From John W:
I am having a problem understanding Exodus 4:24-26. Can you tell me where I might find an answer? Thank you.
John W., thank you for contacting us with your question. Like the Bereans, I turned to Scripture to answer your question. First, let’s see what Exodus 4:24-26 says:
At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision.
Reading these verses by themselves surely sound strange. Why would God seek to put Moses to death shortly after He sent him on his way to confront Pharaoh about setting the Israelites free?
Your answer can be found in Genesis 17:9-14:
And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Moses had failed to circumcise his son which was a sign of the covenant that God had made with Abraham. God had chosen Moses to carry out His work in freeing His people from captivity in Egypt. The last thing one would expect from the personally selected emissary of God would be for that person to knowingly fail to follow through on his sworn duty to keep God’s covenant with His people.
God’s anger burned against Moses for this failure. He was set to put Moses to death. In order to save her husband’s life, Zipporah quickly circumcised their son and offered up the foreskin as proof. Since they were in the presence of God, Zipporah was mostly likely bowed down or was as prostrate as possible, which is why she reached the foreskin out to touch Moses’ feet. She would not have dared to raise herself any higher or lift the foreskin any higher,
Zipporah’s actions were sufficient to appease God’s anger and save Moses life. It was a lesson Moses never forgot.
So, once again, we find our answer in Genesis, the foundation to the rest of Scripture.
From Mark N:
Subject: question asked at creation class
I have facilitated several classes (in churches, homes, and homeschool) demonstrating the truth of Genesis 1 thru 11. I use video, PowerPoint and other visuals. I have taught that there are NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS alive or in the fossil record. However, I’ve been asked a couple of times about a fish called the ”mudskipper” (you can view this fist on You Tube) and isn’t that a transitional form lending believability to evolution? Do you have any suggestions of what/how I could answer that question?
THANKS IN ADVANCE.
Mark, thank you for contacting us with your question and about the mudskipper.
The mudskipper is sometimes referred to as a transitional form because of its ability to use its pectoral fins to walk across mudflats and the ocean bottom. Did you know that there are other fish with the ability to walk?
Back in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s fisheries experts in Florida were alarmed at the spread of Clarias batrachus, the walking catfish. This catfish was a voracious predator and fed on the native fish that inhabited the thousands of ponds across Florida. They attempted to poison the catfish but to no avail. The catfish would leave the ponds and start walking across the countryside using their pectoral fins, in search of another pond. Some of the catfish traveled nearly a mile before finding a new home.
Like the mudskipper, the walking catfish have strong rays (spines) in their pectoral fins. They use these rays to lift themselves up off the ground and by wiggling their body and then one fin ahead of the other manage to appear to be walking. But watch the walking catfish or the mudskipper and their method of locomotion is anything but walking. It more closely resembles the way a person uses his elbows to crawl across the floor. The body moves back and forth and you try your best to move one elbow forward and then you wiggle your body the other way and move that elbow forward and so on.
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t call that progress or evolution.
I would recommend you read Rare Australian fish has fins like hands for more information. This Australian fish far surpasses the mudskipper in its walking features. This article does an excellent job in explaining why the Australian handfish is not a transitional form. The same would hold true for the mudskipper also.
Evolutionists want you to believe that we all started out as a simple single cell and that over time, that single cell evolved into a multicellular organism and then into larger organisms and then into fish then amphibians then reptiles then mammals and then into man.
According to God’s Word, there were no transitional forms. Genesis 1 tells us that God created all sea and flying creatures on Day 5 of Creation and He created all land animals on Day 6 of Creation.
The argument is not evidence, but our presuppositional foundations. The bottom line comes down to who you want to believe. Do you want to believe fallible men who think they know about a far distant past or would you rather believe the One who was there from the very beginning and gave us His Word of what was created when?