Skeptics Annotated Bible

Skeptics Annotated Bible - A Response

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:25:00 +0000

Often in this day and age, it is claimed that the Bible contains contradictions. Many times a website is used in the attempt to prove that the critic is correct in the assertion that the Bible contains contradictions. Is this true? Does the Bible contain any contradictions? The answer is; absolutely not!

2Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

I thought it would be a good learning exercise to go through the alledged contradictions offered by the critic, and demonstrate exactly how they have misunderstood the Bible, either intentionally or mistakenly, thereby explaining clearly what the Bible actually claims, in it's own words! I feel this would prove to be an excellent learning exercise for the professing Christian, and will also help to familiarize them with the most common claims being made against the Bible today. This will also help any person who may not know what the answers actually are, but are seeking truth, and thus, provide a good witnessing tool whenever the claims are made.

The following link will be useful in helping to know what claims are being made by the critic. Anyone who wants to make a claim against the Bible as presenting contradictions, or dispute our responses here, feel free to add your comments to our Discussion Board. The link can be found at the top of every page.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible website offers 360+ alleged contradictions from the Bible. Are they right in their claims against the Bible? The answer of course is absolutely not! This website, among many others linked here, prove that our claim stands as true as God's sure word. In fact, by offering these "alleged" contradictions, this actually becomes a useful tool for any person who may not know what the true answers actually are, thus, providing a reason to study the Bible so that it may in fact reveal God's truths. This website appreciates such effort, and once again, to us, only proves that God's word is as certain as the morning sun or the full moon.

Romans 8:28
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

The SAB website has been known to be reasonable and objective when discussing these alleged contradictions, and they have also been known to remove any alleged contradiction that has been shown not to be a contradiction at all. If you want to discuss any such matters with them, please feel free to visit their Discussion Board and join in the discussions.

INDEX OF "ALLEGED" CONTRADICTIONS

Index of 'alleged' Contradictions

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:47:00 +0000

*see footnote below

a: Did Jesus appear to ten, eleven or twelve disciples?
b: How long did creation take?

1: How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?
2: Was Abraham justified by faith or by works?
3: How many sons did Abraham have?
4: Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech?
5: Who was Abijab's mother?
6: How long was the ark of the covenant at Abinadab's house?
7: How many sons did Absalom have?
8: The two contradictory creation accounts
9: Who was Achan's father?
10: How many of Adin's offspring returned from Babylon?
11: How many of Adonikam's offspring returned from Babylon?
12: Is it wrong to commit adultery?
13: Was Ahaz buried with his fathers?
14: When did Ahaziah begin to reign?
15: How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
16: Did the city of Ai exist after Joshua destroyed it?
17: What tribe was Aijalon from?
18: Is it OK to drink alcohol?
19: Does God want some to go to hell?
20: Did Jesus tell his disciples everything?
21: Was David alone when asking for the holy bread at Nob?
22: Who was Amasa's father?
23: How should the Ammonites be treated?
24: Who was Anah?
25: How long does God's anger last?
26: Should you answer a fool according to his folly?
27: What were the names of the apostles?
28: Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?
29: How many of Arah's offspring returned from Babylon?
30: What was in the ark of the covenant?
31: Was Asa perfect?
32: Did Asa remove the high places?
33: How many of Asaph's offspring returned from Babylon?
34: Did Peter ask Jesus where he was going?
35: On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?
36: Does the bible condemn astrology?
37: How many of Azgad's offspring returned from Babylon?
38: When did Baasha die?
39: How many languages were there before the Tower of Babel was built?
40: How many of Bani's offspring returned from Babylon?
41: In whose name is baptism to be performed?
42: Did Jesus baptize anyone?
43: Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff?
44: Who was Bashemath's father?
45: What was the volume of the molten sea in Solomon's temple?
46: How many of Bebai's offspring returned from Babylon?
47: Who named Beersheba?
48: Should we believe everything?
49: How many believers were there at the time of the ascension?
50: How old was Benjamin when his clan migrated to Egypt?
51: Who were the sons of Benjamin?
52: Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin?
53: Did Jesus ascend from Bethany or Mount Olivet?
54: How many of Bethlehem and Netophah's offspring returned from Babylon?
55: How many of Bezai's offspring returned from Babylon?
56: How many of Bigvai's offspring returned from Babylon?
57: Who makes people deaf and blind?
58: How many blind men were healed near Jericho?
59: Does the blood of animal sacrifices take away sin?
60: On what day did the temple burn?
61: Did God command the Israelites to make him burnt offerings?
62: What became of Cain?
63: Will those who call on the Lord be delivered?
64: Can God do anything?
65: Does God approve of capital punishment?
66: How long was the Egyptian Captivity?
67: Did the Centurion ask Jesus directly to help his servant?
68: What did the Centurion call Jesus when he died?
69: How high was the chapiter?
70: How many men did David kill?
71: Is it a a good thing to be childish?
72: How did Jesus respond when questioned by the high priest?
73: Is circumcision required?
74: To whom were the cities of Exhtaol and Zoreah given?
75: Did the cock crow before or after Peter's denial?
76: What color was Jesus' robe?
77: Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of his death and resurrection?
78: Is God the author of confusion?
79: Is it OK to covet?
80: Did Jesus say before the cock crow or before the cock crow twice?
81: Is it OK to curse people?
82: Will God curse the earth?
83: Are those who obey the law cursed?
84: Who carried Jesus' cross?
85: Is dancing a sin?
86: Generations from David to the Babylonian Captivity
87: How did David kill Goliath?
88: The sons of David born in Jerusalem
89: The sons of David born in Hebron
90: Did David sin?
91: When did the women (or woman) arrive at the sepulchre?
92: Did Adam die on the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
93: Is there to be a resurrection from the dead?
94: How many of Delaiah, Tobiah, and Nekoda's offspring returned from Babylon?
95: To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus?
96: Who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?
97: Is the devil free to roam?
98: Does God desire animal sacrifices?
99: Must everyone die?
100: Is divorce ever permissible?
101: Does anyone do anything good?
102: When did the earth dry after the flood?
103: Does God dwell in darkness or in light?

Top of Page

Please note:
This website has no intention to answer all 300+ "so claimed" contradictions that are placed on the SAB website. The reason is quite simple! This website has explained or referenced the first 100 claims so far and have yet to find one contradiction. Nor has there been any challenge to our well explained and researched responses. Our intention here is simply to show that SAB has yet to provide even one valid contradiction. We do not believe they can, and that 100 answered responses clearly demonstrate this fact.

This website is more than willing to answer any contradiction that is placed in question, with sincere effort and desire to find truth. We have no intention to argue personal opinion of unsubstantiated fact but will simply provide a reasonable response according to what the scriptures claim, not what we claim as our personal opinion(s).

If you have any questions concerning any of the answered or remaining "so-claimed" contradictions, please visit our Discussion board and place your inquiry, or send an email. We will respond promptly. If you want to challenge any responses made on this website, feel free to know that your opinion is welcomed, but that, we have no intention to debate "personal opinion" for the sake of argument, which has proven time and again to be nothing more than a tired old game of merry-go-round, which we, who are true thinkers and intellectuals, find unchallenging, boring, and actually, quite useless.

Thank you....

Do Children Inherit the Sin of Their Parents?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:57:00 +0000

Response by Kyle Butt M.A.
source: Apologetics Press Copyright © 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc.

Do Children Inherit the Sin of Their Parents?

Understanding the nature of God’s interaction with man is no small task. The sincere Bible student often comes across things in the biblical text that are puzzling. Others, who are perhaps somewhat less sincere, twist these initially puzzling passages “to their own destruction” (as described in 2 Peter 3:16-1). One such idea that has been abused is the alleged contradiction between how Jehovah dealt (and still deals) with the children of sinful people. Steve Wells, author of the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, insists that there is a discrepancy in the Bible regarding this subject. He lists Exodus 20:5, which states: “For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.” Wells then presents Ezekiel 18:20 as a contradictory verse: “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 ” (Wells, 2003).

Is there a legitimate contradiction between these verses? Or, to pose the question differently, “Is there any possible way that both these statements can be true?” The fact of the matter is that both statements can be true, without a contradiction occurring. What Mr. Wells and others who twist these verses into an alleged contradiction do not recognize is that there is a difference between bearing the guilt of a parent, and suffering negative physical and emotional consequences due to that parent’s bad decisions.

It often is the case that the children of wicked people suffer terribly. Sometimes these children suffer because the parent physically or emotionally abuses them (in direct violation of Scripture; cf. Matthew 7:12; Colossians 3:21). At other times, the child suffers as a result of the parent’s irresponsible behavior. For instance, suppose a man addicted to gambling wastes his salary on gambling, instead of using it to feed his family. As a result, his children suffer hunger, shame, and poverty.

Yet, even though the children of sinful people often suffer physical consequences, they do not inherit the sin of those parents. The book of Jeremiah provides an interesting commentary on this subject. In Jeremiah 16:1-6, God told Jeremiah that the prophet should not take a wife and/or have children in the land of Israel. God explained His reasoning to Jeremiah as follows: “For thus says the Lord concerning the sons and daughters who are born in this place.... ‘They shall die gruesome deaths; they shall not be lamented, nor shall they be buried, but they shall be as refuse on the face of the earth’ ” (16:4). Why was this going to happen? Wells is quick to refer to this chapter, especially verses 10 and 11 where the children of Israel pose the question, “Why has the Lord pronounced all this great disaster against us” (vs. 10)? Wells then records Jeremiah’s answer: “ ‘Because your fathers have forsaken Me,’ says the Lord” (vs. 11). Wells, however, does not cite the very next verse (12), which states: “And you have done worse than your fathers....”

These Israelites were suffering due to the sins of their fathers—and due to their own sins. Their children were going to die gruesome deaths. The skeptic is quick to seize upon this fact, and demand that any time innocent children die, it is a travesty against justice that a loving God never would permit (a fallacious idea that I have refuted elsewhere; see Butt, 2004).

Do children sometimes die horrible deaths due to their parents’ wrong decisions? Absolutely. The Israelites had adopted the practice of sacrificing their own children to a false god named Baal (Jeremiah 19:5). The iniquity of the parents, then, can be visited upon the children in the form of physical suffering. But do those children bear the guilt of that sin? Absolutely not! Ezekiel wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “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” (Ezekiel 18:20, emp. added).

Notice the words soul and guilt. Does the Bible ever insinuate, for example, that a child is guilty of idolatry because his parents were idolatrous? No (read Matthew 18:3-5; Luke 18:16-17). Bearing the guilt of sin is altogether different than bearing the physical consequences of the actions of others. As is often the case, the skeptic has confused the two, and has alleged a biblical contraction where, in fact, none exists. This is still another example in which the allegation against the Bible fails, but “the Word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Peter 1:25).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2004), “The Skeptic’s Faulty Assumption,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2230.

Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptic’s Annotated Bible [On-line], URL: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/index.html.

Used with permission: (pending)

Did Jesus appear to ten, eleven or twelve disciples?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Sat, 20 Nov 2004 03:41:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

SAB asks: Did Jesus appear to ten, eleven or twelve disciples?

Answer: 11

Why: Because their original number, when first chosen and called, were twelve, they still went by the same name. Judas being gone from them having destroyed himself, making 11.....

SAB claims 10 here:
John 20:19-24 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.... But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

Answer: 11

Why: In this verse (John 20:19-24), there are only 10 present, Judas having commited suicide. However, the critic has not told all the verses. Later Thomas was present and therefore, Jesus presented himself to 11.

