I have neglected my personal blog in favor of updating our new family blog.

So 2 weeks ago, I went to turn on a ceiling fan, lost my balance, tumbled on a box and landed on 1 right wrist on the other side. The harrowing results: a broken wrist that couldn’t be set in the ER due to pregnancy, a surgery under general anesthesia a week later after great pains for 6 and 3/4 days prior, and a multi-thousand dollar bill. Also in the aftermath, a mother living with us to deal with a child who has newly evolved into a race-crawler that gets into everything. Even things about 4 feet above her head.

Yeah, life has been interesting these past few weeks! Add to it that I can’t work for 2 months, so our bare bones budget has become bare without any bones. I feel like Mother Hubbard, only – hopefully – not as old. haha

But it’s still fun times with the family. Things could always be worse. I could be 8 months pregnant, having heartburn, have three 9 month old children and have all of this occur. HAH!

Another issue I am going to begin discussing here is Preterism (vs. pre-millennial doctrine). I’m going to expound on several of the main points in following posts, but today I’m going to address the one objection to Preterism I hear and read the most.

If Jesus’s words are fulfilled (I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.) in AD 70 as preterists believe, where is the New Heaven and the New Earth spoken of by Peter? I defer to David Chilton:

According to St. Peter’s second epistle, Christ and the apostles had warned that apostasy would accelerate toward the end of the “last days” (2 Pet. 3:2–4; cf. Jude 17–19)—the forty-year period between Christ’s ascension and the destruction of the Old Covenant Temple in A.D. 70.1 He makes it clear that these latter-day “mockers” were Covenant apostates: familiar with Old Testament history and prophecy, they were Jews who had abandoned the Abrahamic Covenant by rejecting Christ. As Jesus had repeatedly warned (cf. Matt. 12:38–45; 16:1–4; 23:29–39), upon this evil and perverse generation would come the great “Day of Judgment” foretold in the prophets, a “destruction of ungodly men” like that suffered by the wicked of Noah’s day (2 Pet. 3:5–7). Throughout His ministry Jesus drew this analogy (see Matt. 24:37–39 and Luke 17:26–27). Just as God destroyed the “world” of the antediluvian era by the Flood, so would the “world” of first-century Israel be destroyed by fire in the fall of Jerusalem. St. Peter describes this judgment as the destruction of “the present heavens and earth” (2 Pet. 3:7), making way for “new heavens and a new earth” (2 Pet. 3:10). Because of what may be called the “collapsing universe” terminology used in this passage, many have mistakenly assumed that St. Peter is speaking of the final end of the physical heaven and earth, rather than the dissolution of the Old Covenant world order. The great seventeenth-century Puritan theologian John Owen answered this view by referring to the Bible’s very characteristic metaphorical usage of the terms heavens and earth, as in Isaiah’s description of the Mosaic Covenant:
For I am the LORD your God, who stirs up the sea and its waves roar (the LORD of hosts is His name). I have put My words in your mouth and have covered you with the shadow of My hand, to establish the heavens, to found the earth, and to say to Zion, “You are My people” (Isa. 51:15–16). Owen writes: The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God, was when he “divided the sea” ([Isa. 51] v.15), and gave the law (v. 16), and said to Zion, “Thou art my people”—that is, when he took the children of Israel
out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state. Then he planted the heavens, and laid the foundation of the earth—made the new world; that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty, from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And hence it is, that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language that seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isaiah 34:4;
which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like is also affirmed of the Roman empire, Revelation 6:14; which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, Matthew 24, he sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident then, that, in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by “heavens” and “earth,” the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, are often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which was then destroyed by the flood.2 Another Old Testament text, among many that could be mentioned, is Jeremiah 4:23–31, which speaks of the imminent fall of Jerusalem (587 B.C.) in similar language of decreation: I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.… For thus says the LORD, the whole land shall be a desolation [referring to the curse of Lev. 26:31–33; see its fulfillment in Matt. 24:15!], yet I will not execute a complete destruction. For this the earth shall mourn, and the heavens above be dark.… From the very beginning, God’s covenant with Israel had been expressed in terms of a new creation: Moses described Israel’s salvation in the wilderness in terms of the Spirit of God hovering over a waste, just as in the original creation of heaven and earth (Deut. 32:10–11; cf. Gen. 1:2).3 In the Exodus, as at the original creation, God divided light and darkness (Ex. 14:20), divided the waters from the waters to bring forth the dry land (14:21–22), and planted His people in His holy mountain (15:17). God’s miraculous formation of Israel was thus
an image of Creation, a redemptive recapitulation of the making of heaven and earth. Th e Old Covenant order, in which the entire world was organized around the central sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple, could quite appropriately be described, before its final dissolution, as “the present heavens and earth.” Th e 19th-century expositor John Brown wrote: “A person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament scriptures knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and heavens.…The period of the close of the one dispensation, and the commencement of the other, is spoken of as ‘the last days’ and ‘the end of the world’; and is described as such a shaking of the earth and heavens, as should lead to the removal of the
things which were shaken (Hag. 2:6; Heb. 12:26–27).”4 Therefore, says Owen, “On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state”—i.e., the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.5 This interpretation is confirmed by St. Peter’s further information: In this imminent “Day of the Lord” which was about to come upon the first-century world “like a thief” (cf. Matt. 24:42–43; 1 Thess. 5:2; Rev. 3:3), “the elements will be destroyed with intense heat” (v. 10; cf. v. 12). What are these elements? So-called “literalists” lightly and carelessly assume that the apostle is speaking about physics, using the term to mean atoms (or perhaps subatomic particles), the actual physical components of the universe. What these “literalists” fail to recognize is that although the word elements (stoicheia) is used several times in the New Testament, it is never used in connection with the physical universe! (In this respect, the very misleading comments of the New Geneva Study Bible on this passage violate its own interpretive dictum that “Scripture interprets Scripture.” For possible meanings of this term, it cites pagan Greek philosophers and astrologers—but never the Bible’s own use of the term!) Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words observes that while in pagan literature the word is used in a number of different ways (referring to the “four elements” of the physical world, or to the “notes” on a musical scale, or to the “principles” of geometry or logic), the New Testament writers use the term “in a new way, describing the stoicheia as weak and beggarly. In a transferred sense, the stoicheia are the things on which pre-Christian existence rests, especially in pre-Christian religion. These things are impotent; they bring bondage instead of freedom.”6 Throughout the New Testament, the word “elements” (stoicheia) is always used in connection with the Old Covenant order. St. Paul used the term in his stinging rebuke to the Galatian Christians who were tempted to forsake the freedom of the New Covenant for an Old Covenant-style legalism. Describing Old Covenant rituals and ceremonies, he says “we were in bondage under the elements (stoicheia) of this world.… How is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements (stoicheia), to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years….” (Gal. 4:3, 9–10). He warns the Colossians: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the basic principles (stoicheia) of the world, and not according to Christ.… Therefore, if you died with Christ to the basic principles (stoicheia) of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle’” (Col. 2:8, 20–21). The writer to the Hebrews chided them: “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elements (stoicheia) of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food” (Heb. 5:12). In context, the writer to the Hebrews is clearly speaking of Old Covenant truths—particularly since he connects it with the term oracles of God, an expression used elsewhere in the New Testament for the provisional, Old Covenant revelation (see Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:2). These citations from Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews comprise all the other occurrences in the New Testament of that word “elements” (stoicheia). Not one refers to the “elements” of the physical world or universe; all are speaking of the “elements” of the Old Covenant system, which, as the apostles wrote just before the approaching destruction of the Old Covenant Temple in A. D. 70, was “becoming obsolete and growing old” and “ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13). And St. Peter uses the same term in exactly the same way. Throughout the Greek New Testament, the word elements (stoicheia) always means ethics, not physics; the foundational “elements” of a religious system that was doomed to pass away in a fiery judgment. In fact, St. Peter was quite specific about the fact that he was not referring to an event thousands of years in their future, but to something that was already taking place: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements (stoicheia) will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things are being dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fi re, and the elements (stoicheia) are being melted with fervent heat? (2 Pet. 3:10–12) Contrary to the misleading renderings of translators blinded by their presuppositions, St. Peter insists that the dissolution of “the present heaven and earth”—the Old Covenant system with its obligatory rituals and bloody sacrifices—was already beginning to occur: the “universe” of the Old Covenant was coming apart, never to be revived: When did prophet and vision cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy one of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stands, neither is prophet raised up, nor vision revealed among them. And it is natural that it should be so, for when He that was signifi ed had come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? And when the Truth had come, what further need was there of the shadow? …And the kingdom of Jerusalem ceased at the same time, kings were to be anointed among them only until the Holy of holies had been anointed.7 St. Peter’s message, John Owen argues, is that “the heavens and earth that God himself planted—the sun, moon, and stars of the judaical polity and church—the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinacy against the Lord Christ—shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed.”8 As we have seen, Puritan theologian John Owen argued that the teaching of 2 Peter 3 about the coming “Day of the Lord” was not about the end of the physical universe, but of the Old Covenant and the nation of Israel. He points out that the phrase “heavens and earth” is often used in the Old Testament as a symbolic expression for God’s covenantal creation, Israel (see Isa. 51:15–20; Jer. 4:23–31). Owen writes: “the heavens and earth that God himself planted—the sun, moon, and stars of the judaical polity and church—the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinacy against the Lord Christ—shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed.”9 Owen offers two further reasons (“of many that might be insisted on from the text,” he says) for adopting the A.D. 70 interpretation of 2 Peter 3. First, he observes, “whatever is here mentioned was to have its particular influence on the men of that generation.”0 Th at is a crucial point, which must be clearly recognized in any honest assessment of the apostle’s meaning. St. Peter is especially concerned that his first-century readers remember the apostolic warnings about “the last days” (vv. 2–3; cf. 1 Tim. 4:1–6; 2 Tim. 3:1–9). During these times, the Jewish scoff ers of his day, clearly familiar with the Biblical prophecies of judgment, were refusing to heed those warnings (vv. 3–5). He exhorts his readers to live holy lives in the light of this imminent judgment (vv. 11, 14); and it is these early Christians who are repeatedly mentioned as actively “looking for and hastening” the judgment (vv. 12, 13, 14). It is precisely the nearness of the approaching conflagration that St. Peter cites as a motive to diligence in godly living! An obvious objection to such an exposition is to refer to what is probably the most well-known, most-misunderstood text in St. Peter’s brief epistle: “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8). Th is means, it is said, that “God’s arithmetic is different from ours,” so that when Scripture uses terms like “near” and “shortly” (e.g., Rev. 1:1–3) or “at hand” (e.g., James 5:5–7), it doesn’t intend to give the impression of soon-approaching events, but of events possibly thousands of years in the future! Milton Terry refuted this seemingly plausible but spurious theory: The language is a poetical citation from Psalm 90:4, and is adduced to show that the lapse of time does not invalidate the promises of God.… But this is very different from saying that when the everlasting God promises something shortly, and declares that it is close at hand, He may mean that it is a thousand years in the future. Whatever He has promised indefinitely He may take a thousand years or more to fulfill; but what He affirms to be at the door let no man declare to be far away.1 J. Stuart Russell wrote with biting disdain: Few passages have suffered more from misconstruction than this, which has been made to speak a language inconsistent with its obvious intention, and even incompatible with a strict regard to veracity. There is probably an allusion here to the words of the Psalmist, in which he contrasts the brevity of human life with the eternity of the divine existence.… But surely it would be the height of absurdity to regard this sublime poetic image as a calculus for the divine measurement of time, or as giving us a warrant for wholly disregarding definitions of time in the predictions and promises of God. Yet it is not unusual to quote these words as an argument or excuse for the total disregard for the element of time in the prophetic writings. Even in cases where a certain time is specifi ed in the prediction, or where such limitations as ‘shortly,’ or ‘speedily,’ or ‘at hand’ are expressed, the passage
