and he provided everything that we would need to make us happy. (Isaiah 45:12, 18) Should we not be thankful to this generous Provider? He is the One who inspired the writing of the Bible’s words at Hebrews 3:4: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” The shame is that selfish men have vandalized and are ruining God’s handiwork on earth.—Deuteronomy 32:3-5.

3 Even to opponents of the truth, the apostle Paul could say concerning God: “He did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts to the full with food and good cheer.” (Acts 14:17) How much more so God can bless those who serve him in integrity! Though the hardships and burdens of these “last days” may press in on us, there is the glorious hope that in the not-far-distant future the Sovereign Lord Yahweh will certainly provide a veritable banquet of good things for those who love him, wiping the tears from all faces.—2 Timothy 3:1; Isaiah 25:6-8.

The Marvel of the Human Intellect

4 For several years, scientists have been trying to make computers that actually think. But now they admit that they are blocked at the very first step. Why so? Well, they confess that the structure of the human eye has them beaten. If they cannot imitate the eye, how can they start on the brain, and how are they ever going to reproduce the faculty of mind? What a marvel the human brain is! Every second, a hundred million bits of information pour into this organ to be sifted, sorted, and applied in intelligent living. The most sophisticated computer cannot even begin to compare with that. What a fine testimony to the surpassing wisdom of the loving God who made us! We can be happy that our Maker and Former, Yahweh Elohim, endowed us with intelligence and that we may use our brains in learning the “great and incomprehensible things” that he reveals to us in his own due time and way.—Jeremiah 33:2, 3.

5 The miracle of the human brain starts in the womb, with brain cells beginning to form just three weeks after conception. These multiply in spurts, sometimes up to a quarter of a million cells a minute. After birth, the baby’s brain triples in size the first year, showing it to be far, far different from the brain of any animal, including the ape. Soon the human child can handle languages, reason on matters, appreciate moral issues and spiritual values. How could these faculties ever have evolved from brute beasts? Appropriately, Elihu said concerning our God and Grand Maker: “He is the One teaching us more than the beasts of the earth, and he makes us wiser than even the flying creatures of the heavens.”—Job 35:10, 11.

This marvel, the human intellect, harmonizes with Genesis 1:27, which states: “God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.” Should we not be thankful for the way God has made us? David was. He praised Yahweh, saying: “I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful.” (Psalm 139:14) Do we not laud our God for the same reason? Moreover, we may use our God-given brains and bodies in meeting the challenge that the world has thrown at us. We may serve Yahweh as integrity keepers.—Proverbs 27:11.

Hold Fast to Truth

Truth must triumph! We lovers of Yahweh must hold fast to truth as we use our mental powers in choosing the course of integrity. The truth on creation is established. It is firm. It has stood the test of millenniums. In little more than a century, that great untruth, the theory of evolution, stands ready to be discarded. This is not just our opinion. It is the consensus of many open-minded scientists, lawyers, investigators, and other knowledgeable people. Speaking of the challenge to “the principles of evolution, as laid down by Darwin and others,” The New York Times summed up the situation by stating: “The field is in an uproar.” A well-informed scientist writes: “We admit there are gaping holes in the evidence for evolution. . . . Yes, evolution is only a theory. Believing in evolution, then, is an act of faith.”

But is belief in evolution really an act of faith? We would say, rather, that it is an act of credulity. Faith has a firm foundation. Hebrews 11:1 tells us that it is “the evident demonstration of realities.” The evidence that the Bible record is based on realities and is truth is overwhelming. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17; Romans 15:4) On the other hand, the more that evolutionists investigate matters, the more they unearth contradictions that they try to justify to the credulous.

Did Ape-Men Exist?

In 130 years of searching for fossils of the missing link between ape and man, evolutionists have come up with a pitifully small array of bones. According to the magazine Science Digest, “all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!” No doubt, that is where such so-called evidence belongs—with the lid of the coffin nailed down tight!

10 Those magazine pictures of ape-men that are used to bolster the evolution theory are nothing more than figments of the imagination, drawn on the basis of a few small fragments of a skull or a jawbone. For example, on page 1 of The New York Times of August 16, 1985, there appeared an “artist’s reconstruction of Amphipithecus, earliest known higher primate . . . from which humans evolved,” showing its hairy head and hands. From what was this reconstructed? Says the accompanying article: “The rear portion of a lower jaw . . . together with the frontal jaw fragment found half a century before.” But can the complete head, hair and all, really be reconstructed on the basis of two such fragments? The article quoted an anthropologist at Harvard University as calling these fossils a “pool of light in acres of darkness.” But may they really be equated with light?

What some might call another such “pool of light” was the skull of Piltdown man. It held the center of the evolutionary stage for about 40 years but was exposed in 1953 as an assemblage of bone fragments, some animal and some human, fraudulently stuck together as a hoax! In the words of the prophet Isaiah, it can be said of these theoretical ape-men: “Truth proves to be missing.”—Isaiah 59:15.

