2 3 5 7 8 12 17 22 24 28 29 31 32 34 36 38 39 40 42 43 44 45 47 48 50 52 55 56 59 60 64 65 66 68 70 72 73 74 77 78 79 80 81 83 84 85 87 88 91 93 94 98 100 101 104 105 106 107 109 110 113 114 116 118 120 125 126

128 130 132

Apologetics Without Apology Bethlehem - Messiah's birthplace Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day Cattle Contradiction? Christs Crucifixion Was Not on Friday Christs Real Birth Date Is Not December 25 Christs Resurrection Was Not on Sunday Cock-a-doodle-do Twice? Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy Dead, or Dying? Destruction of Tyre Did Behemoth Have a Navel? Did Both Thieves Revile Christ? Did God Create Animals or Man First? Did Jeremiah Err Regarding Jeconiah? Did Jesus condone stealing? Did Jesus Go to Gerasa or Gadara? Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers? Did Jesus Say That? Did Jesus Sweat Blood? Did Luke make a mistake involving Theudas and Judas the Galilean? Did Michal Have Children? Did Moses Make a Scientific Mistake? Did Saul Know David Prior to Goliath's Death? Did Yeshua adjust God's Torah of clean and unclean foods? Different Names, Same Person Do Matthew and Acts contradict concerning Judas' death? Does God Need to Rest? Does God Punish Innocent People? Does God Tempt People? Does Ps. 58:8 err about melting snails? Does the Bible Say God Repents From Doing Evil? Does the Bible Teach Geocentricity? Does the Bible wrongly call the bat a bird? Gopher Wood Has anyone seen God or not? How can Jesus be God when the Hebrew Bible says God is not a man? Cf. Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9. How long was the ark at Abinadab's house? How Many Supervisors Did Solomon Have? How Much Water Could The Sea Hold? How Old Were Ahaziah and Jehoiachin When They Began Their Respective Reigns? How Rude? If God is Jealous Doesn't That Make Him the Divine Hypocrite? In What Order Did Satan Tempt Jesus? Is the Bible wrong about hares chewing cud? Ishmaelites or Midianites? Jacob's Journey to Egypt Jesus and the Canaanite Woman Jesus' Sermon on The Mount or the Plain? Knowing When Lilith in the NIV? Not a bone of him shall be broken - a nonexistent prophecy? Onan's Sin / Judah and Tamar Red Sea Divided and Congealed Scarlet Worm Searching for Sargon Seventy years of Babylonian rule Should David have been Stoned? Should was be became in Genesis 1:2? Six or Eight Days? Solomons Basin and Pi - A Bible Error? Take It, or Leave It The Bible refers to the four corners of the earth. How can a spherical earth have corners? The Bible Teaches That the Heavens Were a Solid Dome, Embedded with Stars? The Calling of the Apostles The Census of David The Myth of the Councils The Tower of Babel They Heard Him--They Heard Him Not?

Conventional Revised Conventional Revised "hate" put aside "love" deed, an act toward "know" examine "believe" fixate "trumpet" horn "faith" bondedness, loyalty "save" preserve, except "adulterous" unbonded "lest" unless, otherwise "lost" wandered "amen" definite "rent" tore "reward" goal, ends "baptize" dip "spirit" wind, ghost, thoughtform "fell", "fallen" descended "blaspheme" speak against "suffer" endure, allow "swear" oath "nation" bloodline, lineage "the", "a", "is" function as, function of "peace" completion "good" order "testament" commitment "evil" chaos "holy" allocation, designation "earth" land, planet "brother" kinsman "star" luminary "sister" kinswoman "come" arrive, approach "friend" ally "ladder" stairway "neighbor" fellow, person "clean", "pure" refined "trembling" application of regulations "forgive" let off "glory" luminosity "righteousness" on path "heart" inner principality, thought "wickedness" off path "hear" listen "confess" attest "see" look, view "beg" request, inquire "bless" bow a knee; kneel "eye" view, perception "blessed" bowed to, knelt toward "serve" assist, attend "life", "soul" self "fear", "revere" regard as a chief authority "time", "ever" age "church" assembly "lead" guide "worship" bow, prostrate toward "angel" emissary "foolish" without regard, heedless "sword" weapon "command" waypoint, direction "name" character "perfect" without transgression "woe" lament "truth" absolute, precision "mystery" secret "son" continuer of the household "defile" stain "father" support of the household "lie" inaccuracy, deviation "great" plentiful "grace" benefaction "if" when conditionally "rest" cease "sacrifice" substitution "kid" infant cattle, infant lamb "husband", "owner" protection of a household "dragon" dinosaur "bride" one who allows protection "lilith" screech owl "adultery" to take other man's wife "unicorn" wild ox Conventional Revised "if, ei, possible, dunaton" when conditionally powerful Mt 24:24 "and the nations shall bring treasure, tishbokta" and the nations shall bring glory Rev 21:24 "sitting on, epi, seven mountains" sitting among seven mountains Rev 17:9 "and the violent, biastai, are seizing it" and those breaking forth are seizing it Mt 11:12 "it is necessary, anekdeton, that sin will occur" it is inevitable that sin will occur Lk 17:1 "the sons of god, elohim" the sons of angels Gn 6:2 "you wrestled god, el, and prevailed" you wrestled an angel and prevailed Gn 32:28 "we are now the children of god, theos" we are now the continuers of yhwh 1 John 3:2 "a camel, gamlo, through the eye of a needle" a thread through the eye of a needle Mt 19:24 134 Thou Shall Not Kill: Does God Violate His Own Commandment? 136 To The Wilderness or a Wedding? 137 Too Much Activity on Day Six? 138 Was Jesus Mistaken? 140 Was the Robe Placed on Jesus Scarlet or Purple? 141 Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ? 144 Were Dinosaurs on Noahs Ark? 146 Were the Iron Chariots Too Powerful? 147 What About the Unicorn and the Satyr? 149 What happened to the Amalekites? 151 When Did Baasha Reign? 152 When Did Jesus Call the First Apostles? 153 When Did Nebuzaradan Enter Jerusalem? 156 When did the Temple Veil Tear? 157 When were Abraham's descendants supposed to return? After four generations, or seven? 158 Where Did Josiah Die? 159 Where is the Prophecy that Jesus Shall be Called a Nazarene? 161 Who Incited David to Number Israel? 163 Who Killed Goliath? 164 Who Wrote on the Second Pair of Tablets? 165 Why did God harden Pharaohs heart? 166 Why did Jesus call himself the son of man? 167 Why Did Jesus Heal On The Sabbath? 174 Why did Jesus say, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Apologetics Without Apology

Apologetics (from the Greek apologeisthai, meaning to defend) is an orderly defense and justification. The intent of this work is to present what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, and why. We present the Biblical and rational credibility and credentials of Catholic-Christian faith. Our apologetic approach bases the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in Divine Revelation: The Biblical (logos): origin, foundation, and non-contradictory nature of the truths of the Bible; The Constant Tradition of the Church (paradosis): the enduring and progressive growth of the truths under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This text grew out of a series of presentations which explained Roman Catholic Church teachings in a manner which was easy to understand, yet soundly rooted in the two streams of the one source of Divine Revelation. The authors each participate in two faith communities, one Roman Catholic, and the other Evangelical Protestant. We realized that much of the friction between these communities results from miscommunication and misunderstanding. Therefore, we set out to explain the basis of foundational Roman Catholic teachings. We desire to explain rather than convince. Our audiences always come from various faith communities with varying beliefs. Our intent is to explain Roman Catholic teachings in a language that makes sense to all the faith communities. So often, misunderstandings and friction result from mere differences in words. 2 Tim 2:14 Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen. 2 Tim 2:23 Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels. We use the Bible as the foundation for our presentation because we found that Bible based information is the single most important mode of initial understanding and sharing between our communities. Yet we make sure that the constant faith and teachings of the Church are presented as another stream of revelation. As you read, you may disagree. Of course. We are not debating, just explaining. We seek to set forth the what and why of Catholic teaching. Once there is understanding, then we can be in a relationship based upon shared knowledge rather than misinformation.

By Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl. Catholic Biblical Apologetics, Copyright 1985-1997, Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture texts are taken from the NewAmerican Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the NewAmerican Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner. Email comments to pdflan@catholicapologetics.org
Last Updated: January 3, 1997
Thank you to Christopher Technology Consulting for hosting this site.

AboutBibleProphecy.com

Bible prophecies sorted by prophet

Daniel's prophecies David's prophecies Ezekiel's prophecies Isaiah's prophecies Jacob's prophecies Jeremiah's prophecies Jesus' prophecies Micah's prophecies Moses' prophecies Nahum's prophecies Zechariah's prophecies

Bethlehem - Messiah's birthplace

A detailed look at Micah 5:1-2 and some objections that skeptics have
Some skeptics have attacked the New Testament book of Matthew for its claim that Micah, chapter 5, is a reference to the birthplace of the Messiah (Jesus). The skeptics have claimed that Matthew is wrong, that "Bethlehem Ephrathah" is not a reference to the town of Bethlehem, but to the descendants of a man named Bethlehem, whose mother was named Ephrathah. (In the Bible there is such a man who is named Bethlehem, and whose mother was named Ephrathah). And some skeptics have attacked Matthew for claiming that Micah 5 is a Messianic prophecy. So what evidence do we have that Micah 5 really does refer to the town of Bethlehem, and that it really is a Messianic prophecy? Take a look: Although it is true that the Bible speaks of a man named Bethlehem, whose mother was named Ephrathah, it is also true that the Bible speaks of a town named Bethlehem. In fact there were two towns named Bethlehem. One was in Judah, the southern part of the Jewish homeland, and the other was in the north. But, the Bethlehem in Judah was in more ancient times called Ephrathah. So, Micah might have been using the phrase "Bethlehem Ephrathah" as a way to make it clear that he was referring to the town of Bethlehem that used to be known as Ephrathah - in other words, the Bethlehem that is in Judah. And what evidence do we have that Micah 5 was intended to be a prophecy about a Messiah? Several passages from a variety of ancient Jewish writings have made it clear that at least some Jews considered Micah 5 to be a Messianic prophecy. Below are all of the examples that I personally know of. I have placed in bold-face some of the key phrases that I believe establish Micah 5 as a Messianic prophecy, or as a Messianic prophecy that regards Bethlehem as a town in Judah, rather than as a person named Bethlehem:

Bible prophecies sorted by theme

Destruction of Israel Exile of Israel Persecution of Israel Re-gathering of Israel Nationhood (Israel) Preservation of Israel Restoration of Israel Worldwide impact Messianic About other nations End Times

100 Prophecies, explains ancient Bible prophecies and how they were fulfilled in history. $8.99. Click here to learn more.

Life and teachings of Jesus Christ

Early life 1st year of ministry 2nd year of ministry 3rd year of ministry The final months Persecution of Jesus Resurrection of Jesus

Articles, answers, explanations, links

Articles & explanations What is Christianity? Learn about the Bible Answers to tough questions Links & Online Bibles Da Vinci Code hoax

EXAMPLE 1: "
Although thou art little among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge to be Ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah.

Glossaries of people, events

People in the Bible Places in the Bible Bible glossary History of Israel Miracles of Jesus

"
- Rabbi David Kimchi (also known as Redak or Radak, and David Kimchi or David Kimhi). So, who was Rabbi David Kimchi? And what qualified him to interpret ancient Jewish scripture? "David Kimhi, known as Redak, c.1160 - c.1235 . . . wrote Mikhlol [completeness], long the leading Hebrew grammar, The Book of Roots, a dictionary of the Bible, and The Pen of the Scribe, a manual of punctuation. Standard editions of the Hebrew Bible frequently included his learned and lucid commentaries. . ." This is cited from a Web site at www.infoplease.com, using the keyword "Kimhi" So, for what it's worth, a Jewish Rabbi, who clearly had no

Other items
About us E-mail us HOME

reason to "distort" a prophecy on behalf of Christians, clearly described Micah 5 as being a prophecy about a Messiah. And, Rabbi Kimchi was a grammarian who wrote a book about Biblical commentaries and a book about the roots of Biblical words. I would think that his qualifications would compare quite well against those of any Bible skeptic who claims that Micah 5 was not about a Messiah.

EXAMPLE 2: "
And you Bethlehem-Ephrathah who are too little to be counted among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you in My name shall come forth the Messiah who is to be ruler in Israel and whose name has been called from eternity, from the days of old.

"
- Targum Jonathan on Mikah 5:2 in the Tanakh

EXAMPLE 3: " The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah. "
- Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a

EXAMPLE 4: "
O, thou Bethlehem Ephrata ... although thou art little in the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me a Man, a Ruler in Israel whose goings forth are from the days of old ... that is from the Seed of David ... who was of

Bethlehem Judah. "

- Abarbanel, Mashmiah Jeshua, fol. 62, c. 2.

A FEW MORE COMMENTS:

In the opening line of Micah, chapter 5, Micah mocks Jerusalem as the "city of troops." He is mocking Jerusalem for thinking that it can deliver itself from its worldly problems through the use of military force. In a sense, he is criticizing Jerusalem for being proud. In that context, I believe, he is offering Bethlehem - the town of Bethlehem, formerly known as Ephrathah, as the source of Israel's deliverance, in contrast to Jerusalem, the "city of troops." And, Bethlehem, was the birthplace of King David. And, the Messiah was supposed to be a descendant of King David. And, according to Matthew, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and He is a descendant of David, and He did not rely on military power for His as did Jerusalem during the time of Micah. As for the belief that the Messiah referred to in Micah 5 was supposed to defeat the Assyrians - I disagree. I think that Micah was talking about two different things: 1. Bethlehem, rather than Jerusalem, would be the birthplace of the Messiah, because Jerusalem was too reliant on worldly solutions to worldly problems. 2. Assyria ultimately would not rule over Jersualem, but instead fall under the rule of others. The extent to which these two events were to be connected are not clear from the context, at least not in my opinion, for what that's worth. One thing is clear, though, Assyria, as an empire, had long since ceased to exist by the time that Rabbi David Kimchi, and others, commented to the effect that they believed that Micah, chapter 5, was indeed a Messianic prophecy.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2204

AP Content :: Scripturally Speaking

Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Q. In Genesis 17:12, God commanded Abraham to circumcise baby boys on the eighth day of their lives. Why day eight? Is there any good, scientific rationale behind such a command? A. The faith of each individual Christian rests upon the bedrock foundation of the Bibles inspiration. If the Bible is of human origin, then it logically follows that the facts and doctrines found therein are only as reliable as human knowledge can be. However, if the biblical records were provided by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21), then we have every reason to believe that the facts and doctrines recorded therein are free of those imperfections and blemishes that characterize all purely human efforts. The Greek word used in the New Testament to express the concept of inspiration is theopneustos, and itself derives from two rootstheos, God, and pneustos, breathed (from pneo, to blow or breathe). Theopneustos, therefore, would mean God-breathed. The word implies an influence from without producing effects that are beyond natural powers. The proper view of inspiration often is referred to as being verbal (word-for-word) and plenary (complete). This concept suggests that men wrote what God directed, without errors or mistakes, yet with their own personalities reflected in their writings. A close examination of the Bible reveals startling proof of its inspiration. Sometimes that proof comes in the form of prophecy (always minutely foretold and completely fulfilled). Sometimes the proof comes in the form of scientific facts that were placed in the divine record hundreds or thousands of years before they were known to the modern scientific mind. This brief article deals with the latteran important piece of scientific foreknowledge found with the biblical text that was completely unknown to man until fairly recently. In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name vitamin K for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn males life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time after that. But why did God specify day eight? On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normaland is the only day in the males life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak. The chart below, patterned after one published by S.I. McMillen, M.D., in his book, None of These Diseases, portrays this in graphic form.

Dr. McMillen observed: We should commend the many hundreds of workers who labored at great expense over a number of years to discover that the safest day to perform circumcision is the eighth. Yet, as we congratulate medical science for this recent finding, we can almost hear the leaves of the Bible rustling. They would like to remind us that four thousand years ago, when God initiated circumcision with Abraham.... Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K (1984, p. 93). Moses information, as recorded in Genesis 17:12, not only was scientifically accurate, but was years ahead of its time. How did Moses have access to such information? The answer, of course, is provided by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16Every scripture is inspired of God. REFERENCES Holt, L.E. and R. McIntosh (1953), Holt Pediatrics (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts), twelfth edition. McMillen, S.I. (1984), None of These Diseases (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).

Originally published in Reason and Revelation, July 1993, 13[7]:55.

Copyright 1993 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Scripturally Speaking" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

Printable version - Cattle Contradiction?

The fifth plague that God brought upon Egypt was the death of their livestock by means of a pestilence. After informing Pharaoh of Gods decision to destroy Egypts animals if he refused to let Israel leave the country, the next day...all the livestock of Egypt died; but of the livestock of the children of Israel, not one died (Exodus 9:6, emp. added). Some question the reliability of this statement in light of later comments about Egypts remaining livestock. Prior to the seventh plague, Moses warned Egypt to send now and gather your livestock and all that you have in the field, for the hail shall come down on every man and every animal which is found in the field and is not brought home; and they shall die (Exodus 9:19). Furthermore, the final plague that God sent upon Egypt was the death of the firstbornof man and livestock (Exodus 12:29). According to skeptic Steve Wells, [T]here shouldnt have been any cattle since God already killed them with a grievous murrain (2007). Additionally, in light of the fact that horses also were mentioned as dying by disease (Exodus 9:3), critic Dennis McKinsey has asked, How...could the Pharaohs [sic] army have pursued the Israelites on horses and horse-drawn chariots following the tenth plague (1998, 181:4; cf. Exodus 14:7)? Are such biblical statements contradictory? First, one must recognize that the term all frequently is used in Scripture (as well as in modern times) to mean the greater part of or all of a particular category, and not necessarily all in the absolute sense. Earlier in the book of Exodus, Moses recorded that all the Egyptians dug all around the river for water to drink following the first plague (Exodus 7:24, emp. added). No sensible, fair-minded person believes that Moses meant that every single Egyptian, including infant, disabled, elderly, etc. was digging for water. Moses was using all in a relative sense. When Scripture says that Absalom went in to his fathers concubines in the sight of all Israel (2 Samuel 16:22, emp. added), the inspired writer did not mean that every single Israelite on Earth witnessed the event, but that Absaloms actions were public in nature and apparent for anyone to see. When Luke wrote that all the tax collectors and the sinners drew near to Jesus (15:1, emp. added), he did not intend to communicate to his readers that every single tax collector and sinner in the world (or even in one area) gathered around Jesus. Rather, a great many of the tax collectors and sinners went to see Jesus. A similar figurative use of all often is used in modern times. Consider the basketball broadcaster who comments on a player shooting two free throws with .5 seconds remaining in a tied game. All eyes are on him, the announcer says. Literally, most people in the arena would be watching the player, but not all, and certainly not everyone in the world. One might say that all the world knows what happened in America on September 11, 2001, and yet he means that most all the world is aware of the events, i.e., the event is common knowledge. In Exodus 9:6, Moses simply used a figure of speech, known as synecdoche, common in both ancient and modern times. Second, a careful examination of Exodus nine reveals that God actually clarified which of the Egyptian livestock would perish. God instructed Moses to tell Pharaoh: If you refuse to let them [Israel] go and continue to hold them back, the hand of the Lord will bring a terrible plague on your livestock in the fieldon your horses and donkeys and camels and on your cattle and sheep and goats (vss. 2-3, NIV). Thus, not only is all frequently used in a relative sense, but in the very passage that supposedly is unreliable, God limited the livestock to those which are in the field (NASB ). Undoubtedly, many horses, oxen, etc. would have been in stalls and escaped death, including Pharaohs war horses (cf. Exodus 14:6-7). Third, following the fifth plague and prior to subsequent plagues, Pharaoh could have begun replenishing Egypts livestock by purchasing or confiscating animals from surrounding peoples, including the Israelites. The burden of proof is upon skeptics to show that such could not have happened. Considering how detailed Moses was in recording Gods judgment upon Egypt, it is extremely frustrating to read the careless, condescending criticisms of modern-day skeptics. The same writer who carefully documented (1) that the Egyptians dug all around the river for water to drink following the first plague (Exodus 7:4), (2) how [t]hick swarms of flies came into the house of Pharaoh during the fourth plague (8:24), and (3) that wheat and the spelt were not struck when God rained hail from heaven, because they are late crops (9:32), supposedly forgot about every single cow, horse, etc. that died during the fifth plague? Although good evidence exists that exonerates Moses and dismisses assertions of discrepancy, even on the surface one should be taken aback by the skeptics overconfident, unsubstantiated criticisms. REFERENCES McKinsey, Dennis (1998), Does the Bible Contradict Itself? (Part 1), Biblical Errancy, 181:3-4, January.

Contact Us Help

About Us

Afrik aans

Deutsch

Espaol

Franais

Nederlands

MENU
HOME NEWS & UPDA TES INSIDE THE CHURCH A Look Inside the Church W ho Is David C. Pack ? W ho Was Herbert Arm strong? 2011 Feast of Tabernacles Am bassador Center Am bassador Youth Cam p DONA TION INFORMA TION THE A POSTA SY & SPLINTERS THE REA L TRUTH MA GA ZINE THE WORLD TO COME PROGRA M BIBLE STUDY TOPICS Prophecy Gods Prom ised Protection Marriage and the Fam ily O ne World Governm ent World Econom ic Collapse The Sabbath LITERA TURE Book s & Book lets Articles Q uestions & Answers Bible Introduction Course Trends & Conditions Reports Am bassador Youth Magazine Childrens Bible Lessons The Pillar Magazine LITERA TURE BY SUBJECT MEMBER SERVICES Holy Day Calendar Behind the Work Film PRESS RESOURCES Print this Page Display Adobe PDF Docum ent Find a Congregation

Search

Christs Crucifixion Was Not on Friday

Many are deceived about Christs death and resurrectiondid He die on Good Friday and rise on Easter Sunday? Since His only sign as the Messiah was that He would be in the grave for three days and three nights, how does this tradition fit?
Prophesied centuries earlier, Jesus Christs burial and resurrection fulfilled a precise timeframe. Notice Matthew 12: Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answ ered, saying, Master, w e w ould see a sign from You. But He answ ered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah: For as Jonah w as three days and three nights in the w hales belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (vs. 38-40). Professing Christianity has erroneously follow ed the Roman Catholic Good Friday-Easter Sunday tradition, rejecting the truth of Scripture. This tradition teaches that Christ w as in the grave from late Friday afternoon, just before sunset, until Sunday sunrise. This timeframe includes Friday night, the daylight portion of Saturday, and Saturday night. This is clearly tw o nights and one daynot three days and three nights, as Christ promised as His only sign. Instead of believing Christ, theologians ignore His ow n w ordsthat He w ould be three days and three nights in the gravethree complete 24-hour days. Religionists proclaim the false idea that Christ w as only buried for half that time. Amazingly, many scholars believe and teach this false idea. Even Clarkes Commentary, in explaining Matthew 12:40, follow s this false tradition, established as early as the mid-second century A.D. Despite many scholars and theologians attempts to prove otherw ise, one day and tw o nights cannot mean three days and three nights. Accepted by Professing Christianity The Good Friday-Easter Sunday tradition distorts the truth of w hat actually happened. But w hat is the origin of this tradition? Since the originators of this false doctrine had no sound biblical proof or authority to fall back on, they resorted to fraudulent tactics to legitimize their fabrications. One such claim w as that Hermes, the brother of Pope Pius (about the year A.D. 147) had received instruction from an angel, w ho commanded that all men should keep the Pasch [Passover] on the Lords day [Sunday](Antiquities of the Christian Church, Joseph Bingham, p. 1149). The apostle Paul w rote, But though w e, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that w hich w e have preached unto you, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8). He repeats this same w arning in verse 9. Instructions from an angel can never supplant Gods Word. In some distorted tw ist, Sunday came to represent both the Passover as the time of Christs crucifixion and burial, AND the resurrection. How ever, since it w as not logical to condense the events of three days and three nights into only one day, the idea of a Friday crucifixion w as born. The abovementioned letter from Hermes w as used to validate the position of Anicetus, Piuss successor, w ho disputed w ith Polycarp over the issue of transferring Passover to a Sunday. Trained by the apostle John, Polycarp held fast and taught the observance of Passover as Christ and the apostles had alw ays done. Yet, the bishops of Rome had other ideas. Thus, the letter from Hermes w as either a forgery or it w as deceptively w ritten by Pius, w ho died just before Polycarps visit to Rome (Apostolical Fathers, James Donaldson, p. 324). The

bishops at Rome had decreed that they possessed the pow er to supersede and change the times and law s of God (see Daniel 7:25). They rew rote history and changed the order of events in order to introduce their false doctrines. Their effort to change the day of the resurrection to Sunday w as simply a continuation of the Babylonian traditionthat Nimrod (father of the Babylonian Mystery Religion) w as resurrected on a Sunday. By A.D. 321, Roman Emperor Constantine established Sunday as part of the official state religion, thus legitimizing all the various traditions attached to that day. What Really Happened from Burial to Resurrection Christs crucifixion took place on Passover day, the 14th of Abib (or Nisan), the first month in Gods Sacred Calendar. This occurred in the year A.D. 31, in w hich Passover fell on a Wednesday. Many fail to consider the prophecy that the Messiah w ould be cut offin the midst of the w eek (Dan. 9:26-27). Wednesday falls in the middle of the w eekthe very day upon w hich Passover fell in A.D. 31. According to the Roman calendar, this date w as Wednesday, April 25. Betw een the ninth and tw elfth hours (3:00 - 6:00 p.m.), Christ died (Luke 23:44-46). W ith Governor Pilates permission, Joseph of Arimathaea procured the body, w rapped it in linen (John 19:40) and placed it in the sepulcher (Luke 23:50-53). By the time the burial w as complete, the Sabbath drew on (vs. 54). Thus, the burial took place on Passover day, shortly before sunset. That Passover w as a preparation day, in that it preceded an annual Sabbath. This annual Sabbath (called the First Day of Unleavened Bread) w as called a high Sabbath or high day (John 19:31) and fell on a Thursday that year. It w as on this day that the high priest and the Pharisees came to Pilate to ensure that Christs tomb w as securely guarded and sealed (Matt. 27:62-66). Mark 16:1 records w hat took place on that Friday: And w hen the sabbath w as past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sw eet spices, that they might come and anoint Him. (Verse 2 jumps to Sunday morning.) The phrase, and w hen the Sabbath w as past, refers to the high day that occurred on Thursday. Since the w omen could not buy spices on the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday), Friday w as the only time they could have done so. Luke 23:56 states, And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. After buying the spices, they returned and prepared them to be applied to Christs body in the tomb, w hich they planned to do after resting on the w eekly Sabbath. Luke 24:1 states, Now upon the first day of the w eek [Sunday], very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices w hich they had prepared, and certain others w ith them. The w omen found the tomb empty (vs. 3). Tw o angels in shining garments informed them that Christ w as already risen (vs. 4-6). Mark 16:2 states that the w omen w ere present at the rising of the sun. This means Christ w as resurrected before sunrise. John 20:1 further tells us that Mary Magdalene came early w hen it w as yet dark and found the stone that sealed the tomb w as already rolled aw ay. No sunrise resurrection could have occurred because Christ w as already resurrected! Now here does Scripture record that Christ rose at sunrise on Sunday morning. How ever, it does tell us that Christ w ould be in His grave for three days and three nights. Anyone w illing to believe the Bible should not find this difficult to accept. In fact, it is the only logical conclusion that can be draw n. Christ w as placed in the tomb just before sunset on Wednesday. Three complete days (three days and three nights) bring us to the end of the w eekly Sabbath, just prior to sunset, w hen Christ w as resurrectedjust as He had prophesied! Proofs to Confirm the Y ear A.D. 31 The Sacred Calendar reveals that Passover occurred on a Wednesday in A.D. 31. By first establishing the day of the w eek and day of the month of the Passover in 1931, w e can arrive at the day of the w eek and day of the month of the Passover in A.D. 31. Precisely one hundred 19-year time cycles w ould have elapsed. Follow ing this method helps greatly in computing the difference of elapsed time betw een the Roman and Sacred calendars during that 1,900-year time span. After this, w e can safely calculate the month and w eek in w hich Passover fell in A.D. 31. (Our free booklet The Truth About Gods Calendar explains these calculations in greater technical detail.) Various Hebrew calendar softw are programs calculate w hen Passover or any other Holy Day fell in almost any year, even before A.D. 31. The follow ing historical accounts w ill further validate the evidence presented here. The Decree of Artaxerxes

In the seventh year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, a decree w as made to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 7). It follow ed the decree of Cyrus, in w hich he acknow ledged that the LO RD God of heaven had charged him to build Him an house at Jerusalem, w hich is in Judah (Ezra 1:2). Artaxerxes decree became significant because of a prophecy revealed to Daniel. Daniel 9:25 states, Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the w all, even in troublous times. This show s that there are 62 w eeks + 7 w eeks69 prophetic w eeks (or 483 days). Applying the day-for-a-year principle (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6), w e arrive at 483 years from the decree until the beginning of Christs ministry. The decree w as made during the seventh year of Artaxerxes reign (457 B.C.). This date is historically w ell documented. By subtracting 457 from 483, w e come to the year A.D. 26. W hen counting from B.C to A.D., astronomers correctly add one year since there is no year zero, w hile historians and chronologers generally neglect to do this. Adding one year brings us to A.D. 27the prophesied year of the beginning of the ministry of the Messiah. Luke 3:23 tells us, And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age The context of this verse is after John the Baptist had begun his ministry and just before Jesus began His. Since Jesus w as 30 years old in A.D. 27, He w ould have been born in 4 B.C. Remember, w e must add one year to compensate for no year zero. Thus, from 4 B.C., advancing 30 years brings us to A.D. 27. This leads us to the next historical proof that further confirms w hen Christ w as born. The Time of Herods Death Shortly after Christs birth, an angel w arned Joseph in a dream that he and his w ife Mary w ere to take the child and flee into Egypt. They stayed there until the death of Herod (Matt. 2:15). Christ w as an infant less than one year of age w hen Herod died. Matthew 2:16 show s that Herod slew all the children that w ere in Bethlehem and, all the coast thereof, from tw o years old and under, according to the time w hich he had diligently inquired of the w ise men. Herod knew the childs approximate age, but w ent beyond that age to include those up to age tw o, to make sure that the prophesied Messiah w ould not escape execution. To better establish the exact time of Herods death, w e find in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews a reference to a lunar eclipse. A footnote in the W histon translation of Josephus states, This eclipse of the moon (w hich is the only eclipse mentioned by Josephus) is of greatest consequence for the determination of the time for the death of Herodand for the birth and entire chronology of Jesus Christ. It happened March 13th, in the year of the Julian period 4710, and the 4th year before the Christian era (Bk. XVII, ch. vi, sec. 4). According to Josephus, Herod died the follow ing year, 3 B.C. Soon after Herods death, the angel instructed Joseph to return to the land of Israel w ith Mary and Jesus, w ho w ould have been about one year old. Time of Construction of the Temple As mentioned, Christ w as 30 years old (Luke 3:23) w hen He began His ministry in A.D. 27. Now , w e w ill see how the chronology of the temple harmonizes w ith the chronology of Christ: Then answ ered the Jew s and said unto Him, W hat sign show You unto us, seeing that You do these things? Jesus answ ered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I w ill raise it up. Then said the Jew s, Forty and six years w as this temple in building, and w ill You rear it up in three days? But He spoke of the temple of His body (John 2:18-21). This occurred on the first Passover during Christs ministry, in A.D. 28. The Jew s said that the temple had been under construction for 46 years. By adding one year to compensate for no year zero, this means that the temples construction began in 19 B.C., the 18th year of Herods reign. In Antiquities, Josephus w rote, And now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign undertook a very great w ork, that is to build of himself the temple of God (Bk. XV, ch. xi, sec. 1). From 19 B.C., w e advance 46 years since the beginning of the reconstruction of the temple, arriving at A.D. 28the first Passover after the beginning of Christs ministry. The Reign of Emperor Tiberius Other historical evidence involves the time of the beginning of John the Baptists ministry. Luke 3:1 begins, Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea It then describes the beginning of Johns ministry. The reign of Roman Emperor Tiberius began about A.D. 11 or 12, since he reigned concurrently w ith Augustus Caesar for about 2 years. If w e add the 15 years of Tiberius reign to A.D. 11 or 12, w e arrive at A.D. 26 or 27. Here again w e see the biblical chronology verified by history. The 15th year of Tiberius brings us precisely to the beginning of John the Baptists ministry, w hich w as just before the time of Christs ministry. The Governorship of Pontius Pilate Historians agree that Pilate ruled for ten years. Luke 3:1 show s that during the 15th year of Tiberius reign, Pilate w as governor. Some historical accounts, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, date Pilates rule from A.D. 26 to 36. W hen he w as recalled, he immediately sought

help from his close political ally, Emperor Tiberius. Yet, w hile Pilate w as en route to confer w ith him, Tiberius died, in A.D. 37. W ith Tiberius death, Pilates rule ended the same year. Therefore, Pilates ten-year rule w ould have had to coincide w ith the years A.D. 27 to 37. Now lets recap: Pilates governorship over Judea began in early A.D. 27, during the 15th year of Tiberius rule. Meanw hile, John the Baptist began his ministry in early A.D. 27, w hich preceded Christs ministry by several months. Christs ministry w ould not have begun until the autumn of A.D. 27 since (1) He w as 30 years old w hen His ministry began and (2) He w as born in the autumn of 4 B.C. (Read our booklet The True Origin of Christmas.) Christs ministry could not have begun later than A.D. 28 because, at that point, the temples 46-year construction w ould have been finished. Thus, the autumn of A.D. 27 corresponds w ith numerous secular and historical proofs, as w ell as Scripture. The Length of Christs Ministry Remember the prophecy in Daniel 9, w hich established 483 years, from 457 B.C. to A.D. 27. Verse 27 establishes the length of Christs prophesied ministry: And He shall confirm the covenant w ith many for one w eek: and in the midst of the w eek He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate [margin: desolator]. Christ w as to confirm the covenant for one w eek. According to the day-for-a-year principle, the seven days of that w eek equal seven years. Yet, in the midst of the w eek, the Messiah w as to cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease. This w as done by offering His ow n life to cover the sins of all humanity, as part of Gods Plan of salvation. The Messiah w as cut off (vs. 26) in the midst of the w eekafter 3 days, or prophetic years. His earthly ministry lasted precisely 3 years. Then He w as cut offcrucifiedin the middle of the w eekWednesday. In this prophecy, the midst of the w eek had a dual meaning, as does most prophecy. Since Christs ministry began in the autumn of A.D. 27, this means that He w as crucified in the spring of A.D. 31, 3 years later. John 2:23 records the first Passover of His ministry in A.D. 28: Now w hen He w as in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in His name, w hen they saw the miracles w hich He did. Afterw ard, Christ began teaching in the area of Judea near Jerusalem. Luke 6:1 records an event during the Passover season in the second year of His ministry, in A.D. 29: And it came to pass on the second Sabbath after the first, that He w ent through the corn fields; and His disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. The term the second Sabbath after the first means the second high day, w hich w as the Last Day of Unleavened Bread. Although this event is covered in Matthew 12:1-8 and Mark 2:23-28, only Lukes account, w ritten in Greek, makes clear w hich Sabbath this w as. The Greek term, deuteroproton sabbaton, literally means the second Sabbath of the first rankor the second high day of that Passover season. John 6:4-5 records the follow ing, w hich preceded the third Passover (A.D. 30) of Christs ministry: And the Passover, a feast of the Jew s, w as near. W hen Jesus then lifted up His eyes, and saw a great company come unto Him, He said unto Philip, W here shall w e buy bread, that these may eat? This is also recorded in Matthew 14:15, Mark 6:35-36, and Luke 9:12. The fourth and final Passover of Christs ministry is the most documented Passover of all. All four of the gospels cover it in detail. Notice Luke 22:1-2: Now the feast of unleavened bread drew near, w hich is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill Him; for they feared the people. John 11:55 records, And the Jew s Passover w as near at hand: and many w ent out of the country up to Jerusalem before the Passover, to purify themselves. Christs final Passover completed His earthly ministry of 3 years. Again, it began in the autumn of A.D. 27 and ended in the spring of A.D. 31, on a Wednesdayin the midst of the w eek. The w orld of professing Christianity claims that Christs crucifixion occurred on a Friday, in A.D. 33. How ever, it can easily be documented by Gods Sacred Calendar that none of the four Passovers during Christs ministry fell on a Friday. The four Passovers fell on Monday (A.D. 28), Saturday (A.D. 29), Wednesday (A.D. 30), and Wednesday (A.D. 31), respectively. We have show n from Gods Word, His Sacred Calendar and mans secular history that the crucifixion did not take place either on a Friday or in A.D. 33. Rather, Christ w as crucified and buried on a Wednesday in A.D. 31. Now that you are armed w ith the truth, w ill you accept it or the blind traditions of professing Christianity?

RELATED LITERATURE
The True O rigin of Christm as The Truth About Gods Calendar

FORT FAIRFIELD JOURNAL

Real. Educational. News. Fort Fairfield Journal Contact Us Bible Reference Our Library

Christs Real Birth Date

Is Not December 25
In the 1960s Bible scholar, Adam Rutherford did an exhaustive study to show Christs birth date was in late September, rather than December 25th, as is traditionally celebrated today. This series of articles will attempt to provide the overview of his thesis both in my own words, as well as his and corroborating texts..

Part 1: The December 25th Hoax

By: David Deschesne, Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal, November 21, 2007, p. 9

Yahoshua (Jesus) the Christ was not born on December 25, as many Christians have been taught to believe. Scholarly research on the subject shows he was born on or around 1 Tishri on the Hebrew Calendar - the first day of the Hebrew Civil New year - which at that time, corresponded to about September 29 on the modern Julian Calendar. Saturnalia - the original Christmas The early church, in an attempt to convert the heathen and pagans Christianized the Roman pagan holiday of Saturnalia by celebrating Christs birth on that date. This festival on December 25th was in existence long centuries before Jesus was born. It was a pagan festival, to which a Christian terminology has been applied and most of our Christmas customs (nice though some of them have become) are of pagan origin. It was the old Babylonian Feast of Bacchus, the drunken Festival. In Rome, December 25th was the Feast of Saturn, and like the Babylonian feast from which it derived, was also a feast of unrestricted drunkenness. What is perhaps our commonest Christmas custom, the Christmas Tree, was just as common in pagan Egypt and Rome, but in Egypt it was a palm tree while in Rome it was a fir tree.1 Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival held in December that contained many of the elements of pre-Christian paganism that later influenced modern Witchcraft/Wicca. The character known as the Lord of Misrule is one example. This particular mythos was to have more influence upon later European customs than perhaps any other. In the pre-Republican calendar the festival started on December 17 and usually ran for several days, ending on the Winter Solstice. Bonfires blazed during this time, and the celebration was marked by orgies, carnivals, transvestism, and gift giving. Masters and slaves changed places and the world was turned upside down for a short period. All of this was overseen by the Lord of Misrule...The person chosen to play the Lord of Misrule had to be a young attractive man, strong and virile. For thirty days prior to the festival he was allowed to indulge himself in any and all pleasures as he pleased. He was dressed in royal robes and treated like a king. The young man represented the god Saturn in whose honor the festival was originated...At the end of the festival he was slain upon the altar of Saturn by having his throat cut.2 The Christmas Tree The Winter Solstice marks the shortest day of the year. In most Wiccan/Witchcraft traditions the theme of the Winter Solstice is linked to the rebirth/renewal of the sun. This is often personified as the Child of Promise. In the ancient mythos, the sun god is born at the Winter Solstice and dies at the time of the harvest season. In many traditions of northern Europe this day is associated with the myth of the Holly King, who is slain by his brother the Oak King. From this point on the days become longer as the Wheel of the Year turns toward summer. In the traditional Wiccan mythos, the new sun god is born at the Winter Solstice. The period of the Winter Solstice is also known as Yule. Its symbols include the holly and the pine, the latter representing the evergreen that itself symbolizes the undying light of the sun. It has long been the custom to decorate a sacred tree at this time, an ancient custom recalling a time when Divinity was believed to dwell in trees.3 Many Christians today have adopted the pagan practice of tree-worship while acknowledging the birth of Christ. That pagan practice, among others, was adopted by the early church in an effort to bring the heathen in and convert them. The heathen, however, have converted the Christians. The Bible warns; "Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.4
Notes 1. Pyramidology Book II, 1970 Adam Rutherford, p. 341 2. Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft,Raven Grimassi, 2000 Llewellyn Publications, pp 312-313 3. ibid, p. 401. 4. Jeremiah 10:1-4

Part 2: Birth Year; 2 B.C.

By: David Deschesne, Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal, December 5, 2007, p. 9

It has been presumed by many that Anno Domini (A.D.) represents the year in which our Lord was born. However, there is no year 0 A.D., unlike our numerical system which goes: -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The years in the B.C./A.D. system go like this: 2 B.C. 1 B.C. 1 A.D. 2 A.D. The Anno Domini (A.D.) dating system dates back to around 525 A.D. where it was devised by a Roman monk named Dionysius Exiguus. It arose from his efforts to calculate the date of Easter. It was not adopted until the eighth century where Western Europe began operating under that system. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, even popes continued to date documents according to regnal years and AD only gradually became more common in Europe from the 11th to 14th centuries.1 In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to adopt the Anno Domini system. As for the actual birth year of Christ, several prominent secular and church historians place it at 2 B.C. on our current Gregorian calendar. Researcher, Adam Rutherford cites works done by Tertullian, one of the earliest Christian Fathers as stating the Roman emperor Augustus began his rule 41 years before Christs birth and died 15 years after Christs birth. Irenus, who was born about a century after Christs crucifixion also confirms Tertullians account, according to Rutherford, as do works by Clement and Eusbius.2 Since all historical accounts indicate the reign of Augustus as starting in 43 B.C. (by our calendar), it follows that Christ was born in 2 B.C., which is 41 years afterward. As a means of interlocking the dates, Tertullian also states Christ was born 28 years after the death of Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, who died in 30 B.C. Historians wrongly attribute an eclipse in 4 B.C., noted by Josephus, as the date of King Herods death. But, if Herod died in 4 B.C., how could he have ordered the Martyr of the Innocents as described in Matthew, chapter 2? Rutherford explains that Josephus was a historian, not an astronomer and did not normally log incidents of eclipses. However, a very significant eclipse did occur on the evening of December 29, 1 B.C. that does fit better with Josephus account of Herods death. Also, an account by Josephus of Herods near-death illness escalating at the time of the December eclipse shows Herod would have died shortly thereafter, around mid-January, 1 A.D.3 which does allow for him to have been alive at the time of Christs birth.
Notes: 1. www.newadventorg/cathen/03738a.htm 2. Pyramidology Book II, 1970 Adam Rutherford, pp. 309-311. 3. op cit. pp. 312-327.

Part 3: Elizabeth & Mary

By: David Deschesne, Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal, December 5, 2007, p. 9 December 19, 2007, p. 9

In the story leading up to Christs inception, His mother-to-be, Mary, came to visit Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. It is through this account, found in Luke, chapter 1, that we are able to more closely fix the date of the birth of Christ. St. Luke indicates that Elizabeths husband was Zacharis and a priest of the course of Abia. 1 While on duty, as a priest, he was visited by an angel and informed his wife was to have a son named John.2 After his obligations to the ministry ended, he departed to his house and he and Elizabeth conceived a child. During Elizabeths sixth month of pregnancy, the angel Gabriele visited Mary, the virgin, and informed her she was going to give birth to Iesous3, which is the name of our Lord in Greek.4 During Elizabeths sixth month of pregnancy, Mary comes to her house to visit and stay with her, where she stayed for about three months.5 The story then goes on that Elizabeth gave birth to John and ultimately Mary gave birth, as well. In order to fix the time of conception, one must look to the time of Zacharias ministry. At that time, the priests were divided into 24 classes 6 and it is known that each class officiated at the Temple in turn for a week.7 If it is known at which time any one of the classes or courses officiated it is a simple matter to trace the times of the succession of courses backward or forward. Researcher, Adam Rutherford has done the research on Zacharias; The first day of the week of course began at the end of the Sabbath at sundown. From the Talmudic statements and Josephus we learn that the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus on 5th August, A.D. 70 and that the 1st course of priests (that of Jehoiarib) had just taken office. The previous evening was the end of the Sabbath: so the datum line for our calculations is Saturday (Sabbath) 4th August, A.D. 70. The period of the course of Jehoiarib, the 1st course of priests, was from the evening of the 4th of August, A.D. 70 to the evening of the following Sabbath on 11th August. As we have seen, Jesus was born in the fall of 2 B.C. From St. Lukes Gospel quoted above we note that John the Baptist was only five months older than Jesus, so he also was born in 2 B.C., but earlier in the year, in the Spring, hence the conception nine months before would take place in the summer of the previous year, 3 B.C. Now this conception just followed the end of Zacharias week of service in the Temple, i.e., with the end of the turn of duty of the course of Abia (Abijah), which was the 8th course. Reckoning from the above datum line, 4th August, A.D. 70 for the beginning of the week of duty of the 1st course, we find that the 8th course ended its turn and came off duty on 13th July, 3 B.C. Thus Zacharias returned home from the Temple at the end of the 2nd week of July, 3 B.C. and Elizabeths conception therefore would be in that weekend (13th-14th July) and the birth of John the Baptist would take place about 40

week of July, 3 B.C. and Elizabeths conception therefore would be in that weekend (13th-14th July) and the birth of John the Baptist would take place about 40 weeks later, in the weekend of 19th-20th April, 2 B.C., precisely at the Passover of that year.8 The beginning of Elizabeths sixth month of pregnancy began in the fourth week of December, when Mary came to visit and conceived our Lord. The 40 weeks required from Marys conception in the beginning of the 4th week of December, 3 B.C., till the birth of Jesus would thus bring us to the beginning of the fifth week of September, 2 B.C., as the due date for Jesus birth; and the Monday of that week was September 29th in the evening of which the Hebrew New Year (1st Tisheri) and Feast of Trumpets began.9 Using Zacharias ministry, Elizabeths pregnancy term and Marys visit at the start of her sixth month, this shows the conception of Christ in the first part of the last week of December and His birth occurring on or around September 29, 2.B.C. - which was also known as Rosh Hashanah - the 1st day of the Hebrew civil New Year - not December 25 as is commonly celebrated today.
Notes: 1. Luke 1:5; I Chronicles 24:10 2. Luke 1:11-13 3. Luke 1:26-31 4. Iesous - 30F@H, Strongs #2424 5. Luke 1:36-56 6. I Chronicles 24:7-19 7. Pyramidology, Book II, 1970 Adam Rutherford, p. 335 8. op cit. 9. op cit., p. 336

Part 4: The Magi and the Shepherds

By: David Deschesne Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal, January 2, 2008, p. 9

When the wise men from Matthew and the Shepherds from Luke show up on stage at the Christmas pageant every year, few stop to think that they come from different Gospels and different times. The Shepherds show up at the manger on the night of the birth, but the wise men show up at a house much later. The term wise men is derived from the Greek :(@l magos, meaning a magician, oriental scientist, sorcerer.1 The traditional account of the Magi, culled largely from Herodotus, is that they were a Median race who acted as priests of the Persians, but whose persistence as a race is frequently attested and occasionally causes violent conflicts. They were priests of Zoroaster, giving their time largely to astrology, the interpretation of dreams, natural science and medicine.2 The Shepherds of Luke 2 visited the newborn Christ while he was still lying in a manger.3 The word babe in that verse is translated from the Greek $Dn@l brephos, meaning infant or newborn babe4 while the wise men in Matthew came to their house, not a manger, and described the baby as a B"*\@< paidion, meaning a little child or young child5 The house (not the manger) in which the Magi found the infant Jesus points to the fact that this visit followed Jesus birth by a considerable interval, perhaps of months6 King Herod gave the order to slay all male children two years of age and under shortly after the visit of the wise men, in order to kill Christ because he considered him a competing king. Seeing that the age limit for the slaughter was fixed in accordance with Jesus age, had he been under one year old at the time, the order would have been one year and under, but the fact that the order was to slay all of two years and under shows that Jesus was more than one year old, but under two years, when Herod gave the order soon after the visit of the Wise Men.7 Herod was normally cruel, but not crazy or psychotic. That order could have only come from a crazy man - or one who is mentally deranged. Adam Rutherford has reviewed Josephus records (Antiq., XVII, vi, 1) to show that near the end of Herods life, he was suffering from a debilitating illness that would have caused him to become mildly psychotic just before his death. Since Herod died shortly after the close of 1 B.C., and Christ would have been around two years old at the time, the account of the Wise Men forms a splendid interlocking chronological check, mutually confirming both the date of Jesus birth (in 2 B.C.) and that of the death of Herod the Great (nearly two years later).8 As for the Shepherds in the fields coming to see the baby Jesus, There is a saying of the Talmudists that the flocks were taken to the fields in March and brought back in November. This of course could only apply to the higher mountainous parts of Palestine. In many of the lower parts of the country the flocks were able to be in the fields all year round. The little town of Bethlehem itself is situated about 2,550 feet above sea level...One can realize therefore that the Bethlehem area was one of those districts where the sheep were brought in during the winter, and if this be correct, then according to the time of the movement of the sheep stated by the Talmudists, Jesus would not be born in the winter but sometime between March and November when the sheep were out in the fields at night. As Jesus was born in the fall of the year, we can eliminate the months from March to June and his birth therefore was between July and November.9 As was shown in Part 3, in last issue of the Fort Fairfield Journal, that date was on or around September 29, 2 B.C.
Notes

1. Strongs #3097 2. Peloubets Bible Dictionary, 1925 John C. Winston Co., p. 379 3. Luke 2:16 4. Strongs 1025 5. Strongs 3813 6. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 1962 Moody Press, p. 933 7. Adam Rutherford, Pryamidology, Book II, pp. 327-329 8. ibid 9. op cit, p. 333

Part 5: The Christ Angle

By: David Deschesne

The Great Pyramid in Egypt sits in the exact center of the entire earths geographical land mass. For example, the North-South meridian line is the longest land meridian, as is the East-West Latitude line from the Great Pyramid - dividing the earths terrain equally. The Great Pyramid appears to be mentioned in the Bible, in the Book of Isaiah, as a sort of monument (translated pillar from the Hebrew Matstsebah) with a message that would be revealed some time after Isaiahs time. In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them. - Isaiah 19:19-20 KJV (also confirmed in the Catholic Bible, Rev. John P. OConnell, Ed. 1950 Catholic Press, Inc.) The Great Pyramid does sit in the midst (middle) of the Land of Egypt, as well as on the border of Upper (desert) and Lower (lush greenery) Egypt. A further corroboration is found in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew alphabet also serves as the Hebrew number system. The alpha-numerical values of all the Hebrew letters that are found in Isaiah 19:19-20 added together come to 5,449. Using information found in the so-called Enoch Circle of the map room, a key which defines a Pyramid Inch is found. The Pyramid Inch is almost identical to the current British inch we use today.1 By measuring the height of the Great Pyramid from its base to its original summit platform (there was never a capstone placed on it), its height in Pyramid Inches also equals 5,449 - just as the Hebrew characters in the Isaiah verses total. Another intriguing feature of the Great Pyramid is, when using the Pyramid Inch as equal to one year, a chronological chart is formed using the ascending and descending passageways which indicate the date of its construction , the time of the Israelites Exodus from Egypt, Christs birth date (Sept. 29, 2 B.C.), Christs death and resurrection, the start and finish of Pauls ministry, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II and many other interesting dates (this is too complex a topic to go into detail in this short thesis, I recommend acquiring books on Pyramidology from Artisan Publishers, to those who are interested in further study). At the point in the Ascending Passageway where Christs birth and death dates are encoded, the floor of the Queens Chamber connects with the birth date; and the expansion into the Grand Gallery, His resurrection date. These points form an angle that is 26 18 9 also known as The Christ Angle. When placed on the North face of the Great Pyramid, this angle of slope, when taken as a rhumb line (not a great circle arc) bearing north of true east, describes a direct route that passes successively over the Israelites crossing of the Sea of Reeds (Red Sea); through Bethlehem, and over the point where the Israelites crossed the Jordan. The two crossings define the beginning and ending of the children of Israels wanderings, after coming out of Egypt2 and also strictly defines Bethlehem as a very significant point, considering it was the birth place of Christ. The Christ Angle serves to interlock Christs birth date and birth place, as well as the divine nature of the Great Pyramid, which was constructed over 2,000 years before Christ was born.
Notes 1.) Pyramid inch equals 1.001064 British inches, Pyramidology; Book I, 1972 Adam Rutherford, p. 69. 2.) The Great Pyramid Decoded, 2001 E. Raymond Capt, p. 81.

Part 6: Conclusion
By: David Deschesne

Yahoshua (Jesus) the Christ was not born on December 25, as we have been led by our traditions to believe. At the Council of Arles in 314, Constantine retained his own divine status by introducing the omnipotent God of the Christians as his personal sponsor. He then dealt with the anomalies of doctrine by replacing certain aspects of Christian ritual with the familiar pagan traditions of sun worship, together with other teachings of Syrian and Persian origin. In short, the new religion of the Roman church was constructed as a hybrid to appease all influential factions. By this means, Constantine looked towards a common and unified world religion - Catholic meaning universal - with himself at its head. [emphasis in original]1 It was the adoption of these pagan practices of tree worship, Sun worship with the observance of the Saturnalia festival on December 25, and other pagan rituals involving holly, Yule logs and mistletoe that coalesced over the centuries into the traditions most Christians associate with Christs birth today.

Thus it is clearly proved that our present Christmas Day is erroneous. This festival on December 25th was in existence long centuries before Jesus was born. It was a pagan festival, to which a Christian terminology has been applied and most of our Christian customs (nice though some of them have become) are of pagan origin. It was the old Babylonian Feast of Bacchus, the drunken festival. In Rome, December 25th was the Feast of Saturn, and like the Babylonian feast from which it was derived, was also a feast of unrestricted drunkenness. What is perhaps our commonest Christmas custom, the Christmas Tree, was just as common in pagan Egypt and Rome, but in Egypt it was a palm tree while in Rome it was a fir tree.2 The early Pilgrims and Puritans who settled in what is now the United States didnt celebrate Christmas traditions on December 25th because they understood the pagan origins. Instead, they treated it as just another work day. They also noted the fact that there was no Biblical authority for the date of Christs birth or for the celebration thereof.3 In all likelihood, Christ was born on September 29, 2 B.C., which was 1 Tisheri - the first day of the Hebrew civil year and also the Feast of Trumpets. Using Zacharias ministry, his wife, Elizabeths conception of John, the timing of Marys visit with Elizabeth, and the season in which the Shepherds who visited the young Child would have been in the fields to begin with, we find more evidence to support a late fall birth than a mid-winter one. The most intriguing piece of evidence is that a chronology appears in the Great Pyramid of Egypt, which is mentioned in Isaiah 19, that seems to indicate a birth date for Christ at September 29, 2 B.C. - the 2 B.C. date is also corroborated by secular historians accounts of Christ in comparison to the reign of Augustus, Herod and Cleopatra. The Great Pyramid was constructed around 2,500 years before Christs birth and was sealed up until 820 A.D. when the Arab, Caliph Al Mamoun found the entrance. Since the Great Pyramid seems to accurately indicate the birth, death and resurrection of Christ within its chronologically laid-out passageways, it has been concluded by some researchers that its design is of Divine origin.
Notes: 1. Rule By Secrecy, 2000 Jim Marrs, p. 354, citing Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln. 2. Pyramidology, Book II, 1970 Adam Rutherford, p. 341. 3. The Congregational Way, 1966 Marion Starkey, pp. 34, 271

Contact Us Help

About Us

Afrik aans

Deutsch

Espaol

Franais

Nederlands

MENU
HOME NEWS & UPDA TES INSIDE THE CHURCH A Look Inside the Church W ho Is David C. Pack ? W ho Was Herbert Arm strong? 2011 Feast of Tabernacles Am bassador Center Am bassador Youth Cam p DONA TION INFORMA TION THE A POSTA SY & SPLINTERS THE REA L TRUTH MA GA ZINE THE WORLD TO COME PROGRA M BIBLE STUDY TOPICS Prophecy Gods Prom ised Protection Marriage and the Fam ily O ne World Governm ent World Econom ic Collapse The Sabbath LITERA TURE Book s & Book lets Articles Q uestions & Answers Bible Introduction Course Trends & Conditions Reports Am bassador Youth Magazine Childrens Bible Lessons The Pillar Magazine LITERA TURE BY SUBJECT MEMBER SERVICES Holy Day Calendar Behind the Work Film PRESS RESOURCES Print this Page Display Adobe PDF Docum ent Find a Congregation

Search

Christs Resurrection Was Not on Sunday

BY DAVID C. PACK

Did Jesus rise from the grave on Sunday morning? Had He been there for three days and three nights? He said this was the only sign (Matt. 12:40) that He was the Messiah! Doescanthis sign coincide with the tradition of a Good Friday crucifixion near sunset and a sunrise resurrection on Easter Sunday?