before us is appealed to in justification of an arbitrary treatment of such notes of time, so that soon may mean late, and near may mean distant, and short may mean long, and vice versa…. It is surely unnecessary to repudiate in the strongest manner such a non-natural method of interpreting the language of Scripture. It is worse than ungrammatical and unreasonable, it is immoral. It is to suggest that God has two weights and measures in His dealings with men, and that in His mode of reckoning there is an ambiguity and variableness which will make it impossible to tell ‘What manner of time the Spirit of Christ in the prophets may signify’[cf. 1 Pet. 1:11]… The Scriptures themselves, however, give no countenance to such a method of interpretation. Faithfulness is one of the attributes most frequently ascribed to the ‘covenant-keeping God,’ and the divine faithfulness is that which the apostle in this very passage affirms.… Th e apostle does not say that when the Lord promises a thing for today He may not fulfi ll His promise for a thousand years: that would be slackness; that would be a breach of promise. He does not say that because God is infinite and everlasting, therefore He reckons with a different arithmetic from ours, or speaks to us in a double sense, or uses two different weights and measures in His dealings with mankind. The very reverse is the truth…. It is evident that the object of the apostle in this passage is to give his readers the strongest assurance that the impending catastrophe of the last days were on the very eve of fulfillment. Th e veracity and faithfulness of God were the
guarantees of the punctual performance of the promise. To have intimated that time was a variable quantity in the promise of God would have been to stultify and neutralize his own teaching, which was that ‘the Lord is not slack concerning His promise.’2 Continuing his analysis, John Owen cites verse 13: “But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.” Owen asks: “What is that promise? Where may we find it?” Good question. Do you know the answer? Where in the Old Testament does God promise a New Heaven and Earth? Incidentally, this raises a wider, fascinating issue: When the New Testament quotes or cites an Old Testament text, it’s often a good idea to hunt down the original citation, see what it meant in its original context, and then see the “spin” the New Testament writer places on it. (For example, Isaiah’s prophecy of a gigantic highway-construction project [Isa. 40:3–5] is not interpreted literally in the New Testament, but metaphorically, of the preaching ministry of John the Baptist [Luke 3:4–6]. And Isaiah’s prophecy of a “golden age” when the wolf dwells peaceably with the lamb [Isa. 11:1–10] is condensed and cited by St. Paul as a present fulfillment, in the New Covenant age [Rom. 15:12])! But John Owen, this Puritan scholar, knows his Bible better than most of the rest of us, and he tells us exactly where the Old Testament foretells a “new heaven and earth”: What is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isaiah 65:17. Now, when shall this be that God will create these “new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness”? Saith Peter, It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell. But now it is evident, from this place of Isaiah, with chapter 66:21–22, that this is a prophecy of gospel times
only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances, to endure forever. The same thing is so expressed in Hebrews 12:26–28.3 Owen is right on target, asking the question that so many expositors fail to ask: Where had God promised to bring “new heavens and a new earth”? The answer, as Owen correctly states, is only in Isaiah 65 and 66—passages which clearly prophesy the period of the Gospel, brought in by the work of Christ. According to Isaiah himself, this “New Creation” cannot possibly be the eternal state, since it contains birth and death, building and planting (65:20–23). The “new heavens and earth” promised to the Church comprise the age of the New Covenant— the Gospel’s triumph, when all mankind will come to bow down before the Lord (66:22–23). John Bray writes: “Th is passage is a grand description of the gospel age after Christ came in judgment in 70 A.D. and took away the old heavens and the old earth. We now have the new heavens and the new earth of the gospel age.”4 St. Peter’s encouragement to the Church of his day was to be patient, to wait for God’s judgment to destroy those who were persecuting the faith and impeding its progress. “The end of all things is at hand,” he had written earlier (1 Pet. 4:7). John Brown commented: “The end of all things” here is the entire end of the Jewish economy in the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem, and the dispersal of the holy people. That was at hand; for this epistle seems to have been written a very short while before these events took place.… It is quite plain that in our Lord’s predictions, the expressions “the end” and probably “the end of the world” are used in reference to the entire dissolution of the Jewish economy (cf. Matt. 24:3, 6, 14, 34; Rom. 13:11–12; James 5:8–9).5 Once the Lord came to destroy the scaffolding of the Old Covenant structure, the New Covenant Temple would be left in its place, and the victorious march of the Church would be unstoppable. According to God’s predestined design, the world will be converted; the earth’s treasures will be brought into the City of God, as the Paradise Mandate (Gen. 1:27–28; Matt. 28:18–20) is consummated (Rev. 21:1–27). This is why the apostles constantly affirmed that the age of consummation had already been implemented by the resurrection and ascension of Christ, who poured out the Holy Spirit. St. Paul, writing of the redeemed individual, says that “if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). St. John, recording his vision of the redeemed culture, says the same thing: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth…. The first things have passed away…. Behold, I am making all things new” (Rev. 21:1–5). Th e writer to the  Hebrews comforts his first-century readers with the assurance that they have already arrived at “the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb. 12:22; cf. Gal. 26–28; Rev. 21). Even as the old “heaven and earth” were being shaken to rubble, the early Christians were “receiving a Kingdom which cannot be shaken,” the eternal Kingdom of God brought in by His Son (Heb. 12:26–28). Milton Terry has written: The language of 2 Pet. 3:10–12 is taken mainly from Isa. 34:4, and is limited to the parousia, like the language of Matt. 24:29. Then the Lord made “not only the land but also
the heaven” to tremble (Heb. 12:26), and removed the things that were shaken in order to establish a kingdom which cannot be moved.6 It is crucial to note that the apostle continually points his readers’ attention, not to events that were to take place thousands of years in the future, but to events that were already beginning to take place. Otherwise, his closing words make no sense at all: “Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless.… You, therefore, beloved, since you know these things beforehand, beware lest you fall from your own steadfastness…” (2 Pet. 3:14–17). If these things refer to a 21st-century thermonuclear holocaust, why would the inspired apostle direct such a serious exhortation against “falling from steadfastness” to thousands of readers who would never live to see the things he foretold? A cardinal rule of Biblical interpretation is that Scripture must interpret Scripture; and, particularly, that the New Testament is God’s own inspired commentary on the meaning of the Old Testament. Once the old had been swept away, St. Peter declared, the Age of Christ would be fully established, an era “in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:13). The distinguishing characteristic of the new era, in stark contrast to what preceded it, would be righteousness—increasing righteousness, as the Gospel would be set free in its mission to the nations. There have been many battles throughout Church history, of course, and many battles lie ahead. But these must not blind us to the very real progress that the Gospel has made and continues to make in the world. The New World Order of the Lord Jesus Christ has arrived; and, according to God’s promise, the saving knowledge of Him will fill the earth, as the waters cover the sea (Isa. 11:9).