A Prophetic Parallel

Ungodly Christendom of today was foreshadowed by unfaithful Jerusalem of ancient times. It was in the year 612 B.C.E. that the Sovereign Lord Yahweh gave Ezekiel a vision in which He transported His prophet from Babylon to Jerusalem. There, in the courtyard of the temple, Ezekiel saw an abominable symbol of idolatry. Yahweh next had him bore through and enlarge a hole in the wall. Then he said to Ezekiel: “Go in and see the bad detestable things that they are doing here.” What did he see? Why, in the inner rooms of Yahweh’s house of worship, “there was every representation of creeping things and loathsome beasts, and all the dungy idols of the house of Israel, the carving being upon the wall all round about.”—Ezekiel 8:1, 7-10.

In parallel to this vision, we find a shocking situation among Christendom’s clergy today. For the most part, this “man of lawlessness” has abandoned the Bible’s creation account. (2 Thessalonians 2:3) Or, like those apostates of Ezekiel’s day, the clergy struggle to blend evolution with the Bible, stating that the opening chapters of Genesis consist of myth or allegory. Disregarding the scientific axiom that the simplest explanation is often the true one, they say that the Bible account is too naive for them. Their puffed-up intellects call for something more sophisticated and complicated. They exalt themselves above Jesus Christ, who referred to the literal Genesis account as “truth.”—John 17:17; Matthew 19:4-6.

In his vision, Ezekiel saw “seventy men of the elderly ones of the house of Israel” worshiping before those representations of “creeping things and loathsome beasts.” (Ezekiel 8:10, 11) This is comparable to those modern-day clergymen who openly claim that mankind evolved from such beasts! These “elderly ones” should be leading their flocks in the way of truth. But does not Jesus’ description at Matthew 15:14 apply to them? Jesus said: “Blind guides is what they are. If, then, a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” They can find such a pit in the “acres of darkness” where the evolutionists are groping.

Yahweh next asked Ezekiel: “Have you seen, O son of man, what the elderly ones of the house of Israel are doing in the darkness, each one in the inner rooms of his showpiece? For they are saying, ‘Yahweh is not seeing us. Yahweh has left the land.’” (Ezekiel 8:12) Clergymen who subscribe to human philosophies give similar proof that they are part of “the man of lawlessness.” They abandon God’s law, which includes the book of Genesis. (Acts 7:53) They lead their flocks into the darkness of worldly thinking, as exemplified by the unproved and unprovable theory of evolution. They “have loved the darkness rather than the light” of truth.—John 3:19.

Just as those Jewish elders brought their false worship into the temple at Jerusalem, so false religious leaders today try to cling to the label “Christian.” But belief in evolution is not Christian. Acceptance of this theory has caused many to turn away from God. It has contributed in no small measure to the independence, violence, and terrorism of our 20th century, with nations and individuals espousing the evolutionary maxim of “survival of the fittest.” Evolution has taught that man has no responsibility to a Creator. (Romans 9:28) People have therefore felt free to ‘do their own thing,’ without any thought of God.

Religious leaders who accept evolution are saying, in effect: “Yahweh is not seeing us. Yahweh has left the land.” Because of embracing this philosophy, they feel no accountability to him. Indeed, their conception of God is clouded by their belief in a mysterious, unexplainable Trinity of gods. In line with this viewpoint, they would like to do away with the very name of the one true God, Yahweh, making no mention at all of the name and studiously removing it from their Bible translations. They fear to go contrary to the popular worldly teaching of evolution.

Aptly, Yahweh says through another prophet: “For the reason that this people have come near with their mouth, and they have glorified me merely with their lips, and they have removed their heart itself far away from me, and their fear toward me becomes men’s commandment that is being taught, therefore here I am, the One that will act wonderfully again with this people, in a wonderful manner and with something wonderful; and the wisdom of their wise men must perish, and the very understanding of their discreet men will conceal itself.” (Isaiah 29:13, 14) At the latest, the God-dishonoring theory of evolution and those professed Christians who embrace it will meet up with that accounting in the day of Yahweh’s burning anger.—Zephaniah 3:8.

Clean Flesh and Evolution

Clean Flesh and Evolution

Berea-Portal whatever that means is a pseudo-Christadelphian website. I do not think that the admins are even Christadelphians, as they do not agree with the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith. They are teachers of the Clean Flesh doctrine and clearly they do not want to talk about what they believe