W hat proof did Christ offer that He w as the Messiah? The Pharisees challenged Him on this very point and He gave them an answ erHis sign that He was true: An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas w as three days and three nights in the w hales belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:39-40). How , then, does the Good Friday-Easter Sunday tradition fit? Can 72 hours (three days and three nights) be made to fit into a period betw een late day Friday and early Sunday morning? W hy do so few even seem to question this only sign that Christ said He would give that He was the Messiah? Could He have been w rong on this single great proof of w ho He w as and still have been the Messiah? Since no one directly w itnessed His Resurrection, w e must examine the only available authority on this great eventyour Bible! The apostle Paul said to Prove all things; hold fast that w hich is good (I Thes. 5:21). The Bible is the revealed Word of God. It is His w ritten revelation to mankind. Prepare to be shocked at w hat the Bible does and does not say on this vital point! W hile professing Christians w illingly accept the common traditions of men, true disciples (learners, students) of Christ w ant to know w hat HE says. Christ w arned, In vain do they w orship Me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men (Mark 7:7-8). W hat standard w ill you use? W ill you accept the recorded facts of history found in Gods Wordor continue w ith the familiar, comfortable traditions of men? The Tremendous Importance of His Sign Is it any surprise that Satan the devil w ould w ant to deny that Christ w as the Messiah? Is it any surprise that he w ould seek to relegate the story of Jonah and the w hale to folklore, myth, symbolism and superstition? If this miracle never occurred, then Christs sign, based entirely upon it, is nothing more than hollow and pointless allegory. Consider w hat is at stake in Jesus statement in Matthew 12:39-40. Jesus placed His ENTIRE

IDENTITY on the line w ith His sign. If He failed His only sign, then He is not our Savior and

nothing He said can be trusted. In effect, if His prophecy of this sign failed, then He must be considered a false prophet. He w ould be a fraud and should not be follow edand MA NKIND HA S NO SA V IO R! Do not confuse the fact of the resurrections occurrence as being the sign, w ith the question of how longthe precise length of timeHe w ould be in the grave before His resurrection took place. This w as the test of His sign. Be under no illusion about the position of Bible criticssometimes know n as higher critics. W hile it is embarrassing to w atch them try to explain aw ay Christs only sign, they really have no choice. If Christs sign remains intact, the Good FridayEaster Sunday tradition w ould be exposed as groundlessfalseand collapse in a heap! Some Bible commentaries nearly leave one breathless in astonishment w hen they assert that three days and three nights, in the Greek language, can actually mean three periods of timeeither day or night. Friday night, Saturday daylight and Saturday night are portrayed as these three periods of time. At least some are honest enough to acknow ledge that the Friday-Sunday tradition is, in fact, only about half the length of time that Christ said He w ould be in the grave. What Are Days and Nights? Can w e know for certain or must w e speculate on the meaningthe definitionof a day or the meaning of a night? Does the Bible leave this definition open to opinionw ith one mans opinion as good as another? Jonah 1:17 plainly says, And Jonah w as in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. The Old Testament w as w ritten in Hebrew . Here, scholars face a dilemma w hen they explore the phrase three days and three nights. Some of these same scholarsw ho are actually criticsacknow ledge that the Hebrew language must mean a 72-hour period of time. There is no room for any periods of time theories in the Hebrew . Here is the problem! Christ said His time in the grave w ould be as Jonah w as three days and three nights in the great fishs belly The w ord as sets the standard of comparison. It leaves no room to negotiate the meaning of the Greek. The margin of Jonah 2:2 even compares Jonahs time in the great fish to the grave. In this verse, the Hebrew w ord translated hell is sheol. It literally means the grave. The comparison of Christ to Jonahin a gravebecomes complete. Did Christ understand the length of a day or the length of a night? He did! In John 11:9-10, He asked, Are there not TWELV E HO URS in a day?But if a man w alk in the night, he stumbles. The Bible mentions in several places that Christ rose the third day. How long w as this? The first half of the creation chapter, in Genesis 1:4-13, plainly says that God divided the light from darkness. And God called the light Day and the darkness He called Night. And the evening [darkness] and the morning [light] w ere the first dayAnd the evening [darkness] and the morning [light] w ere the second dayAnd the evening [now THREE periods of darkness called nightthree nights] and the morning [now THREE periods of light called daythree days] w ere the third day. This is the Bibles definition of the length of time accounted for w ithin the phrase the third day. It spanned three periods of darkness and three periods of light. We have proven that each of these periods is tw elve hours. Six times tw elve hours equals 72 hours! W hat could be more plain? The Source of the Problem We have now established the exact duration of Christs time in the tomb as a 72-hour period. He was there for three days and three nights as Jonah w as We w ill shortly examine four additional scriptures that prove the same thing. In Mark 7:13, Christ strongly w arns against making the w ord of God of none effect through your tradition. How is it that intelligent, w ell-educated Bible scholars seem to know that Jesus w as crucified on Friday and resurrected on Sunday? W hat is it about Christs clear, straightforw ard sign that they cannot accept? The answ er lies in the comfort of long-held but clearly FA LSE traditions! One of the most important rules of Bible study is to gather all of the scriptures on a subject to get the complete picture of that subject. There are other scriptures that prove the 72-hour duration of Christs time in the tomb. John 2:19-21 states, Jesus answ ered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I w ill raise it upBut He spoke of the temple of His body. Clearly, the use of the phrase in three days means that Christs time in the tomb could not exceed 72 hoursor it w ould not be within the three-day period.

Conversely, Matthew 27:63 establishes Jesus time in the tomb as not less than three days, or 72 hours, for it says, After three days I w ill rise again. Examining tw o additional verses in Marks gospel account prove the same parameters of John 2 and Matthew 27. Notice Mark 8:31: And He began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. A late Friday afternoon entombment means a late Monday afternoon resurrection. It is as simple as counting one, tw o, three! Finally, in reference to this verse, if it stood alone w ithout other scriptures to qualify itit must be plainly admitted that Christs use of the w ord after does not, by itself, limit His time in the tomb to 72 hours. He could still be there longer. He just could not be there one bit less than 72 hours. This much should now be clear. We are now ready for Mark 9:31: They shall kill Him; and after that He is killed, He shall rise the third day. This verse presents another limitation on Christs time in the tomb. Consider! This verse, if taken by itself, places His time in the grave betw een 48 and 72 hours. The phrase the third day caps the duration at 72 hoursbut it also creates a minimum of 48 hoursor the period w ould be somew here in the second day! Again, if this verse is to be taken alone, a Friday afternoon crucifixion requires a resurrection sometime after late Sunday afternoon and no later than late Monday afternoon. Establishing the Tim e of the Resurrection The follow ing fact should be clear. The exact moment and time of day w hen Christ w as placed in the tomb had to coincide w ith the exact time of day of His Resurrection. We must establish precisely when Christ w as placed in the tomb. We w ill then know precisely w hen He left the tomb. Plainly, any time of day or nightmorning, noon, afternoon, evening, midnight, etc.that Christ w ould have entered the tomb w ould have to be the very same time He w ould depart it by His resurrection! W hile on the stake, after the ninth hour (three oclock in the afternoon), Jesus cried out (Matt. 27:46-50; Mark 15:34-37; Luke 23:44-46) and died. Luke 23:44 also makes a reference to the sixth hour, and there w as darkness in all the earth until the ninth hour. The sixth hour is six hours after sunriseor noon! This w ould make the ninth hour three oclock. These events occurred on the day before the Sabbaththe day called the preparation (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54). We should recognize that the Bible counts days as the period from evening to evening (Lev. 23:32) or sunset to sunset. Recall Genesis 1: the evening [night or darkness] and the morning [day or light] John 19:42 explains, There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jew s preparation day. Jew ish burial law (vs. 31) forbade the bodies of the dead remaining unburied at the outset of any Sabbath day or feast day. Remember, Luke 23:46 explained that Christ died at, or shortly after, three oclock in the afternoon. He w ould have been buried soon thereafterprior to sunset. We have not yet established the day of the w eek that the crucifixion occurred. How ever, our previous computation and comparison of related scriptures reveals that Christ must have risen sometime after three oclock in the afternoonon w hatever w ould have been the day that w as three days later. A brief summary is in order at this point. Again, Christs Messiahship is at stake. Based on w hen He w as buried (sometime betw een three and six oclock on the day of His crucifixion), His sign as our Messiah w as that He mustI repeat He mustrise at the same time 72 hours later. Otherw ise, He is an impostor and a fraud, and w e have no Savior. Unless w e w ish to make the w ord of God of none effect through [our] tradition, w e must now admit that a popular, great tradition has crashed in a heap of rubble. Some honest questions remain. The Crucifixion Preceded a SabbathBut Which Sabbath? We have now reached the important issue of w hen to start counting the 72-hour period of Christs sign. It involves the Sabbath. But which Sabbath? Could this question lie at the heart of w hy people assume a Friday crucifixion? We have already proven from all four Gospels that the day of Christs crucifixion w as called the preparation. John 19:14 explains it w as the preparation of the Passover. How ever, verse 31 goes further by stating, for that sabbath day w as an high day. W hat does this mean? W hat is a Sabbath that is a high day? Any Jew w ill tell you that a high day is a FEA ST DA Y or an A NNUA L HO LY DA Y ! Leviticus 23 describes seven of these days that the nation of ancient Israel w as commanded to keep year by year. A simple review of this chapter (verses 24, 26-32 and 39) reveals that God considered these days to be Sabbaths. Notice that Leviticus 23:2 refers to all of these Sabbaths as the feasts of the LO RD and even these are my feasts. This same verse also calls them holy convocationsmeaning commanded assemblies. These days do not fall on the same day, year after year, any more than do the common pagan holidays that most people observe today. Matthew 26:2 states, You know that after tw o days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified. (Leviticus 23 show s that the Passover w as the one feast that w as not also a Sabbath, w herein w ork w as prohibited.) There is no doubt that Christ w as crucified on the Passover. (Read our free booklet How Often Should the Lords Supper Be Taken?)

The original Passover is described in Exodus 12. A lamb w as slain and the blood of this lamb w as struck over the doorposts of all the Israelite houses. It w as this blood that caused the death angel to pass over any particular house, thus saving the firstborn of that house from death! Hence, the term passover. The Old Testament Passover alw ays preceded the annual Sabbath called the first Day of Unleavened Bread. This day w as a high day or a feast day to be celebrated each year, again, on the day immediately follow ing the Passover. Notice Numbers 28:16-17: And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LO RD . And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast. This feast w as the first Day of Unleavened Bread. Jesus Christ w as slain by crucifixion on the exact same day that the Passover lamb had been slain every year. W hile the above referenced booklet w ill take the reader into greater detail on this point, suffice to say that I Corinthians 5:7 plainly states, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. John the Baptist called Christ the Lamb of God, w hich takes aw ay the sin of the w orld (John 1:29). Christ w as crucified on the Passover and this day then w ould automatically be a preparation day for the feast day, or annual high day Sabbathw hich w as to begin almost immediately after His burial. As mentioned, annual Sabbaths could occur on any day of the w eek. Tuesday and Thursday are more common than any other day for the first Day of Unleavened Bread, follow ing the Passover. Thursday is probably the most common of all. For instance, in the thirty-six years (counting inclusively) betw een 1998 and 2033, the first Day of Unleavened Bread occurs on a Thursday 12 times, and on a Tuesday 10 times. All other days are less often during this period. In the year of Christs crucifixion, according to the Hebrew calendar, the Passover occurred on a Wednesday! This means that the annual Sabbath had to be one day lateror Thursday! It was, in fact, THIS SABBATH that was approaching, thus requiring the swift burial of Jesus body prior to its arrival. The w eekly Sabbath, or Saturday, w as to occur tw o days after that. Which Was the Day of the Resurrection? If Christs Resurrection w as not on Sunday, then w hen w as it? The w orld commonly believes that it w as Sunday morning. Does the Bible say this, or have millions made an assumption? John 20:1 says, The first day of the w eek comes Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and sees the stone taken aw ay from the sepulchre. Compare this verse w ith Mark 16:2 and Luke 24:1. It is now very early Sunday morning (it is still dark) and the tomb is open. Do these verses supply the supposed proof for the Sunday resurrection tradition? Do they support Easter sunrise services? A problem already presents itself. Christ is gone from the tomb before sunrise! Now notice Luke 24:6. Mary Magdalene, and the others w ith her, are described as finding tw o angels standing before them. These angels stated plainly to these w omen, He is not here, but is risen. Also see Mark 16:6 and Matthew 28:5-6. Christ w as GONEHe w as already risen! Notice the past tense of the tw o angels statement. We can now establish the day of Christs resurrection. We have already established the time of day of His death and the burial soon thereafter and, therefore, also the time of His resurrection. It w as late afternoon, betw een 3 and 6 p.m. Obviously, Christ w as already risen, by this time, in the darkness of Sunday morningbecause He had been gone from the grave since late afternoon on SATURDAY! Let us state this plainly. Christ died on the late afternoon of a Wednesday Passover and w as resurrected three days later on the late afternoon of the very next Saturday. Thus, the resurrection did not even occur on Sundayperiod! Christs Sign Fulfilled W ho w ill you believe? W ill it be theologians, scholars, higher critics and other traditionalists, w ho love to profess Jesus, but reject the sign that He gave? Or w ill you believe the w ords of your Biblethat Jesus Christ rose from the dead exactly as He said He w ould? It is now time to read a different Gospel account of the tw o angels statement to the w omen at the tomb. This time notice Matthew 28:6. It states, He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. This w ould be impossible if Christ had been in the grave one second more or one second less than 72 hours. The One w ho said, Are there not tw elve hours in a day? w as w ell aw are of exactly how long His sign required that He remain in the belly of the earththe grave. Not only did Christ state that He w ould fulfill His sign but it w as also established by the mouth of tw o w itnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), w ho happened to be mighty angels of God. Paul adds a final, great, corroborating proof that Christ did spend three entire days and three entire nightsfrom late Wednesday afternoon until late Saturday afternoonin the tomb. In I Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul validates the w ords of Christ and the tw o angels w ho w itnessed His fulfillment. Notice: For I delivered unto you first of all that w hich I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He w as buried, and that He rose again THE THIRD DA Y according to the scriptures. Further, the prophet Daniel gave a prophecy he described as seventy w eeks (Dan. 9:24-27). In this prophecy, the Messiah w as foretold to be cut off in the midst of the w eek. Wednesday

In this prophecy, the Messiah w as foretold to be cut off in the midst of the w eek. Wednesday is literally the fourth, or middle day, of a seven-day w eek. So then, it was in the midst of the w eek that Christ w as cut off. (It should be noted that this prophecy in Daniel w as a foretelling of Christ also being cut off in the midst of His ministryafter 3 1/2 years [Fall A.D. 27 to Spring A.D. 31]if the biblical application of a day for a year is properly applied to the seventieth w eek of that prophecy.) Are There Other Questions for Examination? Some w ill say, But w hat about this scripture or w hat about that scripture or this point or some other point? Are there other questions that should be examined? Some ask about Mark 16:9. Certain people suppose that this verse proves the Sunday resurrection theory. Does it? Simply reading the verse makes plain that it does not say Christ w as rising but rather He w as risen from the grave. Take time to read the verse. It uses past tense because, as w e have seen, Christ had been gone from the grave for about tw elve hours (since late Saturday afternoon) by this time on Sunday morning. But w hat about Luke 24:21? It states, and beside all this, today is the third day since these things w ere done. The phrase these things is a reference to all the events related to the crucifixion. Verses 18-20 describe the particulars of these things to be Christs delivery to Pilate, His trial, His crucifixion, His beating, His death, up to the setting of the seal and the w atch over His tomb, w hich occurred the follow ing dayThursday. This discussion occurred on Sunday, and Sunday was the third day since all of these things w ere completed (on Thursday) w ith the setting of the w atch on Christs tomb. Therefore, this is not a verse w hich can be used to set aside everything that all of the other scriptures on this subject have proven. A Final Proof Matthew 28:1 contains an important statement that bears examination before this subject can be laid to rest. Notice that this verse begins w ith the phrase In the end of the sabbath. Most versions render it this w ay, but some use the phrase After the Sabbath. The Ferrar Fenton translation correctly renders this phrase. Fenton translates this phrase w ith after the Sabbaths (plural). Fenton is possibly the only translator to note that the original Greek has the w ord SA BBATHS in the plural. This is important. We w ill see w hy. Notice Mark 16:1: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sw eet spices. Their purpose w as to anoint the body of Jesus. They w ere not able to buy their spices until after the Sabbath w as passed. Yet Luke 23:56 explains that they prepared these spices and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. W hile this may appear confusing, it need not be if these tw o passages are studied carefully. Only one possible explanation emerges. It is that these w omen bought and prepared their spices on Friday, after the Thursday annual high day Sabbathor the first feast day of Unleavened Breadand then rested on the w eekly Sabbath, w hich w as Saturday according to Gods plain command found in Exodus 20:8-11. Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56 must refer to two separate Sabbaths of that crucifixion w eekw ith a day in betw een, Friday. Any other explanation creates a contradiction of scripture and the Bible never contradicts itself. Sunday is Not The Lords Day There is another very important reason w hy theologians and many others must conclude that the resurrection was on Sunday! Sunday is commonly referred to as the Lords Day. W hile the true Lords Day of the Bible is actually the Day of the Lordthe DA Y O F HIS WRATH (Joel 2:1-11; Rev. 1:10; 15:1, 7)the term the Lords Day has come to be synonymous w ith Sunday. But w hy? The reason is simple. If Sunday can be established as the day that Christ w as resurrected, it can be a means of validating and authorizing the keeping of Sunday by the churches of the w orld, in place of Gods true Sabbath. You have already seen references to the Sabbath day in this booklet. Exodus 20:8-11 show s that the keeping of the Sabbath is the Fourth Commandment! It w as alw ays the seventh day of the w eek and God never authorized Sundayw hich w ould be keeping the first day instead. God hallow ed it at creationlong before there w ere any Jew s or Israelites to keep it (Gen. 2:1). The Sabbath w as to be kept forevercontinuallyand throughout the generations of Israel, Gods intended model nation (Ex. 31:12-17). Christ kept it (Luke 4:16) and said that He w as Lord of it and that it w as made for man (Mark 2:27-28). He did not say it w as made for the Jews only. Paul observed it (Acts 13:42, 44; 17:2; 18:4). The subject of keeping the Sabbath as Gods command for true Christians is a big subject requiring its ow n book to explain it. Therefore, more than the Good Friday-Easter Sunday tradition collapses if Christ w as in the grave for 72 hours instead of 36. The largest single reason for the unscriptural tradition (recall Mark 7:7) of Sunday-keeping collapses at the same time. God has alw ays said, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (Ex. 20:8). He has never said, Remember Sunday to keep it holyand just call it the Lords day! The reader is left to ponder this. (Request our free book Saturday or Sunday Which Is the Sabbath? for absolute proof of w hich day is the Christian Sabbath.) What is the Source of Y our Beliefs? Herbert W. Armstrong concluded his booklet THE RESURRECTION Was NOT on Sunday w ith:

Printable version - Cock-a-doodle-do...Twice?

Perhaps the most famous alleged Bible contradiction centers on Peters triple denial of Jesus and the crowing of a rooster. For years, skeptics have charged that Marks account of this event blatantly contradicts the other gospel accounts, thus supposedly proving the imperfection of the Scriptures. Even Bible believers have questioned the differences surrounding this event, yet relatively few have taken the time to understand them. Whenever people ask us about Peters denials and the differences within the gospel accounts, we often fail to give an adequate answer to their questions (see 1 Peter 3:15). This lack of understanding and poor defense of Gods Word has led skeptics to become more confident in their position (that the Bible is not Gods Word), and has caused some Bible believers to abandon their position on the infallibility of the Scriptures. The passages in question are found in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and John 13. Matthew, Luke, and John all quoted Jesus as saying that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed. Jesus said to him, Assuredly, I say to you that this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times (Matthew 26:34). Then He said, I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me (Luke 22:34). Jesus answered him Most assuredly, I say to you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me three times (John 13:38). After the third denial actually took place, these three writers recorded that Jesus prophecy was fulfilled exactly the way He said it would be. And immediately a rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times (Matthew 26:74b-75). Immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to him, Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times (Luke 22:60-61). Peter then denied again [for the third time ]; and immediately a rooster crowed (John 18:27). Matthew, Luke, and John all indicated that Peter denied Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. Mark however, says otherwise. He recorded Jesus prophecy as follows: Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times (Mark 14:30, emp. added). Following Peters first denial of Jesus, we learn that he went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed (Mark 14:68). After Peters third denial of Jesus, the rooster crowed a second time. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times (Mark 14:72). Mark differs from the other writers in that he specifies the rooster crowed once after Peters first denial and again after his third denial. But, do these differences represent a legitimate contradiction? Do they indicate, as some critics charge, that the Bible is not from God? Absolutely not! Consider the following illustration. A family of three went to a high school football game together for the first time. The father and son had been to several games prior to this one, but the mother never had been fortunate enough to attend a high school game until now. After entering the stadium, Ricky tells his 16-year-old son, Cary, that they will meet him right outside Gate 12 after the buzzer sounds. Having filed away the instructions, Cary races to the stands to ensure that he sees the opening kickoff. Rickys wife, Vickie, who did not hear the instructions he gave Cary, then asks him when they were going to see Cary again. He responds, We are going to meet him right outside the gate we just entered after the fourth buzzer. After the fourth buzzer? But he told Cary after the buzzer sounded they would meet him. Did Ricky contradict himself? No. At this particular stadium, the time keepers normally sound a buzzer after each quarter. But, when we say at the buzzer, or when we speak of a buzzer beater (such as in basketball), usually we are referring to the final buzzer. Cary was familiar with sports lingo, and thus Ricky told him they would see him after the buzzer sounds. Vickie, on the other hand, having never attended a football game in her life, was given different instructions. In a more precise way, Ricky instructed her that Cary would meet them, not after the first, second, or third buzzer, but after the fourth and final buzzer that marks the end of regulation play. Ricky knew that if he told Vickie, Cary will meet us after the buzzer sounds, she would have expected to meet him after the first buzzer sounded. Thus, Ricky simply informed Vickie in a more detailed manner. Surely, no one would claim that Ricky had contradicted himself. In a similar way, no one should assume that, because three of the gospel writers mentioned one crowing while Mark

mentioned two crowings, a contradiction therefore exists. Realistically, there were two rooster crowings. However, it was the second one (the only one Matthew, Luke, and John mentioned) that was the main crowing (like the fourth buzzer is the main buzzer at a football game). In the first century, roosters were accustomed to crowing at least twice during the night. The first crowing (which only Mark mentioned14:68) usually occurred between twelve and one oclock. Relatively few people ever heard or acknowledged this crowing (Faussets Bible Dictionary). Likely, Peter never heard it; else surely his slumbering conscience would have awakened. The second crowing took place not long before daybreaklikely around three oclock ( Nelsons Illustrated Bible Dictionary). [Please remember, biblical hours cannot be translated exactly into our modern clock-hours.] It was this latter crowing that commonly was called the cockcrowing. Why? Because it was at this time of night (just before daybreak) that roosters crowed the loudest, and their shrill clarion was useful in summoning laborers to work (McClintock and Strong, 1968, 2:398). This crowing of the roosters served as an alarm clock to the ancient world. Mark recorded earlier in his gospel account that Jesus spoke of this main crowing when He stated: Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is comingin the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning (Mark 13:35, emp. added). Interestingly, even when workers were called to work via artificial devices (e.g., bugles), this time of the night still was designated by the proverbial phrase, the cockcrowing (McClintock and Strong, 2:398). If you lived in the first century and your boss said to be ready to work when the rooster crows, you would know he meant that work begins just before daybreak. If he said work begins at the second crowing of the rooster, likewise, you would know he meant the same thingwork begins just before daylight. These are not contradictory statements, but rather two ways of saying the same thing. When Jesus said, Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times (Matthew 26:34), it seems obvious that He was using the rooster crows in the more conventional way. Mark, on the other hand, specifies that there were two crowings. In the same way that the husband gives his wife more detailed instructions concerning a football game, Mark used greater precision in recording this event. It may be that Mark quoted the exact words of Jesus, while the other writers (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) saw fit to employ the less definite style to indicate the same time of night (McGarvey, 1875, p. 355). Or, perhaps Jesus made both statements. After Peter declared that he never would deny the Lord, Jesus could have repeated His first statement and added another detail, saying: [E]ven this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times (Mark 14:30, emp. added). We cannot be sure why Marks account is worded differently than the other writers, but by understanding that the rooster crowing commonly was used to indicate a time just before daybreak, we can be assured that no contradiction exists among the gospel writers. REFERENCES Animals (1986), Nelsons Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft) Cock (1998), Faussets Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Cock-crowing, McClintock, John and James Strong (1968), Cyclopaedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Marks Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).

Copyright ?? 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map

Share

Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy: A detailed look at Daniel 9:24-27

Below is a detailed look at Daniel 9:24-27. Much of our commentary below is based on Josh McDowell's book, "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict", pages 197201:

Bible prophecies sorted by prophet

Abraham's prophecies Daniel's prophecies Ezekiel's prophecies Isaiah's prophecies Jeremiah's prophecies Jesus' prophecies Micah's prophecies Moses' prophecies Nahum's prophecies Zechariah's
prophecies

PART ONE:
A chronological summary of Daniel 9:24-26 1. There would be a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. 2. Jerusalem and the Temple would be rebuilt. 3. Then an anointed one (messiah) would be "cut off" (an idiom for "rejected" or "killed"). 4. Then Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed again. I came up with this summary after reading various renderings of this verse in various translations of the Christian Bible and of the Jewish Tanakh. (The Tanakh is the Jewish Bible; it contains the writings of what we Christians refer to as the Old Testament). I believe that this chronology fits most of the renderings that I have seen, whether they are translations by Christians or by Judaists. My summary is in no way original - many Christians, such as Josh McDowell, have come up with the same chronology long before I did.

Bible prophecies sorted by theme

Destruction of Israel Exile of Israel Dispersion of Israel Persecution of Israel Re-gathering of Israel Nationhood (Israel) Preservation of Israel Worldwide impact Messianic About other nations End Times

PART TWO:
A summary of how Daniel 9:24-26 was fulfilled All of these events later happened, in the same order in which they are described in Daniel 9:24-26: 1. After the Medo-Persians had conquered the Babylonian empire about 2540 years ago, they ruled a vast empire that included the land of Israel. About 2446 years ago (about 445 BC), Persian king Artaxerxes gave permission to the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem, which was still in ruins after having been destroyed earlier by the Babylonians. 2. The Jews rebuilt the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. 3. Then, in about 33 AD, Jesus entered Jerusalem as the Messiah who had been promised by Old Testament prophets. But, many people rejected Jesus as the Messiah and He was crucified by the Romans. 4. About 40 years after Jesus was crucified, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. (The Temple has not been rebuilt since then).

Glossaries of people, miracles, events, etc.

Miracles of Jesus People in the Bible Places in the Bible Bible glossary History of Israel

Life and teachings of Jesus Christ

Early life 1st year of ministry 2nd year of ministry 3rd year of ministry The final months Persecution of Jesus Resurrection of Jesus

PART THREE:
How Daniel 9:24-26 was "Fulfilled to the day" according to scholars such as Josh McDowell First, McDowell, and other scholars, separate the prophecy into three parts: 1. The "7 sevens" in Daniel 9:25. 2. The "62 sevens" in Daniel 9:25. 3. And the 70th "seven" in Daniel 9:27. Then, they combine the first two periods for a total of 69 "sevens." They combined the first two periods because it is at after the completion of those two periods that the anointed one appears, and that's what we are trying to calculate - when the anointed one was supposed to appear.

Articles, answers, explanations, links

Articles &
explanations What is Christianity? Learn about the Bible Answers to tough questions Links & Online Bibles Da Vinci Code hoax

Other items

Next, they interpret the "sevens" as "seven years" or periods of seven years, rather than a period of seven days or seven weeks or seven months. Part of the reason that this is interpreted as "years" is because of the reference to "years" in Daniel 9:2. (Daniel 9:2 refers to the "seventy years" prophecy that Jeremiah spoke of in Jeremiah 25).

Other items
About us E-mail us HOME

PART FOUR:
The mathematics of calculating Daniel 9:24-26 and the issue of the 360-day "prophetic" calendar At this point, we're adding the 7 "sevens" and the 62 "sevens" for a total of 69 "sevens". And we are interpreting the 69 "sevens" to mean 69 periods of seven years, for a total of 483 years. So, we are saying that there would be a period of 483 years from the time that a decree is given to rebuild Jerusalem to the time that a Messiah is to appear. Some Christian scholars say that the period of 483 years should not be thought of in terms of our modern solar calendar which is based on a 365.25 days to a year. Instead, we are to use a "prophetic" calendar which has 360 days to a year. Many ancient calendars, including the Jewish calendar, were based on a lunar year of 12 months, with each month lasting 30 days each. Many ancient peoples, including the ancient Jews, did realize that there actually were more than 360 days to a year and so they would tack on an extra five days at some point during the year. Another reason some scholars say that we should apply a 360-day calendar to Daniel's prophecy is because of various Bible references that allude to a fixed 30-day month view of time. For example, in Genesis 7:24, it says that the flood lasted 150 days. And, in Genesis 7:11, it says the flood began in the 17th day of the second month. And in Genesis 8:4, it says that the flood subsided on the 17th day of the seventh month, when the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. So, these passages present us a 5-month period of time that is described as being 150 days in length. And that of course is five 30-day months. There are other Bible passages that indicate that time is being measured in fixed 30day month periods. Revelation 12:6 mentions a 1,260 day period which, in my view, clearly relates to the three-and-a-half-year period mentioned in Revelation 12:13-14 and in Daniel 9:27. For three-and-a-half years to equal 1,260 days, one would have to measure years in 360-day increments. That of course doesn't mean that the earth's orbit of the sun is going to speed up or change, it just simply means that the prophetic year is a measure of time in which a "year" has 360 days, nothing more, nothing less. It's no different than weighing a bag of groceries using the metric system of kilograms and then using the old English system of pounds and ounces. It is not that one system causes the groceries to weigh more or less, but rather the two systems describe the weight in different units. So too does the prophetic year in comparison to our solar calendar - it uses a different system to measure time. So, we take the 483 years that we had calculated earlier and we multiply the 483 by 360. In other words, we are viewing the 483 year period described in Daniel 9:25 as "prophetic years" of 360 days each. And, 483 times 360 equals 173,880. And that gives us a total of 173,880 days. Now, we want to apply these 173,880 days to our calendar, which has 365.25 days to a year. Why? So that we can use our calendar in trying to figure out the year that this part of Daniel's prophecy was to begin its fulfillment and when this part of Daniel's prophecy was to be completed. So, we divide the 173,880 days into years of 365.25 days. And, that equals 476 (solar) years. Now, we need to figure out when this 476 year period was supposed to begin.

PART FIVE:
When was Daniel's "69 weeks of years" supposed to begin? At this point we are trying to figure out when the 476-year period begins. The prophecy in Daniel 9:24-26 begins with a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. Many people have proposed different years for different decrees. And I won't pretend to have the "only correct answer," because I don't know if I have that or not. In any event, here are four decrees that are often discussed in relation to Daniel 9:24-26: 1. The decree from Cyrus in 539 BC. (see Ezra 1:1-4) 2. The decree from Darius in 519 BC. (see Ezra 5:3-7) 3. The decree from Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 BC. (see Ezra 7:11-16) 4. The decree from Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444 BC. (see Nehemiah 2:1-8) As cited in McDowell's book, a Christian scholar named J.D. Wilson contends that only the decree from Artaxerxes to Nehemiah applies to this prophecy. As cited in

McDowell's book, Wilson explains: "The words of the decree are not given, but its subject matter can easily be determined. Nehemiah hears of the desolate condition of Jerusalem. He is deeply grieved. The King asks the reason. Nehemiah replies, 'the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire.' The King bids him make request. He does so promptly, asking for an order from the King that 'I be sent to the city that I may build it.' And, as we read, he was sent, and he rebuilt Jerusalem." And so, that is J.D. Wilson's reason for using the Artaxerxes to Nehemiah. The next issue is finding a date for that decree. McDowell, page 199 of his "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," reads: "The decree was given in 444 B.C., based on the following: 1. 'In the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes' (Nehemiah 2:1). 2. Artaxerxes' accession was in 465 B.C. 3. There is no day-of-month specified, so according to the Jewish custom the date is understood as the first day of the month, which would be Nisan 1, 444 BC. 4. March 5, 444 B.C. is our corresponding calendar date." Many scholars use the March 5 date, but not all use the 444 BC year. Some use 445 BC as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. I myself haven't done enough research to decide which year is most likely to be the correct year. Regardless of whether you accept the date as being March 5, 444 BC or March 5, 445 BC, we now have a starting point for Daniel's prophecy.

PART SIX:
When was Daniel's "69 weeks of years" supposed to end? We are now at the point where we can try to pinpoint when the Messiah was supposed to make his appearance. If we agree on the points that have been made earlier, then we simply calculate 476 years into the future, using 444 BC as the starting point. To do that, if I am not mistaken, we count 443 BC as the first of the 476 years. Why - because the first began in 444 BC and it ended in 443 BC. So we start counting from 443 BC. So, we have 443 years on the BC side of measuring time and that leaves us with 33 years on the AD side to account for the full 476 years. Using this formula, we arrive at 33 AD the year in time in which the Messiah was to appear. And that would correspond to the time that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. The reason the donkey is important is that in Zechariah 9:9, the prophet Zechariah speaks of a King riding a donkey and presenting himself as the King to Jerusalem. Alfred Edersheim, a Christian Jew who lived during the 1800s, studied ancient Rabbinical writings, and said that Zechariah 9:9 was often interpreted as being about a Messiah. In the book, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," Edersheim wrote: "The Messianic application of this verse in all its parts has already been repeatedly indicated. We may here add that there are many traditions about this donkey on which the Messiah is to ride; and so firm was the belief in it, that, according to the Talmud, `if anyone saw a donkey in his dreams, he will see salvation' (Ber 56 b)." So then, what better way for a Messiah to announce himself in Jerusalem than to enter the great city on the back of a humble donkey? There are theories that pinpoint the exact date of the exact year that Jesus rode into Jerusalem. The dates that I have seen in my review of other people's research is April 6, either April 6, 32 AD, or April 6, 33 AD. (And, again, the difference in the year depends on whether the 20th year of Artaxerxes was in 444 BC or 445 BC). And, some scholars have claimed that there are exactly 173,880 days from March 5, 444 BC to April 6, 33 AD (and, 173,880 days from March 5, 445 BC to April 6, 32 AD).

PART SEVEN:
What ancient Rabbis thought of Daniel 9:24-26 I found a Web site that pulls together various ancient writings from Rabbis, commenting on Daniel, chapter 9. That Web site's address is: http://www.inerrancy.org/dan.htm According to that Web site, at least a handful of ancient Rabbis agree that it is correct to view Daniel 9 as providing a timeline for the arrival of a Messiah. Below are a few examples that I copied verbatim from that Web site: "1a. Maimonides (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon): "Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise [rabbis] have

barred the calculation of the days of Messiahs coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah" (Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 p.24.)" "1b. Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi: "I have examined and searched all the Holy Scriptures and have not found the time for the coming of Messiah clearly fixed, except in the words of Gabriel to the prophet Daniel, which are written in the 9th chapter of the prophecy of Daniel (The Messiah of the Targums, Talmuds and Rabbinical Writers, 1971) p.141-142 (These two quotes were taken from The Creator Beyond Time and Space by Mark Eastman, M.D. and Chuck Missler (The Word for Today, 1996))." Assuming that these citations are accurate renderings of what the Rabbis had said, it seems clear that these Rabbis believed that Daniel 9:24-26 referred to a Messiah, a very important Messiah, and that the Bible passage provided the information needed to calculate the Messiah's arrival. As for the first example, Maimonides of course was a Judaist, not a Christian, and so from his point of view, the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled. And that would account for his comments about calculating the Messiah's arrival.

PART EIGHT:
My conclusions about Daniel's "69 weeks of years" Perhaps we can't all agree, at this time, on every specific detail involved in calculating a starting point for Daniel's prophecy about the 69 weeks of years. But, eventually, we might have additional information from archaeologists and historians to help pinpoint that starting point. But at this present time, it seems to me that there is widespread agreement among Christian scholars on the following issues: 1. That there is evidence in the Bible to support the concept of the "prophetic calendar" which measures time in terms of 360-day years. 2. That there is evidence in the Bible to support the view that the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah is, or at least could be, the starting point of Daniel's prophecy. 3. That there is strong evidence from historians and archaeologists to pinpoint "twentieth year of Artaxerxes" as being either 444 BC or 445 BC. 4. That the events described in Daniel's prophecy do line up as follows: That there would be a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem and the Temple would be rebuilt. Then an anointed one (messiah) would make his appearance and then be "cut off." Then Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed again.

See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.

Your email address (optional):

Submit

Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Copyright 2011, aboutbibleprophecy.com. All rights reserved. Our copyright policy.

Printable version - Dead, or Dying?

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/512 by Eric Lyons, M.Min. After healing the men who were possessed with demons on the east shore of the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 8:28-34), Jesus passed over to the other side and came into his own city (probably CapernaumMatthew 9:1). Soon thereafter, a man by the name of Jairus, one of the rulers of the synagogue, fell at Jesus feet and worshipped Him saying, My daughter has just died, but come and lay Your hand on her and she will live (Matthew 9:18). Normally, we would continue telling this wonderful story and rehearse how Jesus raised the twelve-year-old girl from the dead. However, the purpose of this article is to answer the skeptics who claim that a contradiction exists between Matthews account of this story and the accounts recorded by Mark and Luke. Whereas Matthew records Jairus telling Jesus, My daughter has just died (Matthew 9:18, emp. added), the other two accounts indicate that his daughter was at the point of death (Mark 5:23, emp. added) and that she was dying (Luke 8:42, emp. added). Critics of the Bibles inerrancy assert that the difference in these accounts represents a blatant contradiction. Various Greek scholars and commentators have stated that there is not as much difference between Matthews arti eteleutesn (has just died; cf. Hebrews 11:22) and eschates echer (is dying,
NIV)

in Mark 5:23 as some would have us to think. According to Craig Blomberg, arti (even now or just) has some connotations that suggest not always a present reality, but an inevitable reality (cf. Matthew 3:15; 23:39; 1 Corinthians 4:13). Therefore, Blomberg concluded that it is possible Matthew was relating the inevitability and certainty of Jairus daughter dying, rather than making a statement about her current condition (1992, p. 160). Adam Clarke mentioned in his commentary on Matthew that 9:18 could be translated, my daughter was just now dying (1996). Albert Barnes agreed, saying: The Greek word, rendered is even now dead, does not of necessity mean, as our translation would express, that she had actually expired, but only that she was dying or about to die. The passage [Matthew 9:18EL] may be expressed thus: My daughter was so sick that she must be dead by this time (1997). Therefore, the alleged contradiction may be a simple misunderstanding of what Matthew actually wrote about the dying child. A better explanation to this alleged discrepancy is that Jairus uttered both statements: Mark and Luke mention her severe sickness, while Matthew speaks of her death. As in so many other places, each writer reported only a part of what occurred and what was said. Does Matthews omission of the coming of the messengers who tell Jairus that his daughter has just died mean that his account contradicts the others (Mark 5:35; Luke 8:49)? Certainly not! Nor do his additional details. R.C. Trench, in his classic work on the miracles of Jesus, made the following observation concerning the differences in the gospel writers accounts of what was said when Jairus approached Jesus: When the father left the child, she was at her last gasp; and he knew not whether to regard her now as dead or alive; and, yet having not received certain knowledge of her death, he was perplexed whether to speak of her as departed or not, expressing himself one moment in one language, and at the next in another. Strange that a circumstance like this, so drawn from life, so testifying of the things recorded, should be urged by some as a contradiction (1949, pp. 107-108, emp. added). Strange indeed! Skeptics who attack Gods Word with unsupported allegations will continue to fail. The Bible is and always has been the inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). And based upon the evidence we have, it is reasonable to believe that Bible is inspired by God. There is no other book like it on the planet. Evidence to substantiate the Bibles claims of its own inspiration can be drawn from such external evidence as the historical documentation of biblical people, places, and events, or archaeological artifacts that corroborate biblical statements or circumstances. The internal evidence includes the Bibles unity, predictive prophecy, and scientific foreknowledge (to list just three examples). The Bible is unparalleled in human history and bears testimony to the fact that the very existence of it cannot be explained in any other way except to acknowledge that it is the result of an overriding, superintending, guiding Mind. REFERENCES

AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map

Share

Destruction of Tyre
A detailed look at Ezekiel 26:1-21 and some faulty objections that skeptics have
As for the prophecy found in Ezekiel 26, the difference between a believer and a skeptic can boil down to a single word - the word "they" in verse 12. The skeptics contend that the word "they" in verse 12 refers to Nebuchadnezzar's men in verses 7-11. And if that were true, then one could argue convincingly that the prophecy was not fulfilled. But, the believers, including myself, contend that the word "they" in verse 12 refers to the "many nations" in verse 3 and the "nations" in verse 5. And if this is true, then one could argue convincingly that the prophecy was fulfilled. With this rendering of the word "they", Tyre was supposed to be attacked by a succession of nations, like the sea casting up its waves, one at a time, over time. And Tyre was indeed attacked by a succession of nations over time. Since the days of Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre has been conquered or ruled over by the Greeks, the Persians, the Romans, the Crusaders and the Arabs, who destroyed the city, again, in 1291. Skeptics and believers can certainly agree that verses 7-11 are specifically about Nebuchadnezzar and his men. But, nowhere in those verses is the word "they" ever used. In fact, it almost seems that Ezekiel goes out of his way not to use the word "they." Take a look: ". . . I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon . . ." ". . . He will ravage your settlements on the mainland . . ." ". . . he will set up siege works against you . . ." ". . . He will direct the blows . . ." ". . . with his weapons . . ." ". . . His horses will be so many . . ." ". . . when he enters your gates . . ." ". . . The hoofs of his horses will trample . . ." ". . . he will kill your people . . ." Nebuchadnezzar is not the "many nations" referenced in verse 3. Instead, he is the first of the "many nations" referenced in verse 3. And the word "they" in verse 12 is not a continuation of the Nebuchadnezzar theme, but rather a continuation of the "many nations" theme of which Nebuchadnezzar is the starting point. Only in verses 7-11 is Nebuchadnezzar specifically and unquestionably referred to. And in these verses, only the mainland of Tyre is addressed - never the island. The destruction of the island and the looting of the island, then, is the job of the "many nations" of verse 3. And many nations did attack, conquer and rule over the island. As for the claim that Ezekiel 29:17 is an admission from Ezekiel that his prophecy about Tyre failed, because Nebuchadnezzar did not get any loot from Tyre, take a look again at verses 7-11. Those are indeed the only verses that specifically mention Nebuchadnezzar, and these verses do not refer to loot or plunder. Like the destruction of the island itself, the prophecy of plunder was to be carried out by the "many nations" of verse 3. In verses 19-21, Ezekiel said that there would come a time when the city is "desolate," "no longer inhabited," and submerged underwater. I believe that this was fulfilled completely by Alexander when he tossed the ruins of mainland Tyre into the sea to build the land bridge that helped him to conquer the island of Tyre. Alexander's conquest brought an end - a permanent end - to the Phoenician Empire. And from that point on, the Phoenician city of Tyre ceased to exist. A city cannot be more

Bible prophecies sorted by prophet

Abraham's prophecies Daniel's prophecies Ezekiel's prophecies Isaiah's prophecies Jeremiah's prophecies Jesus' prophecies Micah's prophecies Moses' prophecies Nahum's prophecies Zechariah's
prophecies

Bible prophecies sorted by theme

Destruction of Israel Exile of Israel Dispersion of Israel Persecution of Israel Re-gathering of Israel Nationhood (Israel) Preservation of Israel Worldwide impact Messianic About other nations End Times

Glossaries of people, miracles, events, etc.

Miracles of Jesus People in the Bible Places in the Bible Bible glossary History of Israel

Life and teachings of Jesus Christ

Early life 1st year of ministry 2nd year of ministry 3rd year of ministry The final months Persecution of Jesus Resurrection of Jesus

Articles, answers, explanations, links

Articles &
explanations What is Christianity? Learn about the Bible Answers to tough questions Links & Online Bibles Da Vinci Code hoax

Other items

desolate or more uninhabited than one that no longer exists. And yes, there is indeed a city called Tyre in modern-day Lebanon, and indeed it might be sitting on the exact same spot as the original Tyre. But this is Lebanon's Tyre - not the Phoenician Tyre that had taunted the Jews and had gloated over the destruction of the Holy City of Jerusalem. It was the Phoenician Tyre that Ezekiel was speaking of, and that city no longer exists: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town." - Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition.

Other items
About us E-mail us HOME

See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.

Your email address (optional):

Submit

Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Copyright 2011, aboutbibleprophecy.com. All rights reserved. Our copyright policy.

Did Behemoth Have a "Navel"? : ChristianCourier.com

http://w w w .christiancourier.com/articles/962-did-behemoth-have-a-navel June 8, 2011

By Wayne Jackson Some have suggested that behemoth, mentioned in Job 40:15ff, could have been some species of dinosaur. However, since verse 16 speaks of behemoths navel, would not this exclude dinosaurs since dinosaurs were egg-layers, and egg-layers have no navels? The rendition navel, as found in the King James Version of 1611, derives from the original Hebrew term, sharir. Scholars suggest that the term originally meant firm, hard, hence, denoted the firm parts of the belly (William Gesenius, Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979, p. 850). In Job 40:16 it simply signifies sinew, muscle (Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon, London: Oxford University Press, 1907, p. 1057; cf. R.L. Harris, Gleason Archer, Bruce Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Chicago: Moody, 1980, Vol. II, p. 957). Modern scholars contend that the term merely means the muscles of his belly (J.E. Hartley, The Book of Job, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988, p. 525). The King James Version thus reflects an erroneous rendition of the original term. Here is another important fact. In the Hebrew text sharir is plural. Would this suggest, as per the KJV, that behemoth had more than one navel? Such would be a unique feature indeed, indicating that behemoth was twice-born! Note the judicious comments of Albert Barnes: The word here rendered navel means properly firm, hard, tough, and in the plural form, which occurs here, means the firm, or tough parts of the belly. It is not used to denote the navel in any place in the Bible, and should not have been so rendered here (The Book of Job, London: Blackie & Son, n.d., Vol. II, p. 248). The navel quibble, which is alleged to negate any identification of Jobs behemoth with some dinosaur species in the ancient world, is void of merit.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/591

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Did Both Thieves Revile Christ? by Eric Lyons, M.Min. Very likely, the most well-known, nameless person in the Bible is the thief on the cross. The Lord demonstrated His mercy one last time before His crucifixion by pardoning the thief who begged Jesus, saying, Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom (Luke 23:42). Having the power on Earth to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6), and an overflowing amount of compassion, Jesus told him: Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise (Luke 23:43). After rehearsing the story of the thief on the cross countless times from Lukes gospel account (a story that, sadly, has been misused by many to justify that a person today can be saved without being baptized for the remission of sinsActs 2:38; cf. 22:16), some Bible students are puzzled when they eventually compare the beloved physicians account with what Matthew and Mark recorded. Whereas Luke wrote: Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us (23:39), Matthew and Mark stated the following: Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him (Matthew 27:44) Even those who were crucified with Him reviled Him (Mark 15:32) The obvious question is, why did Matthew and Mark indicate the thieves (plural) reviled Jesus, while Luke mentioned only one who insulted Him? First, it is quite possible that, initially, both thieves reviled Christ, but then one of them repented. After hearing Jesus words on the cross, and seeing His forgiving attitude, the one thief may have been driven to acknowledge that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. How many times have we made a statement about someone or something, but then retracted the statement only a short while later after receiving more information? A second possible explanation for the minor differences in gospel accounts regarding the two thieves who were crucified next to Jesus involves the understanding of a figure of speech known as synecdoche. Merriam-Webster defines this term as a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society)or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage) (italics. in orig.). Just as Bible writers frequently used figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, sarcasm, and metonymy, they also used synecdoche. As seen above (in the definition of synecdoche), this figure of speech can be used in a variety of ways (see also Dungan, 1888, pp. 300-309): A whole can put for the part. A part may be put for the whole. Time might be put for part of a time. The singular can be put for the plural. And the plural can be put for the singular. It is feasible that Matthew and Mark were using the plural in place of the singular in their accounts of the thieves reviling Christ on the cross. Lest you think that such might be an isolated case, notice two other places in Scripture where the same form of synecdoche is used. Genesis 8:4 indicates that Noahs ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. Question: Did the ark rest on one of the mountains of Ararat, or did it rest on all of them at the same time? Although the ark was a huge vessel, it obviously did not rest on the many mountains of Ararat; rather, it rested on one. In Genesis 21:7 Sarah asked, Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old age. Anyone who knows much about the Bible will remember that Sarah had but one child. In certain contexts, however, one might use a synecdoche and speak of one child (as did Sarah) by using the word children. We must keep in mind that the biblical apologist does not have to pin down the exact solution to an alleged contradiction; he need show only one or more possibilities of harmonization in order to negate the force of the charge that a Bible contradiction really exists. The skeptic cannot deny that both of the above options are plausible explanations to the question of why Matthew and Mark

wrote of thieves reviling Christ, instead of thief. REFERENCES Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light), reprint.

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

Printable version - Did God Create Animals or Man First?

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/513 by Eric Lyons, M.Min. After reading the first two chapters of the Bible, some skeptics, in an attempt to disprove the Bibles inerrancy, have accused the writer of Genesis of erring in regard to the record of events occurring on day six of creation. While Genesis 1:24-27 plainly indicates that man was created after the animals, critics claim that Genesis 2:18-19 teaches that man was created before animals. They strongly assert that such language by the author of Genesis proves that the Bible is not divinely inspired. Does Genesis two present a different creation order than Genesis one? Is there a reasonable explanation for the differences between the two chapters? Or is this to be recognized as a genuine contradiction? Some Bible students resolve this alleged contradiction simply by explaining that the Hebrew verb translated formed could easily have been translated had formed. In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated: Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had molded them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: He had molded. The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added). Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupolds assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that it is possible to translate formed as had formed (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicateEL] would be simply this: God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version ( NIV ) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply formed (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the
NIV ,

all believe that it could (or should) be rendered had formed. And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree. The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purposei.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complimentary nature of the subjectdistinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, p. 117). Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe summarized some of the differences in Genesis 1-2 in the following chart (1992, p. 35): Genesis 1 Genesis 2

Chronological Order Outline Creating Animals

Topical Order Details Naming Animals

The fact is, Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of Gods work of creation as set forth in chapter 1.... [C]hapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69). In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account of chapter one. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man. If one still rejects both the possibility of yatsar being translated had formed, and the explanation of the two chapters being worded differently because of the purposes they serve, a final response to the skeptics allegations is that the text never says that there were no animals created on the sixth day of creation after Adam. Although in my judgment it is very unlikely that God created a special group of animals to be named by Adam (after creating all others before the creation of manGenesis 1:20-27), some commentators hold this view. After his comments concerning the translation of yastsar, Victor Hamilton indicated that the creatures mentioned in 2:19 refer to the creation of a special group of animals brought before Adam for naming (p. 176, emp. added). Hamilton believes that most all the animals on the Earth were created before Adam; however, those mentioned in 2:19 were created on day six after Adam for the purpose of being named. In U. Cassutos comments on Genesis 2 regarding the time Adam named the animals, he stated: Of all the species of beasts and flying creatures that had been created and had spread over the face of the earth and the firmament of the heavens, the Lord God now formed particular specimens for the purpose of presenting them all before man in the midst of the Garden (1961, p. 129, emp. added). Both of these long-time Bible students recognize that the text never says there were no animals created after Adam, but that all animals were created either on days five and six (before and possibly even after Adam was created). However unorthodox (or unlikely) this position may be, it does serve as another reason why skeptics have no foundation upon which to stand when they assert that a contradiction exists between Genesis 1:24-27 and 2:19. REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Cassuto, U. (1961), A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes). Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books). Hamilton, Victor P. (1990), The Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition. Kitchen, Kenneth (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Inter-Varsity Press). Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Copyright ?? 2002 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Did Jeremiah Err Regarding Jeconiah? : ChristianCourier.com

http://w w w .christiancourier.com/articles/711-did-jeremiah-err-regarding-jeconiah June 8, 2011

By Wayne Jackson I have two questions based upon Jeremiah 22:30. First, this passage states that no one was to rule upon the throne of Judah after Coniah (Jeconiah). Yet Zedekiah followed Jeconiah upon the throne (2 Kgs. 24:18). Second, the passage says that Jeconiah was to be childless. But 1 Chronicles 3:17 indicates that he had several sons. Can you clear up this puzzle? Jeconiah is designated by three names in the Old Testament. He is called Jehoiachin (2 Kgs. 24:6; 2 Chron. 36:8), Jeconiah (1 Chron. 3:16-17; Jer. 24:1), and Coniah (Jer. 22:24,28; 37:1). In Matthews genealogy, the Greek form, Jechonias, is found (1:11-12). Jeconiah was the 19th king of the southern kingdom of Judah, and the next-to-last in that line. He reigned only a few days past three months (2 Kgs. 24:8). The prophecy uttered by Jeremiah (22:30) should be studied very carefully. When all of the facts are considered, it contains no mistake. Note the following. 1. The prophecy does not state that no king would follow Jeconiah. Here is the precise declaration.

Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah. The oracle simply says that no seed (descendant) of Jeconiah would enjoy a prosperous reign, ruling in Judah. The historical facts are these. None of Jeconiahs sons ever ascended to Judahs throne. Rather, he was replaced by Zedekiah, who was not his son, but his uncle (2 Kgs. 24:17). Zedekiahs 11-year reign was fraught with much turbulence. Ultimately, he was arrested by the Babylonians who killed his two sons, blinded him, and deported the ruler to Chaldea in fetters (2 Kg. 25:7). 2. The declaration that Jeconiah was to be childless must be viewed in the larger context of the biblical data regarding him. First of all, the immediate context reveals that the term childless is not to be pressed in a literal sense. Verse 28 specifically says that he and his seed were to be cast into the land which they know not, i.e., Babylon. Ultimately, he had seven sons (1 Chron. 3:17-18), and the eldest of these may have been born already (it is hardly likely that he had the full complement of seven when he was only eighteen years of age cf. 2 Kgs. 24:8). Second, the expression childless is employed in verse 30 in the sense of a royal offspring. He was childless in that he had no son who would inherit his throne and rule over Judah. This clearly is the meaning of the judgment pronounced. As Professor J.A. Thompson observed, Jeconiah did not prosper in his own lifetime, nor through his offspring (The Book of Jeremiah, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 485). It is interesting to note that a clay tablet, exhumed from the ruins of ancient Babylon, mentions Jeconiah and five of his sons, with the notation that rations were provided them to sustain their

livelihood in captivity (see James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, Princeton: NJ: Princeton University Press, 1958, Vol. I, p. 205). There is, therefore, no inaccuracy in Jeremiah 22:30. Wayne Jackson has written for and edited the Christian Courier since its inception in 1965. He has also written several books on a variety of biblical topics including The Bible and Science, Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth, The Bible on Trial, and a number of commentaries. He lives in Stockton, California with his dear wife and life-long partner, Betty.

Did Jesus condone stealing?

A Muslim wrote: Even in your bible Jesus (pbuh) shown as sinner (Matthew 12:1-3). What desciples did and Jesus(pbuh) allowed was stealing nothing else. By allowing this, Jesus (pbuh) would be as guilty as them. What does the text actually say?
Matthew 12: 1 2 3 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath." He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? ...

Obviously, "stealing" was not an issue here. Jesus' opponents did not accuse the disciples of stealing. Stealing is ALWAYS unlawful, not only on the Sabbath. Maybe you are projecting your own thoughts into something that was not considered stealing at this time and culture? In fact, the question is clearly answered in the Torah.
Deuteronomy 23: 24 25 If you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. If you enter your neighbor's grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain.

The disciples of Jesus and Jesus himself were fully in accordance with this law. The only disagreement between Jesus and the religious authorities was on the issue whether the plugging of grain due to hunger was to be considered work and forbidden to do on the Sabbath.

Printable version - Did Jesus Go to Gerasa or Gadara?

Matthew recorded that Jesus commanded demons to come out of two men (8:29). This account is recorded in all three of the synoptic gospel accounts, but with two different renderings of the name of the place where the miracles occurred. The Greek word commonly accepted in Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 as the basis for the name of the people who inhabited the place where Jesus and the disciples went is rendered Gerasenes in English (Metzger, 1975, pp. 84,145). The Greek word in Matthew 8:28, however, reveals that Jesus went to the country of the Gadarenes (p. 23). Were the writers of the synoptic gospel accounts confused about where Jesus was when He healed the men? Albert Barnes explained the difference between Gadara and Gerasa: Gadara was a city not far from the Lake Gennesareth, one of the ten cities that were called Decapolis. Gergesa [probably a variation of GerasaCC] was a city about 12 miles to the south-east of Gadara, and about 20 miles to the east of the Jordan. There is no contradiction, therefore, in the evangelists. He came into the region in which the two cities were situated, and one evangelist mentioned one, and the other another. It shows that the writers had not agreed to impose on the world; for if they had, they would have mentioned the same city; and it shows, also, they were familiar with the country. No men would have written in this manner but those who were acquainted with the facts (1949, p. 91). Matthew, Mark, and Luke were writing of the same general area. The Roman city Gerasa was a famous city that would have been familiar to a Gentile audience, but Gadara, as the capital city of the Roman province of Perea, was the chief of the ten cities in Decapolis (Lenski, 1946, p. 205; Coffman, 1975, p. 85; Youngblood, 1995, p. 468), so even those who lived in Gerasa could have been called Gadarenes. The stamp of a ship on Gadarene coins suggests that the region called Gadara probably extended to Galilee (McGarvey, n.d., p. 344; McClintock and Strong, 1969, 3: 706). The New Testament writers chose to refer to the area in different ways. It is also a possibility that in the handing down of New Testament manuscripts over many years, slightly different readings of the same word have developed. Some have suggested that the words Gergesenes and Gerasenes are not words referring to people from a city other than Gadara, but merely different variations of the word Gadarenes (Youngblood, p. 468; McGarvey, p. 344). It is clear that Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not contradict each otherin fact, they complemented each other. The writers were not confused about Palestinian geography. In this instance, each writer intended to draw attention to an area close to the Sea of Galilee. The precise place where the miracle occurred is not as essential to our understanding of the narrative as is the realization that Christ has control over the spiritual realm (Lenski, 1946, p. 205). REFERENCES Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Coffman, James Burton (1975), Commentary on Mark (Abilene, TX: ACU Press). Lenski, Robert C.H. (1946), The Interpretation of St. Marks Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). Metzger, Bruce M. (1975 corrected edition), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: United Bible Societies). McClintock, John and James Strong (1969 reprint), Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard). Youngblood, Ronald F., ed. (1995), New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Nelson).

Copyright ?? 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

(The above links are paid advertisments with no connection to LoveYourEnemies.org)

Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword?

