Skeptics Annotated Bible

Skeptics Annotated Bible - A Response

2004-11-22T11:25:00.000-08:00

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

2004-11-20T11:47:00.000-08:00

*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?

2004-11-19T19:57:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-19T19:41:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-19T12:41:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-18T12:42:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-17T12:46:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-16T12:51:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-15T12:57:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-14T13:16:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-13T13:17:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-12T13:18:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-11T14:52:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-10T14:51:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-09T14:55:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-08T14:56:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-07T15:27:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-06T15:27:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-05T15:28:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-04T15:29:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-03T15:30:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-02T15:31:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-11-01T15:22:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-10-31T16:26:00.000-08:00

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?

2004-10-30T21:44:00.000-07:00

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)

#22 - Who was Amasa's father?

2004-10-28T22:04:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's problem:

Amasa's father was Ithra an Israelite.
"Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ishra and Israelite." 2 Samuel 17:25

Amasa's father was Jether an Ishmaelite.
"And the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite." 1 Chronicles 2:17

Explanation:
Jether and Ishra are variations of the name "Jethro", so can be reasonably inferred that these two men are the same man. Unfortunately, no satisfactory answer can be found as to why one source quotes him as an Ishmaelite, and the other as an Israelite.

#23 - How should the Ammonites be treated?

2004-10-27T22:09:00.000-07:00

Response by Wendell Leahy

Do not fight against them or take their land.

Deuteronomy 2:19
And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.

Deuteronomy 2:37
Only unto the land of the children of Ammon thou camest not, nor unto any place of the river Jabbok, nor unto the cities in the mountains, nor unto whatsoever the LORD our God forbad us.

Kill them and take their land.

Judges 11:32
So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the LORD delivered them into his hands.

Jeremiah 49:2
I will cause an alarm of war to be heard in Rabbah of the Ammonites; and it shall be a desolate heap, and her daughters shall be burned with fire.

Explanation:
Deuteronomy 2:5 & 2:9 give a background to verses 2:19 &amp; 2:37

Deut: 2:5: Meddle not with them; for I will not give F10 you of their land, no, not so much as a foot breadth; because I have given mount Seir unto Esau for a possession.

Deut: 2:9: And the LORD said unto me, Distress F11 not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle: for I will not give thee of their land for a possession; because I have given Ar unto the children of Lot for a possession.

Deut: 2:19 And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession.

Deuteronomy 2:19 -37

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown states:

when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them--The Ammonites, being kindred to the Moabites, were, from regard to the memory of their common ancestor, to remain undisturbed by the Israelites. The territory of this people had been directly north from that of Moab. It extended as far as the Jabbok, having been taken by them from a number of small Canaanitish tribes, namely, the Zamzummins, a bullying, presumptuous band of giants, as their name indicates; and the Avims, the aborigines of the district extending from Hazerim or Hazeroth (El Hudhera) even unto Azzah (Gaza), but of which they had been dispossessed by the Caphtorim (Philistines), who came out of Caphtor (Lower Egypt) and settled in the western coast of Palestine. The limits of the Ammonites were now compressed; but they still possessed the mountainous region beyond the Jabbok (Joshua 11:2). What a strange insight does this parenthesis of four verses give into the early history of Palestine! How many successive wars of conquest had swept over its early state--what changes of dynasty among the Canaanitish tribes had taken place long prior to the transactions recorded in this history!

Matthew Henry states:

Deut: 8-23: We have the origin of the Moabites, Edomites, and Ammonites. Moses also gives an instance older than any of these; the Caphtorims drove the Avims out of their country. These revolutions show what uncertain things wordly possessions are. It was so of old, and ever will be so. Families decline, and from them estates are transferred to families that increase; so little continuance is there in these things. This is recorded to encourage the children of Israel. If the providence of God has done this for Moabites and Ammonites, much more would his promise do it for Israel, his peculiar people. Cautions are given not to meddle with Moabites and Ammonites. Even wicked men must not be wronged. God gives and preserves outward blessings to wicked men; these are not the best things, he has better in store for his own children.

24-37 God tried his people, by forbidding them to meddle with the rich countries of Moab and Ammon. He gives them possession of the country of the Amorites. If we keep from what God forbids, we shall not lose by our obedience. The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof; and he gives it to whom he pleases; but when there is no express direction, none can plead his grant for such proceedings. Though God assured the Israelites that the land should be their own, yet they must contend with the enemy. What God gives we must endeavour to get. What a new world did Israel now come into! Much more joyful will the change be, which holy souls will experience, when they remove out of the wilderness of this world to the better country, that is, the heavenly, to the city that has foundations. Let us, by reflecting upon God's dealings with his people Israel, be led to meditate upon our years spent in vanity, through our transgressions. But happy are those whom Jesus has delivered from the wrath to come. To whom he hath given the earnest of his Spirit in their hearts. Their inheritance cannot be affected by revolutions of kingdoms, or changes in earthly possessions.