So what is clean flesh 


John Thomas died in 1871. By 1872, this principle, which he had so simply and thoroughly explained, came directly under attack by some of his former friends. In 1872 Edward Turney issued a booklet called "The Sacrifice of Christ." In it was the following statement:
"...(Another man has said) that for 15 years he has not been able to understand what Dr. Thomas meant by 'sin in the flesh.' That is the fixation of sin in the flesh which he speaks of in 'Elpis Israel' pg. 126, ...and I confess to you without reserve, neither have I been able to understand it. But still I have many a time taught it. I have taken the 15th article of the book of common prayer and pulled it to pieces, and said that Christ came in flesh full of sin; for said I to the people, what can 'sinful flesh' mean, but flesh full of sin? Well now, since my mind has been more especially directed to the study of this subject, I have arrived at this conviction that there is no such thing as flesh full of sin, and never was, nor can be." "Sacrifice of Christ," pg. 16.
Edward Turney reasoned that since Christ had only a human mother, his nature could not be the same identical nature as ours, since we have both human father and mother. He argued that since his nature was not the same as ours, Jesus did not have a sinful nature, and therefore did not offer for himself for the cleansing of that nature.
Edward Turney reintroduced to Christadelphians the idea that sin can only be moral. He agreed that man had sinful flesh, but he saw this as a moral transgression, just like the churches doctrine of original sin. He reasoned that if Christ had been born with this original sin, or sinful flesh, he would be condemned by it, and therefore not be in position to free us from sin.
Edward Turney was very clear that he was renouncing Christadelphian teaching. Therefore, his group came to be called the Renunciationists. He stated in his book:
"I have renounced the Papal myth of "sin in the flesh" by which Mr. Roberts [then editor of the Christadelphian Magazine] is yet bewitched..." "Sacrifice of Christ," by Edward Turney pg. 34
Since he plainly, and boldly, renounced Christadelphian thought, he found it difficult to get a following among Christadelphians. Christadelphians called his teaching "clean flesh", because he taught the flesh of Christ was clean, while all the rest of mankind had sinful flesh. As a movement, he was so insignificant we would not bother with mentioning him, except that he introduced a thought that was the cause of much sorrow and division in the following years.
Many sound men rose up to show Edward Turney that his new ideas were unsound: that it was he who had returned to the doctrine of Catholicism (the Catholic doctrine of an immaculate Christ) not Christadelphians. Among these was a very polished man named J. J. Andrew of London, England.
As we mentioned, fundamental to Turney's teaching was the argument that "sin" was a moral relationship, only.  He argued that sin could have no physical existence. Christadelphians taught that sin was both moral and physical. We are guilty of the things we do (the moral aspect of sin) but we suffer the consequences of the sin bodies we physically and literally bare, (sorrow, weakness, and death). The moral aspect of sin is a crime. The physical aspect is a misfortune, not a crime, but it is areality none the less. Jesus came into the world bearing the physical sin in his body that through his sacrifice he might destroy sin at its very root, removing all sin, physical and moral, that the world might be purified from sin.

The physical sin body is the root of all moral transgression. "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." (James. 1:14) By destroying sin in his body, Christ destroyed all sin at its very root and source.

Now this clean flesh teaching is getting support again among the admins of Berea-Portal. Berea-Portal teachings Evolution the admins do not believe in Adamic Condemnation, they have it that Adam and Eve were just a special creation about 6,000 years ago and only represent the human race, which already existed. So, in their attempted escape from the "Adamic Condemnation" and "sinful flesh" doctrine they fail to explain why or how Jesus represents the humans that already existed for 100,000 years before Adam & Eve.I have seen on forums and on facebook for years now the clean flesh teaching coming from Richard Morgan, Ken G, J. Burke and others do not believe in Adamic Condemnation because he believes in evolution Adamic Condemnation or original sin that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. The nature of the lower animals is as full of this physical evil principle as the nature of man; though it cannot be styled sin with the same expressiveness; because it does not possess them as the result of their own transgression; the name, however, does not alter the nature of the thing. Children are born sinners or unclean, because they are born of sinful flesh; and "that which is born of the flesh is flesh", or sin. This is a misfortune, not a crime.

Of course, if a person allows evolution to guide his thinking and classifies the Scripture record of creation as “unhistorical,” it means that he does not believe that Adam broke God’s law, as reported in Genesis chapter 3. Nor does he believe that mankind is born in sin because of the transgression of Adam. It is not only outright atheists who say they do not believe in these Bible teachings. Says Newsweek of August 22, 1966: “Canadian Jesuit Biblicist Father David Stanley points out, . . . ‘If you accept evolution, Adam . . . was only a primate. The myth of a fall doesn’t fit at all.”’ Also, the book Evolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin, published in 1968 with the imprimatur of the archbishop of Newark, takes the same view. It first states the fundamental Bible belief that “every human being begins his life in a sinful state because of the sin of Adam,” but then adds: “Those who take the scientific doctrine of evolution seriously can no longer accept this traditional presentation.” And the book shows that its author definitely does take that “doctrine of evolution” seriously. So seriously does he take it that he is willing to mold his viewpoint of the entire Bible to conform to it.


If you want to know the real christadelphian understanding of the atonement you have to go to this website http://www.genusa.com/Truth/Clean-Flesh.html and you can see The Changing Literature of the Christadelphian Community and how Christadelphian books are astray from christadelphianism