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)
This is the one New Testament passage which may be taken to advocate the use of a sword (or any other weapon) in self-defence. But while Jesus does indeed tell us followers to buy a sword, several features must be noted: 1. While in general it is a good principle to look at a Bible passage on its own before comparing it to the rest of the Bible, in this case the narrative continues later that night: when on of the disciples used a sword, Jesus rebuked him for doing so. A rebuke is recorded in three of the four gospels: Matthew 26:52 ('"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'), Luke 22:51 ('But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.'), and John 18:11 ('Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"'). Mark does not record a rebuke, but does note that while one disciple used a sword, Jesus allowed himself to be arrested peacefully (implying that he disagreed with the use of force). Some commentators cite John 18:11 to suggest that Jesus was only opposed to the use of weapons on this particular occasion, because it was God's purpose for Jesus to be arrested. But the rebuke recorded in Matthew is far more wide-ranging ('for all who draw the sword will die by the sword'), and appears to condemn, or at least very strongly discourage, all use of weapons. 2. The group comprised Jesus and the eleven remaining apostles, and possibly some others. Two swords were not enough to defend such a group. Why then did Jesus say 'That is enough'? 3. Jesus ties the use of the sword to the Scripture being fulfilled ('And he was numbered with the transgressors'). So does the use of the sword only refer to this present occasion, when Jesus was to be arrested like a criminal (transgressor)? 4. On the other hand, there was not time for them to sell their cloak and buy a sword, suggesting Jesus was looking towards the future. 5. If Jesus was telling them to have a sword handy (for self-defense) as they went into the world preaching the gospel, why then do Acts and the epistles consistently show the disciples accepting persecution peacefully? (Darrel Bock's commentary gives the following examples: Acts 4:25-31, 8:1-3, 9:1-2, 12:1-5). Generally, commentators have taken one of two different approaches to this verse: 1. The first approach is to see Jesus' words as a symbolic or metaphorical. He was not really telling them to buy or use swords. He was simply using the metaphor of a sword to describe the current crisis. When the disciples took his words literally ('See, Lord, here are two swords'), Jesus simply drops the subject by saying 'That is enough'. This approach works well except for one thing: why did Jesus need to use such a metaphor at all, given the confusion that arose from it? (Beginning later that night with the disciples, but continuing to the present day!) 2. The second approach is to see it as a reverse of the rules for mission given in Matthew 10:5-14, Mark 6:7-13 and Luke 10:1-12. (And which Jesus refers back to in Luke 22:35, above). Under those instructions, the disciples went out on mission essentially with no provisions, and trusted God for all their needs. But Jesus is now reversing those rules: they are to provide for themselves, and that includes self-defence. The problem with this approach is its apparent contradiction with Jesus pacifist statements elsewhere, including Matthew 26:52 ('for all who draw the sword will die by the sword') later that night. Perhaps that latter statement can be taken to apply to that time only (so have a meaning like, 'if any of you disciples draw a sword, you will get yourself killed'). In any case, if this interpretation is favoured, Jesus' pacifist statements must also be taken into account, and so violent self-defense becomes appropriate only in the most desparate of situations. 3. Between these two extremes is the suggestion that swords were appropriate for this time only - that is, time of Jesus' arrest. While this has the positive that Jesus ties the crisis to prophecies concerning his arrest ('It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.'), there are still two problems. Why does he advocate swords at this time only, and then tell his disciples not to use them? And why does he tell his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword, when there is no time to do that? Therefore I would suggest that this solution does not work. 4. Finally, there is the suggestion that Luke 22:35-38 is a tradition in favour of self-defence, and is in direct contradiction to the passages which condemn the use of violence. I am sure many will be attracted to this view. I do not think it is necessary. The problem (in my mind) is not contradiction, but that we do

not have sufficient information to decide whether given passages are metaphorical or literal, timeless or specific. Christians who take this view still have the problem of deciding between the competing claims of Luke 22:35-38, and pacifist passages such as Matthew 26:52 and Matthew:38-48. I think we can definitely rule out option (3), and I see no benefit in option (4). That leaves options (1) (the sword is metaphorical) and (2) (selfdefence is OK). My personal opinion is that metaphorical interpretation is harder to justify and so this passage provides a limited justifcation for fighting in self-defense. If that is so, and God does allow the use of violence in self-defence, we must note the following caveats: 1. Violent self-defence (i.e. the use of weapons in self-defense) can only be used as a last resort. There is no record of Jesus or the apostles ever resorting to it, despite extreme persecution. 2. If we are fighting attackers off, we must still continue to love them. To me, that means taking all possible means to minimise harm to all parties - as if the attacker was a member of our own family. 3. Violence must never be against a ruling authority, however much we dislike or disagree with it, because in such a situation peaceful resistance is always possible. It can only be used in the chaos of a simple violent attack on ourselves. In light of Romans 13 (Click here for a fuller discussion of Romans 13), which says that all authorities (even the enemy) are ordained by God, we may add two further principles if we allow war in self defence: 4. If the defence is won, there is no justification for then proceeding to attack the other country, because their government was instituted by God also. 5. If the defence is lost, then the new government must be accepted. While it may be opposed peacefully, there is no justification for a continued guerilla war against it. This goes against both Romans 13 (the accepting of governing authorities) and the principle of loving our enemy. So yes, Luke 22:35-38 may provide some justification for fighting in self-defence. But, in light of other teaching of Jesus, it can only be used in strict self-defence, and must not be divorced from his command to love our enemies. Home Contact Us.

Printable version - Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers?

Scripture repeatedly testifies that Jesus never sinned. The prophet Isaiah, speaking as if Jesus had already lived and died, said that the Savior had done no violence, nor was any deceit in His mouth (53:9). The apostle Peter quoted from Isaiah in his first epistle (2:22), and added that Jesus was a lamb without blemish and without spot (1 Peter 1:19). Paul wrote to the Corinthians how Jesus knew no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). Whats more, according to Hebrews 4:15, Jesus was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). He was pure and righteous in the supreme sense (1 John 3:3; 2:1). Simply put, Jesus was perfect; He never transgressed Gods law. If Jesus never sinned, and specifically never lied, some wonder why Jesus told his brothers, I do not go up to this feast [the Feast of Tabernacles] (John 7:8, NASB), if later, when His brothers had gone...He Himself also went (7:10, NASB)? Some allege that, in this instance, Jesus broke his word and lied (McKinsey, 2000, p. 787), and thus was not the Son of God as He claimed. What is the truth of the matter? First of all, several early manuscripts of the gospel of John, including p66 and p75 (believed to be from as early as the late second and early third centuries), have Jesus saying, I am not yet [oupo] going up to this feast, rather than I do not [ouk] go up to this feast. Thus, it may be that the correct rendering is found in the KJV, NKJV, and NIV, rather than the ASV, NASB, and RSV. Second, even if Jesus did say at one point to His brothers, I do not go up to this feast, but later He went, that still does not mean that He lied. Suppose a co-worker saw me leaving the office at 2:00 p.m. and asked me, Are you going home? and I said, No, but later went home that day at 5:00 p.m. Have I lied? Not at all. When I left the office at 2:00 p.m., I went to run a quick errandI did not go home. When I departed the office at 5:00 p.m., however, I went home. No is often truthfully used in a time-sensitive manner. Simply because at 2:00 p.m. I said I was not going home, does not mean I could not go home at 5:00 p.m. My no meant Im not going home at the present. Similarly, if Jesus used the term not [ouk] rather than not yet [oupo], He could just as easily been implying the same thing: I am not going to the feast at the present. At the proper time, after Jesus remained in Galilee for a while (7:9), He did go to the feast. The proper time was not when his unbelieving brothers told Him to depart (John 7:5), but when the Son of God said it was timea God-appointed time. Furthermore, His attendance at the feast was not for the purpose that His brothers envisioned (to show Himself to the world7:3-4), rather Jesus went to the feast not openly, but as it were in secret (7:10, emp. added). Just as we often say, I am not going, but mean I am not going yet, Jesus had every right to use that same kind of language. Although Jesus embodied truth (John 14:6) and always told the truth (1 Peter 2:22), He still used figures of speech and language men commonly understoodsome even today. REFERENCE McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

Copyright ?? 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author??s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

Printable version - Did Jesus Say That?

Near the close of his words of exhortation to the Ephesus elders recorded by Luke in Acts 20, the apostle Paul reminded them of something Jesus once said: It is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35). The problem that many have with Pauls quotation of Jesus, however, is that it nowhere appears in the gospel accounts, or anywhere else in Scripture outside of Acts 20. According to one Bible critic, One of the great misquotes of Paul is found in Acts 20:35 where he says: ...ye ought to support the weak and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive. Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus make such a statement. Pauls oratory apparently got away from him (McKinsey, 1983, 8:4, emp. added). Did Paul really make a mistake? Did he misquote Jesus? What logical explanation can be given as to why these words are not recorded in the gospel accounts? First, there is no indication that the apostle Paul even possessed the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John during his ministry, nor did he need them in order to know what Jesus taught. In fact, they likely were written some years after Paul had already begun his missionary journeys, and probably after he reminded the Ephesus elders of Jesus statement about giving. The truth is, Paul did not rely upon the gospel accounts for his knowledge of Jesus. Rather, Paul received supernatural revelation directly from God. Jesus spoke directly to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9; 22:8), the Spirit of Jesus kept him from preaching in Bithynia (Acts 16:7, ASV), and the Lord spoke to Paul...by a vision in Corinth (Acts 18:9). Paul was an inspired apostle (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Peter 3:16). The message that he preached came directly from God. To the churches of Galatia, he wrote: But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ (1:11-12, emp. added). As important as the gospel accounts are to Christians in the twenty-first century, the apostle Paul did not need to consult them in order to know if Jesus ever taught, It is more blessed to give than to receive. Second, Bible students must recognize that not everything Jesus said or did was recorded by the gospel writers. In fact, near the end of Johns gospel account, he commented on this truth twice, saying, [T]ruly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.... [T]here are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written (John 20:30; 21:25). Whats more, none of the gospel accounts is exactly alike. What one writer recorded, another may have omitted. For instance, Luke noted that Jesus told the penitent thief on the cross, [T]oday you will be with Me in Paradise (23:43), yet Matthew, Mark, and John omitted this saying. Does this somehow discredit Lukes account? Not at all. The fact is, all four accounts are independent witnesses to the life of Christ, and some contain more (or less) information on a particular subject than the others. Is it possible for Paul to have cited a saying of Jesus (that may have even been fairly well known in the first century), but that was not recorded by the gospel writers? Certainly. Does this in any way discredit Him as an inspired writer or mean that he misquoted Jesus? Not at all. REFERENCES McKinsey, C. Dennis (1983), Paul, the Deceptive Disciple, Biblical Errancy, 8:4, August.

Copyright ?? 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2223

AP Content :: Scripturally Speaking

Did Jesus Sweat Blood? by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The observant viewer of Mel Gibsons movie, The Passion of the Christ, will note that in the garden scene, one manifestation of the

agony of Jesus was the tiny blotches of blood that surfaced on His facial skin. This feature of Christs suffering is alluded to by Luke the author of the New Testament books of Luke and Acts, who himself, by profession, was a physician. His writings manifest an intimate acquaintance with the technical language of the Greek medical schools of Asia Minor. Of the four gospel writers, only Dr. Luke referred to Jesus ordeal as agony (agonia). It is because of this agony over things to

come that we learn during His prayer his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground (Luke 22:44). Only Luke referred to Jesus sweat (idros)a much-used term in medical language. And only Luke referred to Jesus sweat as consisting

of great drops of blood (thromboi haimatos)a medical condition alluded to by both Aristotle and Theophrastus (Hobart, 1882, pp. 80-84). The Greek term thromboi (from which we get thrombus, thrombin, et al.) refers to clots of blood (Nicoll, n.d., 1:631;

Vincent, 1887, 1:425). Bible scholar Richard Lenski commented on the use of this term: As clots, thromboi, means that the bloo mingled with the sweat and thickened the globules so that they fell to the ground in little clots and did not merely stain the skin (1961, p. 1077). The Greek word hosei (as it were) refers to condition, not comparison, as Greek scholar Henry Alford observed: The intention of the Evangelist seems clearly to be, to convey the idea that the sweat was (not fell like, but was) like drops of blood;i.e., coloured with blood,for so I understand the hosei, as just distinguishing the drops highly coloured with blood, from pure blood. To suppose that it only fell like drops of blood (why not drops of any thing else? And drops of blood from what, and where?) is to nullify the force of the sentence, and make the insertion of haimatos not only superfluous but absurd (1874, 1:648, italics and parenthetical items in orig.; cf. Robertson, 1934, p. 1140).

We can conclude quite justifiably that the terminology used by the gospel writer to refer to the severe mental distress experienced by Jesus was intended to taken literallyi.e., that the sweat of Jesus became bloody (cf. Robertson, 1930, 2:272). A thorough search of the medical literature demonstrates that such a condition, while admittedly rare, does occur in humans.

Commonly referred to as hematidrosis or hemohidrosis (Allen, 1967, pp. 745-747), this condition results in the excretion of blood o blood pigment in the sweat. Under conditions of great emotional stress, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can rupture (Lumpkin,

1978), thus mixing blood with perspiration. This condition has been reported in extreme instances of stress (see Sutton, 1956, pp. 1393-1394). During the waning years of the twentieth century, 76 cases of hematidrosis were studied and classified into categories

according to causative factors: Acute fear and intense mental contemplation were found to be the most frequent inciting causes (Holoubek and Holoubek, 1996). While the extent of blood loss generally is minimal, hematidrosis also results in the skin becoming extremely tender and fragile (Barbet, 1953, pp. 74-75; Lumpkin, 1978), which would have made Christs pending physical insults even more painful.

From these factors, it is evident that even before Jesus endured the torture of the cross, He suffered far beyond what most of us w ever suffer. His penetrating awareness of the heinous nature of sin, its destructive and deadly effects, the sorrow and heartache th it inflicts, and the extreme measure necessary to deal with it, make the passion of Christ beyond all comprehension. REFERENCES Alford, Henry (1874), Alfords Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint). Allen, A.C. (1967), The Skin: A Clinicopathological Treatise (New York: Grune and Stratton), second edition. Barbet, P. (1953), A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image Books). Hobart, William K. (1882), The Medical Language of St. Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1954 reprint). Holoubek, J.E. and A.B. Holoubek (1996), Blood, Sweat, and Fear. A Classification of Hematidrosis, Journal of Medicine, 27[3-4]:115-33.

AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map

Share

Did Luke make a mistake involving Theudas and Judas the Galilean?
Question: A reader sent the following question via email: "Acts 5:33-39 gives an account of speech by the first century Pharisee Gamaliel, in which he refers to two movements other than the Way. One lead by Theudas (v 36) and after him led by Judas the Galilean. Josephus placed Judas about 6 AD. He places Theudas under the procurator Fadus 44-46 AD. Two problems emerge. First, the order of Judas and Theudas is reversed in Acts 5. Second, Theudas's movement comes after the time when Gamaliel is speaking." Response: This claim has been circulated on several Web sites. The people who make this claim, whether they realize it or not, are assuming that there can only be one person named Theudas, when in fact there might have been more than one person with that name. In other words, Luke, the author of the book of Acts, and Josephus, a first century historian, could simply be talking about two different people named Theudas. Luke's Theudas sounds like a religious leader who had a following of about 400 people. Josephus' Theudas sounds like a different person, a magician who claimed to be a prophet and who had a large following, one that was large enough to provoke a deadly confrontation from the government. For these and other reasons, many scholars and writers believe that Luke and Josephus are talking about two different people with the same name. Here is Luke's account of a person named Theudas, from the book of Acts, after some members of the Sanhedrin wanted to execute Peter and the Apostles for preaching about the resurrection of Jesus: 33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God. - Acts 5:33-39, NIV translation And here's is Josephus' account of a person named Theudas: "Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government."

Bible prophecies sorted by prophet

Abraham's prophecies Daniel's prophecies Ezekiel's prophecies Isaiah's prophecies Jeremiah's prophecies Jesus' prophecies Micah's prophecies Moses' prophecies Nahum's prophecies Zechariah's
prophecies

Bible prophecies sorted by theme

Destruction of Israel Exile of Israel Dispersion of Israel Persecution of Israel Re-gathering of Israel Nationhood (Israel) Preservation of Israel Worldwide impact Messianic About other nations End Times

Glossaries of people, miracles, events, etc.

Miracles of Jesus People in the Bible Places in the Bible Bible glossary History of Israel

Life and teachings of Jesus Christ

Early life 1st year of ministry 2nd year of ministry 3rd year of ministry The final months Persecution of Jesus Resurrection of Jesus

Articles, answers, explanations, links

Articles &
explanations What is Christianity? Learn about the Bible Answers to tough questions Links & Online Bibles Da Vinci Code hoax

Other items

- Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 5. It shouldn't shock skeptics or nonbelievers that there could be more than one person with the name of Theudas. In fact, the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions a third man named Theudas, who lived during the second century: "Theudas introduced into Rome the practise of eating on the eve of Passover a lamb prepared in accordance with the custom observed in Jerusalem with regard to the sacrificial lamb (Pes. 53a, b; Ber. 19a; Be?ah 23a)." Return to list of Questions and Answers

Other items
About us E-mail us HOME

See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.

Your email address (optional):

Submit

Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Copyright 2011, aboutbibleprophecy.com. All rights reserved. Our copyright policy.

Printable version - Did Michal Have Children?

Michal enjoyed the delicacies, privileges, and riches of the kings palace, but she was never blessed with children. Or was she? The passage in 2 Samuel 6:23 reads, Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death, yet 2 Samuel 21:8 reads, So the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite (emp. added). Michal was the younger daughter of the first king of Israel, Saul (1 Samuel 14:49), and she married the successor to the throne, David (1 Samuel 18:27). Because Saul wanted to kill David, David had to flee, leaving his bride behind (1 Samuel 19:11-12). When David returned some years later, Saul had cancelled the marriage, and Michal was married to Phalti (1 Samuel 25:44). David reclaimed her, but both Michal and David were very different people by this time, and a sharp disagreement drove them apart (2 Samuel 6:12-23). It is in the context of the disturbance of Michals marriage to David that the Bible reveals she had no children until the day of her death. If Michal indeed had no children, it might seem that the Bible has contradicted itself in this instance. Before believing that the inspired writer got mixed up, consider the following: Michals sister, Merab, married Adriel the Meholathite (1 Samuel 18:19), and it was Adriels children that, according to 2 Samuel 21:8, belonged to Michal and were brought up by Michal. The Hebrew word translated brought up could mean that Michal actually gave birth to the children, but it also could mean that Michal acted as a midwife when the children were born, or that she reared the children. It is altogether possible that Merab died, and Michal, having the resources to provide for a family, and being childless herself, adopted Merabs children (Coffman, 1992, p. 297). In that case, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that the children, for all practical purposes, belonged to Michal, and that Michal brought them up. Another possibility is that a copyist of the Hebrew Old Testament made a mistake. Since it is clear that Michal was married to David and not Adriel, and that Michal had no offspring, some have suggested that a copyist of long ago simply got the two sisters confused (Clarke, n.d., p. 367). There are manuscripts, including the Kennicott and Chaldee, that use the name of Merab in the place of Michal in 2 Samuel 21:8 (p. 367). Some translations, including the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, and the English Standard Version, also render 2 Samuel 21:8 with the name of Merab rather than Michal. We know that Michal had no children, but we will probably always be uncertain of what role (if any) Michal played in the rearing of the children of Adriel. With the two possible explanations given, we can see that a contradiction does not exist in this case. REFERENCES Clarke, Adam (no date), Clarkes Commentary: Joshua-Esther (Nashville, TN: Abingdon). Coffman, James Burton (1992), Commentary on Second Samuel (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Copyright ?? 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Printable version - Did Moses Make a Scientific Mistake?

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2192 by Wayne Jackson, M.A.

Q.
The Bible speaks of two animals, the coney and the hare, as chewing the cud. Isn't the Bible mistaken on this point? These animals do not actually chew the cud, do they?

A.
An infidel once wrote: Something that has long perplexed me is the way that inerrancy proponents can so easily find scientific foreknowledge in obscurely worded Bible passages but seem completely unable to see scientific error in statements that were rather plainly written. This skeptic then cited Leviticus 11:5-6, where the coney and the hare are said to chew the cud, and boasted that since these animals do not have compartmentalized stomachs like those in ruminants (e.g., the cow), Moses clearly made a mistake. What shall we say to this charge? First, no scientific mistake can be attributed to the Bible unless all of the facts are fully known. In such an alleged case, the biblical assertion must be unambiguous. The scientific information must be factual. And an indisputable conflict must prevent any harmonization of the two. Do these criteria obtain in this matter? They do not. Second, we must note that the words coney (Hebrew shaphan) and hare (arnebeth) are rare and difficult words in the Old Testament. The former is found but four times, and the latter only twice. The etymology of the terms is obscure. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament), shaphan is rendered by dasupoda, meaning rough foot, and arnebeth becomes choirogrullion, literally, swine-pig. Hence, identification becomes a factor. It is commonly believed, however, that the arnebeth is some species of hare, and that shaphan denotes the Syrian hyrax. But, so it is claimed, neither of these chews the cud. A number of scholars have noted that both of these animals, even when at rest, masticate, much like the cow or sheep, and that Moses thus employed phenomenal language (i.e., describing something as it appears), for the purpose of ready identification, inasmuch as these creatures were ceremonially unclean and thus prohibited for use as food (Archer, 1982, p. 126). That is not an impossible solution. Bats, for example, are listed along with birds in Leviticus 11, not because both are mammals, but simply because both fly. The Scriptures do not necessarily follow the arbitrary classification systems of man. When Christ said that the mustard seed is less than all seeds, (Matthew 13:33), He was speaking from the vantage point of the Palestinian citizennot that of a modern botanist. We today employ phenomenal jargon when we speak of the Sun rising and setting. Technically, it is not correct to refer to a womans amniotic fluid as water, and yet doctors employ this language frequently. Why do we not allow the biblical writers as much literary license as we ourselves employ? The bias of agnosticism is utterly incredible. There is, however, another factor that must be taken into consideration. Rumination does not necessarily involve a compartmentalized stomach system. One definition of ruminate is simply to chew again that which has been swallowed (Websters Dictionary). And oddly enough, that is precisely what the hare does. Though the hare does not have a multi-chambered stomachwhich is characteristic of most ruminantsit does chew its food a second time. It has been learned rather recently that hares pass two types of fecal material. In addition to normal waste, they pass a second type of pellet known as a caecotroph. The very instant the caecotroph is passed, it is grabbed and chewed again.... As soon as the caecotroph is chewed thoroughly and swallowed, it aggregates in the cardiac region of the stomach where it undergoes a second digestion (Morton, 1978, pp. 179-181). This complicated process provides the rabbit with 100% more riboflavin, 80% more niacin, 160% more pantothenic acid, and a little in excess of 40% more vitamin B 12 (Harrison, 1980, p. 121). In a comparative study of cows and rabbits, Jules Carles concluded that rumination should not be defined from an anatomical point of view (e.g., the presence of a four-part stomach); rather, it should be viewed from the standpoint of a mechanism for breeding bacteria

to improve food. Cows and rabbits are similar in that both possess a fermentation chamber with microorganisms that digest otherwise indigestible plant material, converting it into nutrients. Some of the microorganisms in these two animals are the same, or very similar. Carles has stated that on this basis it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants (as quoted in Brand, 1977, p. 104). Dr. Bernard Grzimek, Director of the Frankfurt Zoological Gardens in Germany, likewise has classified the hare as a ruminant (1975, pp. 421-422). On the other hand, the hyrax also is considered by some to be a ruminant, based upon the fact that it has a multiple digestive process. The hyrax has a very long protrusion, a caecum, and two additional caeca near the colon. At least one of these protrusions participates in decomposition of cellulose. It contributes certain enzymes necessary for breakdown of the cellulose (Morton, 1978, p. 184). Grzimeks Animal Life Encyclopedia (1975) considers the hyrax as a ruminant. Professor Joseph Fischel of the University of California has suggested that the biblical allusion to the coney as a cud-chewer probably was due to the structure of its digestive system, the protuberances in its large stomach together with its appendix and maw possibly being regarded as analogous to a ruminants four stomachs (1971, p. 1144). In his significant study of the intestinal microflora in herbivores, scientist Richard McBee observed that the hyrax has a fermentation chamber for the digestion of grass by microorganisms (as quoted in Brand, 1977, p. 103). Finally, the precise meaning of gerah, rendered chewing the cud in most versions, is uncertain. Many orthodox Jews consider it simply to mean a second mastication, or the semblance of chewing. Samuel Clark stated that the meaning of gerah became expanded, and the rodents and pachyderms, which have a habit of grinding with their jaws, were familiarly spoken of as ruminating animals (1981, 1:546). In view of the foregoing facts, it is extremely presumptuous to suggest that the Mosaic account contains an error relative to these creatures. A sensible interpretive procedure and/or an acquaintance with accurate information would have eliminated such a rash and unwarranted conclusion. Archer, Gleason (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Brand, Leonard R. (1977), Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?, Origins, 4(2):102-104. Clark, Samuel (1981), Leviticus, The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Fischel, Joseph W. (1971), Hyrax, Encyclopedia Judaica (New York: Macmillan). Grzimek, Bernard, ed. (1975), Grzimeks Animal Life Encyclopedia (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold). Harrison, R.K. (1980), Leviticus (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press). Morton, Jean Sloat (1978), Science in the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Originally published in Reason and Revelation, December 1989, 9[12]:47-48.

Printable version - Did Saul Know David Prior to Goliath's Death?

Following the account of Samuels visit to Bethlehem to anoint David as the future king of Israel, the book of 1 Samuel indicates that David became the harp player and armor bearer for King Saul (16:14-23). Subsequent to this information, the reader is told of Davids magnificent triumph over Goliath (1 Samuel 17), which then is followed by an interrogation by King Saul, who asked David, Whose son are you, young man? (17:58). A general reading through the text of 1 Samuel 16-17 has led some Bible believers to question why Saul (it seems) knew David, then did not know David, and then got to know him again. Skeptics, likewise, have inquired about the consistency of this story (see Morgan, 2003; Wells, 2001; Inerrancy, n.d.). Paul Tobin, in an article titled Internal Contradictions in the Bible, summed up the skeptics argument by stating that 1 Samuel 16 clearly shows that Davidwas known to Saul. Yet a little later, after Davids fight with Goliath, Saul is made to enquire from his chief captain as to the identity of the giant slayer (I Samuel 17:56). And he is again made to inquire from David who he is, when he should have known this all along (2000). Allegedly, the Bibles portrayal of Sauls ignorance of David after Goliaths death is proof of the Bible writers imperfection when penning the Scriptures. First of all, it is imperative for one to recognize that, as with other Bible passages, nowhere in 1 Samuel 16-17 are we told that all of these events occurred in chronological order. Although throughout 1 Samuel, there is a general, sequential progression, such does not demand that every event recorded in the book must be laid out chronologically. In fact, within chapter 17 there is evidence that this is not the case. For example, the events recorded in 17:54 (i.e., David putting his armor in his tent, and taking the head of Goliath to Jerusalem) postdate the conversations mentioned in verses 55-58 (as verse 57 makes clear). More precisely, verses 55-56 synchronize with verse 40, while verses 57-58 could be placed immediately following verse 51 (Youngblood, 1992, 3:703). And, regarding chapter 16, who can say for certain that David was not already playing the harp for Saul before Samuel anointed him? First Samuel 17:15 indicates that David occasionally went and returned from Saul to feed his fathers sheep at Bethlehem. Perhaps it was during one of these furloughs that he was anointed as the future king of Israel (16:1-13). Unless the text clearly distinguishes one event as occurring before or after another, a person cannot conclude for certain the exact chronology of those events. Just because one historical event recorded in the Bible precedes another, does not mean that it could not have occurred at a later time (or vice versa). Truly, the ancients were not as concerned about chronology as is the average person in twenty-first-century America. Aside from the fact that one cannot be certain about the exact sequence of events recorded in 1 Samuel 16-17, several possible explanations exist as to why Saul appeared not to recognize David after his triumphal victory over Goliath. First, enough time could have lapsed so that Davids appearance changed significantly since the last time he appeared before king Saul. William M. Thomson, a missionary in Syria and Palestine for nearly half of the nineteenth century, once described the sudden changes in the physical development of Eastern youths in his book titled The Land and the Book. They not only spring into full-grown manhood as if by magic, but all their former beauty disappears; their complexion becomes dark; their features hard and angular, and the whole expression of countenance stern and even disagreeable. I have often been accosted by such persons, formerly intimate acquaintances, but who had suddenly grown entirely out of my knowledge, nor could I without difficulty recognize them (1859, 2:366). Few would deny that young men can change quickly over a relatively short period of time. Facial hair, increased height and weight, larger, more defined muscles, darker skin, a deeper voice, as well as the wearing of different apparel, may all factor into why a person may say to someone that he or she knows, but has not seen for some time, I hardly recognized you. Youve changed. Surely, it is more than possible that between the time David served Saul as a harpist, and the time he slew Goliath, he could have experienced many physical changes that prevented a distressed king from recognizing his former harpist. A second reason Saul might have failed to recognize David is because he may have lapsed into another unreliable mental state. Sauls intermittent deviation from normalcy is seen throughout the book of 1 Samuel (cf. 16:14-23; 18:912; 19:22-24; 22:6-19), and it is possible 17:54-58 is another illusion to his defective rationale. In his discussion of 1 Samuel 17, biblical commentator Robert Jamieson mentioned this possibility saying, The kings moody temper, not to say frequent fits of insanity, would alone be sufficient to explain the circumstance of his not recognizing a youth who, during the time of his mental aberration, had been much near him, trying to soothe his distempered soul (Jamieson,

1997). Third, it could be that Saul did, in fact, remember David, but because of jealousy over Davids momentous victory (cf. 1 Samuel 18:8-11), and perhaps of hearing that Samuel had been to Bethlehem to anoint him as the next king (1 Samuel 16:1-13), Saul simply wanted to act like he did not know David. Such a scenario is not difficult to envision. Today, a teacher or coach might inquire about a student whom he or she already knows, yet in hopes of instilling more submission into the arrogant teen, the faculty member acts somewhat aloof. One textual indication that such may be the explanation of 1 Samuel 17:54-58 is that Saul still referred to David, the bear-killing, lion-slaying, Goliathdemolisher, as a stripling (Hebrew `elem17:56, ASV) and young man (Hebrew na`ar17:55,58). Although these two words do not necessarily carry a belittling connotation, neither designation seems very appropriate for a man who had just tried on the armor of King Saula man once described as shoulders upwardtaller than any of the people (1 Samuel 9:2)and had just killed one of the fiercest enemies of Israel. Truly, Sauls supposed ignorance of David and his family may well have been a performance instigated by, what physician Herman van Praag once called, haughtiness fed by envy (1986, 35:421). Finally, one must realize that the text does not even actually say that Saul did not know David. It only records that Saul asked, Whose son is this youth? (1 Samuel 17:55; cf. vss. 56,58). It is an assumption to conclude that Saul did not recognize David. The king simply could have been inquiring about Davids family. Since Saul had promised to reward the man who killed Goliath by giving his fathers house exemption from taxes in Israel (17:25), Saul might have been questioning David in order to ensure the identity of Davids family. Furthermore, 18:1 seems to presuppose an extended conversation between the two, which would imply that Saul wanted even more information than just the name of Davids father. Truly, any of these possibilities could account for Sauls examination of David. The burden of proof is on the skeptic to show otherwise. As respected law professor Simon Greenleaf concluded regarding the rule of municipal law in relation to ancient writings: Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise (1995, p. 16, emp. added). Until skeptics logically negate the above possible solutions to the questions surrounding 1 Samuel 16-17, and are able to prove beyond doubt that the Bible writer made a genuine mistake, one does not have to doubt the integrity of the biblical text. REFERENCES Greenleaf, Simon (1995), The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics). Inerrancy: Where Conservative Christianity Stands or Falls, (no date), [On-line], URL: http://users.vei.net/smijer/christianity/bunk.html. Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Morgan, Donald (2003), Biblical Inconsistencies, [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml. Thomson, William M. (1859), The Land and the Book (New York: Harper and Brothers). Tobin, Paul N. (2000), Internal Contradictions in the Bible, The Rejection of Pascals Wager, [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/internal.html. van Praag, Herman M. (1986), The Downfall of King Saul: The Neurobiological Consequences of Losing Hope, Judaism 35:421. Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptics Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com. Youngblood, Ronald F. (1992), The Expositors Bible Commentary1 & 2 Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).

Congregation Netzar Torah Yeshua

Search

Contact Us

Messianic Living

Judaism

Resources

Did Yeshua adjust God's Torah of clean and unclean foods?

Written by Ronald L. Dart

id The answer shouldn't be hard to find. It should be right there in the four gospels.

In Leviticus, chapter 11, God detailed exactly which animals were edible and which were not. He did so, not as an arbitrary test of obedience, but for the benefit of His creation. God knew long before modern science that pork is bad for your heart. He knew that shellfish are the garbage-disposals of the sea and have their own unique place in the food chain, separate from human consumption. [Lev. 11 talks about "Clean" and "Unclean". What exactly does the Bible mean by "Clean" and "Unclean"? (i) "Clean" and "Unclean" do not directly refer to "righteous" and "sinful". In ancient Israel, "uncleanness" (for any reason) prohibited the worshipper from entering God's Temple, so the prophets often use "uncleanness" as a symbol for sin. (ii) Most categories of "Unclean" relate to coming into contact with blood, dead bodies, certain diseases and childbirth. Most of these parallel modern sanitation and quarantine precautions. (iii) "Clean" and "Unclean" foods do not refer to "washed" and "dirty". The Bible assumes we would only want to eat things of good quality, properly prepared. (iv) One particular area of "Unclean" relates to what foods we might think are edible (not obviously poisonous), but that God categorizes as "unclean" - unacceptable to the true worshippers of God. Vegetables, herbs, grain, bread, etc. are "clean". So are coffee, tea, chocolate, beer, wine, spirits, tomato sauce and salza. "Clean" animals include cows, sheep, goats, deer. "Unclean" include pigs, horses, camels, rats, cats, dogs, snakes, raccoons, squirrels, most insects. "Clean" birds include chicken, turkeys, geese, ducks, doves. "Unclean" birds include eagles, sparrows, crows. "Clean" sea-food includes salmon, trout, and those fish with fins and scales. "Unclean" seafood includes catfish, sharks, scampi, octopus, squid, shellfish, whales.] Y eshua knew this Torah and obeyed it. Of course, He often came into conflict with the Pharisees over the traditions which they had added to God's law over the years, but that is altogether different than doing away with the laws themselves. Nevertheless, it is a widely held view that Y eshua set aside the Torah of God, including those delineating what was good to eat and what was not. Some people believe this view is supported by an incident recorded in the seventh chapter of Mark's gospel. Y eshua's disciples were being criticized for eating without first washing their hands (Mark 7:5). Y eshua condemned the Pharisees for their arbitrary administration of Torah. Drawing a sharp distinction between the tradition of the elders on the one hand, and the commandment of God on the other, Y eshua accused them of invalidating the word of God by their tradition. Notice that Y eshua firmly supports the Torah. Having made that point, He offers an answer to the question of eating with unwashed hands: "There is nothing without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man" (Mark 7:15). There are several important things to notice about this verse. First, Y eshua is speaking in the present tense and is talking about the way things are. He is not offering new legislation or abrogating the old. The statement was true when Leviticus was written and it is true today. The dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are Torah and are not annulled. Finally, there are two very different Greek words that have to do with defilement or uncleanness. The words are koinos and akthartos. They mean, respectively, "common" and "unclean". Koinos in the usage of the day simply meant the opposite of "holy". That which was koinos was "unhallowed", or"unholy". Akthartos, on the other hand, is the opposite of "clean". It has more to do with moral or physical uncleanness or corruption. The word "defile" as Y eshua uses it in this passage is from the root of the Greek word koinos. It has to do with the spiritual defilement of the heart, not the physical defilement of the flesh. Y eshua explains what He means by pointing out the obvious: "Do you not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without enters into the man, it cannot make him unholy; because it enters not into his heart" (verses 18, 19). Y eshua is not talking about eating dangerous or unlawful things which could ruin your health or take your life. He is talking about eating with unwashed hands. His point is that a little bit of dirt on your hands cannot defile your heart - cannot make you unholy. The unholiness of which He speaks is caused by things like theft, covetousness, and fornication which proceed out of the heart of a man (verses 21, 22). Note well, the question of clean and unclean meats is nowhere discussed. The subject under discussion is eating with unwashed

hands. Y eshua says that food does not enter into the heart, "but into the belly, and goes out into the draught (literally: the latrine), purging all meats" (verse 19). This last phrase simply means that all foods are purged from the body and has nothing to do with a change in the Torah. Unaccountably, some translations add a phrase to this verse which is in no ancient Greek text. It reads, "This He said, making all meats clean." This is pure interpretation on the part of the translators and is totally unwarranted by the original text. If Y eshua had intended to do away with the Torah of unclean meats, His listeners could not have missed the point. If He had made a statement that all foods are now clean, it would have created one of the biggest controversies of His ministry. Did His listeners understand Y eshua to he abrogating the dietary laws of the Torah? There were Pharisees present when Y eshua made the statement. How would we expect them to respond if Y eshua had plainly said that swine's flesh was good for food? There is not a hint in the account that they understood Y eshua that way. If they had, they would have needed no hired witnesses against Y eshua at His trial. They could have charged Him with speaking against Moses and the Torah. No such charge was made. The Gospel of Matthew also records the event as nothing more than a discussion of eating with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:120). It offers no indication that Y eshua was talking about unclean meats. Peter was present, and years later he still refused to eat anything common or unclean (koinos or akthartos), even in the face of a direct command from God (Acts 10:9-16). There can be no mistake about Peter's understanding or intent, because the procedure was repeated three times, and three times Peter declined to eat. But this is a direct commandment from God. Would God command Peter to do something that was wrong? It's a valid question, but we must inquire a step further. Is there such a thing as a metaphorical or rhetorical command? Is there such a thing as a command which is figurative, given for effect or emphasis ? Certainly such commands do exist. Notable is Y eshua's statement: "If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee." No one believes that he should literally pluck out an eye merely because he stole something. After all, the impetus to steal did not arise from the eye. Y eshua's commandment is phrased in the most imperative of terms, but yet we all understand it to be figurative, given for effect and emphasis. Consider also God's commandment to Abraham regarding the sacrifice of Isaac. Can we infer from this illustration that human sacrifice must be lawful or God would not have used that as a test of Abraham's obedience? Plainly the commandment in Peter's vision is a rhetorical commandment and Peter drew no inferences from it other than the one stated. Furthermore, the stronger case you make that this is a direct commandment from God, the more significant becomes Peter's refusal to eat. On what basis did Peter refuse? Obviously on the basis of the Torah, because it was the Torah which defined what was common or unclean. Peter knew better than to break God's Torah merely because a voice from heaven told him to do it. Peter initially doubted the meaning of the vision. If Y eshua, during His ministry, had taught that meats previously termed unclean were now cleansed, Peter could hardly have missed the significance. In that case, his refusal to eat common or unclean meats could only be seen as stubbornness on his part. Whatever response we might have expected from Peter, it seems unlikely that he would have "doubted in himself" what the vision might mean. Peter's initial doubt makes no sense if Y eshua had plainly taught the cleansing of all meats. Perhaps the most important evidence regarding Acts 10 is that Peter's ultimate interpretation of the vision had nothing to do with meats. He explained to Cornelius, "Y know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto ou one of another nation; but God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28). This is the only

interpretation Peter offers for this vision.

Peter did not understand his vision to authorize any change in the Torah of God, and his personal response to that vision demonstrates conclusively that Peter knew nothing of any supposed change. The idea that Y eshua annulled the dietary laws of the Torah is a late interpretation. No one at the time seems to have understood Y eshua that way at all. Not even Paul. In writing to the Romans, he opines, "I know and am persuaded by Adonai Y eshua that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Romans 14:14). But Paul uses the word koinos or "common" here, not the word akthartos or "unclean". And he is talking about vegetarianism versus meat eating, not unclean meats as such (Romans 14:2). How does Paul understand akthartos? Writing to the Corinthians about their involvement with the world, he exhorts them, "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you" (I Corinthians 6:17 from Isaiah 52:11). The word for "unclean" here is akthartos and is the same word applied to unclean animals, their flesh, and their carcasses. It is strange that Paul would exhort a gentile church to avoid the unclean if he believed that Y eshua had abolished the Torah of the unclean. Paul was quoting Isaiah, and lest we should be in doubt about what Isaiah meant, he later spoke of, "a people that provoke me to anger continually to my face; that sacrifice in gardens ... which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels" (Isaiah 65:3,4). The time setting is plainly the end time: "For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with His chariots ... For by fire and by His sword will the Lord plead with all flesh: and the slain of the Lord shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord" (Isaiah 66:15-17). God seems to take eating unclean meats rather seriously even at the end time. These people were not accidentally or unknowingly eating pork. They were deliberately eating it, apparently as a rite of "purification".

What then does God think of "Easter" Ham ! (Our comment not the author of this article)

There is one other reference to this subject in Paul's letters. It is his warning to Timothy about end time apostasy (I Timothy 4:1-5). "Many shall depart from the faith", Paul says, "giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons." One of these "doctrines of demons" is "commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." What, precisely, does this mean? Well, initially it is important to note that this is not merely a discussion of eating meat. To the King James translators, "meat" was not animal flesh, but food in general. The Greek word is broma which means "food". Upon taking a closer look, this cannot refer to a command not to eat the "unclean meats" of Leviticus 11. If it did, it would be tantamount to calling Leviticus 11 a doctrine of demons! Additionally, the doctrine specifically refers to a command to abstain from those foods which God created to be received. It may be presumed that He created things which were not to be received as food. Paul continues: "For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified [set apart] by the Word of God and prayer" (I Timothy 4:4, 5). Where in the Bible are foods "set apart" for human consumption? In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Paul did not say that everything created by God was good for food without qualification. Some things created by God are not fit for human consumption. Paul was condemning those who go beyond the Word of God to prohibit clean foods. The apostle John was also present when Y eshua made His statement about eating with unwashed hands. Very late in John's life, he received an apocalyptic vision. In this vision he saw an angel descend from heaven and heard him cry, "Babylon the great is fallen, and has become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird " (Revelation 18:2). Here, late in the first century, there is apparently still such a thing as an unclean bird. There is one other incident in Y eshua's ministry that may shed some light on His intent relative to unclean meats. When He encountered a man possessed with a "legion" of demons, the demons pleaded with Y eshua to allow them to enter a herd of swine feeding nearby (Mark 5:1-13). If Y eshua had declared pork fit to eat, why did He allow such wholesale destruction of valuable private property? There may also be some symbolism involved in the question. No animal more symbolizes filth than the swine. Demons are called unclean spirits, and are allowed to enter, possess, and destroy swine. Babylon is become the hold of every foul demonic spirit and every unclean and hateful bird. The unknowing ingestion of unclean meat bears no symbolic meaning. The choice to eat swine s flesh may be quite symbolic. Contrary to popular belief, Y eshua did not come to destroy any part of God's Torah, including the health and dietary laws. He came to redeem those who had broken the Torah, and to magnify the Torah (Isaiah 42:21). Y eshua said that not the smallest letter nor stroke of the pen would pass from the Torah until heaven and earth passed. People should not look for which portions of Torah have been done away. There isn't any. However, the Messianic Believer is justified in asking how Messiah Y eshua would administer the Torah. And since Messiah Y eshua lives in each of us, each of us is fully responsible before God to obey the Torah not as some Pharisees might demand, but as Messiah Yeshua would have us to do.
Bible Study Notes: A Series of Essays on Subjects that Affect Your Life Note some terms in this article have been changed by Congregation Netzar T orah Yeshua such as: Yesuha in place of Jesus, Messiah in place of Christ, and a more consistent use of T orah rather than law - Return Home This Site was created by Messianic Teacher Glenn Kay Copyright 2010 Congregation Netzar Torah Yeshua

Printable version - Different Names, Same Person

Names can be rather confusing at times. A teacher might become puzzled on the first day of school when she finds out that half of her students do not immediately respond when she calls roll. The reason: they normally are called by another name than that which appears on the school records. A coach may not immediately recognize a certain players identity, because his team speaks of this player (on the opposing team) only by using a nickname. After some investigation, however, the coach soon learns who the player actually is. Millions of individuals through the millennia have worn more than one name. Even at Apologetics Press, nearly half of my co-workers wear derivatives of their full, official name. Our Production Administrator's name is James Monroe, but he prefers to be called Jim. David Lee, our Executive Director, is just Dave to those who know him. Most people in the twenty-first century understand that this is simply the way it is; people often go by more than one name. When reading the Bible, we need also to remember that people in ancient times frequently had more than one name as well. Keeping this in mind will help clarify various passages that may seem somewhat ambiguous. When studying the book of Genesis, it is helpful to bear in mind that Abrams name was changed to Abraham (Genesis 17:5), and Jacobs to Israel (Genesis 32:28). Later, while living in Egypt, Pharaoh called Josephs name Zaphnath-Paaneah (Genesis 41:45). Numerous other individuals mentioned in the Bible also were known by more than one name. Moses father-in-law was known both as Reuel and Jethro (Exodus 2:18; 3:1). Gideon acquired the name Jerubbaal because he destroyed the altar of Baal at Ophrah (Judges 6:32; 7:1; 8:29,35). Pharaoh Necho changed the name of King Josiahs oldest son, Eliakim, to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34). The apostle Peter is sometimes called Peter, Simon Peter, Simon, and Cephas (Matthew 14:28; 16:16; 17:25; John 1:42; 1 Corinthians 1:12). And Saul is called Paul (Acts 13:9). Attention needs to be given to how the Bible writers frequently used different names when referring to the same person, because recognition of such name usage may help clarify certain alleged contradictions. Take, for instance, Matthew 1:9. Someone might wonder why Matthew mentioned Uzziah as being the father of Jotham, while 2 Kings 15:1-7 and 1 Chronicles 3:12 call Jothams father Azariah. The answer lies in the fact that that both names apply to the same person. Within the same chapter (2 Kings 15), Jothams father is called both Azariah (15:7) and Uzziah (15:32). The names are different, but they refer to the same person (cf. 2 Chronicles 26:1-23; Isaiah 1:1). Countless Bible questions can be answered logically just by acknowledging that the ancients often were just as flexible in their giving of names as people are in the twenty-first century.

Copyright ?? 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Do Matthew and Scts contradict concerning Judas' death?

Get a stripped-down copy of this page. Matthew 27:3-8 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Acts 1:18-19 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. Here are a series of problems claimed of these two accounts. Keyword Search Matthew has Judas hanging himself, while Acts says he fell over and busted his guts open. So which is correct? Here are the explanations to be considered: The standard explanation given by harmonists is that Judas hung himself, and then his body fell and broke open. This has some promise: Judas hanged himself on Passover and before a Sabbath, and no Jew was going to touch the hanging corpse (touching a dead body caused defilement; it would have been work to take it down on the Sabbath; added to that, death by hanging was especially a disgrace; and hoisting a dead body isn't an attractive vocation if it isn't on your property), so it is safe to assume that Judas hung himself and that the branch or rope eventually broke. Polhill in his Acts commentary [92n] notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos -- translated as "falling headlong" in the KJV, but literally being "becoming headlong" as shown in Green's Interlinear translation, 366) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while. This reading is found in later Syriac, Georgian and Armenian mss., though perhaps as an attempt at textual criticism of the sort we are doing. Skeptics do regularly scoff at the suggestion that such a combination of events could happen, and yet be reported differently, but Eddy and Boyd in The Jesus Legend have discovered an almost exactly analogous case involving the lynching of two brothers in 1881. [424] Two different witness accounts indicated that the brothers were hung from two different places: a railroad crossing, and a pine tree. Historians would have concluded that there was a contradiction until researchers found photographs proving that both accounts were correct: The brothers had been hung in both locations, having been apparently first hung from the crossing, and then later taken down and hung on the pine tree. Taken together I still consider the "hanging body/rope broke" solution possible -- but now find something else even more likely. But first let's look at the another answer: Matthew does not even describe Judas' death at all. Here is how one site puts it: The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the

temple and left doubling himself over with grief. A check of the lexicons shows that such a meaning is indeed possible, but I found only one actual example listed -- the vast majority of the meanings given were for a physical hanging; there was only one example of a figurative meaning as described. So I would say that this is a possible solution, but not likely. However, I would now opt for the idea that this is an example of Matthew's creative use of an OT "type". This would combine the idea that Matthew is not actually describing Judas' death, with Matthew's use of the OT texts as typologies. Audrey Conrad, in "The Fate of Judas" (Toronto Journal of Theology [7] 1992), notes that Matthew's unique words "departed" and "hanged himself" are found in combination in another place in the LXX: 2 Samuel 17:23 And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father. Conrad notes that rabbinic interpretation of Ps. 41:9 ("Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.") thought that Ahithophel was the traitor David was describing -- and of course this same verse was applied by Jesus to Judas (John 13:18). Conrad still thinks there are not enough parallels (!) but we would maintain that the parallels are sufficient, and that Matthew is indeed alluding to the traitor Ahithophel in this passage, and is therefore NOT telling us that Judas indeed hung himself, but that Judas fulfilled the "type" of Ahithophel by being a traitor who responded with grief and then died. Matthew is thereby making no statement at all about Judas' mode of death, and Luke's "swelling up" stands alone as a specific description of what happened. It makes no sense for the author to tell us that Judas' guts burst without telling us why it happened. Spilling out of guts because of swelling is such a rare event that surely if Luke believed that this extraordinary thing actually happened to Judas, he would have made certain to provide the extraordinary explanation for its occurrence. This "surely" is the objection of a low-context modern demanding full explanations for every unusual event, but when it comes down to it, neither Luke nor any person could have been able to "provide the explanation" without knowing why it happened. Unless Luke or some other physician had access to Judas (not likely) they could not so much as mount a guess as to "why". (See here -- secular historians have no problem with similar ideas.) Matthew says the priests bought the field, but Acts says that Judas did. So who did it? The alternate site opts for this explanation: The chief priests did not want to put the money paid for the betrayal of Jesus back into the temple treasury as it was "blood money." So they bought an "agros:" a field to bury strangers in. Because blood money was used to purchase the field it was called "the field [agros] of blood." This is different than the property [chorion] that Judas purchased himself referred to in Acts Chapter 1. The problem here is that both Acts and Matthew connect the purchase specifically with Judas' act of treachery. Thus I cannot accept this solution. However, it does lead into our own answer. There are a few factors at here -- one linguistic, the others sociological. The word used by Matthew for "bought" is agorazo -- a general term meaning, "to go to market." It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word: Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one. Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering.

Therefore the translation of "buy" (and "sell") is made according to context. How does this mean anything with regard to Judas? First note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to "get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase." This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas' and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his. And that leads to another question no one has yet raised, but which I will: It seems too much of a coincidence, that the priests managed to buy the exact same field that Judas died in. Not at all. Once Judas died in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas' name (see below) to turn into a cemetery. If Judas threw the money away, it wasn't his anymore, it belonged to the priests. This is where our social factor comes into play. Note that the money cannot be put in the treasury -- it cannot be made to belong to the temple again -- because it is blood money. Keener observes in his Matthean commentary [657-8]: Ancient Eastern peoples regarded very seriously the guilt of innocent blood, sometimes viewed in terms of corporate responsibility. Like Pilate the priestly officials wanted nothing further to do with the situation, and likewise understand that the blood was innocent... The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean -- though even today a charity may refuse money if it is gained by ill-gotten means. Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose blood money it was. The property and transaction records available to the public and probably consulted by Luke would reflect that Judas bought the field -- or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point. Matthew says the name 'Field of Blood' came because it was bought with blood money. Luke says it was because Judas split his guts all over. So which is it? This objection assumes that what was "known unto all the dwellers" was Judas' gut-bust episode, but it would seem that the phrase modifies all that precedes it: "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Judas' gut-burst would hardly warrant a "field of blood" designation for the whole property. There would not be blood everywhere. The "Field of Blood" name was derived -- even as Matthew says -- from the act of purchase with the reward of Judas' iniquity -- what iniquity? The betrayal of innocent blood, which Luke recorded in his own Gospel. -JPH

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/605

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Does God Need to Rest? by Kyle Butt, M.A. In many verses of the Bible, God is described as omnipotent or all-powerful. In Genesis 17:1, God describes Himself to Abraham by saying, I am Almighty God. Abrahams son, Isaac, in blessing his son Jacob, said: May God Almighty bless you. The omnipotent nature of God can be seen throughout the Bible. The psalmist wrote: Great is our Lord, and mighty in power; His understanding is infinite (Psalm 147:5). From such verses, we get the idea that God can do anything that can be accomplished with power. We also get the idea that Gods power never runs out, and He does not get tired. As Isaiah wrote: Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary (40:28). But, if God does not get tired, why does the Genesis account of Creation say that on the seventh day God ended His work, which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done (Genesis 2:2, emp. added)? What does the Bible mean when it says that God rested? Were the rigors of creating the Universe so difficult for God that He needed a break? Did His creative power need to be rejuvenated? And, does this resting not militate against the idea that God does not faint nor is weary? The answers to these questions are really very simple. When we hear the English verb rest most of us immediately think of being tired or needing to recuperate drained energy, but the Hebrew translated rest in Genesis 2:2 does not always carry that same idea. In fact, the first two definitions given for the Hebrew word translated rest (shbat or shbath) are to cease, desist. The Enhanced Strongs Lexicon documents that, of the 71 times it is used, 47 of those times it is simply translated cease, and only 11 of those times is it translated rest (Shabath, 1995). The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament states: The translation to cease, desist can be illustrated in the following verses: Day and night shall not cease (Genesis 8:22). (Harris, et al., p. 902). A brief look at the original word translated rest or rested shows that God did not get tired, nor did He need a day to convalesce or build up His strength. He simply stopped creating the Universe. He finished in six days and stopped on the seventh day to set a pattern for a seven-day week. God does not need to rest or relax, because He neither faints nor is weary. In dealing with questions like this, sometimes a brief look at the original language can go a long way.

REFERENCES Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody). Shbath (1995), Enhanced Strongs Lexicon (Electronic Database: Logos).

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press

DOES GOD PUNISH INNOCENT PEOPLE? by Harvey Armour

Various incidents in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, seem to indicate that God sometimes does punishes people for the sins of others. For example, Exodus 20:5 states that God will visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me. [Note: When we quote Scripture in this article, we use the wording in the New King James Version of the Bible.] In contrast with the statement in Exodus, Ezekiel 18:20 states that God does not punish people for the sins of others. In this verse, God says, The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. In regard to the apparent discrepancy between Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20, Basil Atkinson, Ph.D., states on page 164 of his book entitled Is the Bible True?, The Exodus passage is speaking about the temporal effects of sin in this world, and it is obvious that a mans family suffers by his departure from God. The Ezekiel passage speaks of the eternal results of sin, which, of course, apply only to the individual. And, in their book entitled When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler, Ph.D., and Thomas Howe, M.A., express a similar viewpoint. On page 285 they assert, Ezekiel is speaking of the guilt of the fathers sin never being held against the sons, but Moses was referring to the consequences of the fathers sins being passed on to their children. Unfortunately, if a father is a drunk, the children can suffer abuse and even poverty. Likewise, if a mother has contracted AIDS from drug use, then her baby may be born with AIDS. But, this does not mean that the innocent children are guilty of the sins of their parents. Like the verse in Ezekiel, Deuteronomy 24:16 declares, The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin. However, Geisler and Howe indicate that the Deuteronomy passage is directed to Israels legal system. In addressing this passage on page 130 of their book, they state, It was not the right of the human courts to exact capital punishment from the children of guilty parents if the children were not personally guilty of the crime. Nevertheless, there are several examples in the Bible that seem to indicate that innocent people are sometimes severely punished for the sins of others. We will consider the following cases: The child who was fathered by King David died as a result of Davids sexual intercourse with Bathsheba while she was still married to Uriah. Thousands of Israelites died, apparently because King David took a census of the nation of Israel that was contrary to the will of God. All the firstborn Egyptians died as a result of the final plague that God brought on Egypt to induce the Pharaoh to free the Israelites from bondage. On several occasions, tribes of people, sometimes including women and children, were killed by the Israelites. The Child Who Was Fathered by King David Died as a Result of Davids Sexual Intercourse with Bathsheba While She Was Still Married to Uriah

With regard to 2 Samuel 12:14-18, Geisler and Howe assert on page 130 of their book, [T]he Scripture does not indicate that Davids child was being punished for Davids sin. Rather, the Bible indicates that the death of the child was Davids punishment. . . . If it is thought that allowing the child to die was an unjust way to punish David, it must be remembered that David trusted in the righteousness of God when he said in faith, I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.. . . David trusted that God had taken his child to heaven and that he would be with the child when he died. And, on page 172 of their book, Geisler and Howe argue that the child was probably spared a life of sorrow and trouble as the illegitimate offspring of the illicit relationship of David and Bathsheba. Furthermore, Gleason L. Archer indicates in his book entitled Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties that death is not as bad as many people seem to think. On page 185 he declares, [W]e may think of death as a fearsome menace, a terrible curse, a final stroke of judgment. Insofar as death that is to say, physical death with its separation of the soul from the body means the end of all opportunity to find God and to glorify Him with a godly life, there is something very solemn and awesome about death. But Gods Word tells us very plainly that physical death, regardless of how it looks to the human observer, is not the end for any man. He goes right on into the eternal phase of his career. . . . In other words, the physical death of a person who will spend eternity with God after they die is not a terrible thing. Many Christians believe that a child who has not reached the age of accountability will go to heaven (i.e., will spend eternity with God). The age of accountability can be defined as the time when a child first becomes sufficiently mature to understand that certain behavior is wrong (i.e., immoral or sinful). Generally, a child reaches the age of accountability by the time he (or she) is 13, and sometimes several years earlier. Because David and Bathshebas baby had not even been born, he obviously had not reached the age of accountability. [For further discussion of whether or not children who die before they

reach the age of accountability will go to heaven, see our article entitled Does God Make Exceptions for Those Who Have Not Heard the Gospel Message?]
Thousands of Israelites Died, Apparently Because King David Took a Census of the Nation of Israel That Was Contrary to the Will of God First Chronicles 21:1-14 states that approximately 70,000 men died from a plague that God inflicted on Israel, evidently as punishment for the sin that King David committed when he took a census that was against Gods will. On page 221 of his book, Archer speculates that Davids motive for taking the census was pride in his achievements as a military genius and in the prosperity that the entire kingdom had attained under his leadership. He goes on to say, It is a mistake . . . to assume that Davids countrymen were not also involved in this same attitude of pride. Perhaps, as Archer suggests, the Israelites sin was pride, but it may have been something else in fact, they may have committed many sins. An account of the census is also given in 2 Samuel 24, which states in verse one, Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel. . . . Although no reason is given in the 2 Samuel passage as to why God was angry with the people of Israel, it is clear that they were not innocent. All the Firstborn Egyptians Died as a Result of the Final Plague that God Brought on Egypt to Induce the Pharaoh to Free the Israelites from Bondage The Exodus 12:29-30 account of the killing of the firstborn Egyptians raises the question as to why these people were slain, if they had no

control over Pharaohs decision not to let the Israelites leave Egypt. On page 114 of his book, Archer provides the following explanation: The fortunes of the citizens of any country are bound up with the government that guides their national policy, whether that government be a democracy, a party dictatorship, or monarchy. A foolish or wicked government . . . brings disaster and distress on all its subjects. . . . So it was with Egypt in Moses day. The consequences of the decisions made by Pharaoh . . . were binding on all the people. Geisler and Howe express the belief that, if the Egyptian people had tried to do so, they may have been able to persuade Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave Egypt. On page 74 of their book, Geisler and Howe assert, Although the power of the people is severely limited under a dictatorship as that of Egypt, it is conceivable that the people could have revolted so as to either force Pharaoh to change his mind, or to overthrow him. . . . The Egyptians were obviously content to leave such matters in the hands of their king. By doing so, they were not innocent of the decisions which were made by their king. The judgment of God was not directed only at Pharaoh or the heads of state of the land, but on Egypt as a whole, since they were equally responsible for the oppression and bondage of the people of God. On Several Occasions, Tribes of People, Sometimes Including Women and Children, Were Killed by the Israelites In one incident during their travel in the wilderness after leaving Egypt, the Israelites killed every Midianite male and every Midianite woman who has known a man intimately (Numbers 31:7-17). In a subsequent incident, as the Israelites were seeking to conquer the land where they would settle, they killed everyone in Jericho, except for one woman and all her family members who were with her in her house (Joshua 6:21-23). How can such actions be justified? Concerning the killing of the Midianites, Geisler and Howe assert on page 110 of their book, [I]t was not on the authority of Moses that Israel performed this destruction. Rather, it was at the direct command of God. . . . The abominable nature of the influence which the Midianites had upon Israel in leading them into idolatry merited the destructive judgment of God. . . .The moral justification for this action is found in the fact that God has the right to give and take life. In reference to the killing of the inhabitants of Jericho, Archer says on page 158 of his book, Such complete destruction might appear to be needlessly harsh, since it included infants who were too young to have committed overt sin. . . . In answer to this humanitarian objection, we need to recognize first of all that the biblical record indicates that Joshua [the leader of the Israelites] was simply carrying out Gods orders in this matter. The loss of innocent life in the demolition of Jericho was much to be regretted, but we must recognize that there are times when only radical surgery will save the life of a cancer-stricken body. Subsequently, on the same page of his book, Archer explains that, if the inhabitants of Jericho had been permitted to live, their moral depravity might have infected the Israelites. Thus, in both of these instances, God instructed the Israelites to kill people who, as a nation, were extremely sinful, and who would have been likely to influence the Israelites to commit similar sins. As for the killing of innocent children, we reiterate what we said in our discussion of the death of the child who was fathered by King David when he had sexual intercourse with Bathsheba while she was still married to Uriah: Many Christians believe a child who has not reached the age of accountability will go to heaven

(i.e., will spend eternity with God). In conclusion, we realize that it is not always be possible for humans to completely understand the reasons for everything that God does. Therefore, the explanations we have provided in an attempt to rationalize the killing of seemingly innocent people may not entirely satisfy the reader. However, if God is the Creator of life, He is sovereign, so He has the right to terminate life, whether through the actions of people He instructs to do so or by His own actions. Furthermore, if we are willing to accept the fact that God is righteous, as is taught throughout the Bible (e.g., 2 Chronicles 12:6; Ezra 9:15; Nehemiah 9:8; Psalm 11:7; 116:5; 119:137; 129:4; 145:17; Lamentations 1:18; Daniel 9:14), then we have good reason to trust Him to do the right thing in every matter.