John 20:26: And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

SAB claims 11 here:
Matthew 28:16: Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him.

Answer: 11

Mark 16:14: Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."

Answer: 11

Luke 24:33, 36: And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together.... And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Answer: 11

Response by Dave Marr Dan of Israel

1Corinthians 15:5 and that He appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the Twelve.

First of all, it is important to note that they are referring to the original 12 apostles. Jesus, of course, appeared to far more disciples before He finally ascended again- "above 500 of the brethren". 1 Corinthians 15:6

The most thorny reference to skeptics is 1 Cor. 15:5-- "And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve."

Skeptics say, "Ah hah! Then all twelve saw him." Not so; otherwise this verse would bring the tally of the disciples to 13 by that reasoning (Cephas[Peter] + the 12). Because Peter was one of the 12, this total is impossible.

The apostle Paul was simply making reference to the rest of the inner circle of disciples, who came to be known as "The Twelve". "Twelve" in this case is not referring to the number, but to a name of a specific group of people. He could have said, "the other ten", but readers in his generation knew exactly what group he was citing when he just said "the twelve". Here is a prime example of where establishing context is imperative.-

#1 - How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:41:00 +0000

Reponse by Wendell Leahy

The critic asks; 800 or 300?

2 Samuel 23:8 (800)
These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

1 Chronicles 11:11 (300)
the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time

Answer
Background of these passages:
*1 Chronicles chapters 11 and 12 deal with "David’s mighty men":
*2 Samuel chapter 23 — These are David’s final words.

J Vernon McGee states:

1 Chronicles Chapter 11 — While only one chapter is devoted to Saul, the remainder of 1 Chronicles is devoted to the reign of David, and 2 Chronicles is given over to the reign of David’s line. It is easy to see where God placed the emphasis and why. David was not only a man after God’s own heart, but his line is leading to Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. This chapter records again David’s ascension to the throne and catalogs his mighty men (see notes on 2 Samuel 23). These are the deeds that God considered important enough to record twice.

2 Samuel Chapter 23 — These are David’s final words. Verse 5 was David’s hope. David’s mighty men are listed. These are the men who came to David during the days of his rejection. They did exploits for God (vs. 13-17) and performed courageous feats beyond the call of David (v. 20). There is one blot on the escutcheon of David, as Uriah the Hittite was one of the mighty men of David (v. 39).

John Wesley states:

Slain - By his own hand, five hundred more being slain by others then joining with him, who pursued the victory, both which sums make up the eight hundred, numbered 23:8. The slaughter of all is justly ascribed to him, because it was the effect of his valour.

John Gill states:

A mistake of the copier is also possible as :
... v being the first letter of the words for three and eight, and the numeral letter being here reduced to its word at length, through a mistake in the copier, was written hnmv, "eight," instead of vlv, "three":

It could also be that this verse should be translated differently as the Septuagint does. The meaning then becomes that Adino met eight hundred men, and slew three hundred of them.

#2 - Was Abraham justified by faith or works?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:42:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

Answer: Abraham was justified by faith

He was justified, that is, made righteous, by works, consequent to his faith. So that James's justification by works is the fruit of Paul's justification by faith.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness.

Galatians 3:6 Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness,

James 2:23 So the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, and he was called God's friend.

Genesis 12:1-4 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him:

1) The critic asks: Was he was justified by faith.
Romans 4:2: For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory.

Answer: Yes - he was justified by faith.

2) The critic asks: Was he was justified by works.
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Answers: Yes
His works were from the justification of His Faith (He believed God), For God asked him, and so he went to offer his son. Yet, he did not offer his son because God told him not to.

Hebrews 11:17-19
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Response by Dave Marr Dan of Israel

The skeptics give these two verses:
"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory." Romans 4:2
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" James 2:21

The important distinction to make is that faith and works are both important in the relationship of a believer to God the Father through Jesus Christ. Paul and James are speaking to two completely different groups: one that focused on works to be saved, and the other who thought only a profession of faith was enough.

Paul was addressing believers who thought that by keeping the whole of the Judaic Law, they would earn their salvation. The previous chapter, specifically Romans 3:27, clarifies the attitude of some of these believers when he reproves them:

"Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith."

Paul follows it with this conclusion:

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28

This is the heart of the matter: a person's faith in God is ultimately what saves him/her, not the works themselves, or a mentality only focused on works. Yet, James is saying that a true faith will have works flowing from it by God's transforming power:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ... Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew you my faith by my works. ... Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only[i.e., works that stem from faith]." James 2:14, 17, 18, 24

In essence: due to the believer's relationship with Jesus Christ, they desire to do good works out of love to God, not by a compulsion of fear of the Law(which was a problem with the group in Romans). As Jesus says of His future Heavenly Kingdom:

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40

Summarily, the faith by grace will save the person, but the works from a pure heart will be a natural outpouring of the Christian's love.

#3 - How many sons did Abraham have?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:46:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

Answer: 8

Hagar 1 (Sarah's handmaid)
Sarah 1 (first wife)
Keturah 6 (second wife)

Genesis 16:15 So Hagar gave birth to Abram's son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son Hagar had.

Genesis 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Genesis 25: 1-2 Now Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah, and she bore him: from Keturah. Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.

1 Chronicles 1:32,34 The sons born to Keturah, Abraham's concubine: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Abraham fathered Isaac.

Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible:
“only begotten son”
Isaac was Abraham's "only-begotten son" in respect of Sarah and the promises: he sent away his other sons, by other wives (Genesis 25:6). Abraham is a type of the Father not sparing His only-begotten Son to fulfil the divine purpose of love. God nowhere in the Mosaic law allowed human sacrifices, though He claimed the first-born of Israel as His.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible:
he had a promise made him that he should have a son, and that a numerous issue should spring from him, which should inherit the land of Canaan; yea, that the Messiah himself should be of his seed: and he had received these promises; given credit to them, and firmly believed them, and fully expected the performance of them; as he had reason to do, since the first was fulfilled, the son was born; and yet now he is called to offer him up, on whom his expectation was placed; everything was trying; it was an human creature he was called to offer, whose blood is not to be shed by man; a child of his own, a part of himself; a son, an own son; an only begotten son; a son whom he loved; an Isaac, a son of joy; a son of promise; and his heir, the son of his old age, and who was now a grown up person. The Jews are divided about the age of Isaac at his binding: Josephus

Genesis 21:12 But God said to Abraham, "Do not be concerned about the boy and your slave. Whatever Sarah says to you, listen to her, because your offspring will be traced through Isaac. (through: Jacob-David-Jesus)

The critic claims Abraham had only one son.

Heb.11:17: By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, ... his only begotten son.

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham - When God made that glorious trial of him. Offered up Isaac - The will being accepted as if he had actually done it. Yea, he that had received the promises - Particularly that grand promise, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called." Offered up - This very son; the only one he had by Sarah. Genesis 22:1.

Gen.22:2: Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering.

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible:
Genesis 22:2 And he said, take thy son - Not thy bullocks and thy lambs; how willingly would Abraham have parted with them by thousands to redeem Isaac! Not thy servant, no, not the steward of thine house. Thine only son - Thine only son by Sarah. Ishmael was lately cast out, to the grief of Abraham, and now Isaac only was left and must he go too? Yes: take Isaac, him by name, thy laughter, that son indeed. Yea, that son whom thou lovest - The trial was of Abraham's love to God, and therefore it must be in a beloved son: in the Hebrew 'tis expressed more emphatically, and I think might very well be read thus, Take now that son of thine, that only son of thine, whom thou lovest, that Isaac. And get thee into the land of Moriah - Three days journey off: so that he might have time to consider it, and if he do it, must do it deliberately. And offer him for a burnt offering - He must not only kill his son, but kill him as a sacrifice, with all that sedateness and composedness of mind, with which he used to offer his burnt - offering.

The critic claims Abraham had more than one son.

Gen.16:15 And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael."

Gen.21:2-3 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac.

Gen.25:1-2 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

Gal.4:22 Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman.

John Gill's Exposition of the Bible:
Galatians 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

that Abraham had two sons,
not two sons only; for besides the two referred to, he had six more, (Genesis 25:2) but it being only pertinent to the apostle's purpose to take notice of these two, he mentions no more, though he does not deny that he had any more. These two sons were Ishmael and Isaac:

the one by a bondmaid. Ishmael was by Hagar, Sarah's servant, who represented the covenant the Jewish nation was under the bondage of.

The other by a free woman. Isaac was by Sarah, Abraham's proper and lawful wife, who was mistress of the family, and represented in figure the covenant, and Gospel church state, and all believers, Gentiles as well as Jews, as under the liberty thereof.

Response by Dave Marr Dan of Israel

The skeptics' problem: Abraham had only one son.

"By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, ... his only begotten son." Heb.11:17
"Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering." Gen.22:2

Abraham had more than one son.

"And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael." Gen.16:15
"For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac." Gen.21:2-3
"Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.” Gen.25:1-2
"Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman."Gal.4:22

First of all, it should be noted that Hebrews 11:17(New Testament) is based on, and referring to, Genesis 22:2(Old Testament) because it is addressing the same event. Also, take particular notice that Galatians 4:22 says “Abraham had two sons”, but not “only” two sons.

In this discussion regarding “sons”, or offspring, in relation to the Bible, the covenant of marriage is a crucial consideration. God intended that Man should have only one wife. As Genesis 2:24 says:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

To give an exposition, I will provide an excerpt(preview) from my upcoming article:

“Perhaps the most important aspect to realize about marriage is that the Woman is ‘flesh of [Man’s] flesh’ and ‘bone of [Man’s] bones’. Since God did not create the people that followed out of thin air, but rather had them pro-create together, then this union and this physical bond was required to be carried on symbolically. ‘And they shall be one flesh’. The sexual act completes and fulfills this fusion. Additionally, the covenant should only be through two partners because 1.) God would have created a woman for Adam(the first Man) besides Eve(the first Woman) if she couldn’t meet Adam’s needs by herself, and because 2.) a second wife joined with the same man would create two different types of flesh when fused together. As Jesus Christ said, ‘Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.’ From a legal standpoint, that is the same reason why remarrying is not allowed under the New Covenant while the spouse is still alive, because it would destroy the bond of ‘one flesh’.”

In this sense, then, God only recognizes the sexual union between a man and his wife, and He only allows for one wife. Abraham’s only wife was Sarah. Sarah’s only son was Isaac. Therefore, Isaac was the only true or rightful son from God’s perspective. Nevertheless, He recognizes the human reality of the biological production of other earthly sons given to Abraham, so He provides for Ishmael(the firstborn earthly son) and his mother Hagar. (Genesis 21:18-20) Hagar was a bond-woman who Abraham was not authorized to have sexual relations with(it was Sarah’s idea, since she was barren), so God did not recognize Ishmael and the other sons(other than Isaac) as Abraham’s sons in the spiritual or divine sense.

But one might ask, "What about Jacob, and his sons from bond-women: who were obviously recognized by God?" Indeed, I agree that they were viewed as sons from God's perspective. Jacob also had two wives; Jesus Christ descended from Judah, who was the son of the wife Jacob was tricked into marrying. However, to reconcile this difficulty, here is the verse that denotes the exception in the case of Jacob:

"And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thou name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name; and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply: a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give it." Genesis 35:10-12

Because God made the special blessing to Jacob's(Israel's) seed, all of the sons of Israel were granted blessings and recognized by God in the divine sense, regardless of by his wife or by bond-women. However, this unusual exception God only permitted to Jacob and his immediate offspring.