2 Chronicles 20:10: "But now here are men from Ammon, Moab and Mount Seir, whose territory you would not allow Israel to invade when they came from Egypt; so they turned away from them and did not destroy them

Judges 11:32, Jeremiah 49:2

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown states:

Judges 11:32. Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon . . . and the Lord delivered them into his hands--He met and engaged them at Aroer, a town in the tribe of Gad, upon the Arnon. A decisive victory crowned the arms of Israel, and the pursuit was continued to Abel (plain of the vineyards), from south to north, over an extent of about sixty miles.

Jephthah Eastons bible dictionary

whom God sets free, or the breaker through, a "mighty man of valour" who delivered Israel from the oppression of the Ammonites (Judges 11:1-33), and judged Israel six years (12:7). He has been described as "a wild, daring, Gilead mountaineer, a sort of warrior Elijah." After forty-five years of comparative quiet Israel again apostatized, and in "process of time the children of Ammon made war against Israel" (11:5). In their distress the elders of Gilead went to fetch Jephthah out of the land of Tob, to which he had fled when driven out wrongfully by his brothers from his father's inheritance (2), and the people made him their head and captain. The "elders of Gilead" in their extremity summoned him to their aid, and he at once undertook the conduct of the war against Ammon. Twice he sent an embassy to the king of Ammon, but in vain. War was inevitable. The people obeyed his summons, and "the spirit of the Lord came upon him." Before engaging in war he vowed that if successful he would offer as a "burnt-offering" whatever would come out of the door of his house first to meet him on his return. The defeat of the Ammonites was complete. "He smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards [Heb. 'Abel Keramim], with a very great slaughter" (Judges 11:33). The men of Ephraim regarded themselves as insulted in not having been called by Jephthah to go with him to war against Ammon. This led to a war between the men of Gilead and Ephraim (12:4), in which many of the Ephraimites perished. (See SHIBBOLETH .) "Then died Jephthah the Gileadite, and was buried in one of the cities of Gilead" (7).

Jeremiah 49:2

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown states:

Rabbah--"the great," metropolis of Ammon (2 Samuel 12:26-30). Its destruction is foretold also in Ezekiel 25:5, Amos 1:14,15. her daughters--the towns and villages, dependencies of the metropolis (Joshua 15:45). shall . . . be heir--shall possess those who possessed him. The full accomplishment of this is still future; partially fulfilled under the Maccabees (I Maccabees 5:6).

Predictions concerning the Ammonites
* Subjection to Babylon Jeremiah 25:9-21; 27:3,6
* Destructions for hatred to Israel Ezekiel 25:2-10; Zephaniah 2:8,9
* Punishment for oppressive cruelty Jeremiah 49:1-5; Amos 1:13-15
* Restoration Jeremiah 49:6
* Subjection to the Jews Isaiah 11:14

The Ammonites
* DESCENT of - Genesis 19:38
* CALLED the Children of Lot - Deuteronomy 2:19
* Children of Ammon - Jeremiah 25:21

Related links:
Looking unto Jeses.net
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD by Andrew McFarland

#24 - Who was Anah?

2004-10-26T22:10:00.000-07:00

The daughter of Zibeon
"Anah the daughter of Zibeon" -- Genesis 36:2, 14

The brother of Zibeon
"These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who inhabited the land; Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah." -- Genesis 36:20

"The sons of Seir ... Zibeon and Anah" -- 1 Chronicles 1:38

The son of Zibeon
"And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father." -- Genesis 36:24

"The sons of Zibeon; Aiah, and Anah." -- 1 Chronicles 1:40

Response:

A’nah

Smith's Bible Dictionary
(one who answers ), the son of Zibeon and father of Aholibamah, one of Esau’s wives. (Genesis 36:2,14,25) He is supposed to have discovered the "hot springs" (not "mules," as in the Authorized Version) in the desert as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father. (B.C. 1797.)

Nave's Topical Bible
Son of Seir (Gen:36:20,24,29; 1Chron:1:38)
Father-in-law or mother-in-law of Esau. An error of copyist, probably, calls him daughter, instead of son, of Zibeon, the Hivite (Gen:36:2,14,24)
Called also BEERI (Gen:26:34)

Easton's Bible Dictionary
speech. One of the sons of Seir, and head of an Idumean tribe, called a Horite, as in course of time all the branches of this tribe were called from their dwelling in caves in Mount Seir (Gen:36:20,29; 1Chron:1:38).