Copyright 2007 by Harvey Armour. If you have any questions or comments about this article, contact Harvey Armour at harveyarmour@yahoo.com. Mr. Armour desires to provide helpful insights from a Christian perspective on financial matters and difficult biblical matters. The information provided with regard to articles on personal or family money management is not intended to replace professional advice. Please consult with your own independent attorney and tax accountant to review and approve your financial decisions.

Printable version - Does God Tempt People?

In his February 12, 2009 debate with Kyle Butt, Dan Barker alleged that he knows the God of the Bible cannot exist because there are mutually incompatible properties/characteristics of the God thats in this book [the BibleEL] that rule out the possibility of His existence. Seven minutes and 54 seconds into his first speech, Barker cited James 1:13 and Genesis 22:1 as proof that the God of the Bible cannot exist. Since James 1:13 says: Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man (KJV), and Genesis 22:1 affirms that God did tempt Abraham (KJV) to sacrifice his son, Barker asserted that God is like a married bachelor or a square circleHe cannot logically exist. If Genesis 22:1 actually taught that God really tempted Abraham to commit evil and sin, then the God of the Bible might be a square circle, i.e., a logical contradiction. But, the fact of the matter is, God did not tempt Abraham to commit evil. Barker formulated his argument based upon the King James Version and only one meaning of the Hebrew word (niss) found in Genesis 22:1. Although the word can mean to tempt, the first two meanings that Brown, Driver, and Briggs give for niss in their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament is to test, to try (1993). Likewise, the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (1997) defines the word simply to test (Jenni and Westermann, 1997, 2:741-742). The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament agrees that niss is best translated, whether in secular or theological contexts, as testing (Botterweck, et al., 1998, 9:443-455). For this reason, virtually all major translations in recent times, including the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV, and RSV, translate Genesis 22:1 using the term tested, not tempted. When David put on the armor of King Saul prior to battling Goliath, the shepherd realized: I cannot walk with these, for I have not tested (niss) them (1 Samuel 17:39, emp. added). Obviously, this testing had nothing to do with David tempting his armor; he simply had not tested or tried on Sauls armor previously. God led Israel during 40 years of desert wanderings to humble...and test them (Deuteronomy 8:2, emp. added), not to tempt them to sin. Notice also the contrast in Exodus 20:20 between (1) God testing man and (2) trying to cause man to sin. After giving Israel the Ten Commandments, Moses said: Do not fear; for God has come to test (niss) you, and that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin (Exodus 20:20, emp. added). If one were to use Barkers reasoning that niss must mean to tempt, regardless of the context, then he would have to interpret Exodus 20:20 to mean that God tempted Israel to sin, so that they will not sin. When a person interprets the Bible, or any other book, without recognizing that words have a variety of meanings and can be used in various senses, a rational interpretation is impossible. Many alleged Bible contradictions, including several of those that Dan Barker mentioned in the Butt/Barker Debate, are easily explained simply by acknowledging that words are used in a variety of ways. Is a word to be taken literally or figuratively? Must the term in one place mean the exact same thing when in another context, or may it have different meanings? If English-speaking Americans can intelligibly converse about running to the store in the 21st century by driving a car, or if we can easily communicate about parking on driveways, and driving on parkways, why do some people have such a difficult time understanding the various ways in which words were used in Bible times? Could it be that some Bible critics like Barker are simply predisposed to interpret Scripture unfairly? The evidence reveals that is exactly what is happening. Rather then contradicting James 1:13, Genesis 22:1 actually corresponds perfectly with what James wrote near the beginning of his epistle: My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing (1:2-4, emp. added). By instructing Abraham to sacrifice his promised son (cf. Hebrews 11:17), God gave Abraham another opportunity to prove his loyalty to Him, while Abraham simultaneously used this trial to continue developing a more complete, mature faith. REFERENCES Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry (1998), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles B. Briggs (1993), A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Does Ps. 58:8 err about melting snails?

Get a stripped-dow n copy of this page.

Ps. 58:8 As a snail w hich melteth, let every one of them pass aw ay: like the untimely birth of a w oman, that they may not see the sun. W hat have we here -- a sort of fantastic creature-feature idea of a snail which slowly dissolves in the heat? Not exactly. The Hebrew word here is temec, and this is the only place where it appears in the Bible. The main meaning here is liquefaction, with a root in a word referring to dissolution. All agree that slugs and snails leave a trail behind as they move -- this is not something that is hard to observe or unknown. And of course, it is obvious that this liquid comes from their own bodies -- and presumably, especially in a hot, desert climate like Palestine's, a snail that doesn't find a source of moisture to replenish itself is going to eventually shrivel away: hence the comparison to the "untimely birth of a woman." For this objection to work, it would have to be assumed that temec means "dissolve" in the sense that snow, for example, melts -- but there is no point of comparison, and no reason why this word cannot refer to the dehydration process we describe. -JPH

What Letter? What Bible Book?

Keyword Search

Apologetics
Answers for Atheists Design vs. Evolution Biblical Creation Bible Authenticity Slideshows YouTube Videos Christian Theology Aberrant Theology Christian Tribulation Christian Life Issues Discovery Course God's Love Abortion Discussion Forum Links Book Reviews Movie Reviews

Page Links

Does the Bible Say God Repents From Doing Evil?

by Rich Deem

one's INTRODUCTION Repentance is the act of turning away fromhave sin to righteous behavior. As some skeptics pointed out, the Bible says that God has repented from doing evil:

Does God Repent?

According to the King James English translation, God "repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Does this mean that God was thinking about sinning, but turned from that sin? Does God repent from doing evil?

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:14) And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD Rich Deem was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite. (2 Samuel 24:16) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (Jonah 3:10) Does this mean that God is a sinner and is in need of repentance? The Bible is quite clear that God is not the author of evil and insists that He is incapable of doing so.1 Is this a contradiction? Skeptics love the King James Translation so much, one would think that they were still back in medieval England. Use of this translation is problematic these days, since it uses an archaic version of modern English, which doesn't necessarily mean the same things today as when it was translated over 400 years ago. So the phrase "it repented the Lord" does not mean that God repented from doing evil.

Introduction King James version Hebrew meanings Translation comparison Other Hebrew words God's omniscience Conclusion Related Pages References Print Email Page Translate Font: A A
A

Love that King James translation!

Answers
Is God Real? Is Christianity True? God's Character Evil & Suffering Religion is stupid Bad Christians Bible & Science Bible Contradictions Objections to Christianity Common atheist's myths No Evidence of the Supernatural?

Search
Search Site

Advanced Search Enhanced Google Site Map

Ministry Info
About us Contact us Privacy Policy RSS Feed

Testament. The word translated "repented" is the Hebrew verb nac ham (Strong's H5162). It has a number of meanings, including "to be sorry," "console oneself," "repent," "regret," and "be comforted."3 The actual meaning intended is determined from the context. For example, the King James version translates Genesis 6:6 as "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." The New American Standard translates the verse as "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." More comparisons of archaic (King James) versus modern (New American Standard) English translations can be seen in the table below:

Hebrew meanings All the verses above, and others,2 come from the Hebrew Old

Comparison of Translations
Verse Genesis 6:6 King James And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them. And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite. And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite. Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and besought the LORD, and the LORD repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls. New American Standard The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. When the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them. When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, "It is enough! Now relax your hand!" And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but as he was about to destroy it, the LORD saw and was sorry over the calamity, and said to the destroying angel, "It is enough; now relax your hand." And the angel of the LORD was standing by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. "Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves."

G & S Toolbar Exodus 32:14 Newsletter name email address

Subscribe

New Pages
Was Jesus God? Once Saved Always Saved? God is Not "Fair" Christians & Suicide Judging the Sabbath Land Plants Before Animals? Four Views on Divine Providence Did God have a wife? Alien Life in Meteorites? Singularity Movement Creating Life in the Lab NASA's ArsenicEating Bacteria The Moral Landscape 'Goldilocks' Planet Has Life? Stephen Hawking

Judges 2:18

General
Send an e-Card Webmaster Resources Personal Pages Humor 2 Samuel 24:16)

Site Helps
Site Help En Espaol Help I can't see! Bookmark G&S Toolbar Report page errors Jeremiah 26:19 1 Chronicles 21:15

Jonah 3:10

souls. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

great evil against ourselves." When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.

Besides the Hebrew word nac ham, there is another Hebrew verb with one meaning "to repent." This word, shub (Strong's H7725), has additional meanings of "to return," "to turn back," etc.4 When used with the meaning of turning from sin (i.e., to repent), it is never used in reference to God, but always used with reference to human beings.5 So, in reality, the Bible never says that God repents of doing evil, but, in fact, indicates that God does not repent.1

Other Hebrew words

knows everything (omniscience) brought into question when God feels sorry over some decision He has made or changes His mind? After all, if God was really omniscient, wouldn't He have known what was going to happen, so that He could have chosen another path? God's omniscience does not mean that God changes His character to pretend that everything is fine when human beings sin. For example, in Genesis 6:6, the Lord was sorry because of the rampant sin that mankind had fallen into.6 So, even though God knew what was going to happen, He was sad that human beings were thinking only about how to sin more and more. We basically have the same reaction to our own children. We grieve when they make bad choices, although if we had it to do over, we would still have brought them into the world. What about instances where God "changed His mind?" Shouldn't one expect that an omniscient God would never have to change His mind? If we examine the verses where God "changes His mind" we find in every instance that either the people themselves or a spokesman for the people repents of the sin that was going on. For example, God sent Jonah to the city of Nineveh to warn them that they were going to fall under His judgment. If God had never intended to "change His mind" He would have never sent the reluctant Jonah to the city. In fact, God had to go to extreme lengths to get Jonah to go, and Jonah was ultimately very unhappy when Assyrians repented and God did not destroy them all.7 So, God really didn't change His mind, but was giving the people a chance to repent of their evil ways in order to avoid judgment. In some instances the people repented and were spared, and in other instances they continued to rebel and were destroyed. So, God's purpose in warning people of impending judgment was get them to change their minds. The King James English translation uses archaic English that didn't have the same meaning 400 years ago as it does now. So, the archaic translations indicating that God "repented" really indicated that God was sorry or "changed His mind." Since God never sins, He has no need of repentance. Some skeptics have pointed out that an omniscient God should never change His mind, since He always should know what was going to happen. In reality, God never changes His mind, but warns rebellious people to give them the opportunity to change their minds before He judges them.

God's Omniscience? Even though God never really repented, isn't the assertion that God

Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Is Satan Real? Paul Invented Christianity? Ancient Hebrew Inscription Babies Go To Heaven? Medical Marijuana 'Benefits' Genetics & Homosexuality Origin of Homochirality Natural Evil Is Religion Child Abuse? Why are Scientists Atheists? God of the Gaps Who Created God? Living Together a Good Idea?

CONCLUSION

RELATED PAGES
Did God Create Evil - Does the Bible Say So? A Loving God Would Not Send Billions of People to Hell, Would He? God's Chosen People, the Jews: Isn't God Unfair in Showing Such Preference? Thou Shall Not Kill- Does God Violate His Own Commandment? Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People? If God is Jealous Doesn't That Make Him the Divine Hypocrite? There is Too Much Evil and Suffering For God to Exist? Is it Possible for God to Provide 'Partial Free Will' and Eliminate All Evil? The Professor Teaches About Evil and Christianity What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion If God Existed, Prayer Would Have Brought World Peace?

REFERENCES
1. "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (Numbers 23:19) "For the LORD your God is a compassionate God; He will not fail you nor destroy you nor forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them. (Deuteronomy 4:31) "For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe. (Deuteronomy 10:17) "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He. (Deuteronomy 32:4) "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." (1 Samuel 15:29) "Now then let the fear of the LORD be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the LORD our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe." (2 Chronicles 19:7) "Therefore, listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do wickedness, And from the Almighty to do wrong. (Job 34:10) "Behold, God is mighty but does not despise any; He is mighty in strength of understanding. (Job 36:5)

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178

AP Content :: Scripturally Speaking

Does the Bible Teach Geocentricity? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A. Q. Does the Bible teach that the Sun revolves around the Earth, in contradiction to modern scientific knowledge on this matter? A. The medieval Catholic Church maintained that the Bible taught geocentricity (i.e., that the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth) as opposed to what we now know as the Copernican idea of heliocentricity (i.e., that the planets all revolve around the Sun). This situation began when Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria restated the ancient Ptolemaic geocentric theory in the second century after Christ, and was able to predict the motion of the celestial bodies with far greater accuracy than the existing theory of heliocentricity. Somewhere along the line, scientific dogma became enshrined in theological dogma, and passages in the Bible were found to consecrate Ptolemys theory. According to the theologians, man was the focus of Gods creative act, and therefore the Earth must be the center of Gods creation. After all, if we were dwelling on one average planet, rotating around one average star, in one average galaxy in an infinite Universe, how could we be the sole focus of Gods attention, and why should His only Son be sent just to this middling planet, as the Bible suggests? Needless to say, this revolution of thought provided great fuel for the atheists, skeptics and agnostics. According to Paul Steidl: The truths of Gods word and the work of Jesus Christ in no way depend on our position.... If anything, our lack of a unique position in the natural universe is only an illustration of the natural mans lack of a unique position before God (1979, p. 6). In other words, the presence of our material selves in the material Universe is not as important to God as our immortal souls. On the other hand, it is difficult to doubt that God has placed our planet in just the right place, and set it in motion in just the right way, to benefit the survival of humanity. Copernicus submitted his ideas in the early sixteenth century, stating that geocentricity was incorrect after all. Some of Copernicus ideas could not be defended scientifically, but science generally had little to do with the attacks on this theory. Calvin, for instance, criticized Copernicus by appealing to passages in Joshua and Psalms that supposedly show the fixity of the Earth relative to the Sun. Galileo came along a hundred years later and firmed up the Copernican theories with better mathematics and with more accurate and numerous measurements. Unlike Copernicus, Galileo was persistent, arrogant, and prepared to stand up to the wrath of the Inquisition. Galileos assertion that the Bible should be interpreted in light of mans knowledge of the natural world, and that Scripture should not have authority in scientific controversies, did little to endear him to church leaders. Thus, rather than being the case of science versus the Bible, it was dogmatic scientist versus religious dogmatism. This, of course, is not all the story; the remainder would be covered in a good history book. One of the passages used to defend the biblical basis of geocentricity was Joshua 10:12-14, and later references to the same event, in which Joshua prayed, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; And thou, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon (v. 12), that he might defeat the numerous armies assembled against his people. God immediately answered Joshuas prayer, and in the following verse he wrote: And the Sun stood still, and the Moon stayed. Keil and Delitzsch have suggested that either the day appeared long to the warriors of Israel because of the greatness of the task they performed (i.e., defeating the enemy), or that God miraculously caused the day to be lengthened so the Lords army could perform its task. The former is consistent with similar language in other parts of the Old Testament, and the latter explanation is totally consistent with Gods infinite power over the Universe (1982, 2:106-112). In any case, as Joshua goes on to say in verse 14, there was no day like that before it or after it. Thus, whether miraculous or not, to say that these verses teach that the Earth continues to stand still, and that the Earth is the center of the Universe, is both a gross misinterpretation and a misapplication of the verse. This passage does not teach geocentricity, despite Calvins claims to the contrary. In addition to Joshua 10, Calvin used Psalm 93:1 in defense of geocentricity. The verse simply suggests that the Earth is stable, and cannot be moved, but is it trying to say that the Earth is totally motionless in every sense? As the passage is primarily concerned with Gods majesty and power, it is more likely that the psalmist is saying, Who but God could move the Earth? Besides, the Earth is set in an unchanging orbit around the Sun, all the while rotating at a steady speed on a fixed axis.

Psalm 19:6 is a passage that often is cited as another example of Scripture teaching pre-Copernican astronomy. In this verse, the Sun is said to move, rather than the Earth, and therefore is said by some to imply that the Sun revolves around the Earth. There are many other verses in the Bible that talk about the Sun going down or rising up. This hardly should be surprising, however, since events in the Bible often are written in accommodative or phenomenal languagei.e., the language used to express phenomena as man sees them. Even today we teach our children that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and astronomers and navigators use the Earth as a fixed point for purposes of simple observation, expressing distances and directions in relation to it. The weatherman on the evening news often will state that the Sun is going to rise at a certain time the following morning and set at a certain time the following evening. Why does no one accuse him of scientific error? Because we all are perfectly aware of, and understand, the Copernican view of the solar system, and because we likewise understand that our weatherman is using phenomenal language. In addition, scientific foreknowledge could be claimed from Psalm 19:6 if a more literal interpretation was applied in the following way. Astronomers now know that the Sun moves in a gigantic orbit around the center of the Milky Way galaxy; traveling at 600,000 miles an hour it would take the Sun 230 million years to make just one orbit! It also is believed that our galaxy is moving with respect to other galaxies in the Universe. The Suns going forth is indeed from one end of the heavens to the other. In any case, there is no way to substantiate the claims that the Bible teaches geocentricity, or that it promotes any other anti-scientific concept. REFERENCES Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Steidl, Paul (1979), The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed).

Originally published in Reason and Revelation, December 1986, 6[12]:47-50.

Copyright 1986 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Scripturally Speaking" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

Does the Bible wrongly call the bat a "bird"?

Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (See also Deut. 14:11, 18) Is there a biological error here? Aren't bats mammals, not birds? Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify waterdwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers). It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers. It is not sufficient answer to say that "experts in Hebrew" chose the word "bird". Hebrew experts aren't experts in animal biology. The KJV chose "bird" and apparently no one sees a need to change it -- though they ought to. I am wondering if those who make this objection are seriously proposing that when the Hebrews used this word, they actually had in mind the modern classification scheme which defines "bird" as a warm-blooded creature of a certain class who had feathers. Nor will it do to argue that the "Word of God should be perfect at all times and in all circumstances." If this is how "perfection" is to be understood -- if the Bible is supposed to be prepared for our every change in natural understanding of unalterable data -- then all we'd have to do to make the Bible "wrong" is change our terminology on things. In other words, if the Bible says, "the sky is blue," we can change our definition of what is "blue" and then say that the Bible is wrong. So would it be seriously suggested that the Bible might have to say, for example: This is what the Lord says: "The sky is blue -- although Joe Padooski, living in 1874 AD, will define this as others would define 'green' and he will call the color in question 'Fred'." Those who make this sort of complaint don't want answers. The objection has no legitimacy. What about Deut. 14:11? It uses a different word - tsippowr. A close look at the word in question shows that tsippowr isn't even related to the list that

Keyword Search

follows it, except in the most general sense. The word comes from tsaphar, a word that means to skip about or even to depart early (cf. Judges 7:3). The reference is obviously to the sort of bird that skips around on the ground and would be easy pickin's for the peasant diet (Strong's lists the sparrow in its definition). Such would not describe ANY of the animals in the list afterwards (hence the adversarial "but" in 14:12) and the return in 14:20 is to the more general category of 'owph (owner of a wing) of which both the listed members AND the tsippwor would be part. Note that the two words are reflective of different categories in Gen. 7:14, in the same way that "cattle" are from "beasts". -JPH

ARK MODEL This model shows the construction technique called "spaceframe," though usually considered modern, this concept would not have been outside the grasp of Yahweh as he designed the ship for Noah. If the ark was constructed of wood, as the Bible claims, then it must have been built this way. It is the combined opinion of naval architects that a ship this large cannot be constructed of any type of wood using conventional keel and rib construction methods. Wood is not strong enough for a boat this large if it were made in the usual way. However, built in this "spaceframe" manner, using iron pins at the connections thereby allowing for 100% connection efficiency in torsion, compression and tension, all stresses required by such connections would be reduced by "tributary loading." A wooden ship this large could indeed be built and would be many times stronger, perhaps 10 fold than its conventional counterparts. (Click here or on the image for a full-screen. Hit "Back" to return.)

"Gopher wood" "Gopher wood" is a misreading and scribal error. "Kopher" wood is correct and means wood (any wood) that is covered with Kopher. Kopher is bitumen. In the Genesis text (6:14), the context is clear. The GPR wood used, (a scribal error) is to be covered in KPR. G and K in Hebrew are so similar that inexperienced Hebrew "scholars," such as those translating the King James Version of the Bible, could have been prone to such errors, indeed, they made many such errors. Acts 7: 45 & Hebrews 4: 8 are classic examples of such scribal errors. gpr = "g," as in gopher, k pr = "k,"as in kopher Here is a simple visual comparison of the letters, cross-reference your Hebrew language guide:

(click here for images of the ark anchor stones found at Kazan)

Home

Jesus Saves

Donate

Store

What's New?

Forums

Radio

Schools

Submit Correction
Part of a series on

Submit Question Apologetics

Christianity Bible Difficulties Dictionaries Early Church Fathers Major Religious Movements Minor Religious Movements Secular Movements Questions More Stuff Videos Languages About CARM

Has anyone seen God or not?

Exodus 24:9-11, Exodus 33:11, Exodus 6:2-3; and John 1:18
1. Has seen A. (Gen. 17:1) Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty ; Walk before Me, and be blameless; B. (Gen. 18:1) Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. C. (Exodus 6:2-3) God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD; 3and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them. D. (Exodus 24:9-11) Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank. E. (Num. 12:6-8) He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. 7"Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; 8With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses ?" F. (Acts 7:2), "And he [Stephen] said, 'Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran...'" 2. Has not seen A. (Exodus 33:20) But He [God] said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live !" B. (John 1:18) No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. C. (John 5:37) "And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. D. (John 6:46) - "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. E. (1 Tim. 6:15-16) He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen. It is evident above that God was seen. But, considering the "can't-see-God" verses, some would understandably argue that there would be a contradiction. One explanation offered is that the people were seeing visions, or dreams, or the Angel of the LORD (Num. 22:22-26; Judges 13:1-21) and not really God Himself. But the problem is that the verses cited above do not say vision, dream, or Angel of the LORD. They say that people saw God (Exodus 24:9-11), that God was seen, and that He appeared as God Almighty (Exodus 6:2-3). At first, this is difficult to understand. God Almighty was seen (Exodus 6:2-3) which means it was not the Angel of the Lord, for an angel is not God Almighty, and at least Moses saw God, not in a vision or dream, as the LORD Himself attests in Num. 12:6-8. If these verses mean what they say, then we naturally assume we have a contradiction. Actually, the contradiction exists in our understanding, not in the Bible--which is always the case with alleged biblical contradictions. The solution is simple. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then they were seeing God Almighty, but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus. If God is a Trinity, then John 1:18 is not a problem either because in John chapter one, John writes about the Word (Jesus) and God (the Father). In verse 14 it says the Word became flesh. In verse 18 it says no one has seen God. Since Jesus is the Word, God then, refers to the Father. This is typically how John writes of God: as a reference to the Father. We see this verified in Jesus own words in John 6:46 where He said that no one has ever seen the Father. Therefore, Almighty God was seen, but not the Father. It was Jesus before His incarnation. There is more than one person in the Godhead and the doctrine of the Trinity must be true.

Genesis Deuteronomy
Gen. 1 & 2, Don't Genesis 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts? Gen. 4:17, Where did Cain get his wife? Gen. 7:2-3, How many kinds did Noah bring into the ark, two or seven? Ex. 6:2-3, Has anyone seen God or not? Ex. 20:8, Should we keep the Sabbath or not? Lev. 11:13-19, Is a bat a bird? Num. 15:32, Why was a man killed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath? Deut. 2:32-33, Why did the Israelites destroy cities and kill all of the people inside? Deut. 5:9, Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not? Deut. 21:18-21, Stone a rebellious son

Weekly Newsletter
E-mail Submit

Help CARM by Liking It! See Also

Advertise with CARM Amazon Wish List Cafepress - store CARM Blog CARM Facebook CARM Survey CARM Twitter CARM Radio CARM Toolbar Copying and Linking Chat Room Donate to CARM Help Needed Statement of Faith Submit a Correction Submit a Question Submit Feedback The Warning Tract To Do List

This article is also available in: Espaol, Indonesia

CARM ONLINE SCHOOLS

A lot of knowledge and an easy way to learn it.

15%Discount
Tweet off of Logos Bible Program. CARM highly recommends

A Series of Answers to Common Questions

Sam Shamoun

Question: How can Jesus be God when the Hebrew Bible says God is not a man? Cf. Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9. Answer:
None of those biblical texts say God CANNOT be a man, but say that God IS not a man, a major difference: "God IS not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" Numbers 23:19 "And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he IS not a man, that he should have regret." 1 Samuel 15:29 "I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath." Hosea 11:9 It is true that during the Old Testament period God hadnt become a man, but this doesnt deny that God could choose to later become a man, specifically in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Hebrew Bible itself supports the view that God can become a man, without ceasing to be God, since there are places where God appeared in human form: "The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw THREE MEN standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash YOUR FEET and rest under this tree. Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way-now that you have come to your servant. Very well, they answered, do as you say He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. WHILE THEY ATE, he stood near them under a tree. Where is your wife Sarah? they asked him. There, in the tent, he said. THEN THE LORD SAID, I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son THEN THE LORD SAID TO ABRAHAM, Why did Sarah laugh and say, "Will I really have a child, now that I am old?" Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son. Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, I did not laugh. BUT HE SAID, Yes, you did laugh. WHEN THE MEN GOT UP TO LEAVE, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. THEN THE LORD SAID, Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? ... THEN THE LORD SAID, The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know. The men turned away and went toward Sodom, BUT ABRAHAM REMAINED STANDING BEFORE THE LORD . Then Abraham APPROACHED HIM and said: Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing - to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? THE LORD SAID, If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake WHEN THE LORD HAD FINISHED SPEAKING WITH ABRAHAM, HE LEFT, and Abraham returned home." Genesis 18:1-5, 8-10a, 13-17, 20-26, 33 To support the premise that God actually appeared as one of the three men note that Genesis 18:22 says the men got up and headed towards Sodom and Gomorrah, whereas Yahweh remained behind with Abraham: "So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD." RSV Now if Yahweh wasn't one of the three men then we would expect to find that all three men went ahead to Sodom. But this is not what we find since the very next chapter says: "The TWO angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, and said, 'My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.' They said, 'No; we will spend the night in the street.' But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate." Genesis 19:1-3 RSV Only two men show up at Sodom, which the text identifies as two angels. Where was the third man? You guessed it, the third man had remained behind to talk to Abraham since that man was actually Yahweh God who had appeared with the other two! Noted Messianic Jewish scholar, writer, and evangelist Dr. Michael L. Brown mentions the interesting comments the rabbis made about this specific text: "According to the Talmud (b. Bava Messia 86b), God himself was paying Abraham a personal sick call, checking on him after the ordeal of circumcision. Here is the expanded translation of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (the actual words of the Talmud are in bold). We read that Abraham went out

and saw the Holy One, blessed be He, standing at the door of his tent, as the verse says, 'And the Lord

and saw the Holy One, blessed be He, standing at the door of his tent, as the verse says, 'And the Lord appeared to him by the terebinths of Mamre.' This is what the verse is referring to when it says (Gen 18:3): 'And he said, "O Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, do not, I pray you, pass by Your servant."' In this verse
Abraham was speaking to God himself (and so addressed Him as Lord and referred to himself as His servant.) When God saw that Abraham was busy tying and untying the bandages of his circumcision, He said to Himself, 'It is not fitting that I stay here while Abraham is taking care of His wound.' He was about to remove His presence when Abraham pleaded with Him to stay a little longer. And this is also what the verse refers to when it says (Genesis 18:2): 'And he raised his eyes and looked, and, behold, three men stood by him; and when he saw

them, he ran to meet them.'

Now, here, we have a biblical text that indisputably says that the Lord - Hebrew YHWH - appeared to Abraham and the Talmud even relates in story form how Abraham actually saw 'the Holy One, blessed be He,' addressing him as Lord. Yet, just a few words later, this very same biblical text says that Abraham looked up and saw three men, the Talmud giving the impression that God himself appeared to Abraham, only to be replaced by these men. Who were the three men?... According to the Talmud, the three men were the angels, Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael, each with his own special task. Michael came to give Sarah the good news that she would soon have a son, Raphael came to heal Abraham, and Gabriel went to overthrow the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (although the Talmud says that Michael went along with Gabriel so as to rescue Lot). But there are problems with this view too. First, the text nowhere says that the angels replaced or represented the Lord. Instead, the Bible says that the Lord appeared to Abraham, that he saw three men, and that he addressed one of them both as Lord ('adonai) and as YHWH. Second, the context indicates clearly that two of the men went on to Sodomwhere they are identified as angels- and that Abraham stayed before YHWH, with whom he had extended dialogue. To be faithful to the Scriptures we must say that the Lord, with two angels, appeared to Abraham, and all three appeared as human beings who spoke, ate, and drank with Abraham and Sarah." (Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections [Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI 2000], Volume 2, pp. 31-33) Despite the rabbis trying to imply that Yahweh didn't appear as a man and wasn't one of the three men, a view which clearly contradicts the plain reading of the text, their admission that Abraham did in fact see God is interesting nonetheless. Other references to God manifesting in human form include: "So Jacob was left alone, and A MAN wrestled with him till daybreak. When THE MAN saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with THE MAN. Then THE MAN said, Let me go, for it is daybreak. But Jacob replied, I will not let you go unless you bless me. THE MAN asked him, What is your name? Jacob, he answered. Then THE MAN said, Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome. Jacob said, Please tell me your name. But he replied, Why do you ask my name? Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, It is because I SAW GOD FACE TO FACE, and yet my life was spared." Genesis 32:24-30 "And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with A HUMAN APPEARANCE. And upward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were gleaming metal, like the appearance of fire enclosed all around. And downward from what had the appearance of his waist I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness around him. Like the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness all around. Such was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard the voice of one speaking AND HE SAD TO ME, Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you. And as he spoke to me, the Spirit entered into me and set me on my feet, and I heard him speaking to me. And he said to me, Son of man, I send you to the people of Israel, to nations of rebels, who have rebelled against me. They and their fathers have transgressed against me to this very day. The descendants also are impudent and stubborn: I send you to them, and you shall say to them, "Thus says the Lord GOD." And whether they hear or refuse to hear (for they are a rebellious house) they will know that a prophet has been among them. 6And you, son of man, be not afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words, though briers and thorns are with you and you sit on scorpions. Be not afraid of their words, nor be dismayed at their looks, for they are a rebellious house. And you shall speak my words to them, whether they hear or refuse to hear, for they are a rebellious house. But you, son of man, hear what I say to you. Be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you. And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and behold, a scroll of a book was in it. And he spread it before me. And it had writing on the front and on the back, and there were written on it words of lamentation and mourning and woe." Ezekiel 1:26-28, 2:1-10 The Hebrew Bible even predicts that the Messiah of David is actually God in the flesh: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this." Isaiah 9:6-7 Here, the Messiah is a child who is born, showing that he is truly human, while also being the Mighty God at the same time. "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: Yahweh is our righteousness." Jeremiah 23:5-6 The Messiah is Davids Branch, implying that he is a human descendant of David, while also being Yahweh our righteousness. These texts clearly indicate that God will become man in the Person of the Messiah, whom the NT says is the Lord Jesus!

Furthermore, Moses also calls God "a man of war" (ish milhamah): "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." Exodus 15:3 KJV Other places where God is called a man of war include: "The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war (ish milhamah): he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies." Isaiah 42:13 KJV The foregoing demonstrates that in some ways God and man are alike, i.e. both God and man have a warrior spirit. Yet in other respects God is completely unlike man, namely that God is perfectly holy and consistent whereas man is not. Thus, passages such as Numbers 23:19 do not rule out the possibility of God appearing as a man and/or becoming a man. It simply states that God's essence is distinct from man, without denying the fact that God could/would eventually take on a human nature. In reality, these texts simply illustrate that God is not a man by nature and doesnt therefore lie or change his mind like men normally do. What this basically means is that if God chose to become a man then he wouldnt be like other men he would be completely pure and holy. And since God did become man in Christ we find that this is exactly the kind of person Jesus was, namely, absolutely pure and sinless: "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God." Mark 1:24 "Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." John 6:68-69 "The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." John 7:18 "And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?" John 8:29, 46 "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me," John 14:30 "But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses." Acts 3:14-15 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21 "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15 "For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens." Hebrews 7:26 "how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Hebrews 9:14 "knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." 1 Peter 1:18-19 "He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth." 1 Peter 2:22 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit," 1 Peter 3:18 "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 1 John 2:1 "And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin." 1 John 3:3, 5 To conclude, Christians believe that God wasn't always a man, but later became man at the Incarnation. The eternal Word of God took on a real human nature, while still remaining fully God in essence. A Series of Answers to Common Questions Answering Islam Home Page

AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map

Share

How long was the ark at Abinadab's house?

Question: How long was the ark of the covenant at Abinadab's house? Was it twenty years or more than forty years? 1 Sam. 7:1-2 says the ark was at Abinadab's house for twenty years. 1 Sam. 10:24 says that Saul became king. And this was after the ark was moved to Abinadab's house, right? Acts 13:21 says that Saul was king for forty years. 2 Sam. 6:2-3 says that David, who became king after Saul, moved the ark from Abinadab's house. So, how can this be? 1 Sam. 7:1-2 says the ark was at Abinadab's house for twenty years. But, the other verses show that the ark was at Abinadab's house for at least forty years. And that's a contradiction, right? Response: The key is in understanding the reference to the "twenty years" in 1 Samuel 7:2. If the ark was moved from Abinadab's house after the 20 years, then yes it would seem that we have a contradiction. But, if the ark was not moved after that 20 years, then we have no contradiction. So, what does the "twenty years" refer to? Does it refer to the ark being moved? Or does it simply mean that at that particular point in time the ark already had been at Abinadab's house for a total of 20 years? To answer that, take a look at 1 Samuel 7:1-3 (NIV): 1 Samuel 7:1 So the men of Kiriath Jearim came and took up the ark of the LORD. They took it to Abinadab's house on the hill and consecrated Eleazar his son to guard the ark of the LORD. 1 Samuel 7:2 It was a long time, twenty years in all, that the ark remained at Kiriath Jearim, and all the people of Israel mourned and sought after the LORD. 1 Samuel 7:3 And Samuel said to the whole house of Israel, "If you are returning to the LORD with all your hearts, then rid yourselves of the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths and commit yourselves to the LORD and serve him only, and he will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines." In first verse, the ark is taken to Abinadab's house. In the third verse, Samuel convenes representatives from the house of Israel and tells them to turn back to the Lord and to turn away from pagan worship. So what does the "twenty years" in the second verse refer to? It refers to the span of time between the events described in the first and third verses. Nothing more, nothing less. It refers to the span of time that begins with the ark being moved to Abinadab's house and it ends with Samuel convening the house of Israel. The fact is, there is no mention in 1 Samuel 7:1-3 of the ark being moved. In fact, nowhere in all of 1 Samuel 7 does it ever say that the ark was moved at that point in time. Nowhere in all of 1 Samuel 7 does it ever say where the ark was supposedly moved to. And nowhere in all of 1 Samuel 7 does it ever say who supposedly moved the ark. Why? Because - the ark was not moved at that point in time. It had been at Abinadab's house for 20 years at that point in time. And, as we learn from other Bible passages, the ark remained at Abinadab's house for at least another 20 years. There is no contradiction. Return to list of Questions and Answers

Bible prophecies sorted by prophet

Abraham's prophecies Daniel's prophecies Ezekiel's prophecies Isaiah's prophecies Jeremiah's prophecies Jesus' prophecies Micah's prophecies Moses' prophecies Nahum's prophecies Zechariah's
prophecies

Bible prophecies sorted by theme

Destruction of Israel Exile of Israel Dispersion of Israel Persecution of Israel Re-gathering of Israel Nationhood (Israel) Preservation of Israel Worldwide impact Messianic About other nations End Times

Glossaries of people, miracles, events, etc.

Miracles of Jesus People in the Bible Places in the Bible Bible glossary History of Israel

Life and teachings of Jesus Christ

Early life 1st year of ministry 2nd year of ministry 3rd year of ministry The final months Persecution of Jesus Resurrection of Jesus

Articles, answers, explanations, links

Articles &
explanations What is Christianity? Learn about the Bible Answers to tough questions Links & Online Bibles Da Vinci Code hoax

Other items

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/545

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

How Many Supervisors Did Solomon Have? by Kyle Butt, M.A.

A helpful concept to remember when one is dealing with alleged discrepancies is the idea that a simple difference is not necessarily a contradiction. Just because two texts differ in the way they relate the facts does not necessarily mean that there exists no possible reconciliation of the texts. Lets look at one example of texts that differ, yet do not contradict each other. 1 Kings 5:16: Besides Solomons chief officers that were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, who bare rule over the people that wrought in the work. 2 Chronicles 2:18: And he set threescore and ten thousand of them to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand that were hewers in the mountains, and three thousand and six hundred overseers to set the people at work. These two verses frequently have been accused of contradicting one another because 1 Kings mentions 3,300 supervisors over the people, while 2 Chronicles mentions 3,600 overseers. To label these passages as contradictory represents a misunderstanding that could be based on several factors. One possible solution to this alleged contradiction is that the author of 2 Chronicles could be including a number of reserves who were standing ready to work should any of the regular supervisors get sick or accidentally be killed. In their essay on alleged Bible contradictions, Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, et. al. wrote: This is not too great a problem. The most likely solution is that the author of 2 Chronicles included the 300 men who were selected as reservists to take the place of any supervisors who would become ill or who had died, while the author of the 1 Kings 5:16 passage includes only the supervisory force. With the group as large as the 3,300, sickness and death certainly did occur, requiring reserves who would be called up as the need arose (n.d.). The profoundly respected Old Testament commentators, Keil and Delitzsch, offered another solution. They pointed out the fact that 1 Kings 9:23 mentions 550 chief officers of Solomon, thus giving the total number of supervisors in 1 Kings 5:16 and 9:23 as 3,850. Also mentioned is the fact that 2 Chronicles 8:10 mentions 250 chief officers of Solomon, bringing the total number of officers in 2 Chronicles 2:18 and 8:10 to exactly 3,850the same total as in 1 Kings. The difference does not lie within the numbers of the text; rather, the two authors simply classified the officers according to different standards. Whereas the chronicler might have been dividing the supervisors according to their nationality, the author of 1 Kings seems to have been dividing them by their authority (1982, 3:63-64). So we see that any hint of contradiction can be cleared away quite easily, and it is once again evident that a simple difference is not necessarily a contradiction. REFERENCES Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Smith, Jay, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, and James Schaeffer (no date), 101 Cleared-Up Contradictions in the Bible, [On-line], URL: http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm.

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is

Printable version - How Much Water Could "The Sea" Hold?

Almost 1,000 years before Jesus set foot on the Earth, the first temple dedicated to Jehovah was built out of Lebanon cedar (the finest there was), costly stones, and pure gold. The Bible indicates that over 183,000 men were involved in the construction of this glorious house of worship during the reign of King Solomon (1 Kings 5:13-16). The vessels that were housed within the temple, and those that remained in the inner court, were equally as elaborate. One of these vessels that stood on the right side of the sanctuary between the altar and the porch of the temple was an immense bronze basin known as the Sea (1 Kings 7:23). It was five cubits (7 feet) high, ten cubits (15 feet) in diameter at the brim, thirty cubits (45 feet) in circumference and rested on 12 bronze oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26, 39; 2 Chronicles 4:25,10). Unlike the ten lesser basins that were used to bathe portions of the burnt offerings, the Sea served as a washing pool for the priests (2 Chronicles 4:6). For many years the capacity of the inner courts large basin known as the Sea has been at the center of controversy. The reason: 1 Kings 7:26 indicates that it held 2,000 baths. (A bath was the largest of the liquid measures in Hebrew culture; estimates are that it corresponds to anywhere from 4-9 U.S. gallons). However, 2 Chronicles 4:5 says that the Sea held 3,000 baths. Thus, critics of the Bibles inerrancy have charged that a blatant contradiction exists and that such lack of agreement discredits divine authorship. There are at least three possible solutions to this alleged contradiction. First, the answer could be that a copyist, while attempting to ensure a carbon copy of the manuscript from which he was working, made an error. [For a general background on copyists errors, please see our foundational essay on that subject.] Keil and Delitzsch, in their commentary on 2 Chronicles, indicated their support of this theory. They tend to believe that the number 3,000 given in 2 Chronicles 4:5 has arisen from the confusion of the letter gimel (Hebrew transliterated letter-number for 3) with beth (Hebrew transliterated letter- number for 2). By a comparison of the two Hebrew letters, it easily is seen that their shape is quite similar. Even a tiny smudge from excessive wear on a scroll-column or a slightly damaged manuscript could have resulted in making the gimel look like a beth. With such an adjustment, the statements in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles are harmonized easily. However, it very well may be that this is not a copyists error at all. A second possible explanation to this alleged contradiction revolves around a Hebrew word used in 2 Chronicles 4:5 that does not appear in 1 Kings 7:26. Whereas in 1 Kings it says that the molten Sea held (ASV) 2,000 baths, 2 Chronicles says that it received (Hebrew machaziyq) and held three thousand baths (ASV, emp. added). The difference in phraseology may indicate that the Sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths, but when filled to its utmost capacity it received and held 3,000 baths (Haley, 1951, p. 382). Thus, the chronicler informs the reader that 3,000 baths of water were required to completely fill the Sea, which usually held 2,000 baths (Barnes). Anyone who has ever been around large pools of water (like a swimming pool) knows that the pool actually can hold a few thousand gallons of water more than generally is kept in it. It very well may be that the wording in 2 Chronicles indicates such a difference about the water level in the Sea. A third possible solution to this problem passage is that the bath unit mentioned in 1 Kings was larger than the bath unit used in 2 Chronicles. Since the latter account was written after the Babylonian exile, it is quite possible that reference is made to the Babylonian bath, which might have been less than the Jewish bath used at the time of Solomon. As Adam Clarke observed: The cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer than the Babylonian by one palm. It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity. In considering a modern-day example, a 20% difference exists between the U.S. gallon and the Imperial gallon, even though the same term is used for both quantities. Thus, this alleged discrepancy may be simply a misunderstanding on the part of 21st-century readers. The fact of the matter is that critics of the Bible cannot prove that this is a legitimate contradiction. Second Chronicles could represent a copyists error. On the other hand, I believe that one of the last two explanations represents a more plausible solution to the problem: either (1) the addition of the Hebrew word machaziyq (received) in 2 Chronicles 4:5 means that the Sea could actually hold 3,000 baths (though it normally held 2,000 baths); or (2) the bath unit used during the time of Solomon was larger than the one used after the Jews were released from Babylonian captivity. Until one can prove that these three solutions are not possibilities, he should refrain from criticizing the Bibles claim of divine inspiration. REFERENCES Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/547

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

How Old Were Ahaziah and Jehoiachin When They Began Their Respective Reigns? by Eric Lyons, M.Min. In 2 Kings 8:26 we read that Ahaziah, the sixth king of Judah, was twenty-two years old when he began his reign. However, in the book of 2 Chronicles, the Bible indicates that he was forty-two years old when he became king (22:2). Furthermore, in 2 Kings 24:8 we read where Jehoiachin succeeded his father as the nineteenth king of Judah at the age of eighteen, yet 2 Chronicles 36:9 informs us that he was eight years old when he became king. How is it that both of these kings are said to have begun their respective reigns at different times in their lives? Was Ahaziah twenty-two or forty-two when he became king? And was Jehoiachin merely eight years old when he began his rule over Judah, or was he eighteen as 2 Kings 24:8 indicates? How do we know which numbers are correct? And more important, how does the believer, who regards the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, explain these differences? Fortunately, there is enough additional information in the biblical text to prove the correct age of both men when they began their particular reigns over Judah. (Ahaziah ruled Judah around 841 B.C., and Jehoiachin almost 250 years later in 598 B.C.) Earlier, in 2 Kings 8:17-18, the author mentions that Ahaziahs father (Jehoram) was 32 when he became king, and died eight years later at the age of 40 (2 Chronicles 21:5, 20). Obviously, Ahaziah could not have been 42 at the time of his fathers death at age 40, since that would make the son (Ahaziah) two years older than his father (Jehoram). Thus, the correct reading of Ahaziahs age is twenty-two, not forty-two. There also is little doubt that Jehoiachin began his reign at eighteen, not eight years of age. This conclusion is established by Ezekiel 19:5-9, where Jehoiachin appears as going up and down among the lions, catching the prey, devouring men, and knowing the widows of the men he devoured and the cities he wasted. As Keil and Delitzsch observed when commenting on this passage: The knowing of widows cannot apply to a boy of eight, but might well be said of a young man of eighteen (1996). Furthermore, it is doubtful that an eight-year-old child would be described as one having done evil in the sight of the Lord (2 Kings 24:9). Even though it is possible to know the ages of Ahaziah and Jehoiachin when they began their respective reigns in Judah, the ages of these two kings in Chronicles are incorrect. Are these legitimate mistakes? Are we to conclude, based upon these two verses in 2 Chronicles, that the Bible is not from God? What shall we say to such questions? The simple answer to these queries is that a copyist, not an inspired writer, made these mistakes. In the case of Ahaziah, a copyist simply wrote twenty instead of forty, and in Jehoiachins situation (2 Chronicles 36:9), the scribe just omitted a ten, which made Jehoiachin eight instead of eighteen. This does not mean the Bible had errors in the original manuscripts, but it does indicate that minor scribal errors have slipped into some copies of the Bible. [If you have ever seen the Hebrew alphabet, you will notice that the Hebrew letters (which were used for numbers) could be confused quite easily.] Supporting this answer to the number problems in Chronicles are various ancient manuscripts such as the Syriac, the Arabic, at least one Hebrew manuscript, and a few of the Septuagint manuscriptsall of which contain the correct ages for these kings in 2 Chronicles (22 and 18 rather than 42 and 8). Based upon this evidence, and from the fact that the ages of Ahaziah and Jehoiachin given in the Massoretic text of Chronicles are incorrect, the translators of the NIV decided to translate 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 36:9 as twenty-two and eighteen rather than the way most other English versions of the Bible read (forty-two and eight). Although history records that copyists were meticulously honest in handling the text of the Bible, they, like all humans, made mistakes from time to time. Yet, even though technical mistakes in copying the text were made by these scribes of old, three important facts remain: (1) accurate communication still is possible; (2) many times one can find the correct reading by investigating ancient manuscripts such as those listed above; and (3) errors in copies of the Bible do not mean that those errors were in the original manuscripts written by inspired men.
*For a general background of this article, see our foundational essay on copyists errors.

REFERENCES

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/593

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

How Rude!? by Eric Lyons, M.Min. Imagine your mother asking you to do something for a neighbor, and you responding to her by saying, Woman, what does that have to do with me? If your mother is anything like mine, she probably would have given you the look (among other things) as she pondered how her son could be so rude. Responding to a mothers (or any womans) request in twenty-first-century America with the refrain, Woman, sounds impolite and offensive. Furthermore, a Christian, who is commanded to honor his father and mother (Ephesians 6:2), would be out of line in most situations when using such an expression while talking directly to his mother. In light of the ill-mannered use of the word woman in certain contexts today, some question how Jesus could have spoken to His mother 2,000 years ago using this term without breaking the commandment to [h]onor your father and your mother (Exodus 20:12; cf. Matthew 15:4; Matthew 5:17-20). When Jesus, His disciples, and His mother were at the wedding in Cana of Galilee where there was a depletion of wine, Mary said to Jesus, They have no wine (John 2:3). Jesus then responded to His mother, saying, Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come (John 2:4). Notice what one skeptic has written regarding what Jesus said in this verse. In Matt. 15:4 he [JesusEL] told people to Honor thy father and thy mother; yet, he was one of the first to ignore his own maxim by saying to his mother in John 2:4, Woman, what have I to do with thee? (McKinsey, 1995, p. 44). Imagine someone talking to his own mother is such a disrespectful manner and addressing her by such an impersonal noun as woman. Talk about an insolent offspring! (1995, p. 134). Jesus needs to practice some parental respect (2000, p. 251). Apparently Jesus love escaped him (n.d., Jesus). Why was Jesus disrespectful of his mother? In John 2:4, Jesus uses the same words with his mother that demons use when they meet Jesus. Surely the son of God knew that Mary had the blessing of the Father, didnt he, (and she was the mother of GodEd.) not to mention the fact that the son of God would never be rude? (n.d., Problems, parenthetical comment in orig.). As one can see, Mr. McKinsey is adamant that Jesus erred. He used such words to describe Jesus as disrespectful, insolent, unloving, and rude. Is he correct? As with most Bible critics, Mr. McKinsey is guilty of judging Jesus words by what is common in twenty-first-century English vernacular, rather than putting Jesus comments in its proper first-century setting. It was not rude or inappropriate for a man in the first century to speak to a lady by saying, Woman (gunai). This was a highly respectful and affectionate mode of address (Vincent, 1997) with no idea of censure (Robertson, 1932, p. 34). The New International Version correctly captures the meaning of this word in John 2:4: Dear woman, why do you involve me? (NIV, emp. added). Jesus used this word when complimenting the Syrophoenician womans great faith (Matthew 15:28), when affectionately addressing Mary Magdalene after His resurrection (John 20:15), and when speaking to His disconsolate mother one last time from the cross (John 19:26). Paul used this same word when addressing Christian women (1 Corinthians 7:16). As Adam Clarke noted: [C]ertainly no kind of disrespect is intended, but, on the contrary, complaisance, affability, tenderness, and concern, and in this sense it is used in the best Greek writers (1996). As to why Jesus used the term woman (gunai) instead of mother (meetros) when speaking to Mary (which even in first-century Hebrew and Greek cultures was an unusual way to address ones mother), Leon Morris noted that Jesus most likely was indicating that there is a new relationship between them as he enters his public ministry. Evidently Mary thought of the intimate relations of the home at Nazareth as persisting. But Jesus in his public ministry was not only or primarily the son of Mary, but the Son of Man who was to bring the realities of heaven to people on earth (1:51). A new relationship was established (Morris, 1995, p. 159). R.C.H. Lenski added: [W]hile Mary will forever remain his [JesusEL] mother, in his calling Jesus knows no mother or earthly relative, he is their Lord and Savior as well as of all men. The common earthly relation is swallowed up in the divine (1961, p. 189). It seems best to conclude that Jesus was simply informing His mother in a loving-yet-firm manner that as He began

performing miracles for the purpose of proving His deity and the divine origin of His message (see Miller, 2003, pp. 17-23), His relationship to His mother was about to change. Finally, the point also must be stressed that honoring fathers and mothers does not mean that a son or daughter never can correct his or her parents. Correction and honor are no more opposites than correction and love. One of the greatest ways parents disclose their love to their children is by correcting them when they make mistakes. Similarly, one of the ways in which a mature son might honor his parents is by taking them aside when they have erred, and lovingly pointing out their mistake or oversight in a certain matter. How much more honorable would this action be than to take no action and allow them to continue in a path of error without informing them of such. We must keep in mind that even though Mary was a great woman who found favor with God (Luke 1:30), she was not perfect (cf. Romans 3:10,23). She was not God, nor the mother of God (viz., she did not originate Jesus or bring Him into existence). But, she was the one chosen to carry the Son of God in her womb. Who better to correct any misunderstanding she may had had than this Son? REFERENCES Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarkes Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of the St. Johns Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), Jesus, Imperfect Beacon, Biblical Errancy [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld /bepart11.html#issref113. McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), Problems with the Credentials and Character of Jesus, Biblical Errancy [On-line], URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/errancy/issues/iss190.htm. McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus). McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus). Miller, Dave (2003), Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation, Reason & Revelation, 23:17-24, March. Morris, Leon (1995), The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition. Robertson, A.T. (1932), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman). Vincent, Marvin R. (1997), Word Studies in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

Apologetics
Answers for Atheists Design vs. Evolution Biblical Creation Bible Authenticity Slideshows YouTube Videos Christian Theology Aberrant Theology Christian Tribulation Christian Life Issues Discovery Course God's Love Abortion Discussion Forum Links Book Reviews Movie Reviews

Page Links

If God is Jealous Doesn't That Make Him the Divine Hypocrite?

by Rich Deem

it like INTRODUCTION The Bible makesHe clear that God is not but is humans in that never commits sins, absolutely However, English translations of the Hebrew scriptures say that God is jealous. Both the Old Testament 2 and New Testament 3 say that jealousy is a bad thing. In fact, jealousy is listed as one of the sins that will land a person in hell.4 So, if God is jealous and jealousy is a sin, then God must be the divine hypocrite. holy.1

The Jealous God?

The Old Testament clearly states that God is a jealous God. In fact, it even says that His name is Jealous. Isn't jealousy a bad thing? Does this make God the divine hypocrite?
Rich Deem

Introduction God's jealousy Human jealousy Human vs. God Conclusion Related Pages References Print Email Page Translate Font: A A
A

comes from the Old Testament books of the law of Moses. The "jealousy" is always in the context of idol worship, beginning in the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20. "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Exodus 20:5) for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-- (Exodus 34:14) "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (Deuteronomy 4:24) 'You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Deuteronomy 5:9) for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off, the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 6:15) What these five verses have in common is that they all share the same Hebrew adjective, qanna' (Strong's H7067),5 translated with the English word "jealous." The interesting thing about this word is that it is only used in reference to God. In no instance is the word qanna' used to describe human jealousy. The reason that God is "jealous" is because He wants people to choose to love Him.6 Jesus said that the most important commandment was to love God.7 God does not want us to waste out time worshipping pretend gods that do not exist.8

Jealousy of God The doctrine that God is a jealous God

Answers
Is God Real? Is Christianity True? God's Character Evil & Suffering Religion is stupid Bad Christians Bible & Science Bible Contradictions Objections to Christianity Common atheist's myths No Evidence of the Supernatural?