#4 - Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:51:00 +0000

response by Dave Marr Dan of Israel

The skeptics' problem:
Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech.

"And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahibub, named Abiathar." 1 Sam.22:20
"Abiathar the son of Ahimelech." 1 Sam.23:6

Abiathar was the father of Ahimelech.

"Ahimelech the son of Abiathar." 2 Sam.8:17, 1 Chr.18:16, 1 Chr.24:6

The resolution of this dilemma is quite simple. A man named Abiathar was the father of Ahimelech, who is the priest in the account. Ahimelech had a son, and named him Abiathar, after his grandfather. As we know, this is still a common practice, when a certain family name will be used generation after generation. Also, an important understanding to grasp is that ancestral lines, or chronologies, listed in the Bible will usually just give names without descriptions- hence no distinction is made between the two Abiathars in 2 Sam.8:17, 1 Chr.18:16, 1 Chr.24:6.

#5 - Who was Abijab's mother?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:57:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

1) Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom 1Kings 15:1-2
2) Michaiah the daughter of Uriel 2Chr. 13:1-2

Answer: Both are true - there is no contradiction.

source quotes from The Genealogies of the bible: A neglected subject

Working out these little problems not merely enlarges one's understanding of the relationship of these peoples, but somehow makes the individuals live, as a map makes places live that we have once visited. And if it is not irreverent to say so, finding solutions is like finding a missing piece in a jigsaw puzzle or a missing word in a crossword puzzle -- it provides genuine intellectual satisfaction

1) Maachah - Daughter of Uriel?
2) Michaiah - Daughter of Abishalom?

"a son or a grandson may look back to a common father, similarly a son or a grandson may evidently look back to a common mother. Indeed, in 1Kings 15:8,11 Asa is said to have been the son of both Abijab his father and the son of David, the latter being more precisely his great, great, grandfather"

*Abishalom means; father of peace..
He was the father or grandfather of Maachah, who was the wife of Rehoboam and mother of Abijah. (1Kings:15:2,10) He is called Absalom. This person is David's son
*Uriel means; God is my light...
Uriel was the father of Michaiah, one of Rehoboam's wives and mother of Abijah

Maachah or Michaiah are the same person different spelling

Abijah's mother was Maacah - father was Rehoboam 2Chr:11:20
Maacah's mother was Tamar - father was Uriel 2Chr:13:2
Tamer was the daughter of Absalom 2Sam:14:27
Absalom's mother was Maachah - father was King David 2Sam:3:3, 1Chr:3:2

Daughters - granddaughters: Maachah, Tamer, Maachah
Fathers - grandfathers: Abijab, Rehoboam, Uriel, Absalom, King David

Explanation
Abijahs mother was called Maachah, the daughter of Absalom, here she is called Michaiah the daughter of Uriel. It is most probable that she was a grand-daughter of Absalom, by his daughter Tamar (2Sam:14:27) and that her immediate father was this Uriel. Absalom's daughter, called properly Tamar (2Sam:14:27) and from her royal grandmother (2Sam:3:3) Maacah.

The version of Abijam's life in Kings says that his mother was Maacah, daughter of Abishalom (Absalom), but the version in Chronicles says that his mother was Michaiah, daughter of Uriel from Gibeah (in the territory of Benjamin).

This seems to be a problem, but it really isn't. Where the Bible says daughter of Absalom, that word can also mean granddaughter. Absalom's daughter was Tamar who married Uriel of Gibeah.

So it's clear that Maacah was the grand-daughter of Absalom and the daughter of Uriel.

******

SAB also asked but since has removed the question due to its obvious error:
Who was Abijam's maternal grandmother? Abishalom or Uriel

Answer: neither, for Abishalom and Uriel are both males.....

Abishalom: Father or grandfather of Maachah, who was the wife of Rehoboam and mother of Abijah. (1 Kings 15:2,10) He is called Absalom in (2 Chronicles 11:20,21) This person must be David’s son. (2 Samuel 14:27)

Uriel: The father of Michaiah, one of Rehoboam's wives, and mother of Abijah

Abijam: means; my father is Jehovah - also called ABIJAH and ABIA.
Ather of the sea; i.e., "seaman" the name always used in Kings of the king of Judah, the son of Rehoboam, elsewhere called Abijah (1 Kings 15:1,7,8).

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

1 Kings 15:1-2
His mother's name was Maachah--or Michaiah (2 Chronicles 13:2), probably altered from the one to the other on her becoming queen, as was very common under a change of circumstances. She is called the daughter of Abishalom, or Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:21), of Uriel (2 Chronicles 13:2). Hence, it has been thought probable that Tamar, the daughter of Absalom (2 Samuel 14:27, 18:18), had been married to Uriel, and that Maachah was their daughter.

2 Chronicles: 13:1-2
His mother's name also was Michaiah, the daughter of Uriel, that is, granddaughter of Absalom (1 Kings 15:2; compare 2 Samuel 14:1-33), mother of Abijah, "mother," that is, grandmother (1 Kings 15:10, Margin) of Asa. Of Gibeah probably implies that Uriel was connected with the house of Saul.

#6 How long was the ark of the covenant at Abinadab's house?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:16:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

They skeptics claim:
1 Sam.7:1-2 says that the ark of the covenant was brought to Abinadab's house and that it stayed there for 20 years. This was before Saul was made king (1 Sam.10:24).

But according to 2 Sam.6:2-3, David removed the ark from Abinadab's house.
Acts 13:21 says that Saul (David's predecessor) was king for 40 years. So the ark must have been at Abinadab's house for more than 40 years.

Explanation:
This is one of those, non questions! I don't see the purpose this was even mentioned. How long was the ark of the covenant at Abinadab's house? 20 years, as written.

Saul's reign is not mentioned in the Old Testament and Josephus coincides [Antiquities, 6.14.9]. This is mentioned because Paul (Saul) was of this tribe, the tribe of Benjamin. The 40 years is mentioned from Paul and verified by Jospehus.

A non question... in my opinion... The reason I called this a non-question was the fact that indeed, the critic misinterpret's Acts 13:21.

In fact, what is notable here, yet not mentioned, has nothing really to do with 20 years, or 40 years.. but that: They set the ark of God upon a new cart or a covered wagon. This was in violation of an express statute (Numbers 7:9, 18:3).

John Wesley writes....
1 Sam.7-2 Kirjath - jearim - Where it continued, and was not carried to Shiloh its former place, either because that place was destroyed by the Philistines when the ark was taken, or because God would hereby punish the wickedness of the people of Israel, by keeping it in a private place near the Philistines, whether the generality of the people durst not come. Twenty years - He saith not, that this twenty years was all the time of the ark's abode there, for it continued there from Eli's time 'till David's reign, 6:2, which was forty years: but that itwas so long there before the Israelites were sensible of their sin and misery. Lamented - That is, they followed after God with lamentations for his departure, and prayers for his return.

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown writes....
the ark abode in Kirjath-jearim . . . twenty years--It appears, in the subsequent history, that a much longer period elapsed before its final removal from Kirjath-jearim (2 Samuel 6:1-19, 1 Chronicles 13:1-14). But that length of time had passed when the Israelites began to revive from their sad state of religious decline. The capture of the ark had produced a general indifference either as to its loss or its recovery.

all the house of Israel lamented after the Lord--They were then brought, doubtless by the influence of Samuel's exhortations, to renounce idolatry, and to return to the national worship of the true God.

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic references these verses:

Twenty years.
"And the men of Kirjathjearim came, and fetched up the ark of the LORD, and brought it into the house of Abinadab in the hill, and sanctified Eleazar his son to keep the ark of the LORD. And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim, that the time was long; for it was twenty years: and all the house of Israel lamented after the LORD." 1 Sam.7:1-2
"And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him [Saul] whom the LORD hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king." 1 Sam.10:24

More than forty years.
"And David arose ... to bring up from thence the ark of God.... And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah...." 2 Sam.6:2-3
"And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years." Acts.13:21

The skeptics argument:
1 Sam.7:1-2 says that the ark of the covenant was brought to Abinadab's house and that it stayed there for 20 years. This was before Saul was made king (1 Sam.10:24).
But according to 2 Sam.6:2-3, David removed the ark from Abinadab's house. And Acts 13:21 says that Saul (David's predecessor) was king for 40 years. So the ark must have been at Abinadab's house for more than 40 years.

Explanation:
My claim: the Ark was at Abinadab’s house somewhere between 25-30 years.

The key problem is that the skeptics misinterpret Acts 13:21. To see this more clearly, we need to back up a verse:

“And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet. And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.” Acts 13:20-21

Here is the situation:
there were judges in Israel 450 years until Samuel the prophet; that is, there were a series of judges in Israel until he became a prophet in the eyes of Israel. Paul’s account in Acts is referencing from the end of the “judges” period(which ended with Samuel becoming a prophet) to the end of Saul’s reign(because the next verse heralds David’s kingdom). Samuel was prophet in Israel foe more than twenty years before Saul’s monarchy. Samuel first became recognized in this role in 1 Samuel 3:20:

“And all Israel from Dan even to Beer-sheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the LORD.”

The Ark was stolen by the Philistines in 1 Sam. 4:11. Then it was returned, and placed in the house of Abinadab in 1 Sam. 7:1

20 years later, we arrive at 1 Samuel 7:2:

“And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim, that the time was long; for it was twenty years: and all the house of Israel lamented after the LORD.”

This means that the Ark was already at Abinadab’s house for 20 years when the Israelites started to grieve for it. Shortly thereafter, Saul is made king. In the remaining 5-10 years before the the Ark is recovered, Saul reigns as king, then dies, then David battles the House of Saul, then David becomes king, and then he brings the Ark back a little while after in 2 Samuel 6:2-3.

re: by Wendell Leahy
My claim: the Ark was at Abinadab’s house somewhere between 25-30 years. The key problem is that the skeptics misinterpret Acts 13:21.

25-30 sounds quite reasonable... The reason I called this a non-question was the fact that indeed, they did misinterpret Acts 13:21. Great explaination Dave..

#7 - How many sons did Absalom have?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:17:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

Absalom had no sons
2 Samuel 18:17-18 17
They took Absalom, threw him into a large pit in the forest, and piled a huge mound of stones over him. And all Israel fled, each to his tent. When he was alive, Absalom had erected for himself a pillar in the King's Valley, for he had said, "I have no son to preserve the memory of my name." So he gave the pillar his name. It is still called Absalom's Monument today.

Absalom had three sons
2 Samuel 14:27: And unto Absalom there were born three sons.

Answer:
Absalom's three sons had all died before him, so that he was left with only a daughter, Tamar, who became the grandmother of Abijah.

I have difficulty finding the 3 names (a work in progress).... However, we know that Tamar was Absalom's daughter. The evidence given indicates his sons all died before him, having significance in his life and death.

Much of the claims being made concern issues that are irrelevant to the claim, yet are in fact, relevant to the context of the books in which they are quoted. In many cases, the Skeptic will leave out major portions of these verses, which normally would give the correct answers.