Notes
1. For a defense of this position, see David Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion, 2nd ed. (Horn Lake, MS: TX: Dominion Press, [1985] 2007), 112–122. Th e fact is that every time Scripture uses the term “last days” (and similar expressions) it means, not the end of the physical universe, but the period from A.D. 30 to A.D. 70—the period during which the Apostles were preaching and writing, the “last days” of Old Covenant Israel before it was forever destroyed in the destruction of the Temple (and consequently the annihilation of the Old Covenant sacrificial system) described by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:1–34; Acts 2:16–21; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–9; Hebrews 1:1–2; 8:13; 9:26; James 5:7–9; 1 Peter 1:20; 4:7; 1 John 2:18; Jude 17–19). See also John Bray’s excellent booklet Are We Living in the Last Days? (Lakeland, FL: John L. Bray Ministry). 2. John Owen, “Providential Changes: An Argument for Universal Holiness,” in Appendix A 187 William H. Goold, ed., Th e Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (London: Th e Banner of Truth Trust, 1965–68), 9:134. 3. See Chilton, Paradise Restored, 59. 4. John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Th e Banner of Truth Trust, [1852] 1990), 1:171f. 5. Owen, “Providential Changes: An Argument for Universal Holiness,” 9:134. 6. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Th eological Dictionary of the New Testament, one-volume edition edited by Geoff rey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 1088. 7. St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word of God (New York: Macmillan, 1946), [40] 61f. 8. Owen, “Providential Changes: An Argument for Universal Holiness,” 9:135. 9. Owen, “Providential Changes: An Argument for Universal Holiness,” 9:135. 10. Owen, “Providential Changes: An Argument for Universal Holiness,” 9:134. 11. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 406. 12. J. Stuart Russell, Th e Parousia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, [1887] 1983), 321ff . Owen, “Providential Changes: An Argument for Universal Holiness,” 34–35. 13. Owen, “Providential Changes: An Argument for Universal Holiness,” 9:134f. 14. John L. Bray, Heaven and Earth Shall Pass Away (Lakeland, FL: John L. Bray Ministry), 26. 15. Quoted in Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1954), 107.
16. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 489.