One of the two sons of Zibeon the Horite, and father of Esau's wife Aholibamah (Gen:36:18,24).

----------

Response by Looking Unto Jesus.net

January 29, 2006 / Volume 6, Issue 5

----------

Response by H. J. Wolf

Anah (From International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)

a'-na ('anah, meaning uncertain; a Horite clan-name (Gen. 36)):

(1) Mother of Aholibamah, one of the wives of Esau and daughter of Zibeon (compare Genesis 36:2, Genesis 36:14, Genesis 36:18, Genesis 36:25). The Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Peshitta read "son," identifying this Anah with number 3 (see below); Genesis 36:2, read (ha-chori), for (ha-chiwwi).

(2) Son of Seir, the Horite, and brother of Zibeon; one of the chiefs of the land of Edom (compare Genesis 36:20-21 = 1 Chronicles 1:38). Seir is elsewhere the name of the land (compare Genesis 14:6; Isaiah 21:11); but here the country is personified and becomes the mythical ancestor of the tribes inhabiting it.

(3) Son of Zibeon, "This is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness" (compare Genesis 36:24 = 1 Chronicles 1:40-41) The word ha-yemim, occurs only in this passage and is probably corrupt. Ball (Sacred Books of the Old Testament, Genesis, critical note 93) suggests that it is a corruption of we-hemam (compare Genesis 36:22) in an earlier verse. Jerome, in his commentary on Genesis 36:24, assembles the following definitions of the word gathered from Jewish sources. (1) "seas" as though yammim; (2) "hot springs" as though hammim; (3) a species of ass, yemim; (4) "mules." This last explanation was the one most frequently met with in Jewish lit; the tradition ran that Anah was the first to breed the mule, thus bringing into existence an unnatural species. As a punishment, God created the deadly water-snake, through the union of the common viper with the Libyan lizard (compare Gen. Rabbah 82 15, Yer. Ber 1 12b; Babylonian Pes 54a, Ginzberg, Monatschrift, XLII, 538-39).

The descent of Anah is thus represented in the three ways pointed out above as the text stands. If, however, we accept the reading ben, for bath, in the first case, Aholibamah will then be an unnamed daughter of the Anah of Genesis 36:24, not the Aholibamah, daughter of Anah of Genesis 36:25 (for the Anah of this verse is evidently the one of Genesis 36:20, not the Anah of Genesis 36:24). Another view is that the words, "the daughter of Zibeon," are a gloss, inserted by one who mistakenly identified the Anah of Genesis 36:25 with the Anah of Genesis 36:24; in this event, Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, will be the one mentioned in Genesis 36:25.

The difference between (2) and (3) is to be explained on the basis of a twofold tradition. Anah was originally a sub-clan of the clan known as Zibeon, and both were "sons of Seir"--i.e. Horites.

©Copyright 1992-2006 Church of the Great God (C.G.G.).

#25 - How long does God's anger last?

2004-10-25T22:11:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's bafflement:

God's anger lasts for just a moment.
"For his anger endureth but a moment." Psalm 30:5
"I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever." Jeremiah 3:12
"He retaineth not his anger forever, because he delighteth in mercy." Micah 7:18

God's anger lasts a long time.
"And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness for forty years." Numbers 32:13
"Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever." Jeremiah 17:4
"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Matthew 25:41
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment." Matthew 25:46

Explanation:
The duration of God’s anger depends on many factors. God is a God of mercy, and a God of love, yet He is also a God of justice- Who hates sin.

To those people who are His followers (such as David in Psalm 30), then His anger only lasts a short time if they are truly repentant. When the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years before reaching Canaan, it was because they had been bickering with Moses, and affronting God’s Sovereignty. Therefore, in His anger, God delivered a decree, or punishment, that they should be “homeless” for that long. He was angry for a short time, but he also delivered a sentence to match the crime.

Jeremiah 17:4 is misunderstood by the skeptic. The verse actually illustrates God’s justice more than His anger. The verse in its entirety: “And thou, even thyself, shalt discontinue from thine heritage that I gave thee; and I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in the land which thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.”

The tribe of Judah was flagrantly disobedient, so they lost their inheritance from God, and served their enemies. This “fire” can be interpreted as a burning of their inheritance, which would be perpetual. God still has not technically given them their inheritance back(Zionists [Illuminists] founded and are in control of today’s “Israel”), and only the repentant, Christ-believing Jews will receive a future inheritance in the Heavenly Kingdom. Essentially, God became angry - the consequence being that Judah’s land was forever torched metaphorically.