From these historical books (Kings, Chronicles and Samuel) the true meanings of these text are lost with the Skeptics. In truth, much of this section with Absalom is directly related to his father, King David and the importance of Israel's spiritual condition of that day. In fact, if can be said that The Book of Kings is written from man's view of Israel's history while Chronicles is Gods view towards Israel at this critical time of their history. Each book are equal to each other as far as history is concerned, which is why they are called, the Historical books. To understand this importance, I offer a few quotes from Dr. J. Vernon McGee concerning Kings and Chronicles.

The major theme:
Kings: "The standard of the kingdom: "as David his father" (repeated 9 times in 1Kings) It was human standard, but man failed to attain even to it. This book is a continuation of the narrative begun in 1 & 2 Samuel. Each of these four books can be view as one book. From these four books the history of the nation is traced from the time of its greatest extent, influence, and prosperity under David and Solomon to the division and finally the captivity and exile of both kingdoms"
Chronicles: Written during the Babylonian captivity. It could have been a compilation, assembled by Ezra, of diaries and journals of the priests and prophets. These two Books of Chronicles not only constitute one book in the original, but apparently also include Ezra and Nehemiah. This lend support to the authority of Ezra and supports the Jewish traditions. Scholars have noted a similarity in the Hebrew of all four books. Chronicles does not record David's sin - when God forgives, He forgets. The temple and Jerusalem are prominent in Chronicles. In Kings, the history of the nation is given from the throne; in Chronicles, it is given from the alter.
The palace is the center in Kings; the temple is the center in Chronicles.
Kings records the political history; Chronicles records the religious history.
Chronicles is an interpretation of Kings - hence the constant references in Kings to Chronicles.
Kings gives us man's point of view;
Chronicles gives us God's viewpoint
(note this well as you read Chronicles; it will suprise you).

Indeed, Skeptics Annotated Bible has it's value, in that, it causes those who wish to examine the importance of Old Testament history and dig deeper to present the facts. The 'Skeptics' simply misinterpret these scriptures, and in most cases, what is presented is irrelevant to the claim being made, yet the importance is based in the spiritual precepts which are prescribed throughout the Biblical writings, such as we have presented with, Absalom. His history is important to understand.

It is valuable to understand Absalom's death and the why he was fatherless upon his death. Because of this, I have included several links to review, which give a wider picture of this son of David.

Absolom
crosswalk.com
christiananswers.net
wikipedia.org
newadvent.org

Absalom’s Pillar or Place Smiths Bible Dicitonary
A monument of tomb which Absalom had built during his lifetime in the king’s dale, i.e. the valley of the Kedron, at the foot of Mount Olivet, near Jerusalem, (2 Samuel 18:18) comp. with 2Sam 14:27 for his three sons, and where he probably expected to be buried. The tomb there now, and called by Absalom’s name was probably built at a later date.

Matthew Henry:
His body is disposed of disgracefully (v. 17, 18): They cast it into a great pit in the wood; they would not bring it to his father (for that circumstance would but have added to his grief), nor would they preserve it to be buried, according to his order, but threw it into the next pit with indignation. Now where is the beauty he had been so proud of and for which he had been so much admired? Where are his aspiring projects, and the castles he had built in the air? His thoughts perish, and he with them. And, to signify how heavy his iniquity lay upon his bones, as the prophet speaks (Eze. 32:27), they raised a great heap of stones upon him, to be a monument of his villany, and to signify that he ought to have been stoned as a rebellious son, Deu. 21:21. Travelers say that the place is taken note of to this day, and that it is common for passengers to throw a stone to this heap, with words to this purport: Cursed be the memory of rebellious Absalom, and cursed for ever be all wicked children that rise up in rebellion against their parents. To aggravate the ignominy of Absalom’s burial, the historian takes notice of a pillar he had erected in the valley of Kidron, near Jerusalem, to be a monument for himself, and keep his name in remembrance (v. 18), at the foot of which, it is probable, he designed to be buried. What foolish insignificant projects do proud men fill their heads with! And what care do many people take about the disposal of their bodies, when they are dead, that have no care at all what shall become of their precious souls! Absalom had three sons (ch. 14:27), but, it seems, now he had none; God had taken them away by death; and justly is a rebellious son written childless. To make up the want, he erects this pillar for a memorial; yet in this also Providence crosses him, and a rude heap of stones shall be his monument, instead of this marble pillar. Thus those that exalt themselves shall be abased. His care was to have his name kept in remembrance, and it is so, to his everlasting dishonour. He could not be content in the obscurity of the rest of David’s sons, of whom nothing is recorded but their names, but would be famous, and is therefore justly made for ever infamous. The pillar shall bear his name, but not to his credit; it was designed for Absalom’s glory, but proved Absalom’s folly.

Response by Dave Marr Dan of Israel

The skeptics cite these verses

Absalom had no sons:
"Now Absalom ... said, I have not son to keep my name in remembrance." 2 Sam.18:18

Absalom had three sons.
"And unto Absalom there were born three sons." 2 Sam.14:27

Answer:

The key part of verse 2 Samuel 18:18 is ”to keep my name in remembrance.”, which is a conditional statement. The passage does not say that “Absalom had no son”, but that he had no sons who would “keep [his] name in remembrance”. This address by Absalom is mentioned in the verse because it is giving the reason why Absalom erected a pillar to himself. Unfortunately, a date, or point of reference, is not given for this event in his lifetime.

In the line for David’s throne, Amnon was first (2 Sam. 3:2), but he was killed by Absalom. It would seem that this scandal severely limited the chances for Absalom to become the next king(God anointed future kings in Israel by a prophet). Absalom was killed in a battle against his father David, so Abinijah gathered men of Israel together for his coronation. However, Solomon, who was born later, ultimately won the throne over him. Chileab was the second-born(right after Amnon), so it would seem logical that he should have had the crown over the others. (2 Sam. 3:3)

Notwithstanding, he was not even considered, which means that either 1.) he died before David's death, or 2.) some condition was reasoned deeming him unfit.

Therefore, there are three possible reasons why the three sons would not keep Absalom’s name in remembrance. First, they could have all died before Absalom erected the pillar; however, this situation is most unlikely. The next possibility is that perhaps Absalom perceived that he would not receive the kingdom, at the time that he made the statement. This condition would mean that future generations would likely not be familiar with Absalom’s name, since it would not be his dynasty.

The most likely reason is that these sons had no respect for their father, and did not support him. The precedence of this disrespect was already found in Absalom, in his impudence against David. In 2 Sam. 14:27, Absalom’s sons are born. None of their names are mentioned(highly unusual in a Biblical account), and we do not hear about them again. That fact is incredibly strange, considering that the next four chapters focus primarily on Absalom’s actions: his conspiracy and revolt against his father David, and the battle which ensued- where he was killed. This omission from major events would, in all probablility, also confirm that Absalom did not have any confidence in his sons.

What all of this really concludes is that Absalom did indeed have three sons, but he postulated some unknown reason pertaining to why his sons would not keep his name in remembrance in future generations.

#8 - Two contradictory creation accounts?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:18:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

The critic offers the first account as (Genesis 1:1-2:3) and then offers the second account as (Genesis 2:4-25).

Answer: There is only one account of Creation: Genesis Chapter 1....
The critic offers Genesis 2:4-25 as the 'contradictory' second account. However, after further review, one easily finds this is not a creation account, but a detailed summary of Chapter 1 and in more particular, explaining and enlarging upon that part of the history which relates immediately to man....

Matthew Henry Commentary Genesis Chapter 1

The foundation of all religion being laid in our relation to God as our Creator, it was fit that the book of divine revelations which was intended to be the guide, support, and rule, of religion in the world, should begin, as it does, with a plain and full account of the creation of the world—in answer to that first enquiry of a good conscience, "Where is God my Maker?’’ (Job 35:10). Concerning this the pagan philosophers wretchedly blundered, and became vain in their imaginations, some asserting the world’s eternity and self-existence, others ascribing it to a fortuitous concourse of atoms: thus "the world by wisdom knew not God,’’ but took a great deal of pains to lose him. The holy scripture therefore, designing by revealed religion to maintain and improve natural religion, to repair the decays of it and supply the defects of it, since the fall, for the reviving of the precepts of the law of nature, lays down, at first, this principle of the unclouded light of nature, That this world was, in the beginning of time, created by a Being of infinite wisdom and power, who was himself before all time and all worlds. The entrance into God’s word gives this light, Ps. 119:130. The first verse of the Bible gives us a surer and better, a more satisfying and useful, knowledge of the origin of the universe, than all the volumes of the philosophers. The lively faith of humble Christians understands this matter better than the elevated fancy of the greatest wits, Heb. 11:3. We have three things in this chapter:—I. A general idea given us of the work of creation (v. 1, 2). II. A particular account of the several days’ work, registered, as in a journal, distinctly and in order. The creation of the light the first day (v. 3-5); of the firmament the second day (v. 6-8); of the sea, the earth, and its fruits, the third day (v. 9–13); of the lights of heaven the fourth day (v. 14–19); of the fish and fowl the fifth day (v. 20–23); of the beasts (v. 24, 25); of man (v. 26–28); and of food for both the sixth day (v. 29, 30). III. The review and approbation of the whole work (v. 31).

Genesis Chapter 2

This chapter is an appendix to the history of the creation, more particularly explaining and enlarging upon that part of the history which relates immediately to man, the favourite of this lower world. We have in it, I. The institution and sanctification of the sabbath, which was made for man, to further his holiness and comfort (v. 1-3). II. A more particular account of man’s creation, as the centre and summary of the whole work (v. 1-7). III. A description of the garden of Eden, and the placing of man in it under the obligations of a law and covenant (v. 8–17). IV. The creation of the woman, her marriage to the man, and the institution of the ordinance of marriage (v. 18, etc.).

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's argument:

First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3)

(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image. Gen.1:25-27

(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen.1:27

Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25)

(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Gen.2:18-19

(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Gen.2:18-22

Explanation
To understand these passages, a person must recognize changes in style in a literary work; unfortunately, the skeptic has not done that.

Genesis 1:1 through 2:4 describes the entire creation of planet Earth. This is an overview, or summary, of Creation, to help put everything that follows into perspective. It begins with verse 1:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”

And ends with Chapter 2, verse 4:

“These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”

It is evident to any experienced writer, or astute reader, that verse 4 is a concluding sentence, or a general conclusion. At this point, the presentation changes its approach, or style, to give a more focused examination of the Creation.

Verses 5-6 in Chapter 2 describe the plant growth.

At verse 7, the writer gives another, more detailed look at the creation of Man, specifically.
As stated earlier, Genesis 1:1 through 2:4 gives an overview, but it also establishes a chronology of the event. From these facts, man was created last on the sixth day.

When Man is discussed in 1:27, it is only speaking of the general way God fashioned them. It cannot be effectively argued that Adam and Eve were created simultaneously unless it specifically says “simultaneously”, “at the same time”, etc. It doesn’t, so we do not know from this description if Man and Woman were produced together, or separately.

To comprehend why the change in prose occurs, we must identify that the “setting” for the Bible is established in the first section, and the “characterization” is introduced in the second section(beginning at 2:7). Essentially, the literature moves from an objective approach, to a more personal style. Why is this done with Man? Because his interaction with God is the focus and message of the rest of the Bible. Therefore, it is only proper that we know more about how he was created.