Search
Search Site

Advanced Search Enhanced Google Site Map

Ministry Info
About us Contact us Privacy Policy RSS Feed

G & S Toolbar

Newsletter name email address

Subscribe

General
Send an e-Card Webmaster Resources Personal Pages Humor

Site Helps
Site Help En Espaol Help I can't see! Bookmark G&S Toolbar Report page errors

worship of idols that competes with His love to prevent a dedicated relationship with Him, jealousy between people takes on quite a number of forms. Two different New Pages Hebrew words are used to describe human jealousy. The Hebrew verb qana' (Strong's H7065)9 Was Jesus God? refers to a passionate jealousy or envy.10 The Hebrew noun qin'ah (Strong's H7068)11 takes on Once Saved a wide range of meanings from sexual passion (or jealousy) to a zeal for God to anger or Always Saved? 12 The exact meaning (and the English translation is usually determined from the context. envy. God is Not "Fair" The differences between the words describing human vs. godly Christians & Human vs. godly jealousy are profound. For example, the jealousy that keeps one out Suicide jealousy of heaven is defined as "an envious and contentious rivalry, jealousy" Judging the (Thayer's Greek Dictionary). God does not envy an human being or anything that any human Sabbath being possesses. God has no rivals. The apostle Paul indicates that there is a godly form of Land Plants 13 The main reason why atheists think that God should not be jealous is that, as an jealousy. Before Animals? English word, "jealousy" has virtually universal negative connotations. In the original languages Four Views on in which the Bible is written, Hebrew and Greek, the words translated as "jealousy" in English Divine Providence do not always have negative connotations. In fact, the Greek word often translated "jealous" Did God have a is zelos, from which we get the English word "zealous," referring more to zeal and ardor rather wife? than jealousy. Alien Life in Jealousy is as being a many Meteorites? CONCLUSION people thinkoften thought of description negative trait. So,means that the Bible's of God as jealous Singularity that He must be a divine hypocrite. However, this page has shown that in the Movement original languages in which the Bible is written, the words do not have those Creating Life in negative definitions. Since the word used to describe the jealousy of God is not the Lab even the same word used to describe human jealousy, it is clear that the apparent NASA's Arseniccontradiction is just a result of an inability of the translated language (English) to Eating Bacteria accurately reflect the original language (Hebrew). There is no slight on the character of God in the original language. The Moral Landscape 'Goldilocks' Planet RELATED PAGES Has Life? Stephen Hawking Thou Shall Not Kill- Does God Violate His Own Commandment? is Wrong About Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People? God There is Too Much Evil and Suffering For God to Exist? Is Satan Real? Did God have a wife? Asherah Worship in Israel Paul Invented Did God Create Evil - Does the Bible Say So? Christianity? What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion A Loving God Would Not Send Billions of People to Hell, Would He? Ancient Hebrew

Human jealousy Whereas God's "jealousy" is primarily restricted to a jealousy over the

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/549

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

In What Order Did Satan Tempt Jesus? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

If you have ever compared Matthews account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness with Lukes account, you quickly will notice that there is a difference in the sequence of the recorded events (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Both Matthew and Luke agree that Satan first tested Jesus by challenging Him to turn stones to bread. However, while the two disciples of Jesus agree on the content of the next two tests, the second and third temptations recorded by Matthew are flip-flopped in Lukes account. Matthew recorded that Satans second temptation involved him trying to persuade Jesus to throw Himself down off the pinnacle of the temple. The third temptation listed by Matthew was Satans attempt to get Jesus to worship him. Even though Luke mentioned the same two events, he listed them in the reverse order Satan first desired adoration from Jesus, and then he challenged Him to throw Himself down off the pinnacle of the temple. Based upon this difference, skeptics claim we have a clear-cut discrepancy. The problem with this allegation is that it is based upon an assumption. Those who claim that the disorder of temptations is a contradiction, presuppose that history always is written (or spoken) chronologically. However, common sense tells us otherwise. Open almost any world history textbook and you will see that even though most events are recorded chronologically, some are arranged topically. For example, in one chapter you may read about the European civilization in the late Middle Ages (A.D. 1000-1300). Yet, in the very next chapter you might learn about Medieval India (150 B.C.-A.D. 1400). Authors arrange textbooks thematically in order to reduce the confusion that would arise if every event in world history textbooks were arranged chronologically. Even when we rehearse life experiences to friends and family, oftentimes we speak climactically rather than chronologically. A teenager may return home from an amusement park and tell his father about all of the roller coasters he rode at Six Flags. Likely, rather than mentioning all of them in the order he rode them, he will start with the most exciting ones and end with the boring ones (if there is such thing as a boring roller coaster). Had Matthew and Luke claimed to arrange the temptations of Jesus chronologically, skeptics would have a legitimate case. But, the fact of the matter is, neither Matthew nor Luke ever claimed such. Either one of the two gospel writers recorded these events in the order they happened, or both of them wrote topically. Most biblical scholars believe that Matthew was concerned more with the order of events in this story because of his use of words like then (4:5, Greek tote) and again (4:8, Greek palin). These two adverbs seem to indicate a more sequential order of the temptations. Luke simply links the events by using the Greek words kai and de (4:2, 5-6, translated and). [The NKJVs translation of kai as then in Luke 4:5 is incorrect. It should be translated simply and (cf. KJV, ASV, NASV, and RSV)]. Similar to the English word and not having specific chronological implications, neither do the Greek words kai and de (Richards, 1993, p. 230). In short, Luke s account of the temptations of Jesus is arranged topically (or possibly climactically), whereas Matthews account seems to be arranged chronologically. This is just one more example of an alleged Bible contradiction that has been refuted rather easily by a proper use of both reason and revelation. REFERENCES Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

Is the Bible wrong about hares chewing cud?

Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (See also Deut. 14:7) This is one of the most popular objections in the Skeptical book, and it's basically this: Hares (or some say rabbits, but "hare" is what is in mind here) are not ruminants; they practice refection. Refection is a process in which animals like hares eat their own dung mixed with undigested material. The Hebrew does not use the word for "dung". Therefore this passage is wrong. The objection is also registered against the verses mentioning the coney, or hyrax; however, the identification of this animal is uncertain -- we will assume it to be an animal that refects as well. Two issues are at hand: the definition of "cud" and that of "chewing." Let's take a close look at the Hebrew version of both. Here is the word for "cud" according to Strong's: Keyword Search gerah, the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud. There are a few factors we need to keep in mind here. First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law. Second, refection is a process whereby these animals pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. It is not just "dung" that the hares are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here. Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgiate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva. So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object. Objection: Are you more of an expert in Hebrew than all those Bible scholars like Strong who decided that 'cud' was the best word to use here? More of an expert in Hebrew, no -- the problem is that those Hebrew experts aren't experts in animal biology. It's commonly noted, in a weaker defense of this verse, that hares look like they chew cud, such that even Linneaus was fooled by them and classified them as ruminants -- and even many modern books on rabbits and hares have no reference to it. Everyone sees rabbits and hares chewing and might come to the same conclusion, but few know about refection -- least of all experts in Hebrew who spend most of their days indoors out of the sight of hares. Hares refect at night and underground. Isn't it more likely that Moses made a mistake like Linneaus, based on appearances?" Hares actually do this mostly at night and underground -- not always; and the reason for this is that the behavior usually takes place 3-8 hours after eating. But the reason so few people know about this behavior today is because we spend so much time indoors -- and because when we are outdoors, we tend to stomp around and scare timid creatures like hares. So little wonder we don't see it much -- and even rabbit owners don't see it because they of course feed their bunnies on their schedules -- so that refection happens while they are asleep. In contrast, the ancients lived mainly outdoors and

many of them were pastoral sorts who spent hours in the field. So -- don't think for a moment that this wasn't something the average ancient wouldn't have known about. They were a lot more observant than we are (because they needed to be to survive) and spent a lot more time in places where they could see this behavior. At the same time, it would be rather pointless -- and an argument from silence -- to make the point that refection is not mentioned in any other ancient documents. For this objection to have merit, one must produce a surviving ancient documentation that should have mentioned it, but didn't -- and that's rather a hard row to hoe. The verse says 'bring up' the cud -- sounds like regurgitation to me. Our other key word here is 'alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on literally every page of the OT. This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than "bring up." It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (The literal rendering here is, "maketh the gerah to 'alah.") Now in the verses in question, 'alah is used as a participle. Let's look at the other verses where it is used this way (NIV only implies some of these phrases; where in parentheses, the phrase is in the original, sometimes in the KJV): Josh. 24:17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt.... 1 Sam. 7:10 While Samuel was sacrificing (offering) the burnt offering... Nahum 3:3 Charging cavalry, flashing swords (lifted), and glittering spears! Isaiah 8:7 ...therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River... 2 Chron. 24:14 When they had finished, they brought the rest of the money... Ps. 135:7 He makes clouds rise (up) from the ends of the earth... 2 Sam. 6:15 ...while he and the entire house of Israel brought the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (Similar quote, 1 Chr. 15:28) So: the Hebrew word is question is not specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter does chew "predigested material". The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it. -JPH

Printable version - Ishmaelites or Midianites?

While enjoying a meal and listening to their brother Joseph cry out from the pit into which they had cast him, the sons of Jacob (minus Reuben) noticed a group of merchants coming from Gilead. Rather than killing Joseph and concealing his body, the band of brothers chose to sell him to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:27). The Ishmaelites, in turn, took Joseph down to Egypt and sold him to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and captain of the guard (39:1). Skeptics charge that the author of Genesis erred when writing about the details of Joseph being sold into slavery. They insist that a clear contradiction exists because Genesis 37:36 says that the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh and captain of the guard (emp. added), whereas Genesis 39:1 indicates that Joseph was sold to Potiphar by the Ishmaelites. The casual reader of the Bible might be troubled by the different names given in Genesis 37:36 and 39:1. After a thorough study of the Scriptures, however, one easily can see that the names Ishmaelites and Midianites are used interchangeably. The book of Judges records that after Gideon and his 300 mighty men defeated their enemy, The men of Israel said to Gideon, Rule over us, both you and your son, and your grandson also; for you have delivered us from the hand of Midian.... Then Gideon said to them, I would like to make a request of you, that each of you would give me the earrings from his plunder. For they [those whom Gideon and his men had just conqueredEL] had gold earrings, because they were Ishmaelites. Now the weight of the gold earrings that he requested was one thousand seven hundred shekels of gold, besides the crescent ornaments, pendants, and purple robes which were on the kings of Midian (Judges 8:22,24,26, emp. added). After Gideon had delivered the Israelites from the hand of Midian, he requested the golden earrings that the Israelites had plundered. Plundered from whom? From those whom Gideon and the Israelites had just conquered. And who were they? Like Moses, in his inspired historical narrative concerning Joseph, the inspired writer of Judges referred to the people of Midian as Ishmaelites. The Midianites and Ishmaelites mentioned in Genesis chapters 37 and 39 were the same group of traders. This is not a contradiction; nor is it proof that Genesis was written by different authors. As Keil and Delitzch concluded: The different names given to the traders...do not show that the account has been drawn from different legends, but that these tribes were often confounded, from the fact that they resembled one another so closely, not only in their common descent from Abraham (Gen 16:15 and 25:2), but also in the similarity of their mode of life and their constant change of abode, that strangers could hardly distinguish them, especially when they appeared not as tribes but as Arabian merchants, such as they are here described as being (1996). REFERENCES Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/619

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Jacob's Journey to Egypt by Eric Lyons, M.Min. Three times in the Old Testament, it is stated that seventy people from the house of Jacob went down into Egypt. According to Genesis 46:27, All the persons of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt were seventy. In the first few verses of the book of Exodus, Jacobs sons are named, and then again we are told, All those who were descendants of Jacob were seventy persons (Exodus 1:1,5). The third Old Testament reference to this number is found in Deuteronomy 10:22, where Moses spoke to the Israelites about the great and awesome things that God had done for them (10:21). He then reminded the children of Israel of how their fathers went down to Egypt with seventy persons, which Jehovah made as the stars of heaven in multitude (Deuteronomy 10:22). The difficulty that Christians are challenged to resolve is how these verses can be understood in light of Stephens statement recorded in Acts 7:12-14. Being full of the Holy Spirit (7:55) with a face as the face of an angel (6:15), Stephen reminded the Jews of their history, saying, When Jacob heard that there was grain in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first. And the second time Joseph was made known to his brothers, and Josephs family became known to the Pharaoh. Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people (Acts 7:12-14, emp. added). Skeptics, as well as concerned Christians who seek to back their faith with reasonable answers, desire to know why Acts 7:14 mentions seventy-five people, while Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5, and Deuteronomy 10:22 mention only seventy persons. Exactly how many of Jacobs household went to Egypt? Similar to how a person truthfully can give different degrees for the boiling point of water (100 Celsius or 212 Fahrenheit), different figures are given in the Bible for the number of Jacobs family members who traveled into Egypt. Stephen (in Acts 7:14) did not contradict the Old Testament passages where the number seventy is used; he merely computed the number differently. Precisely how Stephen calculated this number is a matter of speculation. Consider the following: In Genesis 46:27, neither Jacobs wife (cf. 35:19) nor his concubines is included in the seventy figure. Despite the mention of Jacobs daughters and his sons daughters (46:7), it seems that the only daughter included in the seventy was Dinah (vs. 15), and the only granddaughter was Serah (vs. 17). The wives of Jacobs sons are not included in the seventy (46:26). Finally, whereas only two descendants of Joseph are mentioned in Genesis 46 in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, in the Septuagint, Josephs descendants are calculated as being nine. Taking into consideration how many individuals were omitted from the seventy persons mentioned in the Old Testament, at least two possible solutions to this alleged contradiction may be offered. First, it is possible that Stephen included Jacobs daughtersin-law in his calculation of seventy-five. Jacobs children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Genesis 46:8-26). If Jacob, Joseph, and Josephs two sons are added, then the total number is seventy (46:27). If, however, to the sixty-six Stephen added the wives of Jacobs sons, he could have legitimately reckoned Jacobs household as numbering seventy-five, instead of seventy. [NOTE: Jacob is listed by Stephen individually.] Yet, someone might ask how sixty-six plus twelve equals seventy-five. Simplenot all of the wives were included. Josephs wife obviously would not have been calculated into this figure, if Joseph himself were not. And, at least two of the eleven remaining wives may have been deceased by the time the family journeyed to Egypt. We know for sure that Judahs wife had already died by this time (Genesis 38:12), and it is reasonable to conclude that another of the wives had passed away as well. (In all likelihood, Simeons wife had already diedcf. Genesis 46:10.) Thus, when Stephen stated that Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people (Acts 7:14), realistically he could have included the living wives of Josephs brothers to get a different (though not a contradictory) number. A second possible solution to this alleged contradiction is that Stephen quoted from the Septuagint. Although Deuteronomy 10:22 reads the same in both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint (seventy), Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 differ in the two texts. Whereas the Masoretic text says seventy in both passages, the Septuagint says seventy-five. As R.C.H. Lenski concluded, however: This is a mere matter of counting (1961, p. 270). The descendants of Jacob that went to Egypt were sixty-six in number (Gen. 46:26), but counting Joseph and his two sons and Jacob himself (Gen. 46:27), the number is seventy. In the LXX [SeptuagintEL] all the sons of Joseph who he got in Egypt were counted, nine souls, which, with the sixty-six, made seventy-five (Lenski, p. 270). Thus, instead of adding the nine living wives of Josephs brothers (as proposed in the aforementioned solution), this scenario

suggests that the number seventy-five is the result following the reading from the Septuagintwhich includes the grandchildren of Joseph (cf. 1 Chronicles 7:14-21). [NOTE: The Septuagint and the Masoretic text may differ, but they do not contradict each otherthe former simply mentions some of Josephs descendants who are not recorded by the latter.] In Albert Barnes comments concerning these differences, he appropriately noted: Why the Septuagint inserted these [Josephs descendantsEL], it may not be easy to see. But such was evidently the fact; and the fact accords accurately with the historic record, though Moses did not insert their names. The solution of difficulties in regard to chronology is always difficult; and what might be entirely apparent to a Jew in the time of Stephen, may be wholly inexplicable to us (1949, p. 123, emp. added). One of the more inexplicable things regarding the 70 (or 75) of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt, revolves around the mention of some of Jacobs descendants who apparently were not born until sometime after the journey to Egypt was completed. If one accepts the Septuagints tally of 75, including the grandchildren of Joseph, he also must conclude that Manasseh and Ephraim (Josephs sons) fathered these children sometime after Jacobs migration to Egypt, and possibly before Jacobs death seventeen years later (since Ephraim and Manasseh still were very young when the house of Jacob moved to Egypt). If one excludes the Septuagint from this discussion, there still are at least two possible indications in Genesis 46 that not all seventy were born before Jacobs family arrived in Egypt. First, Hezron and Hamul (the sons of Perez) are included in the seventy (46:12), yet the evidence strongly leans toward these great-grandsons of Jacob not being born until after the migration. Considering that Judah, the grandfather of Hezron and Hamul, was only about forty-three when the migration to Egypt took place, and that the events recorded in Genesis 38 (involving his family) occurred over a number of years, it seems logical to conclude, as did Steven Mathewson in his Exegetical Study of Genesis 38, that Judahs sons Perez and Zerah were quite young, perhaps just a few months old, when they traveled to Egypt. Therefore it would have been impossible for Perez to have fathered Hezron and Hamul, his two sons mentioned in Genesis 46:12, before the journey into Egypt (1989, 146:383). He went on to note: A close look, however, at Genesis 46:12 reveals a variation in the mention of Hezron and Hamul. The end of the verse reads: And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul. Yet throughout Genesis 46, the listing of descendants was done without the use of a verbal form. For example, verse 12a reads, And the sons of Judah: Er and Onan and Shelah and Perez and Zerah (146:383). Hebrew scholar Umberto Cassuto commented on this special phraseology, saying, This external variation creates the impression that the Bible wished to give us here some special information that was different from what it desired to impart relative to the other descendants of Israel (1929, 1:34). Cassuto also explained what he thought was the intention behind this special use of the verb were. It intended to inform us thereby that the sons of Perez were not among those who went down to Egypt, but are mentioned here for some other reason. This is corroborated by the fact that Josephs sons were also not of those who immigrated into Egypt, and they, too, are mentioned by a different formula (1:35). A second indication that all seventy were likely not born before Jacobs family migrated to Egypt is that ten sons (descendants) of Benjamin are listed (46:21). If Joseph was thirty-nine at the time of this migration (cf. 41:46), one can figure (roughly) the age of Benjamin by calculating the amount of time that passed between their births. It was after Josephs birth that his father, Jacob, worked his final six years for Laban in Padan Aram (30:25; 31:38,41). We know that Benjamin was more than six years younger than Joseph, because he was not born until sometime after Jacob discontinued working for Laban. In fact, Benjamin was not born until after Jacob: (1) departed Padan Aram (31:18); (2) crossed over the river (Euphrates31:21); (3) met with his brother, Esau, near Penuel (32:22,31; 33:2); (4) built a house in Succoth (33:17); (5) pitched his tent in Shechem (33:18); and (6) built an altar to God at Bethel (35:1-19). Obviously, a considerable amount of time passed between Jacobs separation from Laban in Padan Aram, and the birth of Benjamin near Bethlehem. Albert Barnes conservatively estimated that Benjamin was thirteen years younger than Joseph (1997). Biblical commentator John T. Willis said Benjamin was likely about fourteen years younger than Joseph (1984, p. 433). Also, considering Benjamin was referred to as lad (boyNIV) eight times in Genesis chapters 43 and 44, which record events directly preceding Jacobs move to Egypt, one would not expect Benjamin to be any more than 25 or 26 years of age at the time of the migration. What is somewhat perplexing to the Bible reader is that even though Benjamin was by far the youngest son of Jacob, more of his descendants are named in Genesis 46 than any other son of Jacob. In fact, some of these descendants of Benjamin apparently were his grandsons (cf. Numbers 26:38-40; 1 Chronicles 8:1-5). But how is it that ten of Benjamins descendants, along with Hezron and Hamul, legitimately could appear in a list with those who traveled to Egypt, when all indications are that at least some were yet to be born? Answer: Because some of the names are brought in by prolepsis (or anticipation). Although they might not have been born by the time Jacob left for Egypt, they were in his loinsthey came from his body (Genesis 46:26). Renowned Old Testament commentators Keil and Delitzsch stated: From all this it necessarily follows, that in the list before us grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob are named who were born afterwards in

Egypt, and who, therefore, according to a view which we frequently meet with in the Old Testament, though strange to our modes of thought, came into Egypt in lumbis patrum (1996). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown agreed, saying: The natural impression conveyed by these words [these are the names of the children of Israel which came into EgyptEL] is, that the genealogy which follows contains a list of all the members of Jacobs family, of whatever age, whether arrived at manhood or carried in their mothers arms, who, having been born in Canaan, actually removed along with him to Egypt. A closer examination, however, will show sufficient grounds for concluding that the genealogy was constructed on a very different principlenot that of naming only those members of Jacobs family who were natives of Canaan, but of enumerating those who at the time of the immigration into Egypt, and during the patriarchs life-time, were the recognized heads of families, in Israel, though some of them, born after the departure from Canaan, could be said to have come into Egypt only in the persons of their fathers (1997, emp. added). While all seventy mentioned in Genesis 46 may not have literally traveled down to Egypt, Moses, writing this account more than 215 years later (see Bass, et. al., 2001), easily could have used a figure a speech known as prolepsis to include those who would be born shortly thereafter, and who eventually (by the time of Moses) would have been the recognized heads of families. REFERENCES Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Barnes, Albert (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Bass, Alden, Bert Thompson, and Kyle Butt (2001), Questions and Answers, Reason & Revelation, 21:49-53, July. Cassuto, Umberto (1929), Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973 reprint). Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition. Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). Mathewson, Steven D. (1989), An Exegetical Study of Genesis 38, Bibliotheca Sacra, 146:373-392, October. Willis, John T. (1984), Genesis (Abilene, TX: ACU Press), orig. published in 1979 by Sweet Publishing Company, Austin, Texas.

Copyright 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

Home Objections Answered For Skeptics Search

Links Contact Me

Jesus and the Canaanite Woman

Matthew 15:21-28 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Mark 7:24-30 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter." She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Was the woman a Greek or a Canaanite? The World Book Encyclopedia says in its article on Phoenicia: The word Phoenicia may have developed from the word Canaan, meaning land of purple, the name first used for ancient Palestine and Syria. Canaan was a main source of red-purple dyed goods. The Greeks probably used their word phoinix, which meant red-purple, when referring to the people who traded these red-purple goods to them. Phoinike, or Phoenicia, eventually became the name of Canaan's coastal strip. Mark tells us the woman was born in Syrian Phoenicia, so this is in agreement with Matthew's statement that she is a Canaanite. Mark also tells us the woman is Greek, which may mean that one or both of her parents were Greek. This is no more a contradiction than it is for descendents of immigrants to America to describe themselves as ChineseAmerican, Mexican-American, etc.

Weren't Jesus' remarks mean? Why didn't he heal her daughter immediately? Jesus tested the woman with a test he knew she would pass. Jesus treated the people he healed as individuals, and dealt with each person differently based on their level of faith. Some people's requests were granted when they asked (Mt 8:2-3); some were healed without asking for it (Mk 5:1-13, 25-29); some were asked if they believed Jesus could heal them before they were healed (Mt 9:27-30). Jesus may have done this to teach the woman and the disciples:

the woman learned that she could always trust in God's love and mercy, even when her requests were not immediately answered (something Jesus taught the disciples in Lk 18:1-8), and the disciples learned that God's salvation and mercy were extended to the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

Other responses (offsite) Why was Jesus so mean and insulting to the Canaanite woman? by Glenn Miller Christian Debater on Jesus' treatment of the woman (This page is taken out of a frameset - see the home page) Bumbulis, Smith and White on the woman's race

Related articles The exclusion of Gentiles in the Old Testament Is the Bible biased against Jews or Gentiles?

Home Objections Answered For Skeptics Search

Links Contact Me

Printable version - Jesus' Sermon on...The Mount or the Plain?

In the introductory comments to Jesus oft-quoted sermon recorded in Matthew chapters 5-7, the first verse sets the stage for His astonishing teachings. Matthew indicates that seeing the multitudes, Jesus went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him (emp. added). When Luke gives the setting for Jesus masterful sermon, he says that Jesus came down with them and stood on a level place (emp. added). The question that has been asked by many people is why Matthew recorded Jesus preaching this sermon from a mountain, while Luke said it was while He stood on a level place. Could Matthew or Luke have made a legitimate geographical error here, or is there a reasonable explanation for the difference that exists? First of all, for these passages to be contradictory one must assume the two sermons were delivered at the same place and at the same time. But, as H. Leo Boles stated in his commentary on Luke, this sermon may have been repeated a number of times and Luke gives a record of the sermon which was repeated at some later time than the record given by Matthew (1940, p. 134). It is more than possible that Jesus repeated His teachings on various occasions. He easily could have preached the beatitudes in Capernaum as well as in Cana. He could have taught the model prayer in both Bethany and Bethsaida. Who are we to say that Jesus preached the principles and commands found in Matthew 5-7 only once? There are some men today who travel to a different city nearly every week preaching the same sermonsand do so effectively. Could Jesus not have done something similar? A more likely solution to this geographical problem is simply to understand that Matthew and Luke were referring to the same sermon, and that Jesus was preaching it while being both on a mountain and on a plain (KJV) at the same time. The word plain (tpou pedino) simply means level place (Wycliffe, 1985), and is translated thusly in nearly all modern versions of the Bible. Since a mountain can have level places on it, no one can assert logically that Matthew 5:1 and Luke 6:17 are contradictory. I have been to the top of a mountain in Anchorage, Alaska, that is so level it is known as Flattop Mountain. To say Jesus stood on a level place on a mountain is no oxymoron. REFERENCES Boles, H. Leo (1940), A Commentary on the Gospel According to Luke (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate). Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1985), Electronic Database: Biblesoft.

Copyright ?? 2002 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author??s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

Is one of a set of six articles which relate to the subject of knowing when. 1. Can You Know When without knowing the day and hour? Did other generations know when? 2. A brief look at some history of Prophetic Times and the people who understood them. 3. How Old Is Gods Plan for Mankind? Or, how old is earth and the recorded history of Gods actions? 4. Can we determine How Long a generation is? Does this relate to the fulllment of prophecy? 5. This Generation: What did Jesus mean when He said, This generation...? 6. Now consider this question of knowing when from a dierent Perspective

This Page

DO YOU KNOW WHEN?

You asked, Do I know when The Second coming of the

Lord will be? I will not give you a one-word answer, because one word would not be fair to either you or me. I will be pleased to explain what I believe and give you the Bible evidence on which I base my belief. Jesus said, No man knows the day or hour... The Truth is in Ma hew 24:32-36. The lie is based on the Truth in verse 36. The Truth which Satan wants to hide from Gods People is in verse 34. Study verses 32-36 carefully. When you use your concordance to look up these terms, (day and hour) you will nd that Jesus used them, or they were used about the miracles He did, to mean, Exact time. You can prove that to your own satisfaction: would you be changing His meaning to say, No man knows the exact time? No, we are Not going to change a word of what He has said, we are going to keep what He said. He said, Day or Hour. Saying that we cannot know When IS changing what He said. The terms Day and Hour indicate exact time -- not general time. Ma hew used these terms in the same sense (exact time) in 8:13, 9:22 and 15:28. The lie is, No one can know When the Lord will come. The truth is, No man can know the day or hour (exact time) of the Lords coming. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Paul wrote, As ye see the day approaching... Hebrews 10:25. He is speaking of That Day, the day of the Lord, and acknowledges we will recognize that That Day is near. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that That Day should overtake you as a thief. Paul is writing to the Saints; the Elect, the Church who would be here on That Day. Pauls statement is not a question, nor is its meaning questionable. It is a statement of fact. In contradiction to Satans lie, Paul tells us The Faithful will not be surprised by the Lords coming. 1 Thes. 5:4. Mat. 25:2. Do these Scriptures (Mat. 24:36 and Heb. 10:25) contradict each other? No. There are many Prophecies which describe events that will occur just prior to That Day. Will the Saints see the troops gathering in the valley of Megiddo? When the armies of the world gather in that valley, those of understanding will know That Day is near. ...at the very door. Mat. 24:33, Luke 21:25-26. Isa. 34:1-4 and Rev. 16:16.

THE LIE REVEALED

Because the Truth is, No man can know the (exact time) Day or Hour... Then the lie is, No man can know when (the generation, or, the time in general) the Lord will come. This lie, All mankind, even the Elect, will be completely and u erly taken by surprise by the Lords coming, is the lie. Since you cannot know when the Lord is coming, there is no reason for you to study the prophecies of his

coming or pay a ention to the human events which fulll prophecy. Do you see? Satan has taken the words Day or hour out of Gods Word and inserted When!

THREE GENERATIONS KNEW

Noah and his sons knew what would happen in their lifetime, even though they never knew the day or hour. Gen 6:13-22. Moses generation knew they would see Gods Promise fullled in their lifetime, because they counted the years, even though they did not know the day or hour. Gen 15:13. John the Baptists generation knew the Messiah would come in their generation (they also knew which town He would come from!) because they had been given the numbers of the years by Daniel, though they could not have known the day or hour. Dan 9:24-26. Prophecy is fullled by human events. In fact, the whole course of human history is nothing more than a chain of lesser human events occurring between the major human events which lead to the accomplished purpose of Gods Creation. For example, the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was a human event that was the fulllment of the prophecy in Daniel 9:26. Since lesser human events precede greater human events, it should be possible to detect a coming major event. For example, before the prince to come could destroy Jerusalem he had to gather his army and surround the city. He needed a cause to do this. The rebellion of the Jews against Roman rule gave the needed cause. The Early Saints knew that knowing when does not mean knowing the date and time, but means knowing lesser events precede greater events in a sequence of human events which fulll prophecy. They are our example. You asked me a question, now let me ask you ... Will you know when the Roman Empire is born again, and conquers the World? Will you know when the entire world is taxed? Will you know when you cant buy or sell without the mark of the beast? Will you know when the false prophets proclaim that the Emperor of Rome is God, and that the entire world must worship him? Will you know when all the armies of the world gather in Megiddo?

SATAN LIES Satan lies when he tells us that Gods Children will not know when He is coming. We cannot know the Day or the Hour, but we can know that He will come in our generation, we can know the season. No, I do not know the Day or Hour, though I do know it will our generation. And now you know.

Top of Page

| Top of Text | Next

Those who love Truth will search for it, those who dont, wont. See: The Signs of Our Time

CREDITS : DOME OF THE ROCK SEEN THROUGH THE ARCH IS NETTA W. S HOSHANI HTTP ://HOLYLANDNETWORK.COM/JERUSALEM/PICT /COLOR1.JPG JERUSALEM AT SUNSET IS PETER LANGER :: WWW.PETERLANGER.COM JERUSALEM 2 IS :: WWW.PADFIELD.COM OTHER IMAGES OF JERUSALEM WERE FOUND ON THE INTERNET AND MAY BE SUBJET TO

in the NIV?

The Talmudic Myth of Lilith

When studying the various teachings in the Talmud about demons, one immediately discovers references to the name Lilith. This is significant because today, the New Age movement speaks of "Lilith rising." The previous information regarding the Sabbath, Agrath, the daughter of Ma'hlath, and the demons are connected to Lilith in the Talmud, Midrash and Zohar. Lilith is equated with a "first Eve", the feminine dark side of the divine and goddesses such as Isis, Astarte, the Black Madonna or Queen of Demons and other false gods. The myth of Lilith is a gnostic perversion of the Biblical account of Creation and Adam and Eve. The Jewish, "LILITH Magazine", featured "All you ever Wanted to Know about Lilith", which was originally printed in their premier issue in the fall of 1976, and provides this insight to the identity of Lilith. "Commentators have often translated "lilith" as "night-monster," associating the name with layil, the Hebrew word for night; thus, Rabbi Hanina forbids men to sleep alone in a house at night lest they fall prey to her (Shabbat 151b). (The Akadian "lilitu," a female spirit wind, is probably a more accurate etymology, however.)" 18. It becomes apparent that there are many versions of Lilith, but author, Judy Weinberg, presents two of the most common teachings as they are found in the Talmud and Midrash. "Two separate and distinct beings-Lilith of the Talmud and Eve 1 of the midrash-came together into one, to become Lilith, Adam's first mate. We can see this process of integration in the Alphabet itself. In the beginning of this account, Lilith is characterized as a woman (ishah). By the end of the story, however, her children are called demons (sheydim) and she herself has powers that can only be warded off by the mystical means of an amulet. Thus, having equated his protagonist with Lilith of the Talmud, the author was forced to assign her the characteristics attributed to her by that work." 19. "The first available version of the Creation story which associates the name Lilith with a "first Eve" is included in the Alphabet of Ben-Sira , a work probably written sometime in the Gaonic period (600-1000 C.E.). This account merges into two separate and distinct traditions-that of the Lilith of the Talmud and that of the "first Eve" of the midrash (legends)." 20.

Lilith in the NIV?

It is curious how Lilith materialized in the Talmud, since there is no record of her in the Torah. "LILITH Magazine" states: "The personality called "Lilith" in the Talmud shows no connection with Adam at all. From the four specific references to Lilith in the Babylonian Talmud, we learn

only that she is a wild-haired and winged creature with nymphomaniac tendencies (Erubin 100b, Niddah 24b, Shabbat 151b); and the mother of demons (Bava Batra 73a )." 21. Lilith Magazine also declares that Lilith is mentioned in the Bible. "Such a characterization of Lilith may have been drawn from the single Biblical mention of "lilith" (Isaiah 34:14): "The wild creatures of the desert shall meet with the jackals, the goat demon shall call to his fellow, the lilith shall also repose there and find for herself a place of rest." 22. Upon attempting to verify this verse in the Authorized King James Bible, we found no such mention of Lilith, or the goat demon, but rather the following: "The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest." (KJV) It should be noted that the NIV translation allows for the interpretation of the previous verse to include demons and the Lilith teachings. "Desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and wild goats will bleat to each other; there the night creatures will also repose and find for themselves places of rest.: (NIV) The footnotes to this verse include reference to " Desert creatures...hyenas ... wild goats. Sometimes connected with demons night creatures. Outside the Bible a related Semitic word refers to a "night demon." From the web site, "Lilith and the Talmud," we learned that Lilith and related topics are covered in sections of The Babylonian Talmud: "b. Erubuin 18b: "Rabbi Jeremia ben Eleazer said, "During those years (after their expulsion from the Garden) in which Adam, the first man Was separated from Eve, he became the father of ghouls and demons and lilin." Rabbi Meir said, "Adam, the first man, being very pious and finding that he has caused death to come into the world, sat fasting for 130 years, and separated himself from his wife for 130 years, and wore fig vines for 130 years. His fathering of evil spirits, referred to here, came as a result of wet dreams." 23. "Section b. Erubin 100b, refers to Lilith growing long hair; B. Nidda 24b refers to Lilith as a demoness with a human appearance except that she has wings;" 24. b. Shab. 151b of The Babylonian Talmud states: "One may not sleep alone in a house, for Lilith takes hold of whoever sleeps alone in the house." 25. b. Baba Bathra 73-b continues with: "Rabba bar bar Hana said, " I once saw Hormin, a son of Lilith, running on the battlements of Mahoza. When the demonic government heard of it, they killed him [for showing himself]." 26.

AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map

Share

"Not a bone of him shall be broken" - a nonexistent prophecy?

Question: John 19:33 says that during Jesus' crucifixion, the soldiers didn't break his legs because he was already dead. Verse 36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 and Psalm 34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse 19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person. Response: There are two keys to understanding John 19:33 in my opinion: 1. John does not use the word "prophecy." He is not necessarily talking about a prophecy. He does not identify the event as a fulfillment of prophecy. Instead, he indentifies the event as a fulfillment of scripture. 2. Prophecies are not the only things that can be fulfilled. In modern English, for example, is not uncommon to speak of contracts, obligations, mandates or requests as being "fulfilled." I agree with you that "Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments." But commandments, like prophecies, can be fulfilled. Return to list of Questions and Answers

Bible prophecies sorted by prophet

Abraham's prophecies Daniel's prophecies Ezekiel's prophecies Isaiah's prophecies Jeremiah's prophecies Jesus' prophecies Micah's prophecies Moses' prophecies Nahum's prophecies Zechariah's
prophecies

Bible prophecies sorted by theme

Destruction of Israel Exile of Israel Dispersion of Israel Persecution of Israel Re-gathering of Israel Nationhood (Israel) Preservation of Israel Worldwide impact Messianic About other nations End Times

See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.

Glossaries of people, miracles, events, etc.

Miracles of Jesus People in the Bible Places in the Bible Bible glossary History of Israel

Your email address (optional):

Life and teachings of Jesus Christ

Early life 1st year of ministry 2nd year of ministry 3rd year of ministry The final months Persecution of Jesus Resurrection of Jesus

Submit

Articles, answers, explanations, links

Articles &
explanations What is Christianity? Learn about the Bible Answers to tough questions Links & Online Bibles Da Vinci Code hoax

ONAN'S SIN / JUDAH AND TAMAR

The problem with people is not what they don't know but that they know so much that ain't so. - Josh Billings In brief, when Judah sent his son Onan to impregnate his dead brother's wife Tamar, he committed coitus interruptus and spilled his semen to avoid conception. Yahweh was not pleased and killed him. From this story, onanism has become synonymous with masturbation and coitus interruptus. There have been a variety of interpretations why Yahweh was not pleased. Onan has been accused of covetousness and theft for disobeying his father Judah. He had no intent to reproduce. He showed selfish intent by denying offspring to his brother's widow, and by employing an unnatural method. He refused to carry the royal line of Judah to David. He destroyed his seed. He was willfully disobedient towards Yahweh. Though Onan hasn't been accused of homosexuality, the act of spilling semen stretches to homosexuality. In sum, religionists have applied the story of Onan to practically every form of male non-procreative sex. But most of all, Onan's curse supported a widespread fear of masturbation, primarily in the 1700s and 1800s. It was believed by doctors of theology and medicine to lead to mental and general health illnesses, like vomiting, nausea, indigestion, epilepsy, pimples, blindness and insanity. In fact, John Harvey Kellogg the founder of the cereal company that bears his name, developed corn flakes in the belief that his "science" and wholesome food could steer young minds away from unclean thoughts. There have even been a slew of inventions designed to discourage masturbation. I would have thought by now that religions have outgrown their concerns about masturbation, but apparently the Mormon Church thinks it "is a sinful habit that robs one of the Spirit and creates guilt and emotional stress." Genesis 38 is ordinarily treated as if it contained two distinct stories, the first about Onan and the second about Judah and Tamar. Actually, Onan's role is contained within the story of Judah and Tamar. It is not until we get to the end of the story when the real reason for Onan's death becomes apparent. Every interpretation I've seen relates Onan's demise to coitus interruptus. This report argues that he wasn't killed for reason of coitus interruptus. He was killed because of what he did before he committed coitus interruptus. That is by penetrating her, he consummated the marriage. Because Judah had married a Canaanite woman, Onan was half-Canaanite. Thus he blocked Judah's name from the tribes of Israel. The object of the story is to have Judah produce offspring with pedigree bloodlines. Unlike Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who married within their family, we are not told anything about Tamar's background; but her behavior is flawless. There is a parallel to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The OT writers don't portray their heroes as perfect, but neither are they condemned. Judah made the mistake of marrying a Canaanite woman. Onan and his older brother Er paid with their lives, but Judah saved his third son by keeping him away from Tamar. Even Judah's Canaanite wife died prematurely, leaving Judah a widower. This left an opportunity for Tamar to save Judah's name. She was still young enough to bear children, and beautiful enough to lure Judah by dressing as a harlot. All ends happily when she bears twins. There is a moral to this story. Ancient Hebrew law held that the next surviving brother shall take the widow of his deceased brother as his wife. He shall bear children to the name of the dead brother so his name may not be blotted out of Israel. Yahweh's intervention preserved Judah's pedigree name. Judah's half Canaanite son has children by another woman and is never mentioned again.

ONAN
SUMMARY - GENESIS 38:1-10 Judah, son of Jacob, married the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua and conceived three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. Judah took Tamar to be the wife of his first-born son Er, but Yahweh killed him for his wickedness. Judah sent Onan to Tamar to perform the duty of raising children for his brother. Not wanting to raise children for his brother, Onan went into Tamar but withdrew and spilled his semen on ground. This displeased Yahweh, so he killed him. DECONSTRUCTION Judah went to Adullam to meet his friend Hirah. There he saw the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua. He married her and they tried to have children right away. 1It happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. 2There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua; he married her and went in to her, She conceived three sons. Er first, then Onan, then Shelah. 3and she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. 4Again she conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. 5Yet again she bore a son, and she called his name Shelah. She was in Chezib when she bore him. Judah chose Tamar to marry his first-born son Er. But Yahweh killed him because he was wicked. 6And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was T amar. 7But Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then Judah told Onan to take his older brother's place and produce an offspring for him. 8Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. After he penetrated Tamar, he pulled out and spilled his semen on the ground. -There were two actions. First he penetrated Tamar; then he withdrew and spilled semen on the ground. By penetrating her he became the rightful husband. 9But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. But Yahweh was displeased for what he did, so slew him. 10And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

JUDAH AND TAMAR

SUMMARY - GENESIS 38:11-30 Judah consigned Tamar to live in her father's house until Shelah was of age, but he feared for the same fate as Shelah's older brothers. When Judah's wife died, Judah's remaining son Shelah had grown up, and he had not offered Tamar to him. Seeing Judah's reluctance, Tamar put on a veil and dressed as a harlot. She went to a place where she knew Judah would pass by. When Judah saw her, he stopped to ask for a sexual favor. She accepted his offer of a kid from his flock, but she held his signet, cord and staff as collateral until he could deliver the kid. Judah went into her and she conceived. Judah tried to deliver the kid, but he could not find the harlot, not knowing it was Tamar. Three months later, Judah heard Tamar got pregnant by playing the harlot. He called for her to have her burned, but when she presented the signet, cord and staff to prove Judah was the father, he praised her superior righteousness; For Judah had withheld Shelah from marrying her. Tamar bore twins, Perez and Zerah. DECONSTRUCTION So Judah consigned Tamar to remain in her father's house until Shelah grew up, but he feared Shelah would die like his brothers. - If it was a matter of Shelah avoiding the mistakes of his brothers, Judah might have nothing to fear. But if it had to do with racial purity, Shelah would face certain death. 11Then Judah said to T amar his daughter-in-law, "Remain a widow in your father's house, till Shelah my son grows up"-for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So T amar went and dwelt in her father's house. In the course of time, Judah's wife died. He went with his friend Hirah to Timnah where his sheepshearers were. - We could argue that Yahweh killed Judah's wife too. 12In course of time the wife of Judah, Shua's daughter, died; and when Judah was comforted, he went up to Timnah to his sheepshearers, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. When Tamar heard Judah was going to Timnah to shear his sheep, she took off her widow's garments and put on a veil to cover herself. Since Shelah was grown up, and she was not given to him for marriage, she sat on the road to Timnah, waiting for Judah. 13And when T amar was told, "Your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep," 14she put off her widow's garments, and put on a veil, wrapping herself up, and sat at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage. When Judah saw her, her veiled face led him to believe she was a harlot. 15When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face. Not knowing who she was, he asked for sex, saying "Come let me come in to you." She asked "What will you give me, that you may come in to me?" 16He went over to her at the road side, and said, "Come, let me come in to you," for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, "What will you give me, that you may come in to me?" Judah offered a kid from the flock. Tamar wanted a pledge until he delivers the kid. 17He answered, "I will send you a kid from the flock." And she said, "Will you give me a pledge, till you send it?" She accepted a signet, his cord and his staff. So he went in to her and she conceived by him. 18He said, "What pledge shall I give you?" She replied, "Your signet and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand." So he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him. When Tamar left, she put back on her widow's garments. 19Then she arose and went away, and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood. Judah wanted to deliver the kid but he could not find her. 20When Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman's hand, he could not find her. 21And he asked the men of the place, "Where is the harlot who was at Enaim by the wayside?" And they said, "No harlot has been here." 22So he returned to Judah, and said, "I have not found her; and also the men of the place said, 'No harlot has been here.'" 23And Judah replied, "Let her keep the things as her own, lest we be laughed at; you see, I sent this kid, and you could not find her." About three months later, Judah heard how Tamar got pregnant by playing the harlot. "Bring her out, and let her be burned," said Judah. 24About three months later Judah was told, "T amar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover she is with child by harlotry." And Judah said, "Bring her out, and let her be burned." Tamar came with the signet, the cord and the staff. 25As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, "By the man to whom these belong, I am with child." And she said, "Mark, I pray you, whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff." Judah acknowledged them and said she was more righteous than he because he did not give her to his son Shelah. He did not lie with her again. - He couldn't kill the mother of his children. Her righteousness was in preserving his name as one of Abraham's descendants. 26Then Judah acknowledged them and said, "She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah." And he did not lie with her again. When the time of delivery came, out came twins Perez and Zerah. 27When the time of her delivery came, there were twins in her womb. 28And when she was in labor, one put out a hand; and the midwife took and bound on his hand a scarlet thread, saying, "This came out first." 29But as he drew back his hand, behold, his brother came out; and she said, "What a breach you have made for yourself!" Therefore his name was called Perez. 30Afterward his brother came out with the scarlet thread upon his hand; and his name was called Zerah. ANALYSES The question is why was Yahweh displeased with Onan to kill him?

Mosaic Law Technically, the laws of Moses did not apply to Judah, but they do provide a guide to the beliefs of those times. 1. The widow of one brother cannot marry outside the family. The next surviving brother shall take her as his wife and bear children to the name of the dead brother so his name may not be blotted out of Israel. - There was an ancient belief that as long as a man's name was remembered, he continued to exist. 5"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. 6And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. (Deut. 25:5-6) 2. Judah could not marry Tamar because she was once at once a widow and defiled by Onan. 13And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 14A widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people, (Lev. 21:13-14) 3. Semen discharge is unclean until the evening as long as it was washed with water. - In isolation, Onan's semen discharge would not provide grounds for killing him. 2"Say to the people of Israel, When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. 3And this is the law of his uncleanness for a discharge: whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is stopped from discharge, it is uncleanness in him. (Lev. 15:2)
16"And if a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until

the evening. 17And every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. 18If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening. (Lev. 15:16-18) Family background 4. Judah was one of Jacob's twelve sons and the patriarch of David's tribe. 5. By Judah marrying a Canaanite woman, their sons were half Canaanite. That this is mentioned was meant to draw attention to their alien background. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob married within the family. Abraham married Sarai, his half sister. 31T erah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there. (Gen. 11:31) Isaac married Rebekah, the daughter of Abraham's nephew. 15Before he had done speaking, behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, came out with her water jar upon her shoulder (Gen. 24:15) Jacob married the daughters of his uncle Laban. 15Then Laban said to Jacob, "Because you are my kinsman, should you therefore serve me for nothing? T me, what shall your wages be?" ell 16Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. (Gen. 29:15-16) 6. We are not told Tamar's family and religious background; but it is not questioned. Judah thought her suitable to marry his son, and later called her more righteous than he for enabling him to honorably continue his namesake. She was to Judah as Mary was to Joseph. 7. Why did Judah fear his son Shelah would perish if he sent her to Tamar? Because he would have been killed before he had the chance to produce children. Numbers 26:20 calls him the namesake of the Shelanites, a clan not related to the Israelites. No matter who the mother of his children was, he could not carry the name of Judah into the tribes of Israel. Conclusion 8. The story was written in such a way so Judah and Tamar would come out looking righteous because miscegenation with Canaanites was discouraged. Onan had the bad luck of having the wrong mother.

Command the Raven

Daily thoughts and upliftment for our journey through life
Home About Contact Sitemap

search...

Who Will Be Tested Next? - The Dilemma of Franklin Graham

Jun

27

Red Sea Divided and Congealed

Tag: Sage's Corner Sage @ 6:09 pm

Welcome
Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org

EXODUS 14: 16, 19, 20, 21 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea. And the Angel of God, which went before the damp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them. And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel: and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night. 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. [Dake A.R.B.] The bottom of the Red Sea was actually made dry. At the place where Israel crossed it was about 12 miles wide, and from 75 to 100 ft. deep. Imagine a wide path with walls of ice [15:8] on both sides 75 to 100 ft. high! [And the Angel of God][ v19]: This was one of the members of the Godhead who is often called the Angel of Jehovah, or Angel of God. [see point 13, 44 appearances of God, p 63. He is called Jehovah in Ex. 13:21-22 [show/hide]; 14:21-25, 31 etc. Dake]. The cloud was dark on one side and luminous on the other so as to give light to the whole camp of Israel. It kept the 2 camps separate all night [v20]. Note how God used created things to perform His will [v21]. This was a divine miracle, not something accomplished by the mere forces of nature itself. Not only was this done suddenly by divine power, but it was likewise undone suddenly by the same power [v21, 26-31]. A wind blowing strong enough to make a path through the sea 12 miles across and hold the waters up like a wall 75 to 100 ft. high without any other miraculous force at work, would have been strong enough to blow all the Israelites and Egyptians away. The waters were congealed or frozen to solid ice on both sides of the people as they went through the sea [v25; 15:8]. It would have to be extreme hardness of heart and stubbornness on the part of man to fight God under these circumstances. The many acts of God recorded throughout Scripture, sometimes as many as 80 in a chapter, truly prove that He is a real person whose acts are to be understood in the same literal sense as those performed by men, angels, and other beings. We have no authority to give them a spiritual, symbolic, or figurative meaning simply because they are the acts of God. His creation of the universes, the stars and planets, angels and men, fish, beast, and bird are accepted as literal; and thus it should be with all other acts of God so plainly stated as such, in the Bible. Dake A.R.B.

Popular Posts
How to Work in Any Enviroment: T.D. Jakes Proverbs 6:12-19; The Seven Abominations Exodus 3:1-6; The Burning Bush; Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. B.C. 1491 Binding Prayer Test of the True Prophet vs. Lying Spirit (False Prophet) Enoch: The Oldest Man That Ever Lived The most important day in America in 50 years Exodus 17:8-16; The Conflict with Amalek; The Defeat of Amalek. The Picture of Moses, Aaron and Hur, these three old men, of which two, Aaron and Hur holding up Moses' arms when he grows weary. B.C. 1491 Nasa Proves the Bible is True: The Missing Day Exodus 18:1-5; Jethro's Visit to Moses: He brings his wife Zipporah and sons, Gershom and Eliezer. B.C. 1491

Categories
Afflictions Sickness Plagues (9) Blessing or Curse (4) Books: Reading (14) End Times: Last things/Last Days (129) Fasting and Prayer (9) Global Commentary (3435) Health News (56) Holy Spirit: Source of all Life & Power (17) Infinite God (97) Interesting Reflections (470) Introduction to The Bible N.T. (27) Introduction to The Bible O.T. (39) Israel Prophetic (163) Israel Today (517) Israel: Middle East (1195)

Awesome Post:

1
Vote

Leave a Reply
Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website

Philologos Bible Prophecy Research Title: Scarlet Worm Submitted by: research-bpr@philologos.org Date: May 23, 1999 Update: April 06, 2001 URL: http://philologos.org/bpr/files/w010.htm

Scarlet Worm Bible & Science tape series Henry Morris Look at the 22nd Psalm. This is the great Psalm of the crucifixion of Christ written 1,000 years before it was fulfilled. It describes in great detail the sufferings of Christ on the cross. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" he cries out. Then down in verse 6...he says "But I am a worm (08438), and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people." What did he mean by saying "I am a worm"?...This particular worm is different from other kinds of worms. There are different kinds of worms, different varieties, but this is a particular worm. It means more than just he is not a man. Isaiah 52 says, "his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men." He was literally made corruption personified; he didn't even look like a man there on the cross*; it is talking about more than that here. He says "I am a worm and no man." This is a scarlet worm and the reason it was called that was because it had the ability to secrete a scarlet fluid which was used in making the scarlet dye that they used in ancient days. As a matter of fact, when you find the word "scarlet" in the bible, it's the same word. "Though your sins be as scarlet," it's the same word exactly. The worm was identified with the crimson color. The life cycle of that worm is something like this: when the mother worm was ready to give birth to the baby worms, she would find the trunk of a tree, a post or a stick somewhere and then she would plant her body in that wood and she would implant her body so firmly in it that she could never leave it again. And then the young would be brought forth and the mother's body would provide protection for the babies as long as they needed before they could get out and take care of themselves. Then the mother would die, and in the process, the scarlet fluid would stain her body and the body of the young and the tree and so on. The Lord Jesus said "I am like that scarlet worm." He's making peace through the blood of his cross; he's bringing many sons into glory through the suffering. And this is a graphic testimony of the fact that eternal life comes out of the suffering and death of the Son of God. *Please see "Why Did Christ Die Before the Two Robbers?" by John D. Keyser [65k] for more on how Jesus fulfilled these prophecies of being scarred for us. The basic premise of the article is that Jesus was stoned in accordance with the Jewish law against blasphemers while hanging on the cross. ____________________ Exodus 16:20 20 Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms (08438), and stank: and Moses was wroth with them. Exodus 25:4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet (08438) (08144), and fine linen, and goats' hair, 08144 - scarlet, crimson properly, the insect 'coccus ilicis,' the dried body of the female yielding colouring matter from which is made the dye used for cloth to colour it scarlet or crimson. Exodus 26:1 Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet (08144) (08438): with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them. Exodus 26:31 And thou shalt make a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet (08144) (08438), and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims shall it be made: Exodus 26:36 And thou shalt make an hanging for the door of the tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet (08438) (08144), and fine twined linen, wrought with needlework. Exodus 27:16 And for the gate of the court shall be an hanging of twenty cubits, of blue, and purple, and scarlet (08144) (08438), and fine twined linen, wrought with needlework: and their pillars shall be four, and their sockets four. Exodus 28:5,6 And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet (08144) (08438), and fine linen. And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet (08144) (08438), and fine twined linen, with cunning work. Exodus 28:8 And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet (08144) (08438), and fine twined linen. Exodus 28:15 And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment with cunning work; after the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold, of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet (08144) (08438), and of fine twined linen, shalt thou make it.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1787

AP Content :: Bible Bullets

Searching for Sargon by Kyle Butt, M.A. A favorite argument against the Bibles inspiration comes from the silence of the archaeological record. On more than one occasion, skeptics have accused the Bible of making a mistake regarding a person, place, or thing simply because no archaeological evidence has been uncovered corroborating the statement found in the Bible. Such was the case regarding the sole mention of Sargon, King of Assyria. In Isaiah 20:1, the prophet said: In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the King of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it. For many years, skeptics insisted that the biblical writer must be mistaken. After all, many inscriptions and archaeological finds from the Assyrian Empire had been found, yet not a single one of them mentioned the Sargon of Isaiah 20. In fact, a well-known list of Assyrian kings conspicuously omitted Sargon (Wilson, 1999, 3:78). But in 1843, Paul Emile Botta dealt the deathblow to this argument. Acting on information he had received about the small village of Khorsabad, Iraq, Botta began searching for ancient bricks with cuneiform writing on them. Not only did he find a rich cache of such bricks, but he also stumbled upon one of the most magnificent finds in archaeological history. Occupying the entire side of a hill, buried under centuries of dirt, stood the remains of King Sargons palace. This palace was of such size that it has been described as probably the most significant palace the world has ever seen, covering an area of more than twenty-five acres. Among the ruins, Sargon left numerous inscriptions detailing his military conquests. Not the least among those inscriptions was a particularly revealing inscription discussing his actions against Ashod, the very city mentioned in Isaiah 20:1. Needless to say, skeptics no longer accuse Isaiah of a historical discrepancy regarding Sargon. The more we uncover the past, the more we uncover the truththe Bible is indeed the Word of God. REFERENCES Wilson, Clifford and Barbara (1999), The Bible Comes Alive (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Press).

Copyright 2002 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map

Share

Seventy years of Babylonian rule: A detailed look at Jeremiah 25:9-12 and some objections that skeptics have
Many people have questioned the accuracy of Jeremiah's prophecy about a 70-year period during which Babylon would dominate Judah and hold Jews as captives in Babylon. These questions, in my opinion, are based on a mistaken belief that the captivity was supposed to last 70 years. My response is in three parts: Part 1. Summary of my understanding of the prophecy Part 2. My explanation of when the 70 years ended. Part 3. My theory on when the 70 years began. Part 1. Summary of my understanding of the prophecy: 1. Jeremiah 25:9-12 said that Judah would serve Babylon for 70 years. 2. Jeremiah 29:10 makes it clear that Babylon's domination of Judah would include a captivity during which Jews would be taken as captives to Babylon. 3. Jeremiah 29:10 said that the captivity would end when the "70 years" ended. 4. But Jeremiah never said that the captivity itself would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years. 5. Babylon's rule lasted 70 years, from 609 BC when the last Assyrian king, Ashuruballit II, was defeated in Harran, until 539 BC when the Medo-Persians conquered Babylon. Part 2. My explanation of when the 70 years ended: The people who have questioned the accuracy of this prophecy are, as far as I have been able to determine, are correct in that the captivity Jews in Babylon did not last 70 years, if the commonly assigned dates for the captivity are taken seriously. Most historical sources that I have seen state that 539 BC was the year that Babylon was conquered by the Medo-Persians. And that would seem to be a reasonable ending date for the captivity. But when did the captivity begin? Some say it began in 597 BC, when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem. If this date is accepted, then the captivity spanned no more than 59 years. So how does or 59 years equal 70 years? It can't and it doesn't. Believers, including myself, often point out that the book of Daniel states that there was an earlier taking of captives from Judah to Babylon, in either 605 BC or 606 BC, depending on which source of information is used. And, the believers often point out that although Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, he didn't release the Jews until the following year, in 538 BC or even 537 BC. And some believers have assigned the actual year in which the Jews of Babylon did begin to return to Judah was 537 BC or 536 BC. Using the two extremes as the starting and ending points, one could arrive at a 70-year span. But, in my opinion, none of this is even necessary because Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years. In Jeremiah 25:9-12, it said that Judah and the surrounding nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. But, Jeremiah does not say that the forced deportation of Jews from Judah would last 70 years. The captivity is something that grew out of Babylon's domination of Judah. The domination was supposed to span 70 years, but Jeremiah never said that the captivity itself would span 70 years. Below is the NIV translation of Jeremiah 25:9-12: Jeremiah 25:9-12 9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon," declares the LORD, "and I will bring them against this land and its

Bible prophecies sorted by prophet

Abraham's prophecies Daniel's prophecies Ezekiel's prophecies Isaiah's prophecies Jeremiah's prophecies Jesus' prophecies Micah's prophecies Moses' prophecies Nahum's prophecies Zechariah's
prophecies

Bible prophecies sorted by theme

Destruction of Israel Exile of Israel Dispersion of Israel Persecution of Israel Re-gathering of Israel Nationhood (Israel) Preservation of Israel Worldwide impact Messianic About other nations End Times

Glossaries of people, miracles, events, etc.