God will forgive sin and no longer be angry at penitents, yet He also leaves them to the consequential punishment of their actions. The key is: God will not condemn them to Hell, but rather bring them back into fellowship with Him.

Jeremiah 3:12 in its entirety illustrates this point:

“Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep mine anger for ever.”

Here we see that God’s favor is conditional: “Return, ... and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you”. If they do this, then God “will not keep [his] anger for ever”. This last part of the verse might also be revealing that God foresees Israel’s future repentance. Repentance is always required by God for forgiveness. ( see my article The Issue of Forgiveness )

Micah 7:18 describes what would happen when Israel repented of her sins.

The two remaining verses referenced by the skeptic pertain to God’s Justice. God is Holy and Just, as well as Loving and Merciful. Sin brings punishment. That’s why God the Father sent His Son Jesus as a sacrifice: so that as many as would except the sacrifice would be legally brought back into communion with Him. God has decreed that sin from unrepentant sinners must be punished, and God’s Word is unchangeable and unbreakable. As a result, Satan and his angels, and the wicked of mankind, will receive punishment that has been foreordained.

#26 - Should you answer a fool according to his folly?

2004-10-25T11:43:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's puzzlement:

You should answer a fool.
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverb 26:5

You should not answer a fool.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Proverb 26:4

Explanation

These proverbs follow one right after the other in Proverbs chapter 26. Therefore, these verses, taken together, imply that there are certain times to answer a fool, and other times not to. Since “answer not a fool” is listed first, this is the general tact that should be taken. The commentator Matthew Henry offers an excellent exposition on the circumstances in which one should answer a fool:

“If thou have reason to think that thy silence will be deemed an evidence of weakness, in such a case answer him; beat him at his own weapons, and that will be an answer to the point.”

I would also add that a conversation should not be had with a person acting foolishly if it is unprofitable spiritually(e.g. name-calling, false report, deceptive social games), which is generally the case.

Response by Wendell Leahy

You should answer a fool.
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverb 26:5

Reprove him as the matter requires.
~1599 Geneva Study Bible

Examples of Poverbs 26:5 in the scriptures (Holman translation)

1 Kings 22:24-28
Then Zedekiah son of Chenaanah came up, hit Micaiah in the face, and demanded, "Did the Spirit of the Lord leave me to speak to you?" Micaiah replied, "You will soon see when you go to hide yourself in an inner chamber on that day." Then the king of Israel ordered, "Take Micaiah and return him to Amon, the governor of the city, and to Joash, the king's son, and say, 'This is what the king says: Put this guy in prison and feed him only bread and water until I come back safely.'"But Micaiah said, "If you ever return safely, the Lord has not spoken through me." Then he said, "Listen, all you people!"

Jeremiah 36:17,8
Then they asked Baruch, "Tell us-how did you write all these words? At his dictation?" Baruch said to them, "At his dictation. He recited all these words to me while I was writing on the scroll in ink."

Matthew 15:1-3
Then Pharisees and scribes came from Jerusalem to Jesus and asked, "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they don't wash their hands when they eat!" He answered them, "And why do you break God's commandment because of your tradition?

Matthew 16:1-4
The Pharisees and Sadducees approached, and as a test, asked Him to show them a sign from heaven. He answered them: "When evening comes you say, 'It will be good weather, because the sky is red.' And in the morning, 'Today will be stormy because the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to read the appearance of the sky, but you can't read the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation wants a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah." Then He left them and went away.

Matthew 21:23-27
When He entered the temple complex, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to Him as He was teaching and said, "By what authority are You doing these things? Who gave You this authority?" Jesus answered them, "I will also ask you one question, and if you answer it for Me, then I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Where did John's baptism come from? From heaven or from men?" They began to argue among themselves, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From men,' we're afraid of the crowd, because everyone holds John to be a prophet." So they answered Jesus, "We don't know." And He said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Matthew 22:15-22
Then the Pharisees went and plotted how to trap Him by what He said. They sent their disciples to Him, with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth. You defer to no one, for You don't show partiality. Tell us, therefore, what You think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But perceiving their malice, Jesus said, "Why are you testing Me, hypocrites? Show Me the coin used for the tax." So they brought Him a denarius. "Whose image and inscription is this?" He asked them. "Caesar's," they said to Him. Then He said to them, "Therefore, give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left Him and went away.