Thus, an outlook is now obtained wherewith we can look at the skeptic’s other objections. From our proper understanding, Man was created first; Woman was created shortly after from Man’s rib. When the animals are introduced again in the characterization of section two, a brief synopsis is given of their creation:

“And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.” (2:19)

As an element of style, for every creation discussed in the second narrative, the writer ensures that we know that it was created by God. The passage does not say when the animals were created, so we must rely on the first, chronological, account. The first part of the sentence of verse 19 describes Day 5 of Creation, and the semi-colon brings us into Day 6 again.

This 'so-called contradiction is also related to #259
#259 - Were plants created before or after humans?

#9 - Who was Achan's father?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:52:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

Who Was Achan's father, Carmi or Zerah?

The son of Carmi?
Joshua 7:1: The Israelites, however, were unfaithful regarding the things set apart for destruction. Achan son of Carmi, son of Zabdi (same as Zimiri), son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of what was set apart, and the Lord's anger burned against the Israelite
The son of Zerah?
Joshua 7:24: And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah ..."

Answer:
Achan's father was Carmi, his father was Zimri, his father was Zerah, his father was Judah

"Sons of Judah"
Judah ---> Zerah ---> Zimri ---> Carmi ---> Achan

The answer is actually given from the very same verses the Skeptic uses as evidence of a contradiction - but in fact is not a contradiction at all. The reason is because it was typical of Hebrew genealogy to list as son (or daughter) in the lineage of families. Today we would say that Judah, was Achan's great,great,great grandfather. This was standard custom to list "grandfathers (or grandmothers) as son of (or daughters of) and is often noted as such throughout the Bible.

There is no contradiction as both Joshua 7:1 and 7:24 confirm the same names, along with other verses listed below. The skeptic's simply have not understood the usage of "son of" and often make these repeating claims without actually providing additional verses which would verify the genealogies, such as we have done here.

Why SAB continues to question this custom, as contradiction, demonstrates that in fact this is intentional misrepresentation of what the scriptures claim.

"Sons of Judah"
Judah ---> Zerah ---> Zimri ---> Carmi ---> Achan

Explanation:

These are the sons of Israel (re-named from: Jacob) 1Chronicles:1-2
Reuben, Simeon, Levi, *Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Joseph, Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.

1 Chronicles 2:3-7
*Sons of Judah
Er, Onan, Shelah, Pharez, *Zerah. The sons of Judah were five.
*The sons of Zerah
*Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, Dara (five of them in all).
*Sons of Zimri (same as Zabdi)
Camri (Joshua 7:1)
*Son of Camri
Achan (Joshua 22:20)

"Sons of Judah"
Judah ---> Zerah ---> Zimri ---> Carmi ---> Achan

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptics problem:

Achan's father was Carmi.
"For Achan, the son of Carmi ... took of the accursed thing." Jos.7:1

Achan's father is Zerah
"And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah ..." Jos.7:24
"Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel?" Jos.22:20

Explanation:
This is a case where the skeptic did not look at a verse closely enough, specifically Joshua 7:1. Either that, or he is not familiar with the vernacular of the Bible.

The full verse of Joshua 7:1 reads:

“But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.”

As we can see in the passage, Carmi is Achan’s father, and Zerah is Achan's great grandfather. Basically, a short genealogy is given of Achan; this practice is very common in Biblical accounts. It stops at Zerah, and then gives the tribe name, Judah. In verse 18, the geneaology is given again, to reinforce the order in the readers mind. Henceforth, when Achan is mentioned, he is referred to as “the son of Zerah”. The reader knows by now that Zerah is Achan’s father’s father's father. Why is the focus on Zerah instead of Carmi? Likely, the account is referring to Zerah, the immediate son of Judah, whose life the Jews were very familiar with. If that is the case, as it most probably is, then the geneaological list skips a number of generations after Zabdi.

A student of the Bible will find that, quite frequently, people are referenced as the “sons” of their famous forefathers. Two notable examples are the Israelites being called “the sons of Abraham”, and our Lord Jesus Christ designated as “the son of David[the King]”.

#10 - How many of Adin's offspring returned from Babylon?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:51:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

How many of Adin's offspring returned from Babylon, 454 or 655?

Ezra 2:15: The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.
Nehemiah 7:20: The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five.

Smith's Bible Dictionary

Ancestor of a family who returned form Babylon with Zerubbabel, to the number of 454, (Ezra 2:15) or 655 according to the parallel list in (Nehemiah 7:20) (B.C. 536.) They joined with Nehemiah in a covenant to separate themselves from the heathen. (Nehemiah 10:16) (B.C. 410.)

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

He (Nehemiah) resolved to prepare a register of the returned exiles, containing an exact record of the family and ancestral abode of every individual. While thus directing his attention, he discovered a register of the first detachment who had come under the care of Zerubbabel. It is transcribed in the following verses, and differs in some few particulars from that given in Ezra 2:1-61. But the discrepancy is sufficiently accounted for from the different circumstances in which the two registers were taken; that of Ezra having been made up at Babylon, while that of Nehemiah was drawn out in Judea, after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt.

The lapse of so many years might well be expected to make a difference appear in the catalogue, through death or other causes; in particular, one person being, according to Jewish custom, called by different names.

Thus Hariph (Nehemiah 7:24) is the same as Jorah (Ezra 2:18), Sia (Nehemiah 7:47) the same as Siaha (Ezra 2:44), &c. Besides other purposes to which this genealogy of the nobles, rulers, and people was subservient, one leading object contemplated by it was to ascertain with accuracy the parties to whom the duty legally belonged of ministering at the altar and conducting the various services of the temple. For guiding to exact information in this important point of enquiry, the possession of the old register of Zerubbabel was invaluable.

Matthew Henry Commentary

He (Nehemiah) reviewed the old register of the genealogy of those who came up at the first, and compared the present accounts with that; and here we have the repetition of that out of Ezra 2. The title is the same here (v. 6, 7) as there (v. 1, 2): These are the children of the province, etc. Two things are here repeated and recorded a second time from thence—the names and numbers of their several families, and their oblations to the service of the temple.

There are many differences in the numbers between this catalogue and that in Ezra. Most of them indeed are exactly the same, and some others within a very few under or over (one or two perhaps); and therefore I cannot think, as some do, that that was the number of these families at their first coming and this as they were now, which was at least forty years after (some make it much more); for we cannot suppose so many families to be not at all, or but little, altered in their numbers in all that time; therefore what differences there are we may suppose to arise either from the mistakes of transcribers, which easily happen in numbers, or from the diversity of the copies from which they were taken. Or perhaps one was the account of them when they set out from Babylon with Zerubbabel, the other when they came to Jerusalem.

Notes and Outlines of Ezra and Nehemiah by Dr. J Vernom McGee

Chapter 7: Nehemiah's register of the people.
verses 5-73 - This is a repitition of the genealogy given in Ezra 2. Unnecessary though this may seem to us, it is repeated because it is important to God and He challenges us to read it. "The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance" (Psalsm 112:6). God never forgets the faithful. This chapter comes from the book of eternity.

The main spiritual theme presented:
"We already have seen that the Babylonian captivity did not bring the Jews to national repentance, and so lead to national restoration. As the reading of Ezra will disclose, when Cyrus, king of Persia, gave permission to the captives to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple, scarcely 50,000 availed themselves of the privilege, a considerable portion of whom were priests and Levites of the humbler and poorer class." Dr. James M. Gray

"Very few avail themselves of this opportunity. Most of the captives are now settled and satisfied in Babylon. They still their consciences by giving generously to those who do not return" (Ezra 2:64-65).

Nehemiah was a layman; Ezra was a priest.

In the Book of Ezra, the emphasis is upon the rebuilding of the temple; in the Book of Nehemiah, the emphasis is upon the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem.

In Ezra, we have the religious aspect of the return; in Nehemiah, we have the political aspect of the return.

Ezra is a fine representative of the priest and scribe; Nehemiah is a noble representative of the businessman.

Nehemiah had an important office at the court of the powerful Persian king, Artaxerxes, but his heart was with God's people and God's program in Jerusalem.

re: by Dave Marr
Your answers to Questions 10 and 11 are very, very well researched; I commend you for your efforts. So, I will skip those(I'd probably quote the same sources anyway).

(responding from #11)..
"There is not enough information concerning Adonikam, to claim that the 666 count by Ezra represents the mark of the beast. In my opinion, this is a wild assumption, at best".

To be sure.

(thanks Dave! -W-)

#11 - How many of Adonikam's offspring returned from Babylon?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Tue, 09 Nov 2004 22:55:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

The SAB asks:
How many of Adonikam's offspring returned from Babylon, 666 or 667?
Ezra 2:13 the sons of Adonikam, 666.
Nehemiah 7:18 the sons of Adonikam, 667

The quick answer is 667

From Ezra, we can assume that 1)Adonikam is not included, or 2)this is the accounting, at that time. From Nehemiah we conclude the final accounting for Adonikam's clan. We can assume that one additional clan member is added to the registry, bringing the final total to 667.

Ezra takes the first accounting of the returning Israelites. Nehemiah records the final count. It stands at 49,942. The difference of time is estimated to be at least forty years.

Ezra's count is recorded at 49,897.
Nehemiah's count is recorded at 49,942.
The difference of the total accounting is 45 singers.

Ezra 2:64-65

The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women. 49,897.

Nehemiah 7:4-5, 66-67

7:4: Now the city was large and great: but the people were few therein, and the houses were not builded. And my God put into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein:

66-67: These are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city; The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their manservants and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women. 49,942

Matthew Henry Commentary

He (Nehemiah) reviewed the old register of the genealogy of those who came up at the first, and compared the present accounts with that; and here we have the repetition of that out of Ezra 2. The title is the same here (v. 6, 7) as there (v. 1, 2): These are the children of the province, etc. Two things are here repeated and recorded a second time from thence —the names and numbers of their several families, and their oblations to the service of the temple. The repetition of these accounts may intimate to us the delight which the great God is pleased to take in the persons, families, and services of his spiritual Israel, and the particular notice he takes of them. He knows those that are his, knows them all, knows them by name, has his eye on the register of those children of the captivity, and does all according to the ancient counsel of his will concerning them. (1.) Here is an account of the heads of the several families that first came up, v. 6–69. As to this, [1.] Though it seem of little use to us now, yet then it was of great use, to compare what they had been with what they now were. We may suppose they were much increased by this time; but it would do well for them to remember their small beginnings, that they might acknowledge God in multiplying their families and building them up. By this means likewise their genealogies would be preserved, and the distinction of their families kept up, till the Messiah should come, and then an end be put to all their genealogies, which were preserved for his sake, but afterwards were endless.

Some considerations in which I will address:
#1. There is very little information concerning Adonikam
#2. The critic claims the accounting of the people makes this a contradiction.
#3. Others claim the 666 count is related to the mark of the beast.
#4. The difference of 45 singers.

#1: Adonikam
Mentioned only 3 times in the Bible.

Ezra 2:13 the sons of Adonikam, 666.
Ezra 8:13 these are the last ones, from Adonikam's descendants, and their names are: Eliphelet, Jeuel, and Shemaiah,and 60 men with them;
Nehemiah 7:18 the sons of Adonikam, 667

Adonikam whom the Lord sets up

One of those "which came with Zerubbabel" (Ezra 2:13). His "children," or retainers, to the number of 666, came up to Jerusalem (8:13). Easton's Bible Dictionary
Also called ADONIJAH, a Jew who returned with Ezra from Babylon Ezra 2:13; Nehemiah 7:18; 10:16. Nave's Topical Bible

Note

Adonijah is associated with the 4th son of King David. However, this is not the same person as stated from Ezra and Nehemiah. It may be possible this may be his offspring. More research is needed of this clan to make any reasonable determination.
The numbering of the Jews according to their tribes by the head of families, is due to the requirement as given in Numbers 1:2.

Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head.

#2: Contradiction
The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah cannot stand in contradiction simply by the accounting of the returning Jews from Israel. Several reasons will attribute to this. Primarily:

Isaiah (chapters 3,25-27,43,47,57-59), Daniel (9:1) and Jeremiah (25,29) prophesied concerning the Babylonian exile, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Jeremiah and Daniel stated they would be held 70 years in captivity.

Babylonian Captivity

Easton's Bible Dictionary - Captivity

Cyrus, King of Persia, more than a hundred years before he was born, was to assure Israel of their deliverance. Isaiah names the person by whom it would be:

Cyrus was motivated by Isaiah's prophecy concerning him. This may be an interesting example of the workings of providence. Josephus, the Jewish historian, has a fascinating comment on this incident. He states that Cyrus was shown the material from the book of Isaiah containing this prophecy. Upon reading the divine prediction, the king announced:

“Thus says Cyrus the king: Since God Almighty has appointed me to be king of the habitable earth, I believe that he is the God which the nation of the Israelites worship; for indeed he foretold my name by the prophets, and that I should build him a house at Jerusalem, in the country of Judah” (Antiquities 11.1.1)
Ezra 1:2-Cyrus the Deliverer

Ezra 5:6-7 This is the text of the letter that Tattenai the governor of the region west of the Euphrates River, Shethar-bozenai, and their colleagues, the officials in the region, sent to King Darius. They sent him a report, written as follows:

To King Darius:

Ezra 5:9-13 So we questioned the elders (of Israel) and asked, "Who gave you the order to rebuild this temple and finish this structure?" We also asked them for their names, so that we could write down the names of their leaders for your information.

This is the reply they gave us:

We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth and are rebuilding the temple that was built many years ago, which a great king of Israel built and finished. But since our fathers angered the God of heaven, He handed them over to King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this temple and deported the people to Babylon. However, in the first year of Cyrus king of Babylon, he issued a decree to rebuild this house of God.

#3: 666 Mark of the Beast
There is not enough information concerning Adonikam, to claim that the 666 count by Ezra represents the mark of the beast. In my opinion, this is a wild assumption, at best. If we had more information it may be possible to ascertain attributing the mark of the beast from this Book. However, it seems highly unlikely. We can know this by several reasons.

The mark of the beast is only mentioned in the Book of Revelation (Rev:13:18).
Daniel clearly identifies the 'beast' by naming him as 'the little horn' (Dan:7:8).
Nebuchadnezzar (head of gold) would be the only impression of an 'Anti-Christ type', though nothing is mentioned of him in this manner. Most scholars would agree that he came to salvation through the personal teachings of Daniel.

Dr. Henri Rossier states: The Book of Ezra

In the midst of this procession, the sons of Adonikam shine, most of whom had returned with Zerubbabel (Ezra 2: 13). Now the last children (v. 13) go up with Ezra; their names are not forgotten; thus, the entire family is complete and this special blessing is mentioned here in the book of God. May we also see entire families, like the family of Adonikam, among those whom the Lord calls to testify of Him in these final days!

#4: The difference of 45 singers

Matthew Henry writes:

There are many differences in the numbers between this catalogue and that in Ezra. Most of them indeed are exactly the same, and some others within a very few under or over (one or two perhaps); and therefore I cannot think, as some do, that that was the number of these families at their first coming and this as they were now, which was at least forty years after (some make it much more); for we cannot suppose so many families to be not at all, or but little, altered in their numbers in all that time; therefore what differences there are we may suppose to arise either from the mistakes of transcribers, which easily happen in numbers, or from the diversity of the copies from which they were taken. Or perhaps one was the account of them when they set out from Babylon with Zerubbabel, the other when they came to Jerusalem. The sum totals are all just the same there and here, except of the singing-men and singing-women, which there are 200, here 245. These were not of such importance as that they should keep any strict account of them.

SUMMARY
The background of these two books tells us clearly that most of the Jews did not return to Israel. This is the sad fact; they forsook the land of their fathers and the land in which God had made them a promise. There is a parallel lesson here to that of the exodus and the first generation dying in the wilderness.

Their religion was in 'word' only, as Isaiah prophesied, as they remained in Babylon, a land full of idols and witchcraft. The Jews were to stand opposed to all paganism and declare the true living God. It is estimated that 5-6 million people lived during the time of the Babylonian captivity, and yet, scarcely 50,000 returned to rebuild what God had made promise to them.

Isaiah 52:1-3 Awake, awake, Clothe yourself in your strength, O Zion; Clothe yourself in your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; For the uncircumcised and the unclean Will no longer come into you. Shake yourself from the dust, rise up, O captive Jerusalem; Loose yourself from the chains around your neck, O captive daughter of Zion. For thus says the LORD, "You were sold for nothing and you will be redeemed without money."

Matthew Henry writes:

All the Jews should at length have shaken themselves from their dust, and loosed the bands of their neck, according to that call (Isa. 52:1, 2) I wonder how any of them could read that chapter and yet stay behind. But multitudes did. They loved their ease better than their religion, thought themselves well off where they were, and either believed not that Jerusalem would better their condition or durst not go thither through any difficulties.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: Ezra-Nehemiah Bible Study

Unity The unity of the combined work is shown by the fact that they have the same common object, the same plan, and a similarity of language and style; that they treat, for the most part, of the same period of time; and that Ezra is one of the most prominent persons in both. It is not fair to deny the essential unity on the ground that the list of priests and others found in Ezr 2 is repeated in Ne 7; for there is no doubt that Ezra was the compiler of parts at least of the book called after him, and that Nehemiah also was the original writer of parts of the book that bears his name. Whoever was the final editor of the whole work, he has simply retained the two almost identical lists in their appropriate places in the documents which lay before him.

BibleQuery.org offers an indepth look at the Book of Ezra and Nehemiah

Additional Resources
Notes on Ezra by Thomas L. Constable (pdf required)
Notes on Nehemiah by Thomas L. Constable (pdf required)
Ezra Easton's Bible Dictionary
Ezra the scribe JewishEncyclopedia.com
Book of Ezra JewishEncyclopedia.com.
Ezra Early Jewish Writings by Peter Kirby
The Bible and Archaeology The Kingdom of Judah: Exile and Restoration
Nehemiah JewishEncyclopedia.com
NECHEMIYAH (Book of Nehemiah) Massoretic, Hebrew, Aramaic, JPS, Kaplan texts of Ezra from the Jewish Publication Society Bible

Re: by Dave Marr: Questions #10 and #11
These questions by the skeptic both pertain to the censuses taken regarding the time at which the Babylonians took Israel captive. In all fairness, these discrepancies should have all been put under one "contradiction", since they pertain to the same two censuses. However, to make it seem like there are more "contradictions" than there really are, the skeptic has randomly spread parts of this census throughout the whole collection.

Wendell gave excellent, well-researched answers to the problems with the Babylonian census, so I would direct inquiries on these questions back to posts #1o and #11. It's probable that he'll add even more to these studies, and I might possibly also at some point in the future.

(Thanks Dave! -W-)

#12 - Is it wrong to commit adultery?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:56:00 +0000

response by Sylvia Cochran

The Skeptics Annotated Bible Website claims that the Bible contradicts itself on the issue of adultery. It cites Ex.20:14 & Dt.5:18

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

as proof that the Bible expressly forbids adultery, while it cites Num.31:18

"But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Hos.1:2

"And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms...."

and Hos.3:1

"Then said the Lord unto me, God yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress."

as proof that the Bible actually condones adultery.

However, on closer examination of the Scriptures we find that the condemnation of adultery is part of the law (the 10 Commandments) which God gave to Moses. The quote of the scriptures in Numbers, in contrast, does not speak of adultery. When reading the Bible in context, which critics at times neglect to do, we learn the following:

"women children" refers to just that...children. In a society where girls were married off as young as 12 or 13, we are obviously dealing with little girls who are too young for marriage and/or concubinage.
Other than God's command of executing His sentence against the Midianites, the reason for not allowing the gorwn men or women to intermingle with the Israelites was for the sake of not tempting the latter with the former's idolatry. Little girls, however, did not represent a threat in this context.
Slavery was practiced at that time, and it was not for sexual purposes that the little girls were kept but as slaves.

While the scripture in Numbers in no way contradicts the injunction against adultery, the scriptures in Hosea most certainly do not speak of the Lord's approval of adultery either. The prophet Hosea's relationship with his wife was used by God as a direct allegory to Israel's spiritual relationship with God. If we read the Bible in context, we see that

God charges Hosea to show Israel its sin of idolatry
God uses the image of the husband whose wife commits adultery with another man
in the same way, God explains that Israel has offended God by its adultery in the guise of idolatry and prayer to other gods
at the same time, in spite of Israel's idolatry and spiritual adultery, God still yearns for His people and is willing to take them back would they but repent
God demonstrates this message through Hosea's relationship with his wife. God asks him to knowingly marry and adulteress. (God knowingly chose a people who would rebel against Him.) Then, even after continued adultery against him, God asks Hosea to reconcile with his wife in love (3:1-3). (In the same way, God is there to receive Israel in love, as soon as they listen to His pleas and return to Him.)

Thus, in closing, there is no contradiction as to the sin of adultery. It is a sin, and while God used one woman's sin and one prophet's willingness to overlook it as an example of His own love for Israel, it nowhere implies/expressly states that the Lord approves of adultery. Similarly, while we rightfully condemn slavery, it was practiced in the time of Moses, and the capture of 32,000 Midianite girls had no sexual connotation, but was a calculated "business transaction" in keeping with the customs of the times.

God: 1
Skeptics subscribing to the notion that the topic of adultery presents a contradiction in the Bible: 0

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's problem:

Adultery is forbidden.
Ex.20:14, Dt.5:18 "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Heb.13:4 "Whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Adultery is permitted.
Num.31:18 "But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Hos.1:2 "And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms...."
Hos.3:1 "Then said the Lord unto me, God yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress."

Explanation
Adultery is forbidden by God. Nothing in the Bible may override or negate this law. As Jesus said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18)

Once again, the skeptic has not taken into account a whole passage of the Bible and its context: Nehemiah 31:18. God told Moses to wage war against the Midianites. Israel did, and won; and they gathered the spoil and took captives. Moses’ strict reverence of God’s Law is found in the verses preceding:

“And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with them. But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Num. 31:14-18)

Obviously, Moses is very concerned about keeping Israel pure and holy. He does not want any corrupting influence in the nation, out of respect and fear of Lord God. Therefore, Moses did not want the current society and future generations defiled.

First, he had all of the young males killed. As cruel or barbarous as this might sound, it was necessary to prevent the bloodlines of Israel from being corrupted. Science has already established that many personality traits are inherited, and therefore sinful habits could be inherited in the progeny of the Jews. As we can see from history, they had enough trouble in that area, without this additional burden. And another reason to kill them that was above all: God said to destroy all of the Midianites-- that’s why Moses was so angry.

To protect the present Israelites, he had all the women who already had sexual relations to be killed. This was because these women either 1.) would tend to be promiscuous in general, 2.) they would carry beliefs and sinful habits of their husbands with them, or 3.) would not be submissive to Israeli law.