Miracles of Jesus People in the Bible Places in the Bible Bible glossary History of Israel

Life and teachings of Jesus Christ

Early life 1st year of ministry 2nd year of ministry 3rd year of ministry The final months Persecution of Jesus Resurrection of Jesus

Articles, answers, explanations, links

Articles &
explanations What is Christianity? Learn about the Bible Answers to tough questions Links & Online Bibles Da Vinci Code hoax

inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin. 10 I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 "But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the LORD, "and will make it desolate forever. But, in Jeremiah 29:10, Jeremiah does clearly say that the captivity will terminate at the end of the 70-year period. Below is the NIV translation of Jeremiah 29:10: Jeremiah 29:10 This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place. In Daniel 9:1-2, the prophet Daniel refers to the 70 years in that "the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years." But he too does not state that the captivity was supposed to last 70 years. What did he mean by "desolation?" Some might argue that he meant "captivity." But that would be an assumption, and nothing more than an assumption. And, in my opinion, given the fact that Daniel is probably referring to the Jeremiah prophecy, it would be a weak assumption to think that he meant "captivity" when he said "desolation." The desolation could simply refer to Babylonian domination, lasting from 609 BC to 539 BC. Others might claim that the "desolation" that Daniel referred to might actually be a reference to the 70 years in which the Temple had been destroyed. The Temple, and Jerusalem, were destroyed in 586 BC by the Babylonians. The Temple, which was rebuilt, was consecrated in 516 BC, 70 years after its destruction. Below is the NIV translation of Daniel 9:1-2: Daniel 9:1-2 1 In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom-2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. In 2 Chronicles 36:19-21, the Bible refers to a 70 year period during which the land of Judah enjoyed its Sabbath rests. This Bible passage begins with a reference to the 586 BC destruction of Jerusalem, during which the Temple was also destroyed. If it specifically meant to apply Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy to the destruction of the city, then that application could find fulfillment in that the Temple remained destroyed and non-operational for 70 years, from 586 BC to 516 BC. After the Jews rebuilt the Temple, it was consecrated in 516 BC. But regardless of how the 70 years reference is being used in this passage, it does not say that the captivity itself would last 70 years. Below is the NIV translation of 2 Chronicles 36:19-21: 2 Chronicles 36:19-21 19 They set fire to God's temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there. 20 He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power. 21 The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah. In Zechariah 1:12, the prophet Zechariah makes a passing reference to a 70 year period. But that passage also does not in any way contradict my contention that the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah refers to Babylonian rule and that Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years. Part 3. My theory on when the 70 years began: When did Babylon begin its domination of Judah? We know that there are historical records that claim that the Assyrian Empire dominated Judah, and many other nations. And we know that the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire. In 612 B.C. the Babylonians and the Medes conquered Nineveh, which at that time was the capital of the Assyrian Empire. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: " Nineveh suffered a defeat from which it never recovered. Extensive traces of ash,

Other items
About us E-mail us HOME

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/521

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Should David have been Stoned? by Kyle Butt, M.A. In Leviticus 20:10, the Bible records: The man who commits adultery with another mans wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbors wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. In 2 Samuel 11:3-4, the Bible declares that David took Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, and committed adultery with her. In chapter 12 of that same book, the prophet Nathan confronted David about his sin, thereby convicting David of his sin and bringing him to repentance. There is, however, no record that David was stoned or put to death because of his adulterous union with Bathsheba. In fact, David was allowed to continue his reign as king of Israel. Skeptics have pointed to this scenario and accused God of being a respecter of persons, claiming that He showed David more mercy than the Levitical Law allowed. Certain Bible believers have done the same, claiming that God simply had mercy on David in spite of what was written in the Law. A close look at the actual Law of Moses shows that these conclusions are incorrect. God did not jettison the Law of Moses in order to keep David alive. Mosaic regulations specifically stated that a person could be executed only if there were two or more witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 19:15). One witness was insufficient to invoke the death penalty (Deuteronomy 17:6). When we look at the situation between David and Bathsheba, we do not find that even one eyewitness was present to verify the adultery. In fact, it seems that the entire adulterous affair was quite hidden from the general populace. Only with the arrival of Nathan, the prophet, who was sent by God, did the details surface concerning Davids adultery. Nathan, however, could not be a witness against David, since there is no record of his having been at the scene of the crime. And even though he apparently got the information directly from God, that still would not fall under the ordinance mentioned in Deuteronomy 19:15. Furthermore, he still would need one more witness in order for David to be stoned. In truth, if those under the Law of Moses were condemned based on whether or not God knew of their crimes, then far more deaths would have occurred, since the eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good (Proverbs 15:3). We find, then, that the Mosaic Law was not ignored in Davids case; nor is this an instance of God showing partiality. Yet, even if there had been witnesses, and the Israelites had not properly followed the judicial procedures as set forth in the Law of Moses, it would not have been Gods fault, but the fault of the Israelites who failed to obey Gods commandments.

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

Should was be became in Genesis 1:2?

By John W Adey Roseford Road CAMBRIDGE CB4 2HA 01223 710647 e-mail: j.adey@ntlworld.com

"And the earth was without form and void"

Introduction Question: In Gen. 1:2, is the English translation was from the Hebrew hyth [pronounced: ha-yeh-thah], necessarily was, or can it be became? Answer: was is both the obvious and the most sustainable sense of the Hebrew. Nor can hyth be was with an implied became. Re-creation theorists may suppose that planet earth became without form and void, during some former period of habitation, in a supposed time gap between Gen. 1:1 and 2, but hyth only states what was, not what became. The following article provides a Biblical linguistic argument to show that hyth means was and that there is no scope for became. In short, in order to establish that a significant time gap is possible between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2, that argument would have to do so without resort to a became sense for hyth. That is, the Gen. 1:2s was would have to be preserved within that view. Alternatively, the following presentation against became would have to be faulted. Was and became [1] Was is static, or merely links the beginning of Gen 1:1 with a state, a description of the earth as being: "without form and void". Became is dynamic, and implies some (cause and) result. With became this can be read as: the earth was not always this way (that is, without form.), it had become this way. [2] Was is the majority English rendering of this statement. Thus to argue for became one would have to contend that the translators missed this meaning in the first instance of this regular be verb. Therefore, to promote became, or to suppose that sense hovered around this first use of hyth would need solid linguistic justification. [3] Was (Hebrew: hyth) is the natural and usual reading of this be verb, given the syntactical constructions in which it is set, and to which it contributes. This can be seen from many other examples in the Hebrew Bible. Some are presented below, with an analysis of how was is differentiated from became. [4] It is true that forms of the Hebrew verb to be like hyth occur in became expressions. However, for a became sense, hyth (or its cognates) has to be qualified by additional linguistic features in the context, or associated syntax. These are lacking in the immediate environment of Gen. 1:2. Again, this shows, reinforced by the following analysis, that became would not be a tenable translation of hyth in Gen. 1:2. Became' instead of was and the Gap view [5] Was is about what is (or was) at some early point in Gen 1:1-2. Its temporal antecedent is "in the beginning" (see, [11](d), and [14], below). Became introduces a different impression. It suggests another point in time, which is distanced from (or some time after) that beginning. Adherents of some gap view between verses one and two would certainly be assisted by a became reading. Yet, combined with finished in Gen. 2:1, and "without form and void" was (in Gen. 1:2) simply presents a state of affairs on planet earth, relative to in the beginning, that is ready for, or requires, development (see [7], and [14], below.) No gap need be presupposed to this. This is how the earth became within the initial conditions of Divine creative activity, not became through cataclysm, or chaos. This is what it was like at this stage. Even those who hold that verses 1-2 are a summary of the local action by God on the earth and its (e.g., firmament-)heavens subsequently detailed by days 1-6 (from verse 3), still oppose a gap (theory) between verses 1 and 2. This local action view means that verses 1-2 are not about the creation of the universe (i.e., the heavens and the earth does not equal the Universe), nor about how the earth came to be. On this view the Universe (and that includes the earth) already existed, Day 1 does not include its creation. [6] Unlike became, was does not import any suggestion that a state-of-affairs had come about on the earth that was different from what it was at a point of origin connected to "in the beginning." Exodus 20:11 can be cited as support for the KJV was type of translation, where it would follow that Gen 1:1 and 1:2 imply no extended time gap, but are inclusive of some instantaneous beginning and its subsequent effect:

For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth.
The Hebrew matches Gen 1:1, i.e., "the heavens [plural] and the earth." One reading is that this speaks of absolute creation. A creation that instantaneously brings into being the matter-energy system that makes up the universe of which we are a part. In this inclusive universe the earth is, and is ready to be acted upon. Alternatively, in the local space view, Exod. 20:11 is still taken to confirm that there is no gap between Gen. 1:1-2. [7] The question of something all-inclusive is found in Gen. 2:1: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." This finishing did not take aeons of time, but six days from the beginning of that work. (Clearly, the scope of all-inclusive would be read differently by interpreters depending on their stance on Gen. 1:1-2.) Where Gen. 1:1-2, and 2:1, may be considered to speak in a more extended way of (perhaps) a "closed universe" "all the host of them" may represent that inclusive totality. On any view of origins from science, or its application to the interpretation of Genesis, the following caution is apt: "Science is not some abstract eternal truth. It is what scientists produce fallibly. It is revisable. It is prone to error."

Linguistics of become / became [8] hyth becomes became only when it is accompanied (more often followed) at some point within the sentence by an additional linguistic component, like the Hebrew letter l (lamed). Without this additional (prepositional) l component hyth could not have the sense of became, it would remain was. This additional l element acts as a preposition: to (sometimes there may be another preposition. See [11](a), and n.5). In became translations this Hebrew l (lamed), in English to, is rarely apparent. This is because became is a composite of l (or some other preposition) combined with the verb to be (e.g., was). It could be put literally as: it was to = became. In fact, in Gen 2:10 the translators actually have gone further and added (in)to in their became rendering!

And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
Of course, hundreds of instances of this became (= was plus to) construction exist in the Hebrew Bible. [9] Became is introduced in Genesis 2:7:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Became introduces the result of a cause-effect sequence. Was would not be able to do this. This first instance of became has a related form of hyth (was), and the Hebrew l (English to) is attached to nephesh (soul), giving lenephesh (or more conventionally transliterated, with consonants only: lnp). Word-for-word this is: and there was the adam to soul living [Hebrew: wyhy hdm lnp yh.] 1 Corinthians 15:45 confirms this became sense, here: "The first man, Adam, was made (Gk. egeneto = became) a living soul." Paragraph [11], below, looks in more detail at the Greek term for was made/became egeneto. This term is differentiated from was in the Greek NT Both Greek . terms have distinct roles in parallel with the Hebrew ones. [10] The difference between hyth = was, and hyth l = became (to), is clear in 1 Kg 2:15:

And he said, Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign: howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and became (to) my brother's: for it became his (became to him) from Yahweh.
[11] (a) A New T estament quotation of Psalm 118:22 assists in confirming this distinction between was ( hyth) and became (hyth l). The Psalms translation is become is from hyth l:

The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
This text is cited four times in the Greek New T estament (Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10; Lk. 20:17; 1 Pet. 2:7). Became, or is become, is from egenth [cf. ginomai]. Egenth is not the Greek (he/it) was, that is n (cp. John 1:1-2 in (d), below). So, the Greek became [egenth] aligns with the Hebrew hyth l, thus supporting the Hebrew forms became sense. (b) Another case is is become of him from Exodus 32:1, 23, cited in Acts 7:40. The Hebrew for this expression is hyh lw and correlates with the Greek: egeneto aut . The Greek egeneto is related to is become [ egenth] in [11](a), above. Here is another case distinguishing was from become, that also shows how become in Hebrew is constructed. (c) Equally, the 'became' sense is distinguishable in NT Greek from was in 1 Cor. 13:11. As in: "When I became [Gk. gegona, cf. ginomai and thus related to egeneto] a man," contrasted with: "When I was a child." Was [mn] in this NT text is connectable grammatically to the verb to be in Gen 1:2s was. (Cp. the Greek first person past tense I was [mn] with the third person past tense it/there was [ n ] in Jno. 1:1-2. See [11](d), below.) The Greek NT then, can be used comparatively both with the Hebrew, and with itself, to demonstrate the distinction between was and became. This can be applied to , hyth (was) in Gen. 1:2. (d) If one compares John 1:1-2 with Gen. 1:1-2 was is the first instance of a be-verb usage in both. Was (Hebrew hyth, and Greek n ) is linked to a state of affairs in both texts associated with in the beginning: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." The typical copulative (linking) and narrative past tense role of was occurs in other sentences in this context, like Jno. 1:4: "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." Egeneto, rendered in KJV as was made, or become, also occurs repeatedly in this context (from Jno. 1:3ff.) It is clearly to be differentiated from was. [12] The Hebrew verb form hyth has a simple Past T ense role for reporting in a recount (or historical narrative), some state-of-affairs, or condition. As shown above, syntactically it has a copulative (connecting) function, like is does. Was is like is in the past, in these typical contexts: Gen. 29:17, Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was [hyth] beautiful and well favoured. (So, in 2 Sam 14:27, re. T amar.) Gen. 36:12, And Timna was [hyth] concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son Gen. 38:21, 22, And they said, There was [hyth] no harlot in this place. Was records how Rachel looked naturally. There is no suggestion that something happened to cause her to become beautiful! [13] Conclusion from this linguistic analysis: hyth in Gen. 1:2, is the first occurrence of the verb to be in The Bible. There is no verb parallelism, nor any other linguistic device in this context, that would modify hyth to became. Comparing Scriptural usage yields distinct expressions for was and became. They are thus able to be clearly differentiated and their function, or application, described or generalised. Was is the sense of the Hebrew hyth in Gen. 1:2. Became would be a loaded sense, extra-Biblically influenced (e.g., directed by concerns from modern science.)

[14] What this outcome means. Without became some other way of arriving at a void and formless earth, in some gap of time since the beginning, would need to be presented and proved. Even if the earth is old, some other way of establishing this would be required, was does not apparently help! With no 'became' language to say it 'became' (any how, or any way) without form and void, that it was so, in this state, relates textually to in the beginning. Thus, this condition of the earth did not come about in some 'gap' (missing from the text) since the beginning, but in the beginning. This is important. For this implies that, until God in that beginning created the heavens and the earth, there was not an earth to be of the form or voidness recorded. Therefore, in terms of Genesis 1:1-2, this outcome - 'was without form and void' - relates to the initial creative act, not to some intervening cataclysm. New heavens and new earth [15] Later Scripture (e.g. John 1 and Colossians 1) sees the physical creation as encoding (for) the spiritual in Christ. The material stuff that now is, is nevertheless the basis of (for) the ultimate: "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Rev. 4:11). [16] The future "new heavens and earth wherein dwells righteousness" (2 Pet. 3:13), with its prophetic background in Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22, introduces the idea of a transition from a former state, to a newly made one. What Isaiah foretells is of a re-development of our existing earth (and heavens). This is the only time in the Old T estament that we get a previous creation, or a re-development of the earth vista. Nevertheless, it shows the sort of language that we might have expected in Genesis 1:1-2 if such a transformation were depicted there after some global cataclysm. Finally, the word new in these prophetic contexts is used of a future (re-)creation. The Genesis work of making and creating does not include new as if to imply old, or former. This also ought to have some bearing on how was is not became.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/571

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Six or Eight Days? by Eric Lyons, M.Min. After Jesus prophesied during His earthly ministry that some would live to see the establishment of Gods kingdom, the first two books of the New Testament indicate six days expired before Peter, James, and John were led up on a high mountain to witness the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 16:28-17:2; Mark 9:1-2). Lukes account, on the other hand, says that Jesus transfiguration occurred about eight days after Jesus prophesied of the approaching kingdoms establishment (9:27-29). Skeptics charge that this difference in the time elapsed between the two events constitutes an obvious error. They profess that such textual differences should lead the honest person to admit that the Bible contains contradictions, and thus is not the inerrant Word of God. Admittedly, at first glance it may seem to the casual reader that Lukes time line contradicts Matthew and Marks account of the time that elapsed between Jesus prophecy and His transfiguration. However, a closer examination reveals that Luke never intended for his readers to understand that exactly 192 hours (i.e., eight 24-hour days) elapsed from the moment Jesus finished His prophecy to the time He and the others began their ascent to the mount of transfiguration. Luke recorded that it was about eight days, not that it was eight days exactly. Although Luke was a physician (cf. Colossians 4:14), he did not use scientific precision in this case. Rather, he merely approximated the time separating the two events. Furthermore, it seems clear that whereas Matthew and Mark excluded the days of the two terminal events (the prophecy and the transfiguration), Luke included both days, as well as the six intermediate days, and thus mentioned that the two events were eight days apart. Even today when people rehearse something they witnessed a few days earlier, they may refer to the events as happening on different days. For example, if a store was robbed on a Monday afternoon, and the following Monday morning a witness told friends what he had seen, one could say truthfully that he recalled the events six days or eight days after they occurred. If one were counting only full days, then six would be correct (Tuesday through Sunday). But it also would be correct to speak of the events as occurring eight days earlierif one were including both full and partial days (Monday through Monday). Whether one uses six or eight does not discredit the account of what actually happened. Likewise, the time difference between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in no way represents a legitimate contradiction. Luke simply used the inclusive method of reckoning time (counting the portion of a day at either end of the period), whereas Matthew and Mark counted only complete days (Coffman, 1971, p. 261). REFERENCES Coffman, James Burton (1971), Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558

Solomons Basin and "Pi" -- A Bible Error? : ChristianCourier.com

http://w w w .christiancourier.com/articles/497-solomons-basin-and-pi-a-bible-error June 8, 2011

By Wayne Jackson A skeptic claims that the Bible contains a mathematical mistake in 1 Kings 7:23 (cf. 2 Chron. 4:2). The writer states that the great basin in Solomons temple was fifteen feet in diameter, and forty-five feet in circumference. According to these figures, the circumference was three times the distance of the diameter. Actually, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is called pi, and the precise measurement of pi is 3.1415, not 3.0. Supposedly, then, this demonstrates the biblical text to be in error. How does the Bible believer respond to this? This alleged mistake is a classic example of the desperation of those who, for their own base motives, wish to discredit the Scriptures. The effort is futile. Consider the following points. 1. No contradiction or error can be charged against the biblical text unless all relevant facts are known. And all facts are not known in this instance. For example, it is not certain whether the diameter of this sea of brass was based upon the inside dimensions of the basin, or the outside (the thickness of the vessel was a handbreath (1 Kgs. 7:26) approximately three and one-half inches). It appears that the top of the basin was fashioned with a brim (see 7:24) that turned outward (which perhaps reflected the fifteen feet), while the inner diameter was less, in which case there could have been absolute mathematical orthodoxy. While this explanation is possible, there really is no reason to expect, or demand, a mathematically precise formula. 2. It is common in literature to employ rounded numbers, i.e., a definite figure to represent a general number, in providing descriptions. This procedure is utilized frequently in the Bible without hesitation or apology. When Israel was preparing to enter Canaan, the bulk of the nation was to remain about two thousand cubits away from the ark of the covenant (Josh. 3:4). On the day of Pentecost, about three thousand souls constituted the church (Acts 2:41; cf. 4:4). The children of Israel were in the wilderness of Sinai about forty years (Acts 13:18). The biblical writers were not under moral obligation to cite measurements in terms of feet, inches, and fractions thereof. If someone were to ask the skeptic (who framed the objection posed above) to state the length of a day, would he reply twenty-four hours, or would he be compelled to specify twenty-three hours, fifty-six minutes, and 4.09054 seconds (the actual measurement)? In fact, our critic stated that pi is 3.1415, whereas not even he was precise. Pi actually is 3.14159265+ (i.e., indefinitely imprecise). It is hardly consistent, therefore, to frame an imprecise objection against the Bibles alleged imprecision! While we are dealing with the temples brazen sea (cf. 1 Chron. 18:8), we might as well address another alleged discrepancy. In 1 Kings 7:26 it is stated that the basin held two thousand baths, while in 2 Chronicles 4:5 the volume is given at three thousand baths. Again, though, the problem is not insurmountable. 1. It is possible that the lower figure represented the amount of water normally contained in the vessel, while the latter affirmed the potential full capacity. The figures would thus would be

employed in different senses. 2. J. Barton Payne thinks that the difference can be explained on the basis of a scribal error in the Chronicles text (The Expositors Bible Commentary, F. Gaebelein, Ed., Zondervan, 1988, Vol. IV, p. 453). 3. Another possibility is that the record of Chronicles, which is from the post-Babylonian captivity period, may have employed a different standard of measurement for the cubit or bath, than did the earlier record (G. Goldsworthy, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Tenney/Barabas, Eds., Zondervan, 1975, Vol. 5, p. 318). Multiple interpretative possibilities do not accommodate a contradiction allegation! For a more indepth treatment of the relationship between the Bible and science, see The Bible and Science by Wayne Jackson.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/556

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Take It, or Leave It by Eric Lyons, M.Min. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

Perhaps the most difficult alleged Bible contradiction that we have been asked to tackle at Apologetics Press was presented to us

some time ago by the mother of a dear friend. She asked, When Jesus sent out the twelve apostles on what is commonly called th limited commission, did He instruct them to take staffs or not? Her question was the result of studying the three following paralle passages in the synoptic Gospels (the difficult portions are in bold type). Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs (literally, a staff); for a worker is worthy of his food (Matthew 10:9-10). He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staffno bag, no bread, no copper in their money beltsbut to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics (Mark 6:8-9). And He said to them, Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs (literally, a staff) nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece (Luke 9:3).

A cursory reading of the above passages admittedly is somewhat confusing. Matthew and Luke seem to agree that Jesus prohibited

the disciples from taking a staff on their journeys, while Mark appears to give them permission to take one. Furthermore, althoug Luke does not record Jesus command regarding sandals, some have concluded that Matthew and Mark also contradict each other

on this point. To use the words of Steve Wells, author of The Skeptics Annotated Bible, In Matthews gospel, Jesus tells his disciple to go barefoot and take no staff. But the Jesus in Marks gospel (6:8-9) tells them to wear sandals and carry a staff (emp. added). Actually then, the question at hand is about staffs and sandals, even though Luke mentioned only staffs.

The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verb

to express different meanings. In Matthew, the word provide (NKJV) is an English translation of the Greek word ktesthe. Accordin to Bauers Greek-English Lexicon, the root word comes from ktaomai, which means to procure for oneself, acquire, get (1979, p. 455). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb acquire in Matthew 10:9 (Do not acquire.), instead of provide or take. In Matthew, Jesus is saying: Do not acquire anything in addition to what you already

have that may tempt you or stand in your way. Just go as you are. As Mark indicated, the apostles were to take (airo) what the had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies (extra apparel, staffs, shoes, etc.) or making

preparations for their trip, but instead were instructed to trust in Gods providence for additional needs. Jesus did not mean for the apostles to discard the staffs and sandals they already had; rather, they were not to go and acquire more. To illustrate this point using a modern day scenario, consider the CEO who came to his Personnel Director near the end of the day and said that he needed her to fly to Los Angeles on a business trip immediately. If he told the director not to acquire anything for

this urgent trip, including clothes, shoes, or make-up, she would know that he meant not to take anything extra. Obviously the CEO did not intend for the Personnel Director to take off her shoes, clothes, and the make-up she already was wearing in order to make

the trip. Furthermore, if her boss came back five minutes later (to ensure that she understood his instructions clearly) and stated, Hurry. The plane is leaving in one hour. Dont take anything with you except what you are wearing, the Personnel Director would conclude the same thing she did the first timedo not take anything extra. The CEO said the same thing using two different phrases. Similarly, the wording in Matthew and Mark represent two different ways of saying virtually the same thing.

Most apologists and biblical commentators discontinue their discussion of these parallel passages at this point. They explain the difference between Matthew and Marks account of Jesus sending out the Twelve, but they omit Lukes account. In order to answer the skeptics criticism adequately, however, Lukes account must be included in this discussion. Otherwise, one still is left with an unanswered alleged contradiction. The differences surrounding Luke and Marks account are explainable, but it takes effort on the part of the reader to comprehend them. [The following facts must be read carefully in order to understand how the differences in these accounts do not point toward a contradiction.]

As is obvious from a comparison of the verses in Matthew and Luke, they are recording the same truththat the apostles were not to spend valuable time gathering extra staffsonly they are using different words to do so. Provide (Greek ktaomi) neither gold nor silvernor staffs (Matthew 10:9-10, emp. added).

Take (Greek airo) nothing for the journey, neither staffs (Luke 9:3, emp. added). Luke did not use ktaomi in his account because he nearly always used ktaomi in a different sense than Matthew did. In Matthews account, the word ktaomai is used to mean provide or acquire, whereas in the books of Luke and Acts, Luke used this word to mean purchase, buy, or earn. Notice the following examples of how Luke used this word. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get (ktaomai) [Luke 18:12, emp. added, NAS] Now this man purchased (ktaomai) a field with the wages of iniquity (Acts 1:18, emp. added). Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased (ktaomai) with money! (Acts 8:20, emp. added). The commander answered, With a large sum I obtained (ktaomai) this citizenship (Acts 22:28, emp. added). [Luke 21:19 is the only place one could argue where Luke may have used ktaomai to mean something other than purchase, buy, or earn, but even here there is a transactional notion in it (Miller, 1997)].

When Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14), used the word ktaomai, he meant something different than when Matthew, th tax collector, used the same word. Whereas Luke used ktaomai to refer to purchasing or buying something, Matthew used the Greek verb agorazo (cf. Matthew 14:15; 25:9-10; 27:6-7). Matthew used ktaomai only in the sense of acquiring something (not

purchasing something). As such, it would make absolutely no sense for Luke to use ktaomai in his account of Jesus sending out the apostles (9:3). If he did, then he would have Jesus forbidding the apostles to purchase or buy money [Buy nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money.]. Thus, Luke used the more general Greek verb (airo) in order to convey the same idea that Matthew did when using the Greek verb ktaomai. Just as ktaomai did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew, the Greek word airo (translated take in both Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3) often did not mean the same for Luke and Mark (see Miller, 1997). [Understanding this simple fact eliminates the

contradiction completely, for unless the skeptic can be certain that Mark and Luke were using the word in the same sense, he cannot prove that the accounts contradict each other.] Mark consistently used airo in other passages throughout his gospel to mean

simply take or pick up and carry (2:9; 6:29; 11:23; 13:16). That Luke (in 9:3) did not mean the same sense of airo as Mark did (in 6:8) is suggested by the fact that in Luke 19:21-22 he used this same verb to mean acquire. Another piece of comparative da between Mark and Luke is that when Mark recorded Jesus informing His listeners that to be His disciple one had to take up his cross (Mark 8:34), he used the word airo. Luke, on the other hand, used the Greek word bastazo (14:27) [Miller, 1997]. Without going any further with these language comparisons, one simply must understand that the Greek language (like most languages) is flexible enough so that sometimes two writers can use the same word to mean different things, and sometimes they can use different words to mean the same thing (as indicated by the following chart,* which serves as a summary of the comparisons and contrasts made in this article). ktaomai Matthew Mark Luke to purchase, buy to acquire agorazo to purchase, buy to take, pick up and carry to acquire to take, pick up and carry airo bastazo

*NOTE: Only the definitions that pertain to this article are shown. In case you think such language leeway in the Greek sounds absurd, remember that this flexibility appears frequently in the

English language. Consider two basketball coaches who are commenting on a player. One says, He is bad; the other says, He is good. The coaches may be using two different words to mean the same thing. The truth is, in some contexts the words bad and good are opposites, in other situations they are synonymous. Although many have been misled about the differences regarding Jesus instructions when sending out His apostles on the limited commission, the truth is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all saying the same thing: Hurry up and get moving! REFERENCES

Bauer, Walter. (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, ed. William F. Arndt an

The Bible refers to the four corners of the earth. How can a spherical earth have corners?

Perhaps no phrase in Scripture

has been so controversial as the phrase, "the four corners of the earth." The word translated corners, as in the phrase above, is the Hebrew word, KANAPH. Kanaph is translated in a variety of ways. However, it generally means extremity. It is translated borders in Numbers 15:38. In Ezekiel 7:2 it is translated four corners and again in Isaiah 11:12 four corners. Job 37:3 and 38:13 as ends. The Greek equivalent in Revelation 7:1 is gonia. The Greek meaning is perhaps more closely related to our modern divisions known as quadrants. Gonia literally means angles, or divisions. It is customary to divide a map into quadrants as shown by the four directions. Some have tried to ridicule the Bible to say that it teaches that the earth is square. The Scripture makes it quite clear that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). Some have tried to say there are four knobs, or peaks on a round earth. Regardless of the various ways kanaph is translated, it makes reference to EXTREMITIES. There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:

Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone. Paioh means a geometric corner Ziovyoh means right angle or corner Krnouth refers to a projecting corner. Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, fourcornered earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.
Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity. It is doubtful that any religious Jew would ever misunderstand the true meaning of kanaph. For nearly 2,000 years, religious Jews have faced the city of Jerusalem three times daily and chanted the following prayer: Sound the great trumpet for our freedom, Raise the banner for gathering our exiles, And gather us together from THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH into our own land. The Book of Isaiah describes how the Messiah, the Root of Jesse, shall regather his people from the four corners of the earth. They shall come

from every extremity to be gathered into Israel. "And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious." It shall come to pass in that day That the LORD shall set His hand again the second time To recover the remnant of His people who are left, From Assyria and Egypt, From Pathros and Cush, From Elam and Shinar, From Hamath and the islands of the sea. He will set up a banner for the nations, And will assemble the outcasts of Israel, And gather together the dispersed of Judah From THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (Isaiah 11:10-12, New King James Version)

Read more
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? Answer Who invented the flat Earth? Answer
[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]

Author: Dr. Joan Sloat Morton, Ph.D., as adapted from Science in the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 138,141. Supplied by Eden Communications (used with permission)
Copyright 1997, Eden Communications, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached Usage and Copyright page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

www.ChristianAnswers.Net Christian Answers Network PO Box 200 Gilbert AZ 85299 Submit your Questions

Christian Answers Network HOMEPAGE and DIRECTORY

Apologetics
Answers for Atheists Design vs. Evolution Biblical Creation Bible Authenticity Slideshows YouTube Videos Christian Theology Aberrant Theology Christian Tribulation Christian Life Issues Discovery Course God's Love Abortion Discussion Forum Links Book Reviews Movie Reviews

Page Links

The Bible Teaches That the Heavens Were a Solid Dome, Embedded with Stars?
by Rich Deem

teaches that on pillars INTRODUCTION The Biblesolid sky dome the earth was "flat and circular sittingMoon, and with a rotating overhead which carried the Sun, the the Stars and allowed water to leak through 'windows of heaven' or sluice gates to form clouds and rain."1 If the claim is true that the Bible teaches such a primitive cosmology, then nobody should believe that it originates from God nor follow its precepts. So, let's look at what the Bible really says about the heavens and the earth and whether the atheists' claims are valid. the ancients believed in a flat earth that was covered by a solid dome. Below are listed some examples of ancient cosmologies prevalent 2,000-5,000 years ago. Sumerians Ancient Sumerian hymns and myths provide a picture of the universe's Ancient Cosm ology. (anki) creation. The Sumerians believed that a primeval sea (abzu) existed before anything else and that the heaven (an) and the earth (ki) were formed within it. The boundary between the primeval sea and the earth (a flat disk) was a solid vault, within which was the gas-like atmosphere (lil). The stars, planets, sun, and moon were embedded in this solid vault.2 Each of the four major Sumerian deities was associated with one of these regions; An (god of heaven), Ki (goddess of earth, also known as Ninhursag, Ninmah, or Nintu), Enlil (god of the air, son of An and Ki), and Enki (god of the primeval sea). According to their myths, An and Ki were the progenitors of most of the gods.2 Greeks The Greek philosopher Anaximenes described the heavens as like a felt cap that turned on its head, with the stars fixed to this surface like nails.3 Jews Some of the Jews also endorsed solid dome cosmology, For example, Josephus, the Jewish first century Jewish historian, believed that the earth was surrounded by a crystalline firmament: After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts, and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews.4 A portion of the Jewish Talmud indicates that the Sun travelled under the firmament by day and above the firmament by night:

Ancient cosmologies Skeptics are correct in saying that many of

Search
Search Site

Introduction Ancient cosmologies Sumerians Greeks Jews Early Christians Bible verses The firmament Raqia Pillars of heaven Molten Mirror Vaulted dome Ends of the earth Biblical cosmology Conclusions Related Pages References Send Print Email Page Translate Font:A A
A

Advanced Search Enhanced Google Site Map

Answers
Is God Real? Is Christianity True? God's Character Evil & Suffering Religion is stupid Bad Christians Bible & Science Bible Contradictions Objections to Christianity Common atheist's myths No Evidence of the Supernatural?

Ministry Info
About us Contact us Privacy Policy RSS Feed

G & S Toolbar

Newsletter name email address

Subscribe

"The learned of Israel say, "The sphere stands firm, and the planets revolve"; the learned of the nations say, "The sphere moves, and the planets stand firm." The learned of Israel say, "The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night above the firmament"; the learned of the nations say, "The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night beneath the earth."5 Early Christians Theophilus of Antioch, a second century Christian wrote that heaven was a dome-like covering: "For the Spirit being one, and holding the place of light,(2) was between the water and the heaven, in order that the darkness might not in any way communicate with the heaven, which was nearer God, before God said, 'Let there be light.' The heaven, therefore, being like a dome-shaped covering, comprehended matter which was like a clod."6 Here is what the book of Enoch (a non-biblical ancient text) says about ancient cosmology: And from thence I went to the ends of the earth and saw there great beasts, and each differed from the other; and (I saw) birds also differing in appearance and beauty and voice, the one differing from the other. And to the east of those beasts I saw the ends of the earth whereon the heaven rests, and the portals of the heaven open. And I saw how the stars of heaven come forth, and I counted the portals out of which they proceed, and wrote down all their outlets, of each individual star by itself, according to their number and their names, their courses and their positions, and their times and their months, as Uriel the holy angel who was with me showed me.7 Although it would seem from this list that many ancients, including Biblical passages reported to endorse Christians, believed in dome cosmology, this evidence does not

General
Send an e-Card Webmaster Resources Personal Pages Humor

New Pages
Was Jesus God? Once Saved Always Saved? God is Not "Fair" Christians & Suicide Judging the Sabbath Land Plants Before Animals? Four Views on Divine Providence Did God have a wife? Alien Life in Meteorites? Singularity Movement Creating Life in the Lab

Site Helps
Site Help En Espaol Help I can't see! Bookmark G&S Toolbar Report page errors

reported to endorse answer the original question - Does the Bible teach dome cosmology? dome cosmology Let's examine specific biblical passages that skeptics say teach dome
cosmology. The firmament The main reason why skeptics have said the Bible endorses dome cosmology comes from the King James version (KJV) translation of the Bible. Here is the KJV translation of Genesis 1:6-8: And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. (Genesis 1:6-8) The word "firmament" implies a solid material, coming from the Latin word "firmamentum," from Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. The Latin word firmamentum has the meaning of a "support," or "prop." However, the original Hebrew word, raqia,8 which Jerome translated into the Latin word firmamentum, is not nearly as specific. Raqia comes from the Hebrew verb raqa, which means "beat," "stamp," "beat out" and "spread out." Occurring 11 times in the Old Testament, raqa has the meaning to "stamp one's feet" (twice), stamp something with the feet (once), spreading metal (four times), spreading out the earth (three times), and spreading the sky or the clouds (once).9 So, the verb raqa does not necessarily refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not. Raqia The Hebrew noun raqia is used 17 times in the Bible. Eleven of those instances occur in 7 verses from Genesis 1.10 Five instances of raqia occur in Ezekiel's visions11 - once referring to the expanse (or extent) of the angels' wings and the other four referring to something that appeared to be like a gleaming crystal, although it is never identified as being a solid object. Two others occur in the Psalms,12 once referring to the expanse as described in Genesis (also written by Moses), and the second referring to the mighty expanse of God's power.12 So, raqia itself does not always refer to a solid object. Genesis 1:8 says that God Himself defines what the raqia is, saying "God called the expanse heaven." So, the so-called firmament is nothing more than heaven itself and does not comprise a separate structure. This fact is further emphasized in Genesis 1:20, where God says, "... let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."10 Obviously, birds cannot fly through a solid structure, clearly indicating that raqia is not a solid object. Pillars of heaven In the book of Job, Job is talking to his four "friends," and eventually to God Himself. During one of these long discourses, Job talks about God's creation, referring to the "pillars of the heavens." Skeptics say that the pillars hold up the solid dome firmament above the earth. However, before deciding exactly what these "pillars of the heavens" are, we should look at the verse in context: He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. (Job 26:7) He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. (Job 26:8) He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it. (Job 26:9) He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness. (Job 26:10) The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (Job 26:11) As one can see, Job comes up with some rather remarkable insights into the nature of the earth. He says that the earth is suspended over nothing and that the clouds carry water and have weight, yet do not fall to earth. In the context of the passage, it is clear that the "pillars" are the mountains, which quake at God's rebuke. Whereas the Quran says the earth is like a carpet 13 that is held in place by the heavy mountains, described as being like tent pegs,14 so that it won't move or shake,15 the Bible associates the mountains with shaking16 and says that, instead of placing the mountains on the earth, God caused the mountains to rise up.17 So, it is pretty obvious that these pillars aren't holding anything up, but are merely free-standing pillars, similar to those found in Solomon's Temple.18 The molten mirror Another example given for the claim that the Bible teaches there is a solid dome that holds the stars comes from the book of Job: "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, strong as a molten mirror?" (Job 37:18) Out of context, it seems like an open and shut case that the Bible teaches that the skies are solid. However, there are some definite problems with the English translation of this verse. First, the Hebrew word shachaq,19 translated "skies" is probably a bad translation of the Hebrew. The usual word that would have been used for "sky" or "heaven" is shamayim.20 The meaning of the Hebrew word shachaq is usually "cloud" or "dust."21 Looking at the context of Job 37, the entire beginning of the chapter is describing a violent storm.22 In three other instances within the same chapter, the word shachaq is translated as "cloud," so it would make sense to translate it as "cloud" in this verse, also. The Hebrew word rei, translated "mirror,"23

the Lab NASA's ArsenicEating Bacteria The Moral Landscape 'Goldilocks' Planet Has Life? Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Is Satan Real? Paul Invented Christianity? Ancient Hebrew Inscription Babies Go To Heaven? Medical Marijuana 'Benefits' Genetics & Homosexuality Origin of Homochirality Natural Evil Is Religion Child Abuse? Why are Scientists Atheists? God of the Gaps Who Created God? Living Together a Good Idea?

is found nowhere else in the Old Testament, so its exact meaning remains uncertain. However, it is derived from the Hebrew word raah, which means "to appear" or "to see."24 Further evidence that rei does not mean "mirror" comes from the Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (translated by the Jews into Greek during the 3rd to 1st centuries BC), where the translators used the Greek word horasis, which means "appearance."25 From this information, we can come up with a much better translation that fits the context of the chapter: "Can you, with Him, spread out the mighty clouds, with a molten appearance?" (Job 37:18) This translation fits the context much better, since the entire first part of Job 37 is about a storm. In addition, the sky does not have a molten, flowing appearance, but clouds do. So, from the context, it is pretty obvious that this verse is referring to the appearance of clouds and not some solid "firmament." The other complication for atheists trying to pin a solid sky teaching on this verse from Job is God's response to Elihu's sermon on creation. In the very next chapter, God rebukes Elihu with some pretty strong words: "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2) In other words, God tells Job that his friend doesn't know what he is talking about. So much for this claim that the Bible endorses the idea that the skies are a solid dome. Since God Himself answered Job in a 5 chapter sermon, atheists would have a valid point if they found an error in any of those chapters. However, you won't find any complaints about the content of chapters 38-42. In fact, chapter 38 accurately establishes the initial conditions of the earth (covered with a thick layer of clouds): "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?... When I made a cloud its garment And thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4, 9) The vaulted dome Another Bible verse skeptics claims teaches dome cosmology comes from the book of Amos: The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth... (Amos 9:6) This is the only verse in which the word "dome" actually appears in English translations of the Bible, but it is only found in the NASB translation. Here are some other translations of the verse: It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth... (Amos 9:6, KJV) he who builds his lofty palace in the heavens and sets its foundation on the earth... (Amos 9:6, NIV) He built his palace in the heavens and let its foundations rest on the earth... (Amos 9:6, CEV) He that buildeth his ascension in heaven, and hath founded his bundle upon the earth... (Amos 9:6, DRB) It is he that builds his ascent up to the sky, and establishes his promise on the earth... (Amos 9:6, LXX)26 The Hebrew word in question is aguddah, meaning a band:- band(1), bands(1), bunch(1).27 The other translations use the word "foundation" (NIV) and troop" (KJV). Here are the other three verses in which the word aguddah appears: "And you shall take a bunch [aguddah] of hyssop and dip it in the blood which is in the basin, and apply some of the blood that is in the basin to the lintel and the two doorposts; and none of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning." (Exodus 12:22) And the sons of Benjamin gathered together behind Abner and became one band [aguddah], and they stood on the top of a certain hill. (2 Samuel 2:25) this not the fast which I choose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands [aguddah] of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free, And break every yoke?" (Isaiah 58:6) So, it is obvious that the NASB translation of Amos 9:6 is off base. This example is typical of the kind of objections raised by atheists. Their MO is to find an unusual translation (usually found in only one translation) and use this as "proof" that the Bible is inaccurate. Ends of the Earth The Bible makes numerous references to "the ends of the earth."28 Obviously, if the earth were spherical, it would have no ends. Don't these verses show that the Bible promulgates a flat earth theology? In reality, the Bible almost never refers to planet earth (except in its obvious cosmological passages). The Hebrew word erets, sometimes translated into the English word "earth," nearly always refers to local geography ("land") or the ground ("dirt"). Most often, passages reference specific geography (usually the land around Israel): of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), (Deuteronomy 13:7) "As the firstborn of his ox, majesty is his, And his horns are the horns of the wild ox; With them he will push the peoples, All at once, to the ends of the earth. And those are the ten thousands of Ephraim, And those are the thousands of Manasseh." (Deuteronomy 33:17)

May he also rule from sea to sea And from the River to the ends of the earth. (Psalms 72:8) He has remembered His lovingkindness and His faithfulness to the house of Israel; All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. (Psalms 98:3) Go forth from Babylon! Flee from the Chaldeans! Declare with the sound of joyful shouting, proclaim this, Send it out to the end of the earth; Say, "The LORD has redeemed His servant Jacob." (Isaiah 48:20) I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim And the horse from Jerusalem; And the bow of war will be cut off. And He will speak peace to the nations; And His dominion will be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth. (Zechariah 9:10) So, most often, the word "land: should be used in place of "earth." In many instances erets, doesn't refer to earth or land or dirt, but to the people who live in the land: "Those who contend with the LORD will be shattered; Against them He will thunder in the heavens, The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; And He will give strength to His king, And will exalt the horn of His anointed." (1 Samuel 2:10) All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You. (Psalms 22:27) God blesses us, That all the ends of the earth may fear Him. (Psalms 67:7) He has remembered His lovingkindness and His faithfulness to the house of Israel; All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. (Psalms 98:3) The coastlands have seen and are afraid; The ends of the earth tremble; They have drawn near and have come. (Isaiah 41:5) "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah 45:22) The LORD has bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God. (Isaiah 52:10) Behold, the LORD has proclaimed to the end of the earth, Say to the daughter of Zion, "Lo, your salvation comes; Behold His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him." (Isaiah 62:11) Although we tend to think of the earth as a cosmological entity, the word erets should, almost always be translated, "land" or "people." So, the "ends of the earth" really refers to lands surrounding Israel and its peoples. Four corners of the earth There are some references in some English translations to the "four corners of the earth," as exemplified in Isaiah: And He will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, NASB) Obviously, a spherical earth does not have corners. So, does this verse imply that the Bible teaches a flat earth? Other translations do not use the word "corners," as seen below: And he will put up a flag as a sign to the nations, and he will get together those of Israel who had been sent away, and the wandering ones of Judah, from the four ends of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, BBE) He will give a signal to the nations, and he will bring together the refugees from Judah and Israel, who have been scattered all over the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, CEV) And he shall set up a standard unto the nations, and shall assemble the fugitives of Israel, and shall gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, DRB) And He shall lift up a banner for the nations, and shall gather the outcasts of Israel, and gather those dispersed from Judah, from the four wings of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, LITV) He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, NIV) Obviously, there is something unusual about these "corners." Actually, the Hebrew word translated "corners" is kanaph, which actually refers to the wing of a bird (translated literally in the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, LITV, above). So, the phrase is an idiom that refers to the four points of the compass (north, south, east, and west). The verse has nothing to do with the earth being flat. The next thing you know, the atheists will be claiming that the Bible says the earth is a bird, since it has wings! being a spiritual guide rather than a scientific one, it is not overly detailed. Even so, it is scientifically accurate. Overall, the Bible presents God as the Creator of the entire universe (matter, energy, space, and time). It makes the following audacious claims, which contradicted the prevalent ancient cosmologies, but have been confirmed by modern science: Time had a beginning.29 The universe had a beginning.30 The universe was created from the invisible.31 The dimensions of the universe were created.32 The universe is expanding.33 Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory).34 The universe is winding down and will "wear out" (second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death"-maximum entropy).35 Contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible does not say that the earth

Biblical cosmology The Bible does present a cosmological model of the universe, although,

is the center of the universe, but that the universe actually controls the earth.36 In addition, the Bible correctly identifies the order of creation.37 The Bible's description of the heavens comprise three different areas - the three "heavens." Of these heavens, the third heaven is God's abode,38 which is not part of the physical universe.39 The second heaven is also called "the highest heavens," and contains the stars.40 The first heaven is the atmosphere - the raqia or biblical expanse, in which the birds fly10 and clouds form to produce rain.41 Although many ancients did believe in a solid dome heaven, the claims that the Bible espouse this view are shown to be false. Skeptics who make these claims rely upon poor English translations of the original Hebrew verses, taken out of context, in order to "prove" that the Bible teaches a false cosmology. In contrast, this page shows that the Bible teaches an advanced cosmology that was not fully verified until the 20th century.

CONCLUSION

RELATED PAGES
Atheist Myth #1: Bible Teaches a Flat Earth and Solid Dome Heavens Slideshow , PowerPoint - 6.1 MB, audio 13.7 MB False Teachings in the Bible? Biblical "Contradictions" and False Teachings in the Bible? Science Contradicts the Bible? Accurate Biblical Descriptions of Scientific Principles Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation

REFERENCES
The Bible's flat earth/solid sky dome universe. From Capella's Guide to Atheism. Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology Anaximenes [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Flavius Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews: Book 1 - Chapter 1 Pesahim 94b (from Wikipedia) Theophilus to Autolycus Book 2, Chapter 13 Enoch 33:1-3 NASEC Hebrew Dictionary - Strong's H7549. raqia, [956a]; from H7554; an extended surface, expanse:-- expanse (16), expanse of heaven (1). 9. Verses in which raqa (Strong's H7554) are found: Then they hammered out gold sheets and cut them into threads to be woven in with the blue and the purple and the scarlet material, and the fine linen, the work of a skillful workman. (Exodus 39:3) So Eleazar the priest took the bronze censers which the men who were burned had offered; and they hammered them out as a plating for the altar (Numbers 16:39) "Then I pulverized them as the dust of the earth, I crushed and stamped them as the mire of the streets." (2 Samuel 22:43) "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, Strong as a molten mirror?" (Job 37:18) To Him who spread out the earth above the waters, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; (Psalm 136:6) As for the idol, a craftsman casts it, A goldsmith plates it with gold, And a silversmith fashions chains of silver. (Isaiah 40:19) Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it, (Isaiah 42:5) Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone" (Isaiah 44:24) Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, And gold from Uphaz, The work of a craftsman and of the hands of a goldsmith; Violet and purple are their clothing; They are all the work of skilled men. (Jeremiah 10:9) "Thus says the Lord God, 'Clap your hand, stamp your foot, and say, "Alas, because of all the evil abominations of the house of Israel, which will fall by sword, famine, and plague!"'" (Ezekiel 6:11) 'For thus says the Lord God, "Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet and rejoiced with all the scorn of your soul against the land of Israel,"' (Ezekiel 25:6) 10. Raqia in Genesis 1: Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." (Genesis 1:6) And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. (Genesis 1:7) And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:8) Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; (Genesis 1:14) and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:15) And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, (Genesis 1:17) Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." (Genesis 1:20) 11. Raqia in Ezekiel: Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse, like the awesome gleam of crystal, extended over their heads. (Ezekiel 1:22) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Printable version - The Calling of the Apostles

Q. Did Matthew, Mark, and Luke all refer to the same calling of Peter, Andrew, James, and John? A. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record Jesus summoning Peter, Andrew, James, and John to leave their fishing nets behind and become fishers of men (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11). However, whereas Matthew and Marks accounts of the event are nearly identical, Luke positions the account at a different location in His record and reports several other details that Matthew and Mark exclude. Matthew and Mark both record the calling immediately following their accounts of the temptations of Christ and the beginning of His ministry (Matthew 4:1-17; Mark 1:12-15) and before His healing of the demon possessed and the afflicted, including Peters mother-in-law (Matthew 4:23-25; 8:14-15; Mark 1:21-31). Luke positions Jesus calling of these two sets of brothers after Jesus healing of Peters mother-in-law and a demon-possessed man (Luke 4:31-41). Furthermore, Luke includes several details in his record that Matthew and Mark omit: (1) The fishermen had left their boats and were cleaning their nets (Luke 5:2); (2) A multitude surrounded Jesus as He approached the fishermen (5:1); (3) Jesus taught the multitudes from Peters boat (5:3); (4) Jesus instructed the fishermen to go to the deep part of the lake (5:4); (5) The fishermens catch was great (5:6-7); (6) Peter confessed his sinfulness (5:8); etc. Just as it is possible that Jesus cleansed the temple twice (see Lyons, 2004), it is very possible that Jesus may have told His disciples twice that they would be fishers of men: the first time recorded by Matthew (4:18-22) and Mark (1:1620), and then a second time recorded by Luke (5:1-11). Consider also that even prior to Matthew and Marks accounts of Jesus calling Peter and Andrew to become fishers of men, these two fishermen had already previously followed Jesus (John 1:35-42; see Lyons, 2007). So what is the answer to the question? Did the synoptic writers all refer to the same calling in these passages? Although I tend to believe that these are two different callings, with Matthew and Mark recording an earlier encounter, and Luke a later one, one simply cannot be certain about the matter. Bible writers often arranged things differently because of their different purposes in writing. Whats more, although Luke includes several more details in his account of the calling, it could be that he, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was merely providing supplemental material. In either case, we can be sure that no discrepancies exist among these accountsonly differences that we would expect to find from inspired, independent writers. REFERENCES Lyons, Eric (2004), Chronology and the Cleansing of the Temple, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/528. Lyons, Eric (2007), When Did Jesus Call the First Apostles? [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3344.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/508

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

The Census of David by Kyle Butt, M.A. Many alleged discrepancies in the Bible deal with numerical values being different from one book to the next. Several plausible ways exist to show that these differing numbers are not really discrepancies at all. It could be the case that the different authors were counting different groups of people or rounding off their numbers to different places. One such alleged discrepancy that involves differing numerical values is found between 1 Chronicles 21:5 and 2 Samuel 24:9. 1 Chronicles 21:5 (ASV): Then Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to David. All Israel had one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword, and Judah had four hundred and seventy thousand men who drew the sword. 2 Samuel 24:9 (ASV): Then Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to the king. And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men. Obviously, the numbers given for the men of Israel differ by 300,000, while the numbers for the men of Judah differ by 30,000. Are there any possible solutions to this alleged discrepancy? The truth of the matter is that there are several possible solutions. Let us deal first with the differing number of the men of Israel. The first possible solution is based upon a closer reading of the text. When the two verses are compared, 1 Chronicles 21:5 says that

All Israel had one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword (emp. added). But 2 Samuel says, And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword (emp. added). It could be that the author of 2 Samuel was indicating the number of seasoned veterans or valiant men, while the author of 1 Chronicles was numbering any man who drew the sword, not just the valiant ones. Gleason Archer concluded: A possible solution may be found along these lines. So far as Israel (i.e., the tribes north of Judah) is concerned, the 1 Chronicles figure includes all the available men of fighting age, whether battle seasoned or not. But from 2 Samuel 24 we learn that Joabs report gave a subtotal of mighty men (ish hayil), i.e., battle-seasoned troops, consisting of 800,000 veterans. But in addition there may have been 300,000 more men of military age who served in the reserves but had not yet been involved in field combat. These two contingents would make up a total of 1,100,000 menas 1 Chronicles reports them, with employing the term ish hayil (1982, pp. 188-189). Remember that the only thing required to prove that a discrepancy does not exist is to provide a single possible solution (see Lyons, 2004). Archers explanation reveals quite clearly one possible solution. However, it is by no means the only one. Eric Vestrum lists another quite reasonable solution to the problem. There is another possibility that will be reasonable after examination. The reader should re-read 1 Chr 27. Notice here that there are 12 divisions of 24,000 men each, giving a total of 288,000 men. It is possible that the Chronicler counts these men whereas the author of 2 Sam does not. Notice that the 800,000 men in 2 Sam were included in a census, as David wanted to know how many men there were for fighting. Yet, as the numbers of divisions were apparently fixed at 24,000 per division, one would presumably not need to take a census of groups whose sizes are intrinsically defined by a priori fixed numbers. It is not requiring too much to state that it is reasonably possible that the author of 2 Sam did not include these 288,000 while the (different) author of 1 Chr did. With two different authors writing apart from each other at non-identical times, it is not at all specious to assert a reasonable plausibility to a different mode of reckoning in reporting the census (Vestrum). These two explanations suffice to prove that the numbers of men in Israel are not irreconcilable. Moving further into the explanation of these two verses, we must look at the alleged discrepancy between the number of men who drew the sword in Judah. The author of 2 Samuel gives 470,000, while the author of 1 Chronicles gives 500,000a difference of 30,000 men. (Please note that this is a difference of only 6%.) A simple, prima facie explanation would be that the authors were rounding to a different placethe chronicler rounding to the nearest hundred thousand, and the author of 2 Samuel rounding to the nearest ten thousand. Some have objected, however, and claimed that a rounding error of 30,000 men is just not reasonable. This objection, which is based on a western reading of the text that demands stiff, mathematically accurate numbers, does not allow for the more flexible use of numbers that often is exhibited in ancient eastern texts.

However, the rounding solution is not the only one available, as Archer pointed out. So far as Judah was concerned, 2 Samuel 24 gives the round figure of 500,000, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1 Chronicles 21. Now it should be observed that 1 Chronicles 21:6 makes it clear that Joab did not complete the numbering, for he did not get around to a census of the tribe of Benjamin (nor that of Levi, either) before David came under conviction about completing the census at all. Joab was glad to desist when he saw the kings change of heart. The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the Transjordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northernmost tribe of Dan and work southward back toward Jerusalem (v. 7). This meant that the numbering of Benjamin would have come last. Hence Benjamin was not included with the total for Israel or that for Judah, either. But in the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin (which lay immediately adjacent to Jerusalem itself). Hence the total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent. Observe that after the division of the united kingdom into North and South following the death of Solomon in 930 B.C., most of the Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted (along with Simeon to the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the subtotal figure of 500,000even though Joab may not have itemized it in the first report he gave to David (1982, p. 189, parenthetical items in orig.). We can see, after looking closely at the two passages alleged to contain numeric contradictions, that several possible solutions exist for the reconciling of the verses. Once again, Gods inspired Word shines forth as the beacon of truth, resisting every accusation of contradiction or discrepancy. REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Lyons, Eric (2004), Answering the Allegations, [On-Line], URL: www.apologeticspress.org/articles/506. Vestrum, Eric, Contradictions: Numerous, Theological, Chronological, Factual, Philosophical, Ethical, [On-line], URL: http://www.tektonics.org/EV_MCK04.html.

Copyright 2002 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

The Myth of the Councils | Two Ton Truth

Hypothesis: A council of men invented or edited the Bible in any way.
There is a common conception that at one or more times in history, men of power convened in councils and in essence fabricated or altered the Bible to suit their whims. If this were true, the argument claims, it would cast a shadow of doubt across the reliability of the whole of the Bible. Such a council would certainly have corrected textual disagreements, removed and added doctrine in their favor, and suppressed evidence. This is simply not true. Lets take a look at what really happened. First Council of Nicaea (AD 325) The youngest book of the Bible dates to between AD 70 and 95. This places the First Council of Nicaea some 250 years after its completion. Of course, in AD 70, no two people possessed a complete volume of the Bible. Though the Old Testament was largely available in its complete form at institutions of learning, the books of the New Testament were circulated as letters from house to house and village to village. These letters were received from personal relations to the author. For example, I might write a letter and give it to a friend to deliver. You know both myself and my friend, so you receive a letter from him knowing that it came from me. Thereafter, the recipient began to copy the letter and distribute it. This meant in a relatively short amount of time, we had quite a few copies of each letter floating throughout the region. As expected, we have very few old copies of the complete New Testament codex (volume or book). In fact, the oldest codices still intact probably date to just after the First Council. Note: Before you cry conspiracy, consider that before the time of the First Council, most books were written on rolls of animal skin or papyrus plant. A complete volume of the New Testament would have been intentionally separated into multiple scrolls. So now we reach the First Council itself. They would have had access to these many New Testament letters and of course, the Old Testament. So what did they actually do at this council? They issued a creed, separated the computation of the date of Easter from the Jewish calendar, instituted 20 extra-biblical laws, and wrote a letter to the church of Alexandria. There is no mention of anything about the construction of the Bible at all. Second Council of Nicaea (AD 787) Some seven hundred years removed from the completion of the Bible, another council met in Nicaea. By this time, Roman Catholic heresy was in full swing. In fact, the sole purpose of this meeting was to reinstate the idolatrous practice of icon worship. Again, no reconstruction of the Bible. I only give it special attention because often the Council of Nicaea is referenced without regard to whether it was the first or second. Council of Trent (AD 1545-1563, with interruptions) It wasnt until the mid sixteenth century that you could even argue that a council attempted to renovate the Bible. Though this Roman Catholic endeavor was primarily a counterstrike against the Protestant Reformation, one of the councils products was the Roman Catholic canon of the Bible. A canon is a list of books considered authoritative as scripture. Jews generally consider what we call the Old Testament as canonical. The Roman Catholics add a few books to the intertestamental period. These books are called the Apocrypha meaning those having been hidden away. Ultimately, the New Testament contains 27 books or letters, regardless of tradition. For a complete comparison, please examine the Wikipedia article on the Books of the Bible. At the time of the Council of Trent, the Old Testament was long canonized. By the time of Jesus, the Old Testament was already translated into Greek, and known as the Septuagint (LXX). The Greek writing New Testament authors at times actually used the Septuagint when quoting the Old Testament. The apocryphal (intertestamental) books may or may not be considered canonical, but weigh little in this discussion. Remember, the original argument is that a council suppressed, rewrote, and destroyed the original and intended scriptures. To the contrary, the inclusion of the Apocrypha, while potentially introducing additional doctrine, does not alter the other books or diminish their authority. The Roman Catholic canonization at the Council of Trent confirmed not only the Old Testament (with Apocrypha), but

also the New Testament. However, it must be noted that this too was long after the true canonization of the Bible. Some 31 years earlier, Desiderius Erasmus had compiled a Greek New Testament for common printing. A German Bible translation containing both testaments was first printed in 1534. The oldest intact codices are from some 1200 years before Trent. In addition, there is the Latin Vulgate (5th century) and the Aramaic Peshitta (2nd Century). While the council did indeed declare a canon, it had absolutely no effect on the accuracy or reliability of the Bible. The text available today is practically identical to what was available before the 16th century. All Other Councils (AD 325-1965) There were other councils throughout the years. Most of them established or affirmed some heretical doctrine(s) or addressed some issue of the day, but none of them affected the Bible. Closing the Canon In the 16th and 17th centuries, there was a tremendous amount of upheaval in Christendom. In 1517, Martin Luther published The Ninety-Five Theses in protest to the Roman Catholic heresies of his day. A casual glance at history might suggest that Luther revolutionized Christianity. On the contrary, he sought to return it to the orthodoxy of the Bible. Unfortunately, he failed to repair the Roman Catholic church. At the same time, the printing press put the Bible into the hands of common people. While the scripture was hidden from the people, the corrupt papacy could say it said almost anything. This ultimately led to the poorly named Protestant Reformation. Though much of the spirit was in opposition to the heresies of Roman Catholicism, the effect was a renaissance of biblical understanding. The Roman Catholics held the Council of Trent during this time and declared a canon. In various ways, the protestants did the same. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) included a declaration of canon. Many, including Christians, will erroneously refer to these events as the closing of the canon. The canon was truly closed the moment the final book was received. Drawn across the landscape of time before the printing press, we find overwhelming manuscript evidence about the Bible. There are reportedly more than 5000 ancient manuscripts for just the New Testament with less than 100 years separating the evidence from the originals. In contrast, there are only 7 copies of the works of Plato and they are 1200 years separated from the originals. Among the New Testament evidence, scholars claim a 99.5% textual agreement. In addition, we have the writings of so-called church fathers, the educated of antiquity. While these men were fallible and some of them downright corrupt, they quoted the Bible and left us written evidence to the fact. We can use this dated evidence to compare for textual reliability. We can also use ancient translations like the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate to shed further light. At no point in history was a council convened to fabricate the Bible. While unscrupulous men have certainly attempted to alter the accuracy of the Bible in their favor, the scriptures claim that God would prevent them from doing so, and it would seem that he has. There is still room for a lively discussion about the inclusion of apocryphal books, but regardless of the councils, we still have access to all of those books today and can choose for ourselves.