Recently I have been engaged in a forum discussion concerning discipline. First, know that my presuppositions are that the application of Scripture’s principles to all areas of life is required to live as a Christian. The term would be theonomy: believing that God gives us an answer for every issue in His Word.

That being said, I have been greatly assisted in the practical application of Proverbs by Michael and Debi Pearl of No Greater Joy Ministries. Please note that I do disagree with some of their other teachings, but on the subjects of discipline and submission I find no fault nor find them to stray from Scripture at all.

My first point is to give the verses oft quoted in defense of my position, and the Hebrew definitions behind them.

Withhold not correction from the child for if thou beatest him with the rod he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod and shalt deliver his soul from hell. (Prov. 23:13-14 KJV)

Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod And rescue his soul from Sheol. (NAS)

Withhold - mana` (maw-nah’)
to debar (negatively or positively) from benefit or injury — deny, keep (back), refrain, restrain, withhold.
correction- muwcar (moo-sawr’)
chastisement; figuratively, reproof, warning or instruction; also restraint — bond, chastening (-eth), chastisement, check, correction, discipline, doctrine, instruction, rebuke.
from the child – na`ar (nah’-ar)
babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin), lad, servant, young (man).
for if thou beatest – nakah (naw-kaw’)
to strike (lightly or severely, literally or figuratively)
him with the rod – shebet (shay’-bet)
a scion, i.e. (literally) a stick (for punishing, writing, fighting, ruling, walking, etc.) or (figuratively) a clan — correction, dart, rod, sceptre, staff, tribe.
he shall not die – muwth (mooth)
causatively, to kill
Thou shalt beat – nakah (naw-kaw’)
to strike (lightly or severely, literally or figuratively)
him with the rod – shebet (shay’-bet)
a scion, i.e. (literally) a stick (for punishing, writing, fighting, ruling, walking, etc.) or (figuratively) a clan — correction, dart, rod, sceptre, staff, tribe.
and shalt deliver – natsal (naw-tsal’)
to snatch away, whether in a good or a bad sense
his soul – nephesh (neh’-fesh)
a breathing creature, i.e. animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or figurative sense (bodily or mental)
from hell - sh’owl (sheh-ole’)
Hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranean retreat), including its accessories and inmates — grave, hell, pit.

There are several points to address:

1. At what age should you start to correct/discipline your child?
2. How hard should you “beat” your child, how many times, how often?
3. Can any other sort of punishment be used or is “striking with a stick” the only means of proper discipline?

I will address these issues in a following post.

I’ve been swampedly busy. Yes, swampedly IS an adjective, though a rarely used one. (In Lizim anyway.)