As a condition to appease Israel, and still keep within the bounds of God’s precepts, Moses let his people save the virgins because they were undefiled according to the Law. What verse 18 does NOT say is, “All men may have the virgins”. Moses is speaking to the entire set of military leaders at once; thus, he is speaking to the whole nation, in general. Only men who were not married could take the virgins: an understanding of God’s ordinances was already assumed in Moses’ address.

When the skeptic references the verse from Hosea, he does not seem to understand that Hosea did not commit adultery. Hosea properly married the woman. The fact that she was in a life of prostitution was outside of his control. She would do this with or without his intervention.

Also, the skeptic does not seem to be aware of higher law and lower law in the Word of God. A lower law would be a restriction he has given to believers in the Torah. The higher law is a circumstantial command spoken by God. The higher law always supercedes the lower law. In the Book of Hosea, God teaches a higher lesson to the “adulterous” and unfaithful Israel by the life of one man, a prophet. Additionally, from his own tortuous affair, Hosea is able to carry his message from God with more conviction.

Hosea’s relationship with the whore was symbolic of God’s relationship with the Israelites. With this understanding, God’s higher law, “Hosea, go take a whore to wife” overrules the general practice for a man to marry a virgin, or a widow of holy living. This is a rare exception, just as Samson was allowed to kill as one of God’s judges of Israel-- even though the Nazarite oath didn’t permit the adherent contact with dead bodies. (Num. 6:6)

God’s laws were given for the good of man; God’s purposes are directed for the benefit of mankind.

#13 - Was Ahaz buried with his fathers?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:27:00 +0000

Response by Dave Marr

Yes.
“And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David.” 2 Kg.16:20
No.
“And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel” 2 Chr.28:27

Explanation
Here is a case by the skeptic where, out of the two verses that he introduces, one actually supports and clarifies the other. “Ahaz slept with his fathers”, and was buried “in the city of David”.

That Ahaz slept with his fathers means that he died just like all of the other kings before him. Here is the key: Ahaz was buried in Jerusalem, the city of David-- the place where all the other kings were laid to rest. Therefore, he was buried with his fathers. However, because of his gross sin before God and His kingdom, the people did not bury Ahaz in the sepulchres of the holy kings.

#14 - When did Ahaziah begin to reign?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:27:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

In the twelfth year of Joram
2 Kings 8:25: In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
In the eleventh year of Joram.
2Kings 9:29: And in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign.

That is, eleven whole years: for in (2 Kings 8:25) when he said he began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram, he takes a partial year for a whole. ~The 1599 Geneva Study Bible

#15 - How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 23:28:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, 22 or 42?

22 years old
2 Kings 8:26: Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became king; he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah, granddaughter of Israel's King Omri.
42 years old
2 Chronicles 22:2: Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

The correct answer is: 22

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible

That is, after the death of his father.
2 Chronicles 21:20: Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign (Compare 2 Kings 8:26). According to that passage, the commencement of his reign is dated in the twenty-second year of his age, and, according to this, in the forty-second year of the kingdom of his mother's family [LIGHTFOOT]. "If Ahaziah ascended the throne in the twenty-second year of his life, he must have been born in his father's nineteenth year. Hence, it may seem strange that he had older brothers; but in the East they marry early, and royal princes had, besides the wife of the first rank, usually concubines, as Jehoram had (2 Chronicles 21:17); he might, therefore, in the nineteenth year of his age, very well have several sons" [KEIL] (compare 2 Chronicles 21:20, 2 Kings 8:17).

Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Two and twenty In the parallel passage of Chronicles, it is said, "forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign;" but this is evidently a mistake, as it makes the son two years older than his own father! For his father began to reign when he was thirty-two years old, and reigned eight years, and so died, being forty years old See 2Kings 8:17; and the Note on 2kings 8:2; 2Chronicles 22:2

Forty and two. In the parallel passage, (on which see the Note) he is said to be only twenty-two; and this is doubtless the true reading, as it is supported here by several MSS and Versions. 2 Kings 8:26

Matthew Henry Commentary

He is here said to be forty-two years old when he began to reign (v. 2), which could not be, for his father, his immediate predecessor, was but forty when he died, and it is said (2 Ki. 8:26) that he was twenty-two years old when he began to reign. Some make this forty-two to be the age of his mother Athaliah, for in the original it is, he was the son of forty-two years, that is, the son of a mother that was of that age; and justly is her age put for his, in reproach to him, because she managed him, and did what she would—she, in effect, reigned, and he had little more than the title of king.

Many good expositors are ready to allow that this, with some few more such difficulties, arise from the mistake of some transcriber, who put forty-two for twenty-two, and the copies by which the error should have been corrected might be lost. Many ancient translations read it here twenty-two. Few books are now printed without some errata, yet the authors do not therefore disown them, nor are the errors of the press imputed to the author, but the candid reader amends them by the sense, or by comparing them with some other part of the work, as we may easily do this. The history of Ahaziah’s reign is briefly summed up in two clauses, v. 3, 4

#16 - Did the city of Ai exist after Joshua destroyed it?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:29:00 +0000

Response by Dave Marr

Did the city of Ai exist after Joshua destroyed it?

The skeptic's argument:

No, it was never rebuilt after Joshua destroyed it.

“And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.” Joshua 8:28

Yes, it existed at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

“The men of Bethel and Ai, an hundred twenty and three.” Nehemiah 7:32

Joshua was written long before Nehemiah. Therefore, anything in Joshua pertains to the situation of the time of the writing. I quote Matthew Henry’s Commentary:

“The earliest Jewish traditions attribute authorship to Joshua, except for the section regarding his funeral. It is uncertain, however, whether Joshua actually wrote the book or rather commanded it to be written, ch. 18:8, 24:25-26 ... The date of the writing could be as early as 1400 B.C. if Joshua were the principal writer. If someone other than Joshua wrote about the events from a historical perspective, the book could have been written as late as 1200 B.C.”

“In the oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts Ezra and Nehemiah are treated as one book. ... The book was evidently written some time after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia in 432 B.C. The book may have been written as late as 330 B.C.”

The fact can be assumed that Ai was rebuilt some time after Joshua was written. Notice that Joshua 8:28 says: “made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.” (not that it “will” be a heap for ever)-- implying a very long time, not necessarily perpetually. The verse is simply illustrating the complete destruction of the city.

#17 - What tribe was Aijalon from?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:30:00 +0000

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptics dilemma:

The cities of Aijalon and Gathrimmon were given to Dan.

"And out of the tribe of Dan ... Aijalon with her suburbs, Gathrimmon with her suburbs." Jos.21:23-24

The cities of Aijalon and Gathrimmon were given to Ephraim.

"The tribe of Ephraim ... Ajalon with her suburbs, and Gathrimmon with her suburbs." 1 Chr.6:66, 69

Explanation:

Aaaah... As a Danite myself, I am pleased to solve this problem. Simply put, the Tribe of Dan lost their inheritance. Apparently, they left Israel sometime shortly after the reign of King David. 1 Chronicles was written a while after his reign (400-450 B.C. is the best estimate of authorship, whereas David reigned around 1000 B.C.), so the book is accounting for the land allotment during that period.

The omission of the tribe in the passage also silently expresses the dishonor that came upon Dan when they lost their portion of the Promised Land. God forced this to happen because of their wicked idolatrous practices. (see my article Micah's Curse )

In 1 Chronicles, the land belongs to Ephraim because that’s who it was appropriated to after the Tribe of Dan’s departure.

#18 - Is it OK to drink alcohol?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:31:00 +0000

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's quandary:

No.

"He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried." Numbers 6:3
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1
"Be not among winebibbers.... For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty." Proverbs 23:20-21
"Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine." Proverbs 23:29-30
"Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." Proverbs 23:31-32
"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!" Isaiah 5:11
"Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink." Isaiah 5:22
"But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment." Isaiah 28:7
"But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank." Daniel 1:8
"Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken." Habbakuk 2:15
"For he [John the Baptist] shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink." Luke 1:15
"Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness." Romans 13:13
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Romans 14:21
"Drunkenness ... and such like ... they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:21
"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess." Ephesians 5:18

Yes.

"Wine, which cheereth God and man." Judges 9:13
"Wine that maketh glad the heart of man." Psalm 104:15
"Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more." Proverbs 31:6-9
"And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. ... His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. ... Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine ... the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." John 2:3-10
"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake." 1 Timothy 5:23

Explanation:
Alcohol is commonly known as a “spirit”. To be sure, when consumed, it alters the spirit, or temperament, which already resides in a person.

To understand the Biblical view of the consumption of alcoholic beverages, a differentiation must be made between a moderate ingestion of alcohol, and that of drunkenness. Drunkenness is a condition which is most often found in alcoholics. Alcoholics drink in excess amounts, regularly. Essentially, this foolish way of life permanently alters the disposition, or spirit, of the person: in such a way that he/she loses sound judgment, and opens up to sinful behavior.

Indeed, alcoholism is a disorder that has a proven hereditary factor. A person who is normally sober is just as guilty as the alcoholic when they drink too much at a party in the name of “socializing”. Being drunk, no matter what the usual drinking patterns are, breaks down a good spirit in the body, and opens the door to sinful, filthy, demonic spirits to interact with it. (Notice that Isaiah 28:7 perfectly describes drunkenness, and Proverbs 23:31-32 illustrates how a drunk looks at his drink.) It is for this same reason that a Christian will avoid illegal drugs.

The key is moderation. As the Apostle Paul said, “Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.” (Phillipians 4:5) So, a small “buzz” would be acceptable at times: if the situation allows for it from a Biblical standpoint(such as at an appointed feast), and as long as it is not a regular occurrence. An exception would be for the sick(whose spirit has deteriorated), as in the case of Timothy (1 Tim. 5:23) and those with a depressive mood like the type of man mentioned by Solomon (Proverbs 31:6-9). However, this is NOT the recommended treatment for someone who is chronically depressed.

But the question is raised about eliminating drinks altogether in those people of a strong spirit, or spiritual disposition. The Nazarites were not allowed to drink alcohol because God wanted no outside impediment in their mission for Him. As well, there is no record of Jesus drinking, except for at the Last Supper. (He was called a “winebibber” by some because He associated with those that did drink when He attended the feasts. Also, at the institution of Communion, the wine that He and the others there drank was symbolic, and was dedicated for this purpose through prayer. Essentially, it can be argued that the spirit that was normally attributed to wine was removed and replaced by the Spirit of God for the Last Supper meal. Using wine for this sacrament was a way to show that Jesus’ blood, when shed, gave access to God’s Spirit, the Holy Ghost, for all believers.) When Paul was addressing the Romans, he said it was best not to drink wine, in the same breath that he said only to eat kosher foods around Jewish legalists- even though he, Peter, and the other Apostles believed that God lifted the restriction on certain meats.(Romans 14:21) This small sacrifice would be one less obstacle in preaching to the strict, unyielding Jews.

Summarily, what all of this means is that a follower of Jesus Christ should avoid alcohol altogether(except perhaps at Communion- but even then many churches use juice) if they seek to have the closest relationship possible with God.

Response by Kim Sheil

Is it OK to drink alcohol?

They claim the Bible says no to drink, then, yes. Here is what the Bible says about drink, that even a monkey can point out AND understand: It is ok to drink alcohol but not ok to get drunk. Was it not Jesus who turned water into wine and God who warned against drunkenness?

Anyway, I haven't been drunk since I was 16.