The Tower of Babel

When studying the origins of ancient languages, the Biblical account of the Tower of Babel must be considered. When was this Biblical account first written? Was the Tower of Babel fact or fiction? Let us begin by examining the written account of the Tower of Babel as found in the book of Genesis. Below is Genesis 11:1-10 according to the King James Version. 1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Did the actual Tower of Babel exist? Within the land of Sumer are many structures called Ziggurats meaning "high". The Ziggurats have names such as; "Temple of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth", "Temple that Links Heaven and Earth", "Temple of the Exalted Mountain", "Temple of Exalted Splendor", and "Temple of the Stairway to Pure Heaven". The Ziggurats were built with sun dried bricks, burnt bricks and bitumen mortar. These Ziggurats may not be the "Tower of Babel" but are most likely replicas of an older original. When was this account written? There have been two possibilities proposed by scholars. The first is that the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy were written by Moses placing the writing around 1500 BCE. The second possibility is that it was written by a Jewish scribe or priest sometime around 500 BCE. Regardless of the actual date of the writing, the question of the origin of the story remains. In ancient near east cultures, family and national historical accounts were meticulously and accurately passed down from generation to generation orally. Did the writer of the Genesis account record a traditional story or was it fabricated. The Genesis account identifies the land of "Shinar" as the location of the Tower of Babel. This is the land of "Sumer" where many ancient documents of the Sumerians have been discovered. Within these documents are stories paralleling many of the Genesis accounts including creation, Noah and the flood as well as the confounding of the languages. "In those days, the lands of Subur (and) Hamazi, Harmony-tongued (?) Sumer, the great land of the decrees of princeship, Uri, the land having all that is appropriate(?), The land Martu, resting in security, The whole universe, the people in unison (?) To Enlil in one tongue [spoke]. ... (Then) Enki, the lord of abundance, (whose) commands are trustworthy, The lord of wisdom, who understands the land, The leader of the gods, Endowed with wisdom, the lord of Eridu Changed the speech in their mouths, [brought (?)] contention into it, Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one. (translation from "The Babel of Tongues: A Sumerian Version" by Kramer, S.N., Journal of the American Oriental Society 88:108-11,1968) The Sumerian documents which include this account date back to about 3,000 BCE. Clearly, the account of the confusion of languages dates back long before the written Biblical record. The Biblical author of the Genesis account was in fact writing a traditional story and was not a fabrication on his part.

According to the Biblical account, all mankind migrated and settled in the land of Sumer after the flood. After the confusion of languages, the people scattered. If this were true, this amazing story would have been passed down from generation to generation throughout all of the different peoples and carried with them to their new settlements. The Genesis stories including creation, the fall of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages have been found in hundreds of cultures throughout the world such as the accounts below. Central America: And as men were thereafter multiplying they constructed a very high and strong Zacualli, which means a very high tower in order to protect themselves when again the second world should be destroyed. At the crucial moment their languages were changed, and as they did not understand one another, they went into different parts of the world. (Reference: Don Fernando de Alvara Ixtlilxochitl, Obras Historicas Mexico, 1891, Vol. I, p. 12.) Polynesia: But the god in anger chased the builders away, broke down the building, and changed their language, so that they spoke divers tongues. (Reference: R. W. Williamson, Religious and Cosmic Beliefs of Central Polynesia Cambridge, 1933, vol. I, p. 94.) American Indian, Crow: "Then Little Coyote did something bad. He suggested to Old Man that he give the people different languages so they would misunderstand each other and use their weapons in wars... Old Man did what Little Coyote said, and the people had different languages and made war on each other." (Reference: Jane Garry and Carl Rubino, Facts About the World's Languages H.W. Wilson, 2001) The Biblical account of the origin of languages cannot simply be dismissed as fiction as the facts above prove. All legends, traditions and myths are based on historical facts. Over time, they evolve and are adapted to the current culture. By comparing all related legends, traditions and myths, the common threads are signs of the original historical fact. In the case of the confusion of languages, the common thread is that many languages mysteriously appeared out of one language.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/533

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

They Heard Him--They Heard Him Not? by Alden Bass In the account of the Lords appearance to Saul on the road to Damascusrecorded by Luke in Acts 9, and then related in Pauls address in Acts 22some have charged that there is a contradiction. Acts 9:7 records that the men traveling with Saul (known later as the apostle Paul) heard a voice; while Paul states in Acts 22:9 that they did not hear a voice. This alleged contradiction is a favorite of atheist Dan Barkera denominational-preacher-turned-infidelwhose self-proclaimed mission since the early 1980s has been to inform humanity of what he refers to as the delusion of Christianity. On his Web site, Barker has listed the above contradiction (as well as other alleged Bible discrepancies) as one that documents the fallibility of the Bible and therefore the non-existence of God. Barker is right about one thing, of course. If the Scriptures contain errors in their original autographs, then they cannot be considered as inspired of God. It is, therefore, imperative that we investigate these claims of biblical errancy so that we may know whether our faith in God and His Word is genuine or misplaced. If it is a genuine faith to which we cling, then these points of error that have been charged to the Bible must be answered. Admittedly, at first glance the two passages under consideration may seem to be in direct opposition. Apologists have acknowledged this difficulty for many years, and have offered at least two plausible explanations. First, some scholars appeal to the original Greek text, and suggest that Acts 22:9 has been mistranslated. The verse reads as follows: And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. According to this view, however, the verse actually should read: And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they understood not the voice of him that spake to me. If this translation were correct, it would put to rest any suggestion of contradiction. Mr. Barker, however, has refused steadfastly to accept such a solution, and has argued that the Greek word for hear (akouo) does not mean understand (except in a few special situations such as 1 Corinthians 14:2). There are other passages, he has noted, where akouo does mean understand, but in each case it is linked explicitly with the word understand. As an example, he has cited Matthew 13:13, which reads: Therefore speak I to them in parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing [akouo] they hear [akouo] not, neither do they understand. Mr. Barker believes that if the second akouo meant understand, then it would not have been necessary for Luke to include the last phrase, neither do they understand. According to the article on his Web site dealing with this matter, this underscores the fact that grammar is not enough to determine when akouo might be translated loosely (Barker, 1994). I would like to note, though, that had Matthew omitted the last phrase, we still would have understood the second hear to mean understand. Otherwise, Jesus would have been saying, They hear my words, but they do not hear my words. In similar fashion, we can understand the passages under consideration to mean, the men perceived a voice, but they did not understand the words spoken. Barker made note of a similar passage in Mark: Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? (8:18), and then asked: If Acts 22:9 should be translated not understand, then why not here? (1994). But inserting understand in place of hear in this passage causes no difficulty whatsoever; after all, that is the meaning of the text. Barker has concluded from all these passages (Matthew 13:23; 15:10; Mark 4:12; 7:14; Acts 28:26-27; Romans 15:21) that it is the New Testament practice to pair hear and understand when akouo is intended to mean understand, and, since Luke did not pair the two, he must have meant that the men literally did not hear a voice. Therefore, he says, Acts 22:9 contradicts Acts 9:7. Barker does not stop at Acts 22:9, however, because there is yet another possible approach to explaining this alleged contradiction. Whereas some scholars believe that understand should be used instead of hear in Acts 22:9, others are of the opinion that it is Acts 9:7 that has not been translated as accurately as possible. Accordingly, the verse should read: And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing the sound [as opposed to the voice] but beholding no man. Barker has disputed this translation (which is based on a difference in the Greek cases), and has suggested that Greek scholars who have more than a superficial knowledge of the language would never use this argument (1994). Apparently, however, Mr. Barker did not do his homework prior to writing his article. [Those who criticize the Bible the loudest often are those who have read it the least!] Various highly respected Greek scholarswho know far more about the language of the first-century world than Dan Barkerhave proposed this very argument as a solution to the alleged discrepancy. In fact, the man known affectionately among theologians as the dean of Greek scholars, A.T. Robertson, wrote in regard to the difference in cases: In 22:9 Paul says that the men beheld the light (to men phos etheasanto), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me (ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the light and no one) a distinction between the sound (original sense of phone as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouo is used either with the accusative (the extent of the hearing) or the genitive

(the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phone. They heard a sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9) [1930, pp. 117-118, parenthetical items in orig.]. Consider also the words of Greek expert Ray Summers: Some verbs take their object in a case other than the accusative. There is a variety of usage at this point. Akouo may take its object in the genitive or the accusative. Usually akouo with the genitive means to hear without understanding. This probably explains the difficulty involved in Acts 9:7 and 22:9. The incident is the experience of Paul in seeing the light and hearing the voice on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:7 states that Pauls companions heard the voice (akouo with the genitive); Acts 22:9 says they did not hear the voice (akouo with the accusative). Thus both constructions say the same thing; the companions of Paul did not understand what the voice said to Paul; to them it was unintelligible sound (1950, p. 51). Numerous other Greek scholars have expressed the same viewpoint (see, for example: Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, pp. 31-33; Blackwelder, 1958, p. 139; Kittel, 1993, p. 216; Thayer; 1979, pp. 22-23; Vincent, 1975, p. 571; and Vine, 1985, p. 296). The word hear in Acts 22:9 can be used to indicate that it was a soundnot a voicethat the men heard on the road to Damascus. Finally, we should look at the simplest and most straightforward evidence. Interestingly, we have been given a parallel to the event recorded in Acts 9John 12:28-29. Here, just as in the passage in Acts, we have Jehovah speaking from heaven to a man (Jesus, in this instance). After the Lord spoke, notice the peoples response as recorded in verse 29: The multitude therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it had thundered. Others said, An angel hath spoken to him. So amazing and frightening was the sound of Gods voice that the multitude was not quite sure what to make of it. The voice must have reverberated like thunder, yet it was discernible enough that some mistakenly thought it was the voice of an angel. Had the crowd been interviewed, some would have said, We heard no voice, only thunder, while others would have responded differently by saying, Well, it sounded to us like a voice, maybe the voice of an angel. Both groups of people undoubtedly heard something when God spoke, but not everyone present understood what was said. The same is true of the men who traveled with Saul on the way to Damascus. They heard something, but not everyone present understood what was said. If these types of alleged contradictions were approached with the same innocent-until-proven-guilty attitude enjoined in a court of law, they would disappear like an early morning mountain fog hit by a hot, glaring, noonday Sun. Could Paul possibly have meant that the travelers did not understand the voice the heard? Certainly he could have. No one can rule out such a suggestion, especially in light of the account in Acts 9 where it is clear that the men did perceive a voice (rather, a sound) but did not comprehend any of the words spoken. As the old adage says, when a passage is removed from its context it becomes merely a pretext. Only when a passage is examined in light of all the biblical teaching on a particular subject can the details of the situation be known completely. REFERENCES Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). Barker, Dan (1994), [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/1/1voice94.html. Blackwelder, Boyce W. (1958) Light from the Greek New Testament (Anderson, IN: Warner). Kittel, Gerhard (1993), Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Robertson, A.T. (1930) Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman). Summers, Ray (1950), Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, TN: Broadman). Thayer, Joseph (1979), Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Vincent, Marvin R. (1975), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Vine, W.E., Merrill Unger, and William White, Jr. (1985), Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).

Apologetics
Answers for Atheists Design vs. Evolution Biblical Creation Bible Authenticity Slideshows YouTube Videos Christian Theology Aberrant Theology Christian Tribulation Christian Life Issues Discovery Course God's Love Abortion Discussion Forum Links Book Reviews Movie Reviews

Page Links

Thou Shall Not Kill: Does God Violate His Own Commandment?
by Rich Deem

kill." Atheists claim that God INTRODUCTION The sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not the destruction of entire cities, just violated His own commandment in ordering to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. Isn't this an open and shut case for the hypocrisy of the God of the Bible? One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years, the English language has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill."

Is all killing the same?

Introduction All killing the same? God's killing The flood God's orders Killing children Conclusion Related Pages References Print Email Page Translate Font: A A
A

Search
Search Site

Advanced Search Enhanced Google Site Map

Ministry Info
About us Contact us Privacy Policy RSS Feed

However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt Answers not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic Is God Real? English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word Is Christianity used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless True? indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In God's Character fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could Evil & Suffering flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but Religion is stupid nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 Bad Christians Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing.6-8 The punishment for murder was the death Bible & Science sentence.9 However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.10 The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use Bible Contradictions deadly force if necessary.11 Objections to To answer the question whether God breaks His own commandments, Is God's killing Christianity we need to determine if God committed murder (i.e., killed people justified? Common atheist's without cause). The Bible is quite clear that God has killed people myths directly (the most prominent example being the flood) and indirectly (ordered peoples to be No Evidence of killed). If God ordered or participated in the killing of innocent people, then He would be guilty the Supernatural? of murder. Let's look at two of the most prominent examples. and their wives in the flood. Were any of these people killed unjustly? The Bible says specifically that all people (except Noah and his family) had become corrupted.12 Not only had all people become corrupted, but they were continually plotting evil!13 Is it possible that an entire culture can become corrupted? You bet! Recent history proves the point rather well. When the Nazis took over Germany before WWII, opposition was crushed and removed. When they began their purging of the undesirables (e.g., the Jews), virtually the entire society went along with the plan. Further examples are given on another page. So, the Bible indicates that no innocent people were killed in the flood. woman and child in Canaan? What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked.15 How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods.16 So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others17), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed. Surely God could have spared the children! People tend to assume that children are innocent, even if their parents are doing bad things. The assumption is unfounded. For example, Palestinian Muslim children are officially taught in grammar school to hate their Jewish neighbors.18 They are so well indoctrinated that some of them give up their lives in suicide bombings as children.19 Corruption literally does breed corruption, which is why God did not want the Hebrews tainted by the other corrupt cultures of the Middle East.

The flood According to the Bible, God killed every human except Noah, his wife, his sons,

New Pages
Was Jesus God? Once Saved Always Saved? God is Not "Fair" Christians & Suicide Judging the Sabbath Land Plants Before Animals? Four Views on Divine Providence Did God have a wife? Alien Life in Meteorites? Singularity Movement Creating Life in the Lab NASA's ArsenicEating Bacteria The Moral Landscape 'Goldilocks' Planet Has Life? Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Is Satan Real? Paul Invented Christianity?

G & S Toolbar

Newsletter name email address

Subscribe

God orders killing What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, 14

General
Send an e-Card Webmaster Resources Personal Pages Humor

What about the children and other "innocents"

Site Helps
Site Help En Espaol Help I can't see! Bookmark G&S Toolbar Report page errors

Surely there must have been other innocent adults in those cities who were destroyed with the wicked! There actually is an example of a time when God was asked if He would destroy the innocent along with the wicked. Prior to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He would destroy the righteous along with the wicked.20 God replied that He would spare the entire city for 50 righteous people.21 Abraham kept reducing the possible number of righteous people, asking God if He would destroy the entire city along with those number of righteous people.22 God's reply in each case was that He would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked. The lowest number Abraham asked about was ten righteous people, although the answer would likely be the same with as few as one righteous individual. How do we know this? God sent two angels to warn the four righteous people in Sodom to flee before

He destroyed the city.23 It is quite convenient that such details are usually left out of atheistic sites complaining about the "evil" perpetrated by God. In fact, God saved certain people from being killed in cities such as Jericho.24 The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder. Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction. The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical texts.

CONCLUSION

RELATED PAGES
Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People? The Mercy of God as Found in the Old Testament There is Too Much Evil and Suffering For God to Exist? Is it Possible for God to Provide 'Partial Free Will' and Eliminate All Evil? Did God Create Evil - Does the Bible Say So? What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion A Loving God Would Not Send Billions of People to Hell, Would He? If God is Jealous Doesn't That Make Him the Divine Hypocrite? Why Are So Many Christians Hypocrites? God's Chosen People, the Jews: Isn't God Unfair in Showing Such Preference? Does the Bible Say God Repents From Doing Evil?

Christianity? Ancient Hebrew Inscription Babies Go To Heaven? Medical Marijuana 'Benefits' Genetics & Homosexuality Origin of Homochirality Natural Evil Is Religion Child Abuse? Why are Scientists Atheists? God of the Gaps Who Created God? Living Together a Good Idea?

REFERENCES
1. Thou shalt not kill. (Deuteronomy 5:17, KJV) 2. Modern translations: You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, NIV) You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, NASB) Do not put anyone to death without cause. (Deuteronomy 5:17, BBE) Do not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, CEV) "'You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 ESV) "'Do not commit murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 GNB) "Never murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 GW) "You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 HNV) No murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 MSG) "You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 WEB) 'Thou dost not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 YLT) 3. Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions: rat sach (Strong's H7523) 1. to murder, slay, kill a. (Qal) to murder, slay 1. premeditated 2. accidental 3. as avenger 4. slayer (intentional) (participle) b. (Niphal) to be slain c. (Piel) 1. to murder, assassinate 2. murderer, assassin (participle) (substantive) d. (Pual) to be killed Part of Speech: verb A Related Word by BDB/Strongs Number: a primitive root Same Word by TWOT Number: 220 4. then you shall select for yourselves cities to be your cities of refuge, that the manslayer who has killed [nakah] any person unintentionally may flee there. (Numbers 35:11) 5. Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions: nakah (Strong's H5221) 1. to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill a. (Niphal) to be stricken or smitten b. (Pual) to be stricken or smitten c. (Hiphil) 1. to smite, strike, beat, scourge, clap, applaud, give a thrust 2. to smite, kill, slay (man or beast) 3. to smite, attack, attack and destroy, conquer, subjugate, ravage 4. to smite, chastise, send judgment upon, punish, destroy d. (Hophal) to be smitten 1. to receive a blow 2. to be wounded 3. to be beaten 4. to be (fatally) smitten, be killed, be slain 5. to be attacked and captured 6. to be smitten (with disease) 7. to be blighted (of plants) Part of Speech: verb A Related Word by BDB/Strongs Number: a primitive root Same Word by TWOT Number: 1364

Printable version - To the Wilderness--or a Wedding?

Most people who have done much study from the synoptic gospels are aware that following the baptism of Jesus, He then (Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:1) immediately (Mark 1:12) was sent out by the Spirit into the wilderness where He fasted for forty days while being tempted by the devil. Skeptics likewise are well informed of this story. In fact, some skeptics presume to know about this time in Jesus life so well, they have argued that the apostle John contradicted the synoptic writers (see Inerrancy; Contradictions; Wells, 2001). Allegedly, John placed Jesus at the wedding in Cana of Galilee just three days following His baptism (John 1:19-2:1), whereas Mark indicated that Jesus went into the desert for forty days immediately following His baptism. Is this a real chronological contradiction, as some suppose? Like so many of the other occasions when skeptics contend that two or more passages of Scripture are at odds with one another, this is just another example of where a particular text has been misunderstood. John 1 does not teach (as has been alleged) that three days after the events where Jesus and John the Baptist meet [and when Jesus was baptizedEL], Jesus was attending a wedding in Cana (Inerrancy). Notice what the first chapter of Johns gospel account actually teaches the following: Verses 19-25 contain John the Baptizers testimony regarding who he is. (Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who are you? vs. 19.) In verses 26-27, John explains to the priests and Levites that there is One Who is greater than himselfJesus. The next day, John sees Jesus and proclaims, Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (vs. 29). John then explains to those around him that this Man is the One about Whom he was speaking the previous day (vs. 30). In verse 31, John the Baptizer explains to his listeners how Jesus was revealed to Israel at His baptism (vs. 31). Then, in the following three verses, John bears witness about that baptism, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God (32-35, emp. added). Verses 35-37 indicate that the day after John revealed the above facts to his listeners, he saw Jesus again, and two of Johns disciples began following Jesus that very day. The next day, Philip and Nathanael began following the Lord. Then, on the third day following Johns testimony of Jesus baptism and the Spirit Who descended upon Him, Jesus and His disciples are said to be at a wedding in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1ff.) Nowhere in John 1 does a person learn that Jesus and His disciples are in Galilee at a wedding three days after His baptism. The gospel of John does not even contain the actual account of Jesus baptism. The apostle John records only what John the Baptizer testified about the baptism of Jesus, which occurred some time in the past (exactly when, we are not told). While John and the others looked at Jesus, he related to them (in the past tense) the event of Jesus baptism and its significance. It is erroneous to assume that His baptism actually was taking place at the very time John the Baptizer was speaking the words recorded in John 1:29-34. Thus, the apostle John, in writing his gospel account, did not deny (as Steve Wells alleged) what the other gospel writers wrote concerning the days immediately following Jesus baptism. He merely supplemented the synoptic gospels by revealing to his readers that sometime after Jesus baptism and wilderness temptations, He saw John the Baptizer againand three days later went to a wedding in Cana of Galilee. REFERENCES Contradictions in the New Testament, (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.islam4all.com/chapter6.htm. Inerrancy: Where Conservative Christianity Stands or Falls, (no date), [On-line], URL: http://users.vei.net/smijer/christianity/bunk.html. Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptics Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com

Copyright ?? 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Printable version - Too Much Activity on Day Six?

One of the reasons skeptics reject the validity of the biblical account of creation is because they find it impossible to believe that one man could name every single species of animal on the Earth in a single day. Considering there are only 86,400 seconds in a 24-hour period, we are told it is ridiculous to believe that an individual (who had never seen animals before the day he named them) could name several million species of animals in one day. Perhaps over a period of a few weeks he could accomplish such a task, but certainly not in a single dayright? The problem with such objections to Genesis 2:18-20 is that they are based on assumptions. The question that skeptics often ask, Could Adam have gathered and named all of the animals on the Earth in one day?, is misleading because the Bible places certain restrictions on the animals Adam named. Consider the following. Adams task did not include searching for and gathering all of Gods creatures. Rather, God brought them to him (Genesis 2:19). Likely this was in some sort of orderly fashion in order to reduce the amount of time and human energy necessary to complete the process. Genesis 2:20 does not say that Adam named all of the animals on the Earth. The text actually says, Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. Excluded from this naming process were sea creatures and creeping things mentioned earlier in the creation narrative (cf. Genesis 1:21,25). The beasts God brought to Adam are qualified by the descriptive phrase of the field (hassadeh). Although the precise limits of the term field are difficult to determine, it is possible that it refers only to those beasts living in Eden. If the beasts of the field were limited to those animals within the boundaries of Eden, then livestock and birds could have been similarly limited. This would greatly reduce the number of animals involved in the naming process, since it is very unlikely that all created animals lived in Eden. [If so, Eden would have been quickly overrun and destroyed.] Contrary to popular belief, Adam did not name millions of species of animals on day six (cf. Wells, 2001; McKinsey, 2000, p. 84). Genesis 1 states that the animals were created according to their kind(s) (vs. 21), not species. The Bible was written long before man invented the modern Linnaean classification system. The kinds (Hebrew min) of animals Adam named on the sixth day of Creation were probably very broadmore like groups of birds and land animals rather than specific genera and species. Adam would have given animals general names like turtle, dog, or elephant, not special names like pig-nosed soft-shell turtle or Alaskan Husky. As Henry Morris has pointed out, ...the created kinds undoubtedly represented broader categories than our modern species or genera, quite possibly approximating in most cases the taxonomic family. Just how many kinds were actually there to be named is unknown, of course, but it could hardly have been as many as a thousand (1984, p. 129). All of these textual considerations suggest that the events of day six could have been accomplished easily within a 24hour period. Adam did not have to spend a great deal of time pondering what he would call each animal; he was created with the ability to speak and reason. If my two-year-old son can look at a book and call the names of 60 different kinds of animals in 60 seconds, I have no problem believing that Adam, having been created directly by the hand of God and made in His image (see Lyons and Thompson, 2002), had the ability to name hundreds (if not thousands) of birds and land animals in 3,600 seconds (just one hour!). REFERENCES Lyons, Eric and Bert Thompson (2002), In the Image and Likeness of God, Reason & Revelation, 22:17-32, March & April. McKinsey, Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus). Morris, Henry (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptics Annotated Bible [On-line], URL: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/index.html

Copyright ?? 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Printable version - Was Jesus Mistaken?

Critics of Christ 2,000 years ago once saw His disciples walking through a field plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath and accused them of doing that which the Law of Moses forbade (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28). As was often His practice, Jesus responded to His enemies with a question (cf. Matthew 12:10-12; 15:2-3; 21:23-25). He asked: Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him? (Mark 2:25-26). Nearly twenty centuries this side of the Pharisees criticisms, Christs critics today allege that He erred in His response. In an article titled, Tough Questions for the Christian Church, skeptic Dennis McKinsey stated: How can it be that Jesus contradicts the Old Testament (1 Samuel 21:1-2), saying that Abiathar gave David the showbread instead of Ahimelech, and saying that David had men with him, when he was actually alone (Mark 2:25-26)? Does the church expect me to rely upon the teachings of a son of God who is demonstrably mistaken about what Gods Word says? (1998). Supposedly, Christ mistakenly spoke of Abiathar when He should have said Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1), and referred to Davids companions when he allegedly had none at that time. Are these accusations justified? Was Jesus wrong? Admittedly, 1 Samuel 21:1 does speak of David visiting Ahimelech the priest, rather than Abiathar. However, when Jesus spoke of this event 1,000 years later, He did not say that Abiathar gave David the showbread, as McKinsey alleged. Jesus referred to the event as occurring in the time of Abiathar the high priest (NASB, emp. added; Greek epi Abiathar archiereos) or in the days of Abiathar the high priest (cf. KJV, NKJV, NIV, emp. added), and not necessarily while Abiathar was the high priest. According to Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich in their Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, the word epi can function simply as a marker of temporal associations, meaning simply in the time of, at, on, for (2000, p. 367). The phrase in the time/days of may be intended to modify Abiathars entire life, rather than just his priesthood. And, his priesthood could have been mentioned merely to clarify the person to whom Jesus was referring. The fact is, Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech, and served as high priest during the reign of King David (cf. 1 Kings 1:7). Whats more, based upon how much more information the Bible gives us about Abiathar, he was probably much more well known than his father among the Jews. If someone today were to speak of how many Christians were imprisoned in the days of Paul, the apostle, it may be that he actually was referring to the time before Paul became an apostle, yet still referred to him as Paul, the apostle. Such language would not force one to conclude that the reference to the imprisonment of Christians must be confined to the time when Paul was an apostle. Similarly, since Jesus did not specifically say that Abiathar was the high priest who ministered to David, but simply that the event occurred during the lifetime of Abiathar (who later became the high priest), the allegation that Jesus erred is superfluous. But what about the accusation that while David...was actually alone during his visit with Ahimelech, Jesus indicated that he had men with him (Mark 2:25-26)? Did Jesus err in this regard? This charge is simply another instance where skeptics refuse to treat the biblical text fairly in hopes of finding a genuine mistake. Consider the situation where a colonel in the army might visit a generals quarters alone to discuss provisions for his men, while instructing his men to wait for him at a nearby designated location. In one sense, the colonel was alone with the general, yet in another sense, the colonel and his men had traveled to the generals location in order to request essential provisions that would have been used for both the colonel and those who were with him. No doubt, McKinsey based this second accusation upon what Ahimelech first asked David when the future king of Israel came unto him: Why are you alone, and no one is with you (1 Samuel 21:1)? If one were to stop at this point without considering subsequent verses, he may very well come to the conclusion that Jesus blundered in His reference to the events in 1 Samuel 21:1. However, following Ahimelechs question (Why are you alone?), David informed him, I have directed my young men to such and such a place (21:2). Thus, although David may have entered the presence of Ahimelech without his men, he informed Ahimelech that he had directed them elsewhere while he visited with him. Ahimelech obviously understood David to mean that the men were not too far away, and were hungry, because he informed David that although he had no common bread to eat, there was holy bread, if the young men have at least kept themselves from women (21:4, emp. added). David responded by saying, Truly, women have been kept from us .... And the vessels of the young men are holy (21:5, emp. added). To assert that Jesus erred in these two instances is to claim that which cannot be proven. The truth is, Jesus referred to

this Old Testament event in a way very similar to how we converse today about various matterswhether using a figure of speech, called prolepsis, where we assign a name or title to a time that precedes it, or where we refer to someone being alone in one sense, and a part of a larger group at the same time. Such accusations appear to say more about the heart of the critic than the truthfulness of Jesus and the Bible writers. [NOTE: For a full refutation of the idea that Jesus condoned breaking the Sabbath law, or that Matthew 12:1-8 and Mark 2:23-28 can be used legitimately as proof texts to justify situation ethics, please see Lyons (2003) and Miller (2003).] REFERENCES Danker, Frederick William, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). Lyons, Eric (2003), Did Jesus Condone Law-Breaking, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2323. McKinsey, Dennis (1998), Tough Questions for the Christian Church, Biblical Errancy, October, [On-line], URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/errancy/issues/iss190.htm. Miller, Dave (2003), Situationism, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2266.

Copyright ?? 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author??s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/559

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Was the Robe Placed on Jesus Scarlet or Purple? by Eric Lyons, M.Min. After being flogged with a dreadful Roman scourge, Jesus was taken by Pilates soldiers into the governors headquarters where the whole garrison gathered around Him. It was here that the soldiers placed a crown of thorns on His head, a reed in His hand, and a robe on His body. Skeptics maintain that a contradiction exists between the Gospel accounts because they describe the color of the robe differently. Whereas Matthew says that the soldiers put a scarlet robe on Jesus (27:27-28), Mark says that they clothed Him with purple (15:16-17), and John states that the soldiers put a purple robe on Him (19:1-2). These differences have lead some to believe and advocate that the Gospel writers wrote under their own power with no help from a Higher Being, and thus they contradicted one another in their narratives. Because increasingly more people are swallowing such allegations blindly and rejecting the inerrancy of the Scriptures, logical answers are required. The question is, do such valid answers exist for the differences in the Gospel narratives concerning the robe placed upon Jesus after His scourging? All would agree that we oftentimes see colors a little differently. What one person calls blue, someone else may be more specific and call navy blue. A die-hard football fan may refer to his teams color as dark red, whereas someone else who sees the teams faded uniforms for the first time at the end of a grueling season may conclude that the teams color is more maroon. While coloring pictures for their parents, one child may color an orange-yellow Sun, while the other draws a Sun that is bright yellow. Surely no one would accuse these individuals of lying or being deceitful because one was more specific than another. Likewise, skeptics have no solid ground on which to stand when they disregard common sense and create biblical contradictions that do not exist. The simple fact is, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote from different perspectives; they did not participate in collusion. The same way that individuals today look at colors and see different tones, shades, and tints, the Gospel writers saw the activities surrounding the life of Jesus from different angles. The garment placed upon Jesus after his brutal scourging likely was similar to the faded football uniforms mentioned above, but in His case we read of a scarlet robe...faded to resemble purple (The Wycliffe Bible Commentary). [It is difficult to imagine Pilate arraying Jesus bloody body with a new robe. More likely it was one that had been worn and cast off as useless (Barnes).] According to A.T. Robertson, there were various shades of purple and scarlet in the first century and it was not easy to distinguish the colors or tints (1997). In fact, the ancients (especially the Romans) used the term purple when speaking of various shades of red (McGarvey, 1875, p. 361; Barnes, 1997). Consequently, these different colors sometimes would be called by the same name. As one can see, there is no discrepancy in the Gospel narratives concerning the color of the robe Jesus wore. Just like others of their day, the Gospel writers simply used the terms scarlet and purple interchangeably. REFERENCES Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes Notes (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light). Robertson, A.T. (1997), Robertsons Word Pictures in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft) The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1985), Electronic Database: Biblesoft.

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale;

Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after Christ died, the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples. In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is a very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D. The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of a first hand witness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated from 117138 A.D. contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing only on historical events. Instead, he focused also on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels. Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's.

Paul's Writings:
Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them (see Galatians 1-2). This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course contemporaries and since they all died before the turn of the century. Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus.

Hebrews
It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Authorship has been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc. The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24). The latest possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been written as early as A.D. 67. The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly signifying that the destruction of

the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. had not yet happened.

James
This epistle claims to have been written by James, "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad, greetings," (James 1:1). The question is, "Which James?" Is it James, the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:2-3); James, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2-3), or the most commonly and accepted James who was the brother of Jesus? "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55-56). Notice the context of the verses suggests immediate family since it mentions Jesus' Mother, brothers, and sisters. Also, see Gal. 1:18-19 which says "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother." It is probable that James didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection as is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7, "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." James was martyred by the order of the high priest Ananus after the death of the "procurator Festus in A.D. 61 (Josephus, Ant. 20. 9)." Therefore, the epistle of James was written before A.D. 61.

1 and 2 Peter
Both epistles clearly state that they were authored by Peter, an eyewitness of Jesus' life and post resurrection appearances. Though there has been some who have doubted the authorship of these two epistles, the clear opening statements of each epistle tell us Peter was the author. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus...", (1 Pet. 1:1) and "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours..." (2 Pet. 1:1). It certainly seems most logical that Peter is indeed the author of the letters that bear his name. Peter died at Rome during Nero's persecution of Christians around 64 AD so the epistles were obviously written before that time.

1, 2, 3 John
The writer of 1 John does not identify himself in the letter. The writer of 2 and 3 John refers to himself as "the elder," (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Regarding the first epistle, authorship can reasonably be determined to be that of John the Apostle. The opening of John is written from the perspective of someone who was there with Jesus (John 1:1-4). Also, "Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39) says of Papias, a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, 'He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John. Irenaeus, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 5.8), often quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies (3.15; 5, 8) he quotes from John by name, 1 John 2:18...Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 2.66, p. 464) refers to 1 Jn 5:16, as in Johns larger Epistle.'" "In the earliest canonical lists, dating from the end of the second century, 1 John already appears. Indeed, 1 John is quoted as authoritative by Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna [a disciple of John the apostle] before the middle of the second century. The attestation of 2 John is almost as good. There is no second-century reference to 3 John, but that is not surprising, since it deals with a specific, local issue." Furthermore, the style of the three epistles is very similar to that of the gospel of John. 1 John mentions the "word of life" (1 John 1:1) as does the gospel of John 1:1, etc. It appears that the epistles were written after the Gospel of John since the epistles seem to assume a knowledge of the gospel facts. Date of writing varies from A.D. 60 to the early 90's.

Jude
Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1). It is most likely that Jude, in true Christian humility, does not want to equate himself as the brother of Jesus as he is traditionally held to be and seems to be supported by scripture: "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55).Instead, he mentions himself as a servant of Jesus, as James has also done. The date of writing seems to be anywhere from A.D. 68 to the early 90's. Remember that if Judas was a brother of

Jesus, he was born around after Jesus which would mean the later the writing date, the older was Judas. There is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem which could have been naturally included in the writing considering that Jude mentions judgments from God upon believers and unbelievers alike (Jude 5-12). Nevertheless, it appears that Jude may have quoted from James. Jude 17-18 says, "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." Compare this to 2 Pet. 3:3, "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts." If this is a quote, it would place the epistle after the writing of 2 Peter.

Revelation
The author of the Book of Revelation is John. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bondservant John," (Rev. 1:1). "Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308) (A.D.. 139161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostles work." Revelation was probably written at the end of John the Apostle's life. Some hold to the 90's and it is the last book written in the New Testament.

Conclusion
Though this information is basic, it supplies enough evidence to support the apostolic authorship of the New Testament documents. The debate on the dating of the books may never be absolutely settled, but as scholarship and archaeology advance, confirmation of early authorship of the New Testament continues to be validated.

Espaol English

Were Dinosaurs on Noahs Ark?

Were Dinosaurs Even Around Then? April 3, 2000
The story we have all heard from movies, television, newspapers, and most magazines and textbooks is that dinosaurs ruled the Earth for 140 million years, died out 65 million years ago, and therefore werent around when Noah and company set sail on the Ark around 4,300 years ago. However, the Bible gives a completely different view of Earth (and therefore, dinosaur) history. As Gods written Word to us, we can trust it to tell the truth about the past. (For more information about the reliability of Scripture, see Get Answers: Bible.) Although the Bible does not tell us exactly how long ago it was that God made the world and its creatures, we can make a good estimate of the age of the universe by carefully studying the whole counsel of Scripture: 1. God made everything in six days, and rested on the seventh. (By the way, this is the basis for our seven day weekExodus 20:811). Leading Hebrew scholars indicate that, based on the grammatical structure of Genesis 1, these days were of normal length, and did not represent long periods of time (see Get Answers: Genesis). 2. We are told God created the first man and womanAdam and Eveon Day 6, along with the land animals (which would have included dinosaurs). 3. The Bible records the genealogies from Adam to Christ. From the ages given in these lists (and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth around 2,000 years ago), we can conclude that the universe is only a few thousand years old (perhaps just 6,000), and not millions of years old (see also Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?). Thus, dinosaurs lived within the past few thousand years.

So, Were Dinosaurs on the Ark?

In Genesis 6:1920, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the clean animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark.

How Did Those Huge Dinosaurs Fit on the Ark?

Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different kinds of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably teenagers or young adults. Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals as a maximum number. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like kind, Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine kind, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed. According to Genesis 6:15 , the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 510 x 85 x 51 feet, with a volume of about 2.21 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of over 500 semitrailers of space. 1 Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space).

Conclusion
The Bible is reliable in all areas, including its account of the Ark (and the worldwide catastrophic Flood). A Christian doesnt have to have a blind faith to believe that there really was an Ark. What the Bible says about the Ark can even be measured and tested today. For answers to other objections about the biblical account of Noahs Flood and the Ark (e.g., Where did all the water come from? How did Noah collect and then care for the animals? etc.), see the books featured below. Was There Really a Noahs Ark & Flood? covers these particular problems related to Noahs Flood, and Noahs Ark: A Feasibility Study covers these and more in detail.

For more information:

Dinosaurs and the Bible Get Answers: Dinosaurs, Noahs Flood & Noahs Ark Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.

Footnotes
1. This is based on the royal or long cubit of 20.4 inches. Back

Recommended Resources

What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? Answers to all of the most-asked questions about dinosaurs from a biblical perspective.

Dinosaurs and the Bible There is compelling evidence that dinosaurs lived relatively recently and were documented by people and various nations! In this presentation, Dr. Lisle shows how to understand dinosaurs through biblical glasses.

NEW Answers Book 1 (The) Packed with biblical answers to over 25 of the most important questions on creation/evolution and the Bible, The NEW Answers Book is a must-read for everyone who desires to better understand the world in which they live.

Printable version - Were the Iron Chariots Too Powerful?

[NOTE: During the February 12, 2009 Darwin Day debate with Kyle Butt, Dan Barker listed 14 alleged Bible discrepancies as evidence against Gods existence. He insisted (11 minutes and 24 seconds into his opening speech) that the Bible gives contradictory descriptions of Gods power, because of a statement about the Israelites failure to conquer their neighbors who possessed iron chariots. His allegation is refuted in the following article written by Kyle in 2004.] It has been suggested that the Bible is filled with contradictions. One of the supposed contradictions is between Joshua 17:18 and Judges 1:19. Let us look closely at these verses and their contexts to see if any real contradiction exists. Joshua 17:18: But the mountain country shall be yours. Although it is wooded, you shall cut it down, and its farthest extent shall be yours; for you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots and are strong. Judges 1:19: So the Lord was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron. After reading the two verses, it may look like they contradict one another. Did the children of Israel defeat the Canaanites with their chariots of iron as Joshua apparently had said they would, or were the chariots just too powerful for the people of Judah to overcome? These two passages have several plausible ways of reconciliation. And, please remember that the exact way to reconcile any contradiction need not be pinpointed, as long as a possible way can be provided. The rest of this brief answer will deal with only two of the many possible ways to reconcile the passages. The first way to reconcile the passages is to show that Joshua was informing his listeners that they had the power to drive out the Canaanites only if they would follow God faithfully and be confident in His promises. Judges chapter 2:1-3 says: Then the Angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said: I led you up from Egypt and brought you to the land of which I swore to your fathers; and I said, I will never break My covenant with you. And you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars. But you have not obeyed My voice. Why have you done this? Therefore I also said, I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side, and their gods shall be a snare to you. Gods promise through Joshua was not an unconditional guarantee that the children of Israel would possess all of the land they had been promised. It was conditional, based upon the faithfulness of the Israelites and their obedience to Gods commandments. After all, God never would force the Israelites to clear the wooded areas against their will. Neither would He force them to conquer the iron chariots. The two verses under discussion easily could be dealing with land that God chose not to clear of its previous inhabitants because of the disobedience of the people of Judah. A second possible solution could be that the children of Israel did conquer the mountain country and succeeded in driving out its inhabitants for a brief time, but they were unable to maintain control of the cities. Thus, by the time referred to in Judges 1, the cities already could have been retaken by the chariots of iron. As a final word, notice that Joshua said that the mountain country and its farthest extents were the promised possession of the Israelites. In Judges 1:19, the children of Israel did, indeed, drive out the inhabitants of the mountains. Unless we force the phrase its farthest extents in Joshua 17:18 to read lowland as in Judges 1:19, then there is absolutely no hint of a contradiction, and this entire explanation is unnecessary.

Copyright ?? 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

What About the "Unicorn" and the "Satyr"? : ChristianCourier.com

http://w w w .christiancourier.com/articles/880-w hat-about-the-unicorn-and-the-satyr June 8, 2011

By Wayne Jackson Why does the Bible contain references to such mythological creatures as the unicorn (Num. 23:22), and the satyr (Isa. 13:21)? How can such allusions be harmonized with the claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God?

Unicorn
The term unicorn is found nine times in the King James Version of the Bible (Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7). Unicorn does not appear at all in the American Standard Version, nor in most other more modern versions. This should be a signal that the problem is one of translation, rather than a problem with the original, biblical text. In ancient mythological literature, the unicorn was a horse-like animal with a prominent horn protruding from the center of its forehead. There is no evidence that this creature is alluded to in the scriptures. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word that is found in the texts referenced above is reem, which is translated wild ox in the later versions. Most scholars believe the term refers to a large, fierce ox of the ancient world a beast that now is extinct. The translators of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) rendered remes by the Greek term monokeros (one horn), on the basis of certain pictographs which were among the ruins of ancient Babylon. The carvings depicted the wild ox in profile form, thus seeming to suggest that the creature had but a single horn (see Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, C. Pfeiffer, H. Vos, & J. Rea, Eds., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999, p. 83). Out of this background derived the one horn perception. Biblical evidence, however, indicates otherwise. Note that in Deuteronomy 33:17, the reem is described as having horns (plural), not a single horn. No mythology can be charged to the Bible in connection with the term unicorn.

Satyr
In Greek and Roman mythology, the satyr was a half-man/half-beast god, a companion of Bacchus. There is absolutely no relationship between this pagan concept and any passage in the Bible. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sair is found about fifty-two times. It is related to the term sear (hair), which means a hairy one. Mostly the word is used of the male goat that was employed as a sin-offering especially that solemn sin-offering of the day of atonement (Lev. 16). In two cases, sair is translated satyr in the King James Version (Isa. 13:21; 34:14). In those passages it clearly alludes to wild goats of the sort that lived among the ruins of Babylon and Edom. Twice the term is rendered demon (Lev. 17:7; 2 Chron. 11:15 KJV), where it actually signifies a pagan god that takes the form of a goat (see ESV 2 Chron. 11:15). Of this latter passage, noted scholar J. Barton Payne wrote: Far from being mythological satyrs, as claimed by liberal criticism, the sirim appear to have been simply goat idols, used in conjunction with the golden calves (Wycliffe Bible Commentary, C. Pfeiffer, E. Ferguson, Eds., London: Oliphants, 1969, p. 400).

And so, once more, careful investigation demonstrates that the writers of the Bible have not lowered themselves to the superstitions of paganism. Critical charges ever destruct upon the shoals of truth.

AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | New: Bible maps | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | Articles | People in the Bible

Share

What happened to the Amalekites?

Question: What happened to the Amalekites? Response: Let's take a look at each of the verses, one at a time: 1 Samuel 15 (NIV) 7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 20 "But I did obey the LORD," Saul said. "I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. In 1 Samuel 15:7-8, it seems to me that Saul destroyed Agag's army - down to the last man. However, there is no claim being made by this verse that every living Amalekite was killed - just the ones in Agag's army. Nothing more, nothing less. 1 Samuel 27 (NIV) 8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.) 9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish. In this verse it seems clear to me that "Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive." It seems clear to me that he would have destroyed all of the Amalekites in the area that he attacked. That's what the verse says - it says "area." And that would have pertained to every Amalekite in that "area." Nothing more, nothing less. If there were Amalekites in other areas - areas outside of Israel for example - then this verse would be making no claim in regards to them. 1 Samuel 30 (NIV) 1 David and his men reached Ziklag on the third day. Now the Amalekites had raided the Negev and Ziklag. They had attacked Ziklag and burned it, 2 and had taken captive the women and all who were in it, both young and old. They killed none of them, but carried them off as they went on their way. 17 David fought them from dusk until the evening of the next day, and none of them got away, except four hundred young men who rode off on camels and fled. I don't see anything in these verses that contradict anything in question. 1 Chronicles 4 (NIV) 42

Bible prophecies sorted by prophet

Abraham's prophecies Daniel's prophecies Ezekiel's prophecies Isaiah's prophecies Jeremiah's prophecies Jesus' prophecies Micah's prophecies Moses' prophecies Nahum's prophecies Zechariah's
prophecies

Bible prophecies sorted by theme

Destruction of Israel Exile of Israel Dispersion of Israel Persecution of Israel Re-gathering of Israel Nationhood (Israel) Preservation of Israel Worldwide impact Messianic About other nations End Times

Glossaries of people, miracles, events, etc.

Miracles of Jesus People in the Bible Places in the Bible Bible glossary History of Israel Bible maps

Life and teachings of Jesus Christ

Early life 1st year of ministry 2nd year of ministry 3rd year of ministry The final months Persecution of Jesus Resurrection of Jesus

Articles, answers, explanations, links

Articles &
explanations What is Christianity? Learn about the Bible Answers to tough questions Links & Online Bibles Da Vinci Code hoax

And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill country of Seir. 43 They killed the remaining Amalekites who had escaped, and they have lived there to this day. My answer here is the same as it is in previous paragraphs - that these verses are talking about Amalekites in a particular area. Look at 1 Chronicles 4:43, for example. There it talks about how "they have lived there to this day." That's a clear-cut reference to an area, a specific place, meaning the Amalekites that are being referred to are indeed the Amalekites who had formerly lived in that area, that specific place. There is no contradiction in any of these verses, and none of them contradict any of the others. Return to list of Questions and Answers

Other items
About us E-mail us HOME

See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.

Your email address (optional):

Submit

Home | Prophecies | Prophets | New: Bible maps | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | Articles | People in the Bible
Copyright 2011, aboutbibleprophecy.com. All rights reserved. Our copyright policy.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/562

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

When Did Baasha Reign? by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

In the book of 1 Kings we read that Baasha became the third ruler of the Northern kingdom (Israel) in the third year of Asa king o

Judahand reigned twenty-four years (15:33). Then, when Baasha died, his son Elah became king over Israel in the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah (16:8, emp. added). However, 2 Chronicles 16:1 reads: In the thirty-sixth year of th reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah and built Ramah, that he might let none go out or come in to Asa king Judah (emp. added). The obvious question that anyone has who reads these two passages is: How could Baasha be ruling over

Israel in the thirty-sixth year of Asas reign, when 1 Kings 16 clearly indicates that Baasha had died when Asa (the third king of the southern kingdom) was only in the twenty-sixth year of his reign? Is it possible to reconcile 1 Kings 16:8 with 2 Chronicles 15:19-16:1? Or, is this a legitimate contradiction that should lead all of us to conclude that the Bible is a worthless manmade book myths?

There are two possible solutions to this problem. To begin with, it may be that the numbers recorded in 2 Chronicles 15:19 and 16: simply are the result of a copyists error. Although skeptics may scoff at attempts to reconcile contradictions by claiming a copyis

must have made an error sometime in the distant past, the fact is, copyists were not infallible; inspired men were the only infallibl writers. Whenever duplicates of the Old Testament Scriptures were needed, copies had to be made by handa painstaking,

time-consuming task requiring extreme concentration. History records that copyists (such as the Masoretes) had as their goal to produce accurate copies of Scripture and that they went to great lengths to ensure fidelity in their copies. They were, nevertheless

still human. And humans are prone to make mistakes, regardless of the care they take or the strictness of the rules under which they operate. The copyists task was made all the more difficult by the sheer complexity of the Hebrew language and by the variou ways in which potential errors could be introduced. In their commentary on 2 Chronicles, Keil and Delitzsch proposed that the number 36 in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and the number 35 in

15:19 are a scribal error for 16 and 15, respectively. The ancient Hebrew letters yod and lamed, representing the numbers 30 and 10, could have been confused and interchanged quite easily (though inadvertently) by a copyist. Merely a smudge from excessive

wear on a scroll-column or a punctured or slightly torn manuscript could have resulted in making the yod look like a lamed. Furthermore, it also is possible that this error occurred first in 2 Chronicles 15:19. Then to make it consistent in 16:1, a copyist ma

have concluded that 16 must be an error for 36 and changed it accordingly (Archer, 1982, p. 226). Hence the numbers 35 and 36 could have arisen out of the original 15 and 16. With such an adjustment, the statements in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles are harmonize easily.

A second possibility as to why the numbers in 1 Kings 16:8 and 2 Chronicles 15:19-16:1 seem contradictory is because the number may refer to the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years after the division of the United Kingdom (which would have been Asas fifteenth and sixteenth years), rather than the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of Asas reign (Thiele, 1951, p. 59). The Hebrew word for

reign (malkuwth) also can mean kingdom. In fact, 51 out of the 91 times this word appears in the King James Version of the Ol Testament it is translated kingdom (cf. 2 Chronicles 1:1; 11:17; 20:30; Nehemiah 9:35; etc.). In their commentary on 2

Chronicles, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown favored this explanation saying, The best Biblical critics are agreed in considering this date to be calculated from the separation of the kingdoms, and coincident with the 16th year of Asas reign (1997). [The number 1 is obtained by subtracting the reigns of Rehoboam (17 years) and Abijah (3 years) from the 36 years mentioned in 2 Chronicles 16:1.] But, as Gleason Archer recognized, It is without parallel to refer to the kingdom of a nation as a whole and identify it thus with one particular king who comes later on in the ruling dynasty. And the fact that in its account of the later history of Judah no such usage can be instanced in Chronicles raises a formidable difficulty to this solution (p. 225). First Kings 16:8 reveals that Baasha could not have ruled over Israel in the thirty-sixth year of Asas reign in Judah. Either the numbers 35 and 36 in 2 Chronicles 15:19-16:1 are a copyists error, or they represent the total number of years since the United Kingdom divided. Whichever is the case, both provide possible solutions to the alleged problem that exists between the two passages. In no way should the differences that exist between 1 Kings 16:8 and 2 Chronicles 15:19-16:1 cause one to reject the Bible as Gods inspired Word. REFERENCES

Printable version - When Did Jesus Call the First Apostles?

Sometime ago a gentleman wrote our offices asking how to resolve the question skeptics occasionally raise concerning when Jesus called the first apostles. Allegedly, Johns version of the calling (1:35-42) contradicts the synoptists accounts (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11). According to John, two disciples (one of which was Andrew1:40) were following John the Baptizer. Then, after hearing Jesus, the Lamb of God, they followed Him and remained with him that day (1:39). Andrew also brought his brother Peter to meet Jesus at this time (1:40-42). Matthew, Mark, and Luke indicate, however, that Jesus called Peter, Andrew, James, and John while they were out fishing on the Sea of Galilee. Are these contradictory accounts of Christs calling of the apostles, or is there some rational explanation for their differences? The reason for the disparities in these stories is not because they are contradictory (as Paul Carson alleged in his 1995 article, New Testament Contradictions), but because John is describing a totally separate incident from the one the synoptists describe. John places Andrew, Peter, and the unnamed disciple (who very likely was John himself; see McGarvey, n.d., p. 109) in Judea (cf. John 1:19,28), whereas the synoptists describe an event that took place in Galilee (Matthew 4:18; Mark 1:16; Luke 5:1). Whats more, the call for Peter, Andrew, James, and John to become fishers of men (i.e., apostles) in the synoptics is absent in John 1. As Luther noted: Johns theme is not the calling of the apostles into office; it is there congenial association with Christ (as quoted in Morris, 1995, p. 136). In John, [t]he disciples of John [the BaptizerEL] recognize the Messiah and spontaneously attach themselves to him (Morris, p. 136). In the synoptics, the disciples clearly were called to begin a life of service as apostles (Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17; Luke 5:10). At least two other differences in these accounts are evident: (1) In John 1, Andrew is with an unnamed disciple, not Peter (whom he later finds and informs that he had found the Messiah), whereas in the synoptics, Peter and Andrew are called together; (2) James and John are called together in the synoptics, whereas in John 1, James is nowhere mentioned, while John is likely the unnamed disciple (John 1:37). The skeptics charge that John contradicts Matthew, Mark, and Lukes accounts of Jesus calling of the apostles is unwarranted. John actually referred to a different circumstance altogether. John records Peter and Andrews first meeting with the Christ. The synoptists, however, testify of a later meeting, when Jesus called them at the Sea of Galilee to become fishers of men. Once again, the problem is not with the Bible writers, but with the Bible critic. REFERENCES Carson, Paul (1995), New Testament Contradictions, The Secular Web, [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html. McGarvey, J.W. (no date), The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard). Morris, Leon (1995), The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition.