Reese watched Anne of Green Gables all the way through for the first time, said daaaadaaay the other day (Southern baby for you) and is going to get her picture taken with a lamb in 2 weeks for a small but ridiculously high fee for having a picture taken with a lamb. The price of having a baby and no farm.

She has also taken to loving goaty milk. I have to call it goaty milk or I remember that it comes from goats, the animal I really detest the most of all.

I have had the easiest first few months of a pregnancy as anyone could have, miraculously and wonderfully. Time goes by really fast. I intend to have a homebirth and am glad to save that giant chunk of money. With the new insurance we would have to pay $5,800 vs. the midwife’s $1,800.

A turkey sandwich with my name on it and a Coke await me, so farewell.

Fast Company Magazine had a fantastic 9 page article written in their February 2009 issue by David Case.

I always suspect conspiracy and money when I hear about government agencies deciding one way or another, but this article confirms my suspicions. In a nutshell, the argument against BPA which is found lining canned foods, in plastic baby bottles, containers, cell phones, DVDs, CDs, etc. (it’s an ingredient in polycarbonate which is a near shatterproof plastic) has been put into 2 camps: scientists who simply study the effects of what happens when BPA is around and scientists and panels of people whose paychecks pretty much come from donations and fees from industry producers of BPA – and they get pretty nice paychecks.

Over 100 independently conducted studies prove severe concerns with BPA including infertility, cancer, hyperactivity, aggression, decreased maternal feelings, and early onset of puberty depending on the exposure and dose of exposure. A baby drinking formula from a plastic baby bottle is at the worst risk – but even a breastfed baby and mature adults are at risk from the harmful chemical.

BPA produces a sort of fake estrogen. Fake hormones can help or kill an organ its targeting, as any MD knows.

14 industry conducted studies show little to no harm in everyday levels of BPA exposure. Several such studies used rats that are genetically bred to be resistant to fake hormones. As in, these rats can tolerate 100 times more fake estrogen than a human female can. There’s quite a few millions and hundred thousands being tossed around as well in the industry, and towards the FDA, that lovely government agency that supposedly can find nothing wrong with anything.

Did you know the FDA accepted and failed to disclose a 5 million dollar donation from a former medical-device executive opposed to BPA becoming regulated? The FDA deemed BPA “safe” even in the face of severe criticism and scientific evidence proving otherwise. A substantial portion of their budget comes from fees paid to them from companies registering new products.

Then there’s the EPA – one you would hope would be SLIGHTLY more unbiased and trying to get toxic concerns out of our country and away from our environment. But in 33 years, they have only been able to ban 5 chemicals as toxic. In 1996, Congress enacted that the EPA screen industrial chemicals to determine if they have endocrine system effects (like BPA does) but 9 years after the deadline for them to begin screening – not ONE chemical has been screened.

 A Harvard Center for Risk Analysis panel was paid to review the facts and come up with a correct and unbiased judgement once and  for all. They studied both sides but failed to note the irregularities (like resistant rats) of the industry studies and did not include even  some scientific studies on humans that prove BPA harms the endocrine system and has been directly linked back to ovarian cysts. Of  the 12 panel members, 4 stepped out because the end ruling stated that there was “no consistent affirmative evidence of low-dose BPA effects.” 1 retracted their participation shortly thereafter. Why did these 5 step away from this decision? Because they did not feel comfortable with that conclusion, disagreeing with the manner in which the final report was prepared. Should I also mention that top donors to this supposedly bipartisan center include Dow (BPA producer), Shell (BPA producer) and the industry association American Chemistry Council? Or that they are known to operate under conflicts of interest? For instance, a study conducted on cell phone usage (paid for by AT&T) during driving supposedly proved that productivity outweighed the cost of accidents, a ruling that was overturned 3 years later by the SAME RESEARCHERS, this time funded by Harvard.

The average 6 year old eating canned food and using polycarbonate tableware is exposed to approximately 14.7 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. At this level of toxic exposure to the chemical BPA, a 6 year old child has the potential for the following health concerns: decrease in male sperm production, increase in prostate size, increase in aggressive behavior, early onset of puberty in females, decrease in maternal behavior, and altered immune function. At 30 micrograms per day, we reach hyperactivity and eventually altered social behaviors.

What are the worst conduits for passing BPA into our systems? Lining on food and drink cans (the alternative is much more expensive and has a shorter shelf life and cannot be used for acidic foods like tomatoes), heated plastic containers (all my Tupperware is suddenly looking pretty awful to me) and polycarbonate table wear (anything used to house liquids). Even dishwashing your plastic containers will allow it to leach out into your food or drinks.

I tend to agree with the class action suits against the makers of BPA when they cry that the industry is poisoning infants and children for profit. And worse still, science is being pushed aside for the big bucks even in the government agencies supposedly there to protect us from these toxic health concerns.