(good for you Kim!! -W-)

#19 - Does God want some to go to hell?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 23:22:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

The claim is blatantly FALSE

1) The critic claims "God wants everyone to go to heaven"
Timothy 2:3-4: God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved.
2 Peter 3:9: The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

2) The Critic claims: "God wants some to go to hell"
Proverbs 16:4: The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Explanation:
So that the justice of God will appear to his glory, even in the destruction of the wicked. ~Geneva Study Bible

"for its answer," or "purpose," that is, according to God's plan; the wicked are for the day of evil (Psalms 49:5, Jeremiah 17:18); sinning and suffering answer to each other, are indissolubly united. ~Jamieson Fausset Brown

John Wesley:

Doth work - He orders or disposes.
For - For his own glory; for the discovery of his wisdom, power, goodness, truth, justice.
The wicked - Wilful and impenitent sinners. Men make themselves wicked, and God therefore makes them miserable.

John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

It is of no great moment, whether the he, who is said to blind and harden, be God or Christ, or whether the words be rendered, "it hath blinded"… that is, malice or wickedness; or whether they be read impersonally, "their eyes are blinded"… since God or Christ blind and harden not by any positive act, but by leaving and giving men up to the blindness and hardness of their hearts, and denying them the grace which could only cure them, and which they are not obliged to give; and which was the case of these Jews, so as never to be converted, or be turned even by external repentance and reformation, that they might be healed in a national way, and be preserved from national ruin, as it follows.
~John Gill

The Syriac and Persic versions read, "they have blinded their eyes"

Matthew 13:15: For this people's heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart: and be converted and I should heal them;

Romans 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth

But the force of the word is great, for hardening, which is set against "mercy", presupposes the same things that mercy did, that is, a voluntary corruption, in which the reprobate are hardened: and again, corruption presupposes a perfect state of creation. Moreover, this hardening also is voluntary, for God hardens in such a way, being offended with corruption, that he uses their own will whom he hardens, for the executing of that judgment. Then follow the fruits of hardening, that is, unbelief and sin, which are the true and proper causes of the condemnation of the reprobate. Why does he then appoint to destruction? Because he wishes: why does he harden? Because they are corrupt: why does he condemn? Because they are sinners. Where then is unrighteousness? Nay, if he would destroy all after this manner, to whom would he do injury? ~People's New Testament

Therefore hath he mercy.
Verse 15 has shown that he hath mercy according to his own sense of right, not according to any human code. The case of Pharaoh shows, in addition, that whom he will, he hardeneth. "What must not be forgotten, and what appears distinctly, from the whole narrative in Exodus, is that Pharaoh's hardening was at first his own act. Five times it is said of him that he himself hardened, or made heavy his heart (Exod. 7:13; 7:22; 8:15; 8:32; 9:7), before the time when it is at last said that God hardened him (Exod. 9:12), and even after that it is said that he hardened himself (Exod. 9:34). Thus he at first closed his own heart to God's appeals; grew harder by stubborn resistance under God's judgments, until at last God, as a punishment for his obstinate rejection of right, gave him over to his mad folly and took away his judgment." ~People's New Testament

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned.

Jamieson Fausset Brown states:
for this cause - because "they received not the love of the truth." The best safeguard against error is "the love of the truth."
shall send - Greek: "sends," or "is sending"; the "delusion" is already beginning. God judicially sends hardness of heart on those who have rejected the truth, and gives them up in righteous judgment to Satan's delusions (Isaiah 6:9,10'Romans 1:24-26,28'). They first cast off the love of the truth, then God gives them up to Satan's delusions, then they settle down into "believing the lie": an awful climax (1 Kings 22:22,23, Ezekiel 14:9, Job 12:16, Matthew 24:5,11, 1 Timothy 4:1).
strong delusion - Greek: "the powerful working of error," answering to the energizing "working of Satan" (2 Thessalonians 2:9); the same expression as is applied to the Holy Ghost's operation in believers: "powerful" or "effectual (energizing) working" (Ephesians 1:19).
believe a lie - rather: "the lie" which Antichrist tells them, appealing to his miracles as proofs of it. (2 Thessalonians 2:9,12)
they all, damned - rather as Greek: "that all," &c. He here states the general proposition which applies specially to Antichrist's adherents. Not all in the Church of Rome, or other anti-Christian systems, shall be damned, but only "all who believed not the truth," when offered to them, "but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:32, 2:8). Love of unrighteousness being the great obstacle to believing the truth.

John 3:16-21
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's argument:

God wants everyone to go to heaven.
"God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved." 1 Timothy 2:3-4
"The Lord is ... not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

God wants some to go to hell.
"The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Proverbs 16:4
"He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." John 12:40
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." Romans 9:18
"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

Explanation:
God ideally wants all to go to Heaven, and to be in fellowship and communion with Him. However, it may be helpful to take a look at the concepts of Free Will and Predestination in light of Proverbs 16:4 and Romans 9:18. Here are my thoughts on the subject, which I have quoted before:

"God operates outside the limits of space and time but has the ability to work inside its framework. Because of this, God can see humanity as it unfolds from its full and complete existence, but He can interact with it anywhere He wants; in fact, there is not a moment where He doesn’t.

God chooses people on a simple capacity or display of faith. To deny this fact would not only contradict certain Scriptures, but not give man a choice of free will as we know it.

Free will is ultimately based on our finite view of the world and the cosmos; we cannot think beyond this framework because of how our minds were created to specifically fit in to this environment. Within these boundaries, we have all the freedom necessary, externally and internally, to make choices based on our desires and judgment. However, because God operates outside this system, He knows and controls how events will unfold, and makes necessary changes as He sees proper. Because we do not have the mind of God in the aforementioned breadth of consciousness, we do not have the necessary facts or ability of reasoning to consider this arrangement which Man finds himself in as fair or unfair.

God foreknows people because He created them; He knows them better than they know themselves. God knows who the elect are because He knows their heart and disposition, as well as how they will handle the trials and tests before them.

From birth, God sets Man in motion as He guides his actions when He sees fit.”

Summarily, mankind makes its own choices, but God oversees and controls all in a way we cannot begin to fully comprehend.

Now, when it comes to “hardening hearts”, God does this after the sinner will not turn from his/her sin, even in the light of the truth of God. This happened with Pharoah, where he hardened his own heart, and then God gave him over to his sin by hardening it more for him. (Exodus 5-14)

Because 2 Thessalonians 2:11 starts with “For this cause”, it is absolutely necessary to look at the preceding verse:

"And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” 2Thess:2:10

These verses are from a passage describing the days of the Antichrist, which is today’s generation. It is the same case with the unbelievers now as it was with Pharoah in Egypt: “they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” So, God will send them more delusion then they have already indulged in, since they reject His Word.

With John 12:40, we must realize why Isaiah was quoted in this passage. Going back a few verses, we find:

“But though he[Jesus] had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him.” John 12:37

These miracles were done right after the Triumphal Entry, at the Passover just before His death. Therefore, we know that many, many sermons were delivered to the Jews before this time; they knew Jesus’ doctrine by now. Because they rejected it, His Word, God “blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart”-- they had already chosen to move in this direction beforehand.

God wants us all to be with Him, but we have free will to make the choice ourselves. God is not the author of sin(sin is essentially not conforming to God’s wishes or Will), but rather He respects us as autonomous beings here on this Earth. Since God does not want a repeat with us of the defection from His Court by Satan and his angels, He leaves us this life as a test-- even graciously giving us a cancellation of our sin debt if we accept His Son Jesus’ sacrifice and Lordship.

#20 - Did Jesus tell his disciples everything?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:26:00 +0000

Response by Wendell Leahy

Jesus told his disciples everything.
John 15:15: "For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you."

There were some things that Jesus didn't tell them.
John 16:12: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."

John Gill Exposition of the Bible:

or all things I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you
not all that he knew as the omniscient God, for there was no necessity that all such things should be made known to them; but all things which he had delivered to him as man and Mediator, by his Father, respecting the salvation of men; all things which he himself was to do and suffer, in order to obtain eternal redemption; and the whole of the Gospel, as to the essential and substantial parts of it, they were to preach; for otherwise, there were some things which as yet they were not able to bear, and were reserved to another time, to be made known unto them by his Spirit.

I have yet many things to say unto you
Not with respect to the main doctrines of the Gospel, for everything of this kind he had made known unto them, (John 15:15) ; but what regarded the rejection of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles, the abrogation of the Mosaic economy, and settling the Gospel church state, which were to come to pass after the death and resurrection of Christ, and the sending of the Spirit:

but ye cannot bear them now
because of their prejudices in favour of their own nation, the law of Moses, and the ceremonies of it, and the setting up of a temporal kingdom.

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's confusion:

Jesus told his disciples everything.
"For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." John 15:15

There were some things that Jesus didn't tell them.
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." John 16:12

Explanation:

The one truth we must realize is that Jesus was fully human when He dwelt among us, in addition to being fully God. He came into this world as a baby, and went through childhood like the rest of us, and passed through the different stages of life as all humans do.

To more thoroughly comprehend this fact, one verse is very important regarding Jesus’ childhood, and therefore his human form: “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” Luke 2:52

Jesus, while physically on Earth, had the Spirit of God without measure, yet He learned and increased in knowledge and wisdom as a human; that is, it wasn’t all given to Him at His birth. In essence, He was temporarily limited by His human nature-- this was necessary, to a certain extent, in order for Him to fully experience life as one of us.

When Jesus began preaching, God, through the Holy Spirit, would speak in His ear all things about Himself that He wanted mankind to know. So Jesus spoke the truth when He told His disciples that He made all things that He heard from the Father known to them.

Notwithstanding, between John 15 and John 16, it is apparent that God the Father began to tell Jesus many things regarding His death, Resurrection, and future Church. Jesus foretold His death to His disciples at least a few times, but it was a stumblingblock to them. Thus, they would not be able understand what His death would accomplish, and how this would empower the Church, so He knew that his disciples would not be able to handle this new intelligence at this point. They would only understand after Jesus died and rose again, especially when the Holy Ghost was given to them.

Jesus Christ is “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the beginning of all creation”, yet He took on our weak physical form in a way that no one could say that he wasn’t truly with us here on Earth. No one but God Himself knows how this “soul amnesia” temporarily operated in Jesus, and we shouldn’t speculate. The point is that Jesus gave us the most excellent model of communicating with God the Father, in a way that we could understand and follow.

#21 - Was David alone when asking for the holy bread at Nob?

noreply@blogger.com (Wendell) — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:44:00 +0000

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's problem:

He was alone.
"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?" 1 Samuel 21:1

He was with others.
"But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 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?" Matthew 12:3-4

"And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?" Mark 2:25-26

"And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him; How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?" Luke 6:3-4

Explanation
David was with other men. To comprehend the meaning of the verse that says he is alone, we must look at more of the passage:

“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? 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. Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. 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. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been 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. So 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.” 1 Samuel 21:1-6

Obviously, there were other men with David, but the question remains, “Why did Ahimelech ask why David was alone?” David had been in the royal court of Saul up until this time, which is the point when he fled into hiding. Therefore, if he were still in favor with Saul, he would have other members of the court with him, not just common men. It disturbed Ahimelech that David was not in Saul’s company; this was a red flag that something was not right in the kingdom. Indeed, Ahimelech’s fear was prudent, because Saul later came and killed Ahimelech and his priests. (1 Samuel 22)