Copyright ?? 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/563

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

When Did Nebuzaradan Enter Jerusalem? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. One skeptic wrote to affirm that he knew the Bible contained contradictions, and challenged us to unravel the following alleged discrepancy. In 2 Kings 25:8, the Bible reads: Now in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem. In discussing the same historical event (i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar), Jeremiah wrote: Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, who stood before the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem (52:12). The skeptic noted a three-day difference between the two accounts, and asked: So when did Nebuzaradan arrive to destroy Jerusalemon the seventh day or the tenth day? As we respond, let us once again consider the context in which these two passages appear. Zedekiah, King of Judah, had warred in open rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar. Subsequently, the King of Babylon sent his army to besiege Jerusalem, where Zedekiah held court. At one point during the siege, as Nebuchadnezzars soldiers breached the citys walls, Zedekiah and the troops still loyal to him quietly slipped away and attempted to make good their escape. Their attempt was thwarted, however, when they were captured and taken to Nebuchadnezzar, who commanded that Zedekiahs sons be slain before his eyes, and that he then be blinded and imprisoned until his death. Shortly thereafter, as a result of Zedekiahs rebellion, the Babylonian king sent the captain of his personal bodyguard, Nebuzaradan, to lead his army against the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to lay waste the city. Nebuzaradan is designated within the text of both 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52 as captain of the guard. Burton Coffman observed that He was one of the great generals in command of the armies of Babylon (1993, p. 331). His title, captain of the guard, indicates that apparently he was the chief of King Nebuchadnezzars bodyguards (see Keil and Delitzsch, 1982, p. 514). But the literal translation of the title actually reveals much more than that. Miller has noted that Nebuzaradan is literally designated as captain of the slaughterers, which might indicate that he was the chief executioner, or the captain of the royal bodyguard (cf. Gen. 37:36; 39:1; 40:3) (1991, p. 466). Spence and Exell designated him as chief of the executioners (1950, p. 489), as has Barnes (1972a, p. 308). Did Nebuzaradan come to Jerusalem on the seventh day as the writer of 2 Kings indicated, or, as Jeremiah wrote, on the tenth day? There are at least two potential explanations for the seeming discrepancy. First, Keil and Delitzsch allow for the possibility that This difference might be reconciled, as proposed by earlier commentators, on the assumption that the burning of the city lasted several days, commencing on the seventh and ending on the tenth (1982, p. 514). In other words, one writer may be discussing Nebuzaradans activities from their beginning, while the other writer is discussing those same activities from their conclusion. This solution receives support from an in-depth examination of the original language of the texts. The phrasing of Jeremiah 52:12 and 2 Kings 25:8 is very similar in the Hebrewwith one important exception. In Jeremiah 52:12, the last part of the verse states literally that Nebuzaradan came in [to] Jerusalem. The Hebrew preposition in, which conveys the idea of being inside or within (cf. Judges 1:21, Zechariah 12:6 [KJV/ASV], 1 Kings 15:4, et al.), is not present in 2 Kings 25:8. It therefore is quite possible that Nebuzaradan came to Jerusalem on the seventh day, but actually went inside the holy city on the tenth day. Second, the three-day difference in the two accounts may be a copyists error. This is the position favored by Keil and Delitzsch (p. 515) as well as Spence and Exell (p. 489). Whenever duplicates of the Old Testament Scriptures were needed, copies had to be made by handa painstaking, time-consuming task requiring extreme concentration and special working conditions. Eventually, an elite group of scribes arose just for this purpose: the Masoretes. Geisler and Nix observed: The Masoretic period (flourished c. A.D. 500-1000) of Old Testament manuscript copying indicates a complete review of established rules, a deep reverence for the Scriptures, and a systematic renovation of transmission techniques.... Copies were made by an official class of sacred scribes who labored under strict rules (1986, pp. 354, 467; cf. also pp. 371,374,380). Anyone who has studied the exacting conditions under which the Masoretes worked, and the lengths to which they went to ensure fidelity in their copies of the Scriptures, could attest to the fact that their goal was to produce accurate copieseven to the point of reproducing errors already present in the much older copies from which they were working. They were, nevertheless, still human. And humans are prone to make mistakes, regardless of the care they take or the strictness of

the rules under which they operate. The copyists task was made all the more difficult by the sheer complexity of the Hebrew language, and by the various ways in which potential errors could be introduced (even inadvertently) into the copying process. Geisler and Nix have compiled a list of at least seven important ways in which a copyist might change the text accidentally, including such actions as: (a) omissions of letters, words, or whole lines; (b) unwarranted repetitions; (c) transposition (the reversal of two letters or words); (d) errors of memory; (e) errors of the ear; (f) errors of the eye; and (g) errors of judgment (pp. 469-473). Such errors, especially before the Masoretes came on the scene, could account for the alleged discrepancy in the passages under discussion here. For example, Archer has noted: Even the earliest and best manuscripts that we possess are not totally free of transmissional errors. Numbers are occasionally miscopied, the spelling of proper names is occasionally garbled, and there are examples of the same types of scribal error that appear in other ancient documents as well (1982, p. 27). Dr. Archer then provided numerous examples of what he termed misreading similar-appearing letters, based on the complexity of the Hebrew language and its alphabetic/numeric system (pp. 37-39). It is at this point that the alleged discrepancies in 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52 may well enter the picture. Errors of the ear also might have played a part. If a scribe was writing the text as it was being read to him, the reader actually may have said one thing but the scribe heard another. Or, the difference between 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52 may have been an error of memory. A scribe may have looked at an entire line, memorized it, and copied it from memory without looking at it a second time during the copying process. When he went to write one of the numbers in the two passages, however, his memory failed him; what he thought he remembered the original text having said was not what it actually said. When one stops to consider the extremely poor conditions under which most copyists worked (poor lighting, crude writing instruments, imperfect writing surfaces, etc.), it is not difficult to understand how inadvertent errors such as these might occur from time to time. The Masoretes had a policy of making notes in the margins of their copies in order to indicate obvious differences among the manuscripts from which they were copying. Further, they were not averse to calling attention to possible mistakes by their less meticulous forerunners. But the Masoretes made no such note of any alleged discrepancy between 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12. In this case, they may not have thought that a comment was warranted, considering the type of resolution I discussed earlier (i.e., that the two passages in question actually refer to the activities of two different days). But why can we not possess infallible copies of the infallible originals of the Bible books? Archer has observed that it is because the production of even one perfect copy of one book is so far beyond the capacity of a human scribe as to render it necessary for God to perform a miracle in order to produce it. No reasonable person can expect even the most conscientious copyist to achieve technical infallibility in transcribing his original document into a fresh copy.... But the important fact remains that accurate communication is possible despite technical mistakes in copying (p. 29). Indeed, accurate communication is possible despite technical mistakes in copying. In the more than twenty years that I have edited Reason and Revelation (the monthly journal on Christian evidences published by Apologetics Press), I never have had someone suggest that as a result of an inadvertent mistake they were unable to comprehend the meaning, or detect the intent, of an article. Cannot the same be said of the Bible? Surely it can! Archer concluded: Well-trained textual critics operating on the basis of sound methodology are able to rectify almost all misunderstandings that might result from manuscript error.... Is there objective proof from the surviving manuscripts of Scripture that these sixty-six books have been transmitted to us with such a high degree of accuracy as to assure us that the information contained in the originals has been perfectly preserved? The answer is an unqualified yes (pp. 29-30). In every case when the Bibles defenders refer to that Grand Book as being inspired, they are by necessity referring to inspiration as it pertained to the original manuscripts (routinely referred to as autographs), since there is no such thing as an inspired copy. Aha!, the skeptic might say, since you no longer possess those autographs, but only slightly flawed copies made by imperfect humans, that makes it impossible to know the truth of the message behind the text. Try applying such a conceptthat no longer being in personal possession of a perfect original makes knowing truth impossibleto matters of everyday life. Archer has done just that, using something as simple as a yardstick. It is wrong to affirm that the existence of a perfect original is a matter of no importance if that original is no longer available for examination. To take an example from the realm of engineering or of commerce, it makes a very great difference whether there is such a thing as a perfect measure for the meter, the foot, or the pound. It is questionable

whether the yardsticks or scales used in business transactions or construction projects can be described as absolutely perfect. They may be almost completely conformable to the standard weights and measures preserved at the Bureau of Standards in our nations capital but they are subject to errorhowever small. But how foolish it would be for any citizen to shrug his shoulders and say, Neither you nor I have ever actually seen those standard measures in Washington; therefore we may as well disregard themnot be concerned about them at alland simply settle realistically for the imperfect yardsticks and pound weights that we have available to us in everyday life. On the contrary, the existence of those measures in the Bureau of Standards is vital to the proper functioning of our entire economy. To the 222,000,000 Americans who have never seen them they are absolutely essential for the trustworthiness of all the standards of measurement that they resort to throughout their lifetime (p. 28). The fact that we do not possess the original autographs of the Bible in no way diminishes the usefulness, or authority, of the copies, any more than a construction superintendent not being in possession of the original measures from the Bureau of Standards diminishes the usefulness or authority of the devices he employs to erect a building. This point is made all the more evident when one considers the inconsequential nature of the vast majority of alleged discrepancies offered by skeptics as proof of the Bibles non-divine origin. Does not the quality of the discrepancies submitted to us by skeptics (like the one under review here) reveal just how desperate skepticism is to try to find some discrepancyany discrepancywithin the Sacred Text? But to what end? As Archer has noted: In fact, it has long been recognized by the foremost specialists in textual criticism that if any decently attested variant were taken up from the apparatus at the bottom of the page and were substituted for the accepted reading of the standard text, there would in no case be a single, significant alteration in doctrine or message (p. 30). The axe of infidelity has not felled the tree of inspiration. The skeptic may hack away to his hearts content. But in the end, it will be the axe, and he who wields it, that will fallnot the mighty timber that is Gods Word. Or, as the Bible itself concludes: As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, And every tongue shall confess to God. (Romans 14:11). REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Barnes, Albert (1972a reprint), Barnes Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Samuel- Esther (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Barnes, Albert (1972b reprint), Barnes Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Coffman, Burton (1993), Commentary on II Kings (Abilene, TX: ACU Press). Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix (1986), A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition. Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Spence, H.D.M. and J.S. Exell (1950), The Pulpit CommentaryI & II Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/526

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

When did the Temple Veil Tear? by Eric Lyons, M.Min. A few years ago, a journal dedicated to revealing (alleged) Bible errors petitioned its readers to submit their best biblical questions and arguments that they have found through actual experience to be exceptionally effective vis--vis biblicistsand they will probably be published for all to see and use (McKinsey, 1988a, p. 6). The first response printed in this journal (two months later) was from a man who listed among his top five Bible contradictions a question of whether or not the veil of the Temple was torn in two before (Luke 23:44-46) or after (Matthew 27:50-51) Jesus died on the cross? The skeptic stated that this question was one of his favorites to ask because it elicits such ludicrous rebuttals from Christian apologists (McKinsey, 1988b, p. 6). Before taking the skeptics word at face value as to what these scriptures actually say (or do not say), compare the passages for yourself. And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and yielded up his spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom (Matthew 27:50-51, ASV; cf. Mark 15:37-38). And it was now about the sixth hour, and a darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, the suns light failing: and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. And Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the ghost (Luke 23:44-46). Do you read anything in either Matthew or Lukes account that says the veil was torn before or after Jesus died (to use the skeptics own words)? Granted, Luke did mention the rending of the veil before he recorded that Jesus died, and Matthew mentioned it after recording His death, but neither made any direct statements that would indicate exactly when the rending took place. Simply because one Bible writer recorded something before, or after, another writer does not mean that either writer is attempting to establish a chronological timeline. Unless the skeptic can point to a verse by both writers that says these events occurred in the precise order in which they are recorded, then no case can be made for these two passages being incompatible. Consider for a moment that to do list which many of us make either daily or weekly? If someone peeked at your list and saw where you crossed off the first four things, but the things that you had marked off were not in the same order in which you accomplished them, would you be guilty of lying (to yourself or to a colleague)? No. Imagine also that you returned home after work one day and told your children some of the things you had accomplished at the office. Then, you told your spouse the same things you told your children, only in a somewhat different order. Would your children have any right to call you a liar if they overheard this second conversion between you and your spouse? Of course not. The only way your children would be justified in calling you a liar is if you had told both them and your spouse that every event you rehearsed happened in the precise order in which you mentioned them. The only way a skeptic could prove that Matthew 27:50-51 and Luke 23:44-46 are contradictory is if he or she could establish that both writers claimed to be writing all of these events in precisely the same order in which they occurred. Since, however, the critic cannot prove such intended chronology, he is left with another alleged and unproven contradiction. Interesting, is it not, that this fairly simple problem was listed as a top-five question with which to stump a Christian? Truly, using a little common sense proves helpful when studying the Bible. REFERENCES McKinsey, Dennis (1988a), Editors Note, Biblical Errancy, p. 6, March. McKinsey, Dennis (1988b), Letter 263, Biblical Errancy, p. 6, May.

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map

Share

When were Abraham's descendants supposed to return? After four generations, or seven?
Question: In Gen. 15:16, it says "In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Issac (Gen. 21:1-3), Jacob (Gen. 25:1926), Levi (Gen. 35:22-23), Kohath (Ex. 6:16), Amramn (Ex. 6:18), and Moses (Ex. 6:20). Response: In this case, the word "generation" in Genesis 15:16 is defined as being one "century" in length, in Genesis 15:13. This is because Abraham was a century old when his son Isaac was born. So, from Abraham's perspective, the words "generation" and "century" would be describing the same amount of time. And both of these verses in Genesis are viewing the future from Abraham's perspective. He is being told that his descendants would be in a foreign land for four centuries. Return to list of Questions and Answers

Bible prophecies sorted by prophet

Abraham's prophecies Daniel's prophecies Ezekiel's prophecies Isaiah's prophecies Jeremiah's prophecies Jesus' prophecies Micah's prophecies Moses' prophecies Nahum's prophecies Zechariah's
prophecies

Bible prophecies sorted by theme

Destruction of Israel Exile of Israel Dispersion of Israel Persecution of Israel Re-gathering of Israel Nationhood (Israel) Preservation of Israel Worldwide impact Messianic About other nations End Times

See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.

Your email address (optional):

Glossaries of people, miracles, events, etc.

Miracles of Jesus People in the Bible Places in the Bible Bible glossary History of Israel

Submit

Life and teachings of Jesus Christ

Early life 1st year of ministry 2nd year of ministry 3rd year of ministry The final months Persecution of Jesus Resurrection of Jesus

Articles, answers, explanations, links

Articles &
explanations What is Christianity? Learn about the Bible Answers to tough questions Links & Online Bibles Da Vinci Code hoax

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/564

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Where Did Josiah Die? by Jim Estabrook Thirty-one years after inheriting the kingdom of Judah from his father, Josiah traveled to the Valley of Megiddo and fought against Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt. The Bible gives few details about this battle, but what it does tell us has caused some to question the Bibles accuracy. Skeptics allege that a contradiction exists between 2 Kings 23 and 2 Chronicles 35. The writer of 2 Kings recorded that

Pharaoh Necho killed him [JosiahJE] at Megiddo when he confronted him. Then, later, his servants moved his body in a chariot from Megiddo, brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb (23:29-30). When the writer of Chronicles wrote of these events, he recorded that after King Josiah was struck with arrows, he said to his servants, Take me away, for I am severely wounded. After that his servants therefore took him out of that chariot and put him in the second chariot that he had, and they brought him to Jerusalem. Then the text says, So he died, and was buried in one of the tombs of his fathers (2 Chronicles 35:23-24). Because the writer of 2 Kings recorded that Pharaoh Necho killed Josiah at Megiddo and the chronicler used the phrase,

so he died after writing that Josiahs body was returned to Jerusalem, skeptics charge that the recorded history of one or both of the writers is wrong.

If 2 Kings 23 were the only account we had of Josiahs death, then one might very well assume that he took his last breath at Megiddo. But, since 2 Chronicles 35 indicates that he was alert enough after he was shot to command his servants to take him away, we know

that he did not die immediately. However, he still may have died in Megiddo after he uttered this command. Or, he could have died on the way to Jerusalem. The accounts can be reconciled even if he had died in Jerusalem. Just because 2 Kings 23:29 says that Pharaoh

Necho killed Josiah at Megiddo does not have to mean that he actually died there. It easily could mean that he was mortally wounded at Megiddo and then died sometime later. If someone today is shot in a back alley late at night, he may be rushed to the hospital in hopes that his life might be saved. However, if he dies, whether it is on the way to the hospital or in the hospital, those who rehearse the details of the shooting likely will not say that he died in the hospital but that he was killed in the back alley. Furthermore, just because the writer of 2 Chronicles wrote the phrase, so he died, after he mentions that Josiah was brought to Jerusalem, does not mean that he did not die beforehand. As E.M. Zerr observed in his Bible Commentary: The statement and he died...is just a common form of expression in the Bible, where the several facts of a circumstance may be named with very little regard for their chronological order (1954, pp. 278-279, emp. in orig.). The acknowledgment of the chronicler that Josiah died is just thatan acknowledgment. It says nothing about when he died. The facts of the story are as follows: (1) Josiah was wounded fatally at Megiddo; (2) his body was rushed away to Jerusalem after he commanded his servants to take him away; and (3) he died sometime after he gave that command. The text is not clear as to the exact location of death. He could have passed away in Megiddo, or on his way to Jerusalem, or even in Jerusalem for that matter. However, the latter is not likely to have occurred since Jerusalem was over fifty miles from Megiddo (probably no less than a two-hour chariot ride). Neither account clearly defines the location of death, only that the location of the fatal injury occurred in Meggido. We must remember that where two different, but not conflicting accounts of an event are given, one more specific than the other, the one that is clearer should be used to explain the other (Zerr, pp. 278-279). Those who claim that these two passages are contradictory are grasping for straws that do not exist. The only difference in the texts is that one is more descriptive than the other. REFERENCES Zerr, E.M. (1954), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Publications).

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/565

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Where is the Prophecy that Jesus "Shall be Called a Nazarene"? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Some time ago, we received an unusual offer in the mail. It came from a skeptic who offered us a $1,000 reward. His letter said simply: $1,000 reward. Produce the prophecy refered [sic] to in Matthew 2:23, He shall be called a Nazarene. Intriguing offer, to be sure. How did we handle it? And did we win the $1,000? This is not the first such reward offer we (or others) have received, and in all likelihood it will not be the last. Financial gain aside, this particular question on the part of the skeptic provides an excellent teaching opportunity. First, it is important to note that alleged Bible discrepancies fall into various categories of difficulty, so far as ease of response is concerned. Certain charges against Gods Word are explained effortlessly. For example, one infidel suggested that he had discovered a contradiction in the Bible. He noted that since Noahs ark (described in Genesis 6) was 300 cubits long (about 450 feet) and would have weighed several tons when fully loaded, it was preposterous to believe that the priests could have carried it across the Jordan River as described in Joshua 3! The critics inability to distinguish between the ark of Noah and the ark of the covenant made answering his argument a simple matter for even the most elementary Bible student. However, not all alleged discrepancies are answered as easily. Some require extensive research to explain. Entire books have been written to discuss these so-called discrepancies (see, for example: Archer, 1982; Arndt, 1932, 1955; Haley, 1951). It is a simple matter for the atheist, agnostic, freethinker, or skeptic to charge that Gods Word contains contradictions or discrepancies; it is not always a simple matter for the Bible believer to respond to such a claim. Second, on occasion it is the case that the charge being made against the Bible is itself seriously flawed. In other words, we need to be admonished never to react to a charge leveled against a certain passage of Scripture based on what the passage is supposed to say according to the Bible critic, or on what the Bible critic thinks it says. Prior to making any response, we should open our Bibles, turn to the passage in question, and read it for ourselves. For example, in the letter we received, the skeptic quoted Matthew 2:23 as stating, He shall be called a Nazarene, and then challenged us to find an Old Testament prophecy that said exactly that. The skeptic no doubt intended for us to concludebased on the limited information he gave usthat Matthew erred, and that the Bible contains a blatant error on the part of an inspired writer, thereby negating its claim of inspiration. Upon closer examination, however, it becomes evident that the passage does not say what the skeptic wants us to think it says. The quote actually was only the latter half of the verse. In the context (which begins earlier in verse 22), here is what the passage actually says: But when he [JosephBT] heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned of God in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, for he should be called a Nazarene. An examination of the actual facts that come to bear on this passage reveals the following information. It is true, as various Bible commentators have noted, that nowhere in the Old Testament did any of the prophets say: He shall be called a Nazarene (see Lenski, 1943, p. 87). However, while at first glance the verse might be construed to suggest that some prophets (the plural in the Greek text is significant; see comments below) suggested that Christ should be called a Nazarene, further study shows that this is not the actual intent of the passage at all. In discussing the grammatical construction of the passage in the original Greek, R.C.W. Lenski (a highly respected Greek scholar in his own right) stated: But the plural through the prophets is important. It cannot refer to one prophet speaking for all. This plural evidently refers either to the prophetic books in general or to the entire Old Testament. It also shows that no quotation is to follow which will introduce some word that was uttered by several prophets (p. 87, emp. in orig.). With great care, Lenski then went on to show that the structure of the Greek involved in the passage under consideration is not...like our quotation marks, pointing to a direct quotation. Then, after remarking on the original words, the form in which they occur, and their careful use by Matthew within the passage under consideration, Lenski noted that such construction in the Greek shuts out not only a direct quotation but also an indirect prophetic utterance (p. 87). What, then, is Matthews meaning? The text is saying simply this: Jesus lived in Nazareth not because the prophets had said that He

would live in that specific city, but in order to fulfill additional specific things that the prophets had said about Him. Lenski has done an excellent job of explaining this point: Jesus lived in Nazareth in order to fulfill the prophets; and the evidential reason by which we ourselves can see that his living in Nazareth fulfilled the prophets, is that afterward, due to his having lived there, he was called the Nazarene. We may add that even his followers were called Nazarenes. Matthew writes nothing occult or difficult. A Nazarene is one who hails from Nazareth. Matthew counts on the ordinary intelligence of his readers, who will certainly know that the enemies of Jesus branded him the Nazarene, that this was the name that marked his Jewish rejection and would continue to do so among the Jews. They put into it all the hate and odium possible, extending it, as stated, to his followers. And this is what was spoken through the prophets. One and all told how the Jews would despise the Messiah, Ps. 22:6; Isa. 49:7; 53:3; Dan. 9:26; every prophecy of the suffering Messiah, and every reference to those who would not hear him, like Deut. 18:18. The Talmud calls Jesus Yeshu Hannotzri (the Nazarene); Jerome reports the synagogue prayer in which the Christians are cursed as Nazarenes.... Compare Acts 24:5, sect of the Nazarene, and Pauls characterization. If Jesus had been reared in Jerusalem, he could not have been vilified as the Nazarene. It was God who let him grow up in Nazareth and thus furnished the title of reproach to the Jews in fulfillment of all the reproach God had prophesied for the Messiah through the prophets (pp. 88-89). Albert Barnes made the same assessment of this passage in his commentary on Matthew when he wrote: Some have supposed that he refers to some prophecy which was not recorded, but handed down by tradition. But these suppositions are not satisfactory. It is much more probable that Matthew refers not to any particular place, but to the leading characteristics of the prophecies respecting him.... When Matthew says, therefore, that the prophecies were fulfilled, his meaning is that the predictions of the prophets that he would be of a low and despised condition, and would be rejected, were fully accomplished in his being an inhabitant of Nazareth, and despised as such (1972, p. 21, emp. in orig.). So in the end, the skeptics $1,000 reward remained safely in his own pocket. His offer turned out to be vacuous, due to the fact that it rested on a completely incorrect interpretation of the passage in the first place. With time and study, the unfounded charge which suggested that Matthew had erred and that the Bible contains contradictions evaporated like an early morning fog hit by the hot noon Sun. REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Arndt, William (1932), Bible Difficulties (St. Louis, MO: Concordia). Arndt, William (1955), Does the Bible Contradict Itself? (St. Louis, MO: Concordia). Barnes, Albert (1972 reprint), Barnes Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Haley, John W. (1951 reprint), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate). Lenski, R.C.W. (1943), The Interpretation of St. Matthews Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).

Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

Printable version - Who Incited David to Number Israel?

Census-taking under the Law of Moses was not inherently evil. In fact, God actually commanded Moses to number the Israelite soldiers on two different occasionsonce in the second year after deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and again about forty years later near the end of Israels wanderings in the desert (Numbers 1:1-3,19; 26:2-4). Even though the book of Numbers describes many of their experiences while wandering through a barren land, the book takes its name (first assigned by the translators of the Septuagint) from these two numberings of the Israelites. Indeed, the taking of a census was a legitimate practice under the old law (cf. Exodus 30:11-16). Sometimes, however, ones motives can turn lawful actions into sinful deeds (cf. Matthew 6:1-18). Such was the case with King David when he decided to number the Israelites in the latter part of his reign. God had not commanded a census be taken, nor did David instigate it for some noble cause. Instead, the Bible implies that Davids intentions (and thus his actions) were dishonorable, foolish, and sinful (cf. 2 Samuel 24:3,10ff.). For many Bible readers, the parallel accounts that describe Davids numbering of Israel (found in 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21) pose a serious problem. Why does 2 Samuel 24:1 state that God moved David against Israel, while 1 Chronicles 21:1 says that it was Satan who stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel ? Can both passages be right, or is this a contradiction? The Hebrew verb wayyaset, translated moved (NKJV) or incited (NASV), is identical in both passages. God and Satans actions are described using the same word. The difference lies with the sense in which the word is used: Satan incited (or temptedcf. 1 Thessalonians 3:5) David more directly, while God is spoken of as having incited David because He allowed such temptation to take place. The Hebrews often used active verbs to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do (Bullinger, 2898, p. 823, emp. in orig.). Throughout the Bible, Gods allowance of something to take place often is described by the sacred writers as having been done by the Lord. The book of Exodus records how God hardened Pharaohs heart (Exodus 7:3,13; 9:12; 10:1; et al.), but it was not that God directly forced Pharaoh to reject His will. Rather, God hardened his heart in the sense that God provided the circumstances and the occasion for Pharaoh to reject His will. God sent Moses to place His demands before Pharaoh, even accompanying His Word with miraclesto confirm the divine origin of the message (cf. Mark 16:20). Pharaoh made up his own mind to resist Gods demands. God merely provided the occasion for Pharaoh to demonstrate his unyielding attitude. If God had not sent Moses, Pharaoh would not have been faced with the dilemma of whether to release the Israelites. So God was certainly the initiator of the circumstances that led to Pharaohs sin, but He was not the author (or direct cause) of Pharaohs defiance (see Butt and Miller, 2003). Another instance where this idiomatic language can be found is in the book of Job. In fact, the situation regarding God and Satan inciting David to number Israel probably more closely parallels the first two chapters of Job than any other passage of Scripture. Satan went into the presence of God on two different occasions in Job 1-2. The first time, he charged that the righteous man Job only served God because of the blessings God showered upon him (1:9-11). God thus permitted Satan to afflict Job with suffering, telling Satan, Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person (1:12). After Satan used both humans and natural agency to destroy Jobs wealth and all of his children (1:13-19), Satan returned to the Lords presence. Notice the exchange of words between God and Satan (in view of the Hebrew idiomatic thought: what God permits, He is said to do). Then the Lord said to Satan, Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil? And still he holds fast to his integrity, although you incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause. So Satan answered the Lord and said, Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face! And the Lord said to Satan, Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life. So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head (Job 2:3-7, emp. added). Even though God knew that Satan was the direct cause for Jobs suffering (recorded in chapter one), He told Satan: You incited Me against him, to destroy him without cause (2:3, emp. added). As a result of Jobs abstaining from sin during this time of suffering, Satan then proposed a new challenge to God, saying, But stretch out Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face (vs. 4). In essence, God said, Okay. I will, but

He did not do it directly. He merely allowed Satan to do it: Behold, he [Job] is in your hand, but spare his life (vs. 6). So Satan struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head (vs. 7). The dialog between God and Satan in Job chapter 2 leaves no doubt that what God permits to take place often is described by sacred writers as having been done by God. The inspired author of Job even reiterated this point forty chapters later, when he wrote: Then all his [Jobs] brothers, all his sisters, and all those who had been his acquaintances before, came to him and ate food with him in his house; and they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversity that the Lord had brought upon him (42:11, emp. added). In his commentary on 2 Samuel, Burton Coffman made mention that the same principle still is operative in the Christian dispensation. Paul pointed out that people who do not love the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness are actually incited by God to believe a falsehood that they might be condemned (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned, etc. (1992, p. 329). Those discussed in 2 Thessalonians 2 made a decision to reject the truth of Gods Word (cf. vs. 10), and believe a lie. God sends a delusion, in the sense that He controls the worlds drama. The problem of how a loving God (1 John 4:8) can send a strong delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11), harden someones heart (Exodus 9:12), or incite someone to sin (as in the case of David numbering Israel2 Samuel 24:1), can be compared to Gods work in nature. In one sense, a person could speak of God killing someone who jumps from a 100story building to his death, because it was God Who set in motion the law of gravity (but He did not force the person over the edge). Some inspired writers wrote from this viewpoint, which was customary in their culture. Truly, similar to how Pharaoh hardened his heart because God gave him occasion to do such, and similar to how Job suffered because God allowed Satan to strike Job with calamity, God allowed Satan to incite David to sin (1 Chronicles 21:1). Israel suffered as a direct result of Satans workings in the life of King David, which God allowed. Thus, both God and Satan legitimately could be said to have incited the kingbut in different ways (and for different reasons). REFERENCES Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint). Butt, Kyle and Dave Miller (2003), Who Hardened Pharaohs Heart? [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2259 Coffman, Burton (1992), Commentary on Second Samuel (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).

Copyright ?? 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author??s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org

Printable version - Who Killed Goliath?

And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weavers beam (2 Samuel 21:19). And there was again war with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weavers beam (1 Chronicles 20:5). The record of David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) clearly speaks of the defeat of the giant of Gath by the shepherd boy. This story is used to emphasize faith and faithfulness to the young from their earliest ages. However, some have alleged a discrepancy between the account in 1 Samuel and two other passages (2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5). According to 2 Samuel 21:19, it appears that Elhanan killed Goliah; yet 1 Chronicles 20:5 states that Elhanan killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath. The question, then, is who did Elhanan kill? First, we must recognize who Elhanan was not. According to 1 Chronicles 20:5, Elhanan was the son of Jair. This was not the same man as Elhanan the Bethlehemite, son of Dodo (2 Samuel 23:24; Keil and Delitzsch, 1996, 2:681). Furthermore, it appears that Jair and Jaareoregim actually are the same person (Barnes, 1998, 2:120). Barnes, as well as the editors of The Pulpit Commentary, noted that the difficulty may have begun when oregim, the Hebrew word translated weaver in this passage, ended up being placed on the wrong line by a copyistsomething that has been known to happen in several instances (see Spence and Exell, 1978, 4:514). Therefore, Jair, combined with oregim, became Jaare-oregim in order to make it fit with proper Hebrew grammar (Spence and Exell, 4:514). Second, the phrase Lahmi the brother of is absent in 2 Samuel 21:19. The King James Version inserts the phrase the brother of between Bethlehemite and Goliath. Furthermore, in the Hebrew, eth Lachmi (a combination of Lahmi and the term brother) appears to have been changed into beith hallachmi (Beth- lehemite). With this simple correction, the two texts would be in clear agreement (Clarke, n.d., p. 369). In other words, the brother of and the name Lahmi likely were combined by a copyist to form what is translated in English as Beth-lehemite in 2 Samuel 21:19. This, however, caused the difficulty when the passage was paralleled with 1 Chronicles 20:5. In his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer used the same scenario mentioned above to explain this difficulty, and then summed up the situation by noting: In other words, the 2 Samuel 21 passage is a perfectly traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5 (1982, p. 179). A fair, in-depth examination of the alleged difficulty shows that there actually is no contradiction at all, but simply a copyists mistake. REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Barnes, Albert (1998 reprint), Barnes Notes: Exodus to Esther (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Clarke, Adam (no date), Commentary and Critical Notes on the Old Testament: Joshua to Esther (New York, NY: Abingdon). Keil, C.F., and F. Delitzsch (1996), Commentary on the Old Testament: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson). Spence, H.D.M., and Joseph S. Exell, Eds. (1978), The Pulpit Commentary: Ruth, I & II Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Copyright ?? 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/568

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Who Wrote on the Second Pair of Tablets? by Eric Lyons, M.Min. After Moses broke the first tablets of stone that the Lord gave him on Mount Sinai, God commanded him to cut out two tablets of stone (like the first ones) and present himself to Him at the top of Mount Sinaiagain (Exodus 34:1-2). Skeptics claim the Bible teaches in Exodus 34 that Moses wrote on this second pair of tablets, whereas in Deuteronomy 10 it says that God is the One Who wrote on these tablets. Based upon this difference, they allege that a blatant contradiction exists. A closer examination of these passages, however, reveals that they are not contradictory, but rather complimentary and consistent with each other. We readily admit that Deuteronomy 10 teaches that God was the One Who wrote on the second pair of tablets. Verses 1-4 of that chapter say: At that time the Lord said to me (Moses), Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to Me on the mountain and make yourself an ark of wood. And I [God] will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke; and you shall put them in the ark. So I [Moses] made an ark of acacia wood, hewed two tablets of stone like the first, and went up the mountain, having the two tablets in my hand. And He (God) wrote on the tablets according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments, which the Lord had spoken to you in the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them to me (Deuteronomy 10:1-4, emp. and parenthetical items added). This passage teaches that Moses hewed the tablets out of rock, but that God was the One Who wrote on them. Skeptics agree. The controversial passage found in Exodus 34 states: Then the Lord said to Moses, Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments (34:27-28). Based upon this passage, critics of the Bibles inerrancy suggest that Moses, not God, wrote on the second pair of tablets. Thus they conclude that Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 10 contradict one another. Admittedly, at first glance it seems these verses teach: (1) that Moses was commanded to write the words on the second pair of tablets; and (2) the recorded fact that after he was commanded to do so, he (Moses) actually wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant. But what may seem to be the correct interpretation of a passage is sometimes not the case, especially when the context of the passage is ignored. The words that God instructed Moses to write were these words, which He spoke in the preceding verses (i.e., 34:10-26the ceremonial and judicial injunctions, not the ten words of Exodus 20:2-17). The rewriting of the Ten Commandments on the newly prepared slabs was done by Gods own hand. God specifically stated in the first verse of Exodus 34 that He (not Moses) would write the same words that had been written on the first tablets of stone that Moses broke. In verse 28 of that chapter, we have it on record that God did what He said He would do in verse one (cf. Deuteronomy 10:2-4). The only thing verse 27 teaches is that Moses wrote the list of regulations given in verses 10-26. That these regulations were not the Ten Commandments is obvious in that there are not even ten of them listed (Coffman, 1985, p. 474). Contrary to what skeptics allege, Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 10 are not contradictory. Moses was not acting under divine direction to physically write the Decalogue on the second pair of tablets. Rather, as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown recognized in their commentary on Deuteronomy, God Himself...made the inscription a second time with His own hand, to testify the importance He attached to the Ten Commandments (1997). REFERENCES Coffman, James Burton (1985), Commentary on Exodus (Abilene, TX: ACU Press). Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Faussett, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

www.GotQuestions.org Question: "Why did God harden Pharaohs heart?" Answer: Exodus 7:3-4 says, But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt he will not
listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my people the Israelites. It seems unjust for God to harden Pharaohs heart and then to punish Pharaoh and Egypt for what Pharaoh decided when his heart was hardened. Why would God harden Pharaohs heart just so He could judge Egypt more severely with additional plagues? First, Pharaoh was not an innocent or godly man. He was a brutal dictator overseeing the terrible abuse and oppression of the Israelites, who likely numbered over 1.5 million people at that time. The Egyptian pharaohs had enslaved the Israelites for 400 years. A previous pharaoh possibly even the pharaoh in questionordered that male Israelite babies be killed at birth (Exodus 1:16). The pharaoh God hardened was an evil man, and the nation he ruled agreed with, or at least did not oppose, his evil actions. Second, before the first few plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart against letting the Israelites go. Pharaoh's heart became hard (Exodus 7:13, 22; 8:19). But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart (Exodus 8:15). But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart (Exodus 8:32). Pharaoh could have spared Egypt of all the plagues if he had not hardened his own heart. God was giving Pharaoh increasingly severe warnings of the judgment that was to come. Pharaoh chose to bring judgment on himself and on his nation by hardening his own heart against Gods commands. As a result of Pharaohs hard-heartedness, God hardened Pharaohs heart even further, allowing for the last few plagues (Exodus 9:12; 10:20, 27). Pharaoh and Egypt had brought these judgments on themselves with 400 years of slavery and mass murder. Since the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and Pharaoh and Egypt had horribly sinned against God, it would have been just if God had completely annihilated Egypt. Therefore, Gods hardening Pharaohs heart was not unjust, and His bringing additional plagues against Egypt was not unjust. The plagues, as terrible as they were, actually demonstrate Gods mercy in not completely destroying Egypt, which would have been a perfectly just penalty. Romans 9:17-18 declares, For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. From a human perspective, it seems wrong for God to harden a person and then punish the person He has hardened. Biblically speaking, however, we have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23), and the just penalty for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Therefore, Gods hardening and punishing a person is not unjust; it is actually merciful in comparison to what the person deserves. Copyright 2002-2010 Got Questions Ministries.

Please see our new comments policy

What is the Pentateuch? Did God create evil?

Subscription options

Jesus often called himself the son of man.1 Two such occasions are recorded in Mat. 8:18-20 and Mark 14:61-62:

LOOK UP A WORD OR PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE

{18} Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. {19} And a scribe came up and said to him, Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go. {20} And Jesus said to him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. (Mat. 8:18-20)

{61} the high priest asked him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. (Mark 14:61-62)
When Jesus calls himself the son of man, he is making a connection between himself and the son of man phrases mentioned in the Old Testament, specifically, in the Book of Daniel. In Dan. 7:13-14, the prophet Daniel sees a vision involving one like a son of man:

RECENT COMMENTS
Bible Study on Did Christians corrupt the text of Psalm 22:16 to make it refer to the crucifixion? Adam Qadmon on What is Jude 9 (Michael, the devil and the body of Moses) about? S-Man on Did God create other people besides Adam and Eve? Graham Kent on How many years passed between Abraham and Moses? Luke Buckler on Are there examples in the Bible of people who believed but had no faith and people who believed and had faith? Leatitia Mc Carthy on Are there examples in the Bible of people who believed but had no faith and people who believed and had faith? Brad Lee on What light was there before the sun and moon were created? (Genesis 1:3-4,14-19) Hans on Does the Bible say men should not have long hair? John Watts on What did Jesus mean when he said before Abraham was, I am? Rob J Hyndman on Did Adam and Eve have a sexual relationship while in the garden of Eden? Rob J Hyndman on Where does the Bible say that the soul dies when the body dies? MarieaGrace on Did Adam and Eve have a sexual relationship while in the garden of Eden? MarieaGrace on Where does the Bible say that the soul dies when the body dies? Elul205770@gmail.com on Should Christians eat meat with blood? Rob J Hyndman on Where does the Bible say that the soul dies when the body dies?

{13} I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came man, one like a son of man and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. [14} And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Notice the strong connection between Dan. 7:13 and Jesus words in Mark 14:61-61. By calling himself the son of man, Jesus was identifying himself as the fulfilment of the one like a son of man that Daniel saw in this prophetic vision. Jesus would have known from Dan. 7:13-14 that (a) he would one day ascend to Heaven to be with God (the Ancient of Days in the vision), and that (b) God would give him a kingdom on the earth that would last for ever. (a) has already happened (Acts 1:9; Acts 7:54-60). We are waiting for Jesus to return (Acts 1:11) to set up his kingdom on the earth in fulfilment of (b).

Notes
1. In the Gospels, Jesus is referred to as the son of man 79 times (ESV. Some of the occasions are repeated between the Gospels; all of them are Jesus words referring to himself). the Son of Man is by far the most frequent title that Jesus applies to himself (Tom Gaston, The Son of Man in Christadelphian eJournal of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 1. No. 4. Oct 2007, p. 5).
Topics: Jesus, prophecy, Son of Man

This answer was provided by Luke Buckler on Tuesday, 1 June 2010. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0.

Related answers
What are the signs of the return of Jesus Christ? What is the abomination that causes desolation spoken of by Daniel and Jesus? Will Jesus return on 21 May 2011? What does coming forth from ancient days mean? (Micah 5:2) What does the word became flesh mean?

Comments
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

FIND US ON FACEBOOK
BibleQ on Facebook
Like BibleQ

characters available
Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Bible News robjhyndman.com Recent news articles related to the Bible November 3 at 4:34pm via Shareaholic BibleQ Questions posted here will be answered at http://BibleQ.info/. Bible Questions Answered BibleQ.info Answers to questions about Bible history, Bible doctrine,

WHY DID JESUS HEAL ON THE SABBATH?

by Ivan Maddox West End Bible Fellowship Atlanta, GA

Matthew 4:4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Exodus 20:8 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. It has become popular today for Christians who seek to justify unbiblical behavior to point to Jesus' healing on the sabbath, and the opposition of the Pharisees and religious leaders to his doing so, as evidence that it is sometimes necessary to break "the letter of the law" in order to fulfil "the spirit of the law." (We should note here that neither of these phrases are biblical. "The letter", meaning "the Law of Moses", and "the spirit" are contrasted in Romans 2:29, Romans 7:6, and II Corinthians 3:6. "The letter" alone is used in reference to the Law in Romans 2:27. "The spirit," when contrasted with "the letter," refers not to the Law of Moses at all, but rather to the spirit of God given to those who believe on Jesus Christ ) In essence, the argument seems to be this: Jesus Christ occasionally found it necessary to disobey the written Word of God in order to do what God really wanted him to do. Likewise, we will find it necessary on occasion to disobey God's written Word in order to faithfully carry out God's will. Is this the case? Did Jesus Christ break the Law in order to keep it? Is it ever necessary for us to disobey God's Word in order to obey God? It should be clear already that this argument opens up a very large can of worms for any Christian trying to carry out the will of God. Once you break free from the written Word of God as your standard for truth, you can justify ANYTHING -- lying, stealing, adultery, murder -- as necessary for carrying out God's will, based on the expected beneficial results. Without the written Word of God as our standard, it is very hard not to fall back on "the end justifies the means" as our standard of behavior. Why did Jesus heal on the sabbath? Was he blatantly breaking the Law in order to do what he knew in his heart was God's will? Or did he have a concrete, biblical reason for doing what he did? Since we are supposed to be imitators of him in our walk with God, it is important that we find out why he did what he did, so that we know what we, ourselves, are supposed to do in similar circumstances, and why. Jesus gave a clue to his reasons in his castigation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. Matthew 23:23. 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Two things stand out here. First, Jesus wasn't reproving the Pharisees for their strict adherence to the Law. Rather, he reproved them for their hypocrisy, for play-acting, for faking it in their walk with God. They were careful to look on the outside like they were carrying out God's Law, while their hearts and motives remained filthy. Second, Jesus pointed out here that some parts of the Law are "weightier" than others. In other words, some parts of the Law have priority over others. In keeping the Law, then, obedience in the "weightier" parts should take priority. This does not, however, excuse us from doing the rest. Rather, we should endeavor "not to leave the other undone." But does that not leave us right back where we started? Fortunately, this is not all Jesus had to say on the subject of his Sabbath activities. Isaiah had prophesied that the Messiah would be of "quick understanding in the fear of the Lord..." (Isaiah 11:3) Nowhere is this more evident than in Jesus' handling of the Sabbath issues. Far from disobeying the Law regarding the Sabbath, Jesus understood it and obeyed it far better than anyone before or since. Jesus gave at least eleven different reasons for apparently breaking the Sabbath law . 1. Pulling an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath was permitted. 2. Circumcision is permitted on the Sabbath. 3. It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. 4. The precedent of David and his men eating the shewbread. 5. Priests work on the Sabbath and are blameless. 6. The ministry of the Messiah is greater than the ministry of the Temple. 7. God desires mercy from His people and not sacrifice. 8. The son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. 9. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 10. It is lawful to lead animals to water on the Sabbath. 11. The Father works on the Sabbath. As we examine these reasons, we will see the greatness of his respect for and adherence to God's written revelation. We will see how carefully Jesus distinguished between what men said, and what God said. We will gain greater insight into how Jesus applied the scriptures to everyday life, and how he balanced walking in love with walking according to the scriptures. And we will gain an even greater appreciation of the incredible insight Jesus had into the heart of God.

Luke 14:1-6 1 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. 2 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. 3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? 4 And they held their peace. And he took [him], and healed him, and let him go; 5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him

out on the sabbath day?

6 And they could not answer him again to these things. In this instance, Jesus was preparing to heal someone on the Sabbath. Knowing that the lawyers and Pharisees were going to make an issue of this, he raised the question himself: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? The lawyers and Pharisees knew the "legal" answer to this question. The Sabbath law in the scriptures did not address this at all. Exodus 20:8-11. 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: 11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. However, in defining the word "work," the rabbis had concluded that giving medical attention to an individual on the Sabbath constituted work. They ruled, for instance, that if someone broke his or her arm on the Sabbath, the arm could not be set until the Sabbath was over. They also ruled that a person with a toothache could not suck on vinegar (the common toothache remedy) to ease his or her pain. (The sufferer could, however, choose to drink vinegar with his or her regular meals.) In light of these rulings, healing on the Sabbath was definitely out of the question. The lawyers and Pharisees, though, wisely decided to keep their mouths shut. Jesus gave his own answer to his question emphatically and unequivocally by healing the sick man in front of him. He then gave the lawyers and Pharisees his reason for doing so. While the rabbis had forbidden people from coming to the aid of other people in distress, no such rule applied to animals. Routinely, people who found their animals in a potentially dangerous situation rescued them from it. There are two logical reasons for this. First, rescuing the animal showed mercy to the animal; something that was encouraged in the scriptures. Proverbs 12:10 10 A righteous [man] regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked [are] cruel. Second, not rescuing the animal could result in major financial loss, or, in some cases, loss of livelihood. The rabbis, by their silence, gave their approval to what was technically a breaking of the Sabbath law. Jesus did not disagree with this practice; he simply extended the same courtesy that was routinely given to animals to human beings. If it was lawful to help an animal who MIGHT be injured on the Sabbath, how could it possibly be wrong to help a human being who was already hurt? Jesus gave another reason for healing on the Sabbath in John 7. John 7:19-24 19 Did not Moses give you the law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me? 20 The people answered and said, Thou hast a devil: who goeth about to kill thee? 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel. 22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the

sabbath day circumcise a man. 23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Jesus gave an example here of a situation where two provisions of the Law were in conflict. Under the Law, a male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day. However, the Law also required that no work be done on the Sabbath day. Circumcising a child was clearly work. What did you do, then, when two provisions of the Law were in conflict? The rabbis had concluded that the provision requiring that the child be circumcised on the eighth day took precedence over the Sabbath prohibition against work. Jesus agreed with their conclusion, but argued that a similar issue was at stake on the issue of healing on the Sabbath. The Law required that a man love his neighbor as himself. Leviticus 19:17-18. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD. Jesus identified this as one of the two key provisions of the Law. Matthew 22:35-39.

35 Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. When you are sick, there is no real question about what you would like for yourself: you want to be made whole. What does it mean, then, to love your neighbor as yourself when your neighbor is sick or injured? It means helping your neighbor regain his health; whether that means setting a broken bone or ministering divine healing. For Jesus, loving your neighbor meant making a valid exception for adhering to the Sabbath law in order to minister to the very real need of your neighbor. In Matthew 12, two incidents of apparent Sabbath law breaking by Jesus and his disciples are described. In the second of these incidents, the issue was healing on the Sabbath. Jesus once again used the animal in a pit argument to make his case. Matthew 12:9-13. 9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: 10 And, behold, there was a man which had [his] hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. 11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the

sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out? 12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched [it] forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. But Jesus makes another statement here; and it is this which is really the point he is making: it is not contrary to the Law to do that which is good on the Sabbath days. Jesus understood that the purpose of the Law was not merely to get people to follow the right rules, but to produce a changed heart which issued forth willingly the right thoughts and actions desired by God. The provisions of the Law were a means to an end. Jesus point was that ministering to the needs of a man who needed healing was just the kind of righteous act, issuing forth from righteous motives, that God was looking for from those who obeyed Him by obeying His Law. This act of love was not a violation of the Sabbath, even though it technically involved working on a day on which the Law forbade work. Rather, it was exactly the kind of loving act that obedience to the Law was meant to encourage. The end purpose of knowing and doing the Law was bringing forth the right kind of fruit. Psalm 1 says of the man who delights in Gods Law and meditates on it (speaks it to himself) day and night, that he will be like a tree "that brings forth his fruit in his season." A certain scribe grasped this when he said in Mark 12:33, 33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And the Apostle Paul echoed this when, after listing the fruit of the spirit in Galatians 5, he wrote, "against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:23.) Galatians 5:14 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. In healing a man on the Sabbath day, Jesus was not rebelling against Gods instructions; rather, he saw in this mans need an opportunity to bring forth exactly the kind of fruit God was looking for, and he did not use the provisions of the Sabbath law as an excuse for not walking in love toward his neighbor. He balanced his obligation to love God with his whole heart and his obligation to love his neighor as himself, in this instance, by ministering to his neighbor on the Sabbath even though that was technically a violation of the Sabbath law. There is no law against bringing forth righteous fruit. In the other incident in this passage -- the incident which occurs first -- Jesus was accused, not of healing on the Sabbath, but of allowing his disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath. On the surface, this appears to be a much more grievous violation of the Sabbath law, and seems indefensable. However, Jesus gave at least five reasons for allowing his disciples to do what they did. Matthew 12:1-8. 1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw [it], they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for

them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
First, Jesus pointed to the incident where David and his men ate the shewbread, described in I Samuel 21.

I Samuel 21:1-6. 1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why [art] thou alone, and no man with thee? 2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed [my] servants to such and such a place. 3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give [me] five [loaves of] bread in mine hand, or what there is present. 4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. 5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women havebeen kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. 6So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away. As Jesus pointed out, what the priest did for David was contrary to the Law. But Jesus here makes his argument from the silence of the scriptures, for God nowhere in the scriptures condemns what the David and the priest did, but silently passes over it. From this, Jesus concludes that neither David and his men nor the priest were guilty of sin, even though they were disobeying an explicit provision of the Law. Rather, the priest was showing mercy to David in the best way he could. If he had had common bread on hand, he would have given that only to David, and strictly upheld the provisions of the Law. But he had no common bread on hand, and thus was forced to choose between not showing mercy, and disobeying a clear and explicit commandment of the Law. He chose the latter, and God honored his decision. Second, Jesus pointed out that the priests work every Sabbath day. The Law required that the priests offer both a morning sacrifice and an evening sacrifice seven days a week. However, this is at odds with the Sabbath law, which requires that men refrain from work on the Sabbath day. The priests were forced to choose between regularly omitting the commanded sacrifices each Sabbath, or regularly and systematically disobeying the Sabbath law in order to obey the sacrifice law. They chose the latter, and God approved of their decision. The ministry required of them in the Temple was important enough to warrant making an exception to the Sabbath law. Third, Jesus pointed out that if the ministry of the Temple was important enough to warrant this, the ministry of the Messiah was even more important. Thus the Messiah, in the course of carrying out his God-given duties, might need on occasion to make an exception to the Sabbath law in order to carry out the work God had given him to do. Fourth, Jesus quoted part of a verse from Hosea. Hosea 6:6. 6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Jesus explained that if one understood the meaning of the words, "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice," one would refrain from condemning one who had done no wrong in this matter. By pointing his hearers to this verse, Jesus was emphasizing that what God was looking for from men was not external obedience to a set of rules, but rather a changed heart from which sprang forth love for God, and lovingkindness and mercy for ones fellow men. This truth is emphasized by a passage in Zechariah. Zechariah 7:4-13. 4 Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying, 5 Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh [month], even those seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, [even] to me? 6 And when ye did eat, and when ye did drink, did not ye eat [for yourselves], and drink [for yourselves]? 7 [Should ye] not [hear] the words which the LORD hath cried by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and the cities thereof round about her, when [men] inhabited the south and the plain? 8 And the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah, saying, 9 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: 10 And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. 11 But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. 12 Y they made their hearts [as] an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath ea, sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts. 13 Therefore it is come to pass, [that] as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the LORD of hosts: When Jerusalem rebelled against God, what was Gods plea to her? Was it, "Return to offering your sacrifices?" or, "Return to your fasting?" or even, "Return to keeping the Sabbath day holy?" Or was it instead, "Be honest in your judgments, and show mercy and love to your brother?" What was the bottom line of Gods will for them? If you understand this, you will understand the point that Jesus was trying to make here. It is not that the other things were not important; rather the point is that love and mercy and justice are the bottom line of what God is looking for, and not these other things. Fifth, and most important, Jesus pointed out that as the Messiah, he is the Lord of the Sabbath. This is not a minor point at all, but strikes right at the heart of the issue of Jesus actions and attitude with regard to the Sabbath. Matthew 12:8. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. The Sabbath is a day of rest ordained by God, set at the end of the week rather than at the beginning. It was patterned after Gods work in the

creation of the world, at which time He labored for six days, then rested on the seventh day. Man and woman were created on the sixth day: just in time to enter into Gods rest with Him. Unfortunately, man chose to sin and disobey God. One consequence of this was that man was forced to labor by the sweat of his brow for what he needed, rather than resting in what God had provided. The Sabbath was given to Israel as a promise of rest in the future. This promise of rest was tied to Israels possession of the Land promised to them by God. But when God commanded Israel to take possession of the Land, Israel refused. As a result, God swore in His wrath that they would not enter in to His rest. Israel eventually did enter into the Land under the leadership of Joshua. But Hebrews makes it clear that this was not a complete fulfilment of that promise. Hebrews 4:1-11. 1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. Since there still remains a Sabbath-rest to the people of God, when will His people receive this rest? When God plants His people in their Land under the rule of the True David, the Messiah. The weekly Sabbath foreshadows this, signifying the hope of Gods people that God will establish a day when their labors will be behind them, and they can enter into Gods rest. Jesus was -- and is! -- the Messiah. He was sent by God to Israel to invite them into Gods rest: the kingdom of the Messiah. Those who received him were promised entrance into the Messiahs kingdom, and entrance into Gods rest. Those who refused him rejected also the True Sabbath. The sad reality is that Israel had forgotten the true point of the Sabbath. It had become to them little more than a mandatory day off. They had forgotten that the Sabbath day was meant to be an object lesson, a reminder that a day was coming when God would give true rest to His people. The rest promised in the True Sabbath was not merely rest from physical labor. In the kingdom of the Messiah there will be rest from sickness and death as well, and rest from hunger and war. When Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath, then, he was giving a foretaste of the True Sabbath, for there will ultimately be no sickness in the kingdom of the Messiah. When Jesus raised the dead, he was giving a foretaste of the True Sabbath, for there will ultimately be no death in the kingdom of the Messiah. When Jesus fed the multitudes with loaves and fishes, he was giving a foretaste of the True Sabbath, for there will be famine or lack in the kingdom of the Messiah. There was an incredible irony in the charge of Sabbath-breaking brought against Jesus and his disciples by the Pharisees. Jesus disciples were being charged here with not properly observing the shadow of the True Sabbath which was the weekly Sabbath. The reality was that the disciples, by taking part in the ministry of Jesus the Messiah, were engaged with him in establishing and offering to Israel the True Sabbath. In rejecting Jesus and his ministry, the Pharisees, who were so intent on properly observing the weekly Sabbath, were setting themselves in opposition to everything the Sabbath represented. In Mark 2:23 - 3:6 is found a parallel record of this incident; but in this record, Jesus adds another reason for what he did. Mark 2:27. 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath : Jesus was pointing out here that man was not made to serve the Sabbath, but rather the Sabbath was given by God to serve man. The Sabbath law was given by God to man as a means of blessing him; it was not intended to enslave him. By their interpretations, the rabbis had turned the Sabbath law into a minefield for the unwary. The original prohibition was against doing your labors on the Sabbath. The rabbis had changed this into a prohibition against doing almost anything on the Sabbath. Looking into a mirror (because you might see a gray hair and be tempted to pluck it), giving alms to a beggar at your door, taking a loaf of bread to a hungry neighbor next door, and walking through a field of grain that was a little too high -- because you might accidentally knock down some grains and "harvest" -- were all considered violations of the Sabbath law. None of this had anything to do with what God had commanded. Such petty interpretations turned the day of rest intended by God into a grievous burden. Jesus seemed to be indicating here that the alleged violation of the Sabbath by his disciples did not constitute the kind of work the Sabbath law prohibited, but rather was a violation of the far too strict interpretation of the law given by the rabbis. As such, the charge made against his disciples was invalid. If the Pharisees had been willing to live by these rigid interpretations, that would have been one thing. But along with these interpretations they

had devised ingenious loopholes for those in the know, so that they themselves could do on the Sabbath things they had forbidden others to do. If your neighbor next door needed bread, for instance, the Pharisees held that you were breaking the Sabbath if you took a loaf next door, and your neighbor was breaking the Sabbath if he came next door and got a loaf; but one in the know could toss a loaf out the window to his neighbor in the window next door, and thus avoid "working." Jesus condemned this system of rigid interpretations coupled with loopholes in Matthew 23. Matthew 23:1-4. 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers. Another consideration that puts this incident in perspective is the fact that the disciples were picking this grain from someone elses field. A Jew was allowed, if hungry, to pick enough food from someone elses field to eat on the spot. However, if you took some with you to eat later, you were stealing. The grain the disciples picked from the fields on this occasion was not enough in quantity to constitute stealing. Why, then, should it be regarded as enough to constitute work? Clearly there is something wrong with this conclusion. Again in Luke 6:1-11 we have a record of Jesus apparently working on the Sabbath, but this record also parallels Matthew 12:1-13, and gives us little information that is not available there. For this reason, we will omit this record from our study in the interest of brevity. In Luke 13 Jesus healed a woman who had a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years. When confronted about working on the Sabbath, he gave as his reason a variation on the argument about rescuing an ox on the Sabbath. Luke 13:10-17. 10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. 11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up [herself]. 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called [her to him], and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13 And he laid [his] hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. 14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. 15 The Lord then answered him, and said, [Thou] hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or

[his] ass from the stall, and lead [him] away to watering? 16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?
17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him. Jesus pointed out here that while working on the Sabbath was prohibited, opening a stall and leading an animal to water, while clearly work, was not. This was permitted so as not to cause hardship and suffering on the part of an animal. Jesus argued that if it was permissible to take action to keep an animal from suffering on the Sabbath, how much more permissible was it to do the same for a human being? Finally, John 5 records Jesus' healing of a lame man on the Sabbath. When the man was seen carrying his bed on the Sabbath and accused, he replied that the man who healed him had told him to do this. The Jews confronted Jesus with working on the Sabbath, and Jesus responded with still another reason for what he had done. John 5:15-17. 15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. 16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work . Jesus' argument here is simple and brutally effective. The work he was doing was supernatural, and required God's active participation for its accomplishment. God was Jesus' accomplice in this deed, his "partner in crime." This ended the discussion, but strengthened the resolve of the Jews to kill Jesus.

Many people read the records in scripture concerning Jesus and the Sabbath, and conclude that Jesus arbitrarily disregarded the Sabbath laws whenever they seemed to get in the way of what he felt was the loving thing to do. The reality is not quite so simple. The several different reasons that Jesus gave for his actions make it clear that he had given this issue much thought, and that central to his thinking was faithfulness to what his Father had revealed in His written word. The basis of Jesus' apparent willingness to break the Sabbath laws on occasion was his in-depth knowledge and understanding of the written word of God. Jesus took great care to understand what God's priorities were, and to apply these when he made his decisions. Furthermore, he applied himself to understand not only what the Law said, but why it said it. In addition, he made a sharp distinction between the word of God and the commandments and doctrines of men. Because of these things, he was able to stay on solid ground, firmly within the will of his Father, even when it appeared to others that he was disobeying the commandments of God. Jesus never once disobeyed his Father, but always did his Father's will. That's the pattern he wants us to follow. Like Jesus, we can so abide in God's word that we understand not only what God has said, but why He has said it. When we understand this, and when we understand God's priorities, we will be able to handle even difficult situations in a way

that maintains faithfulness not only with God's written word, but with God's heart as well. If you have questions or comments about this page, please contact Ivan Maddox Return

www.GotQuestions.org Question: "Why did Jesus say, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"" Answer: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46). This cry is a fulfillment of Psalm 22:1, one of many parallels between that psalm and the specific events of the crucifixion. It has been difficult to understand in what sense Jesus was forsaken by God. It is certain that God approved His work. It is certain that He was innocent. He had done nothing to forfeit the favor of God. As His own Son - holy, harmless, undefiled, and obedient - God still loved Him. In none of these senses could God have forsaken Him. However, Isaiah tells us that he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows; that he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him; that by his stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:4-5). He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He was made a sin-offering, and He died in our place, on our account, that He might bring us near to God. It was this, doubtless, which caused His intense sufferings. It was the manifestation of Gods hatred of sin, in some way which He has not explained, that Jesus experienced in that terrible hour. It was suffering endured by Him that was due to us, and suffering by which, and by which alone, we can be saved from eternal death. In those awful moments, Jesus was expressing His feelings of abandonment as God placed the sins of the world on Him and because of that had to turn away from Jesus. As Jesus was feeling that weight of sin, He was experiencing separation from God for the only time in all of eternity. It was at this time that 2 Corinthians 5:21 occurred, God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. Jesus became sin for us, so He felt the loneliness and abandonment that sin always produces, except that in His case, it was not His sin it was ours. Copyright 2002-2010 Got Questions Ministries.