It’s funny – I was flooded with hilarious (though not at the time!) memories after reading one of my husband’s cousin’s notes on Facebook. She recalls not having sugary cereals or Kraft singles – and remarks at the very end how she is doing the same now that she’s a mom. I recall that I was about 5 before my mother was unable to keep a grain of sugar out of my mouth (a friend gave me a lollipop which I POPPED right in before my mother could take it from me graciously) and how until I was 13, we did not even have actual sugar in our house. I remember eating several odd things over the years:

Tofu burgers (which have the consistency of wallpaper paste)

Tofu Chili (which isn’t that bad, though lacks a good bit of flavor)

Soy Milk (which we now know isn’t so good for us)

Rice Milk (which was runny)

Almond Milk Cheese (I don’t know how to milk an almond but I’m not sure I want to know)

Soy Milk Cheese (which doesn’t melt even when said child attempts to light a fire to it)

And the verrrrry rare but oh so delectable treat of having Panda Licorice now and then – until my mother found out they got their licorice from an area that could have been infected by the A-bomb and didn’t buy it anymore … just in case.

Yes – I have many memories. At the time, I really wasn’t all that aware of what I was missing out on. Occasionally I would learn of something that my friends were eating, but I always figured they must just shop somewhere else and thus had access to all kinds of other foods that we didn’t have the chance to buy ourselves. I was rather dense as a child, now that I think about it. I had a habit of figuring out absurd reasons for why things were, that to this day I almost never questioned.

Then I went through the stage of “eat all the junk food you can” and put on 30 pounds. In less than 5 years. A lot of fast food. Felt like crap. Got sicker more often. Tired all the time….

Honestly, it took getting pregnant to wake me up again. When I found out Reese was coming (though we didn’t yet know it was REESE coming), I immediately went cold turkey on coffee, coke and pretty much any type of junk horrible food (except Captain D’s which became a pregnant staple). I lost 15 pounds in the first 3 months. And no, I wasn’t sick more than a few times and yes, I ate like a pig.

My mom always read labels. It drove me crazy. It took hours to shop for food because every ingredient had to be read on every item – and half the time we didn’t get it. So it always felt like wasted time. I look back now and I thank my mom for being so careful. I hope to be even 1/2 as careful as she was about what we ate.

MSG – can actually kill neurons in our brains. Mice who eat it become obese, suffer brain lesions and have neuroendocrine disorders. Seizures, headaches, depression, strokes, hives, rashes, dizziness, chest pain, indigestion, heartburn, cramps, vomiting, unusual thirst, unusual perspiration, high or low blood pressure, anxiety, and hyperactivity are all side effects of MSG. For some it is a high concentrated dosage but for others, much smaller doses. The average daily intake of MSG is estimated at 0.3 g. per day – but some restaurants’ meals have 5 g. alone. Even if an item says “NO MSG” it does not mean there isn’t any – anything labeled flavor (natural flavors, flavoring, spice mixtures, etc) contain a smaller amount of MSG that is not required to be listed in the ingredients.

Fluoride – it actually has a higher toxicity level than lead and is more dangerous to the young and elderly. Lead is a 3-4 and Fluoride is a 4 equalling a “very toxic” toxin. Yet it is not only in our “drinking” (tap) water, it is in our toothpaste, our mouth rinse, our chewing gum sometimes! And worse, prescribed to children by pediatricians and parenting magazines and companies recommend and advertise “nursery water” complete with “extra fluoride.” Not only that, the information given by the hospital program to new moms “strongly recommends” giving water to babies so they can acquire a taste for it – but make sure it is fluoridated! Most people consume 5-7 mg of fluoride a day – and 1/2 of what you consume remains in your fat and blood cells. As little as 0.4 mg has been proven to have health effects. What does fluoride do? It has been labeled a carcinogen since 1990; in 1997 there were over 80 direct cases linking cancer with fluoride levels. Lower IQ and hyperactivity are also symptoms of toxic levels of fluoride in the system. 80% of children (1 in 5) are estimated to have some level of fluorosis. Fluoride also has adverse affects on the environment. It is TOXIC WASTE. It is labeled as POISON on toothpaste! There are cases of children dying from eating toothpaste – dying in the dentist’s chair after a fluoridated rinse. 

Aspartame – I don’t know how many times I’ve been told that someone “has to die of something” when told of the dangers and side effects of aspartame. Aspartame has over 92 reactions and/or symptoms of health problems associated with it’s consumption including blindness, decreased night vision, decreased tears, tinnitus, intolerance of noise, epileptic seizures, irritability, aggression, memory loss, confusion, hyperactivity, headaches, dizziness, insomnia, depression, nausea, hair loss, weight gain, aggravated blood sugar levels, heightened PMS and menopausal symptoms, increased susceptibility to infection, and of course, alzheimers. I’m sorry – I know we all “have to die of something” but I really would think you’d rather die of anything but something you use as a sweetener substitute! I know sugar isn’t great for you either – but why is our society so addicted to sweets that we would rather burn our bodies up by ingesting something 1 ingredient away from poison than be without something “sweet”??????? 

I could go on, and on, and on. There’s caffeine and sugar and hydrogenated oils and even canola oil, the great big healthy choice that really isn’t, the lies about soy products being healthier, the stuff they put in mattresses, the stuff they put in our cleaning agents, the laundry soap that has ingredients in it that can cause skin lesions on children, the stuff we eat, sleep on, live in and smell all day long – the colognes that cause infertility, the flame retardent materials that cause hyperactivity, the pesticides that cause brain damage – the list is never ending.

I guess my main point in all of this is to say 1) I’ll complete this post at another time and 2) Please consider researching a few of the more toxic ingredients in your cleaning closet and pantry before you decide they can’t be THAT bad. Research for 10 minutes and you’ll have a hard time buying anything with MSG when you read about the people who literally die from the side effects…..

Wrapping paper or gift bags? I generally prefer gift bags. Because I am a horrible (worse than a 4 year old) wrapper with paper unless and even if the item is completely square. Part of the problem is I tend to end up with cheap paper that tears easily.

Real tree or artificial? If I could justify paying the same amount every year for a real tree that I pay once for an artificial tree, I would be completely au naturale. But alas, no smell of pine, instead a fake tree with a stick for a middle. Why can’t they figure out how to make the middle look STUMP-ish??

When do you put up the tree? The day after Thanksgiving.

When do you take the tree down? I think we did it the first week of January. This year it definitely will be since we’ll be having the OS over right around New Years for a Christmas party.

Do you like eggnog? I love the idea of rum in a drink but not raw egg. So no.

Favorite gift received as a child? Legos. In particular, Fort Legoredo.

Hardest person to buy for? Simeon. My brother in law. He doesn’t like to read. He likes video games but I will not cater to that lone interest.

Easiest person to buy for? Myself. Does that count? (Stealing Joan’s answer because it was funny.)

Do you have a nativity scene? We finally got one! For 60% off at Kirklands. It’s very attractive artistic wise men and the “Family” and an angel, a cow and a donkey. Which doesn’t make much sense. Seeing as how the cow and donkey go with the shepherds in the stable and the wise men were not present but the set has got the wise men and no shepherds. Also no angel was present with the wise men, but with the shepherds and comes with the set that has no shepherds. But whatever.

Mail or email Christmas cards? Usually a Christmas postcard/picture but this year, a letter with pictures.

Worst Christmas gift you ever received? A very fancy frilly too small dress.

Favorite Christmas movie? Toss up between Elf and It’s a Wonderful Life….

When do you start shopping for Christmas? All year round, but officially around the end of October – beginning of November. I thus avoid all crowds.

Have you ever recycled a Christmas present? Um…. In moderation. As in someone gave me a completely new set of bath stuff and I took it to a Christmas party because I already have so much in the way of bath stuff and it was nice. And I didn’t have a gift for the party. That kind of thing…..

Favorite thing to eat at Christmas? Nothing really sticks out as a tradition. I’ll have to get working on creating one for us.

Lights on the tree? Colored LED with double that amount in white LED. (Literally white, not yellow)

Favorite Christmas song? Birthday of a King.

Travel at Christmas or stay home? I hate to travel for Christmas and we’ve determined that Christmas Day is our family only. So no more around any one else but our own family on the day of Christmas.

Can you name all of Santa’s reindeer? I think so.

Angel on the treetop or a star? I haven’t found an angel I liked so for now, it’s a star.

Open the presents Christmas Eve or morning? Christmas morning.

Most annoying thing about this time of year? The radio stations who play so-called Christmas music, and all you hear are the Frosty, Rudolph, winter types of songs. And then half of those are sung by people who can’t sing like Celine Dion or 98 Disease. I mean Degrees.

Favorite ornament theme or color? Family treasures. Silver…. I have some silver frosted leaves. Love um.

Favorite for Christmas dinner? Haven’t done one yet, but I think Roast will become it.

What do you want for Christmas this year? My two front teeth.

Did your ever peek at your Christmas gifts when you were a child? Or recently, even?! Shook, rattled, rolled and tore corners but never actually got into them to literally see what was inside.

Finally: What Christmas song could you completely do without? The one that says “Do you hear what I hear?” I find the way they sing that line to be utterly annoying.

My daughter Reese is growing up so fast. She gobbles up her rice cereal, tries to stand up, “talks” all the time, and has the rare ability of having two people completely wrapped around her wee little fingers. Today I bought her first pairs of shoes and a pair of ruffly-butt tights.