Luke 12:13-21
Someone from the crowd said to Him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." "Friend," He said to him, "who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?" And He told them, "Watch out and be on guard against all greed, because one's life is not in the abundance of his possessions." Then He told them a parable: "A rich man's land was very productive. He thought to himself, 'What should I do, since I don't have anywhere to store my crops? I will do this,' he said. 'I'll tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and store all my grain and my goods there. Then I'll say to myself, "You have many goods stored up for many years. Take it easy; eat, drink, and enjoy yourself." "But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life is demanded of you. And the things you have prepared--whose will they be?' "That's how it is with the one who stores up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God."

John 8:7
When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, "The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her."

John 9:26-33
Then they asked him, "What did He do to you? How did He open your eyes?" "I already told you," he said, "and you didn't listen. Why do you want to hear it again? You don't want to become His disciples too, do you?" They ridiculed him: "You're that man's disciple, but we're Moses' disciples. We know that God has spoken to Moses. But this man--we don't know where He's from!" "This is an amazing thing," the man told them. "You don't know where He is from; yet He opened my eyes! We know that God doesn't listen to sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He listens to him. Throughout history no one has ever heard of someone opening the eyes of a person born blind. If this man were not from God, He wouldn't be able to do anything."

Titus 1:13
This testimony is true. So, rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith

You should not answer a fool.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Proverb 26:4

Consent not to him in his doings.
~1599 Geneva Study Bible

Isaiah 5:21
Woe to those who are wise in their own opinion and clever in their own sight.

Romans 12:16
Be in agreement with one another. Do not be proud; instead, associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own estimation.

John Wesley
Proverbs 26:4 According - So as to imitate his folly, by passionate or reproachful speeches.
Proverbs 26:5 According - So as his folly needs and requires, convincing him strongly, reproving him sharply, and exposing him to just shame.

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not--that is, approvingly by like folly.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer--by reproof.

Response by James Patrick Holding - Tektonic Apologetics Ministry
I Pity the Fool I Answer
Is Proverbs in Contradiction on Answering Fools?

Prov. 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Among alleged contradictions charged, this one wins a major award for silliness. What we have here is not contradiction, but dilemma -- an indication that when it comes to answering fools, you can't win -- because they are fools, and there is no practical cure for foolery (as this citation demonstrates). So: It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence. (Note further that proverbs are not absolutes -- which fits right in with our "dilemma" answer.)

#27 - Who were the apostles?

2004-10-24T12:58:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic points out the tenth apostle:

Matthew 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-18
1. Simon (aka Peter)
2. Andrew
3. James (son of Zebedee)
4. John
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew
9. James (son of Alphaeus)
10. Lebbaeus (surname Thaddeus) +
11. Simon (the Canaanite)
12. Judas (Iscariot)

Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13
1. Simon (aka Peter)
2. Andrew
3. James
4. John
5. Philip
6. Bartholomew
7. Thomas
8. Matthew
9. James (son of Alphaeus)
10. Judas (James' brother) +
11. Simon (Zeolotes)
12. Judas (Iscariot)

Explanation
There is enough evidence that Judas(the brother of James) and Lebbaeus(Thaddaeus) are the same person. I will include an excerpt from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia(article by C. M. Kerr):

“The ‘Gospel of the Ebionites’, or ‘Gospel of the Twelve Apostles’, of the 2nd century and mentioned by Origen, narrates that Thaddaeus was also among those who received their call to follow Jesus at the Sea of Tiberius.

... There is abundant testimony in apocryphal literature of the missionary activity of a certain Thaddaeus in Syria, but doubt exists as to whether this was the apostle. Thus (1) according to the ‘Acts of Peter’(compare Budge, II, 466 ff) Peter appointed Thaddaeus over the island of Syria and Edessa. (2) The ‘Preaching of the blessed Judas, the brother of our Lord, who was surnamed Thaddaeus’(Budge, 357 ff), describes his mission in Syria and in Dacia, and indicates him as one of the Twelve.”

Also a quote from Wikepedia:

“Thaddaeus (Greek Thaddaios) Saint Jude is one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ referred to in Matthew and Mark. In Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13 his name is replaced with "Judas the son of James", indicating that Thaddeus might be a family name. The manuscript of the King James Version identifies "Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus" in Matthew 10:3.”

BibleAnswers.us gives this description of the account in Acts:

“There were eleven Apostles [after Judas Iscariot’s defection]:
*Simon Peter - Brother of Andrew - The Apostle to the Jews - Wrote: I Peter & II Peter
*Andrew - Brother of Peter
*James - Son of Zebedee brother of John
*John - Son of Zebedee brother of James - wrote: John, I John, II John, III John and Revelation.
(James & John were Surnamed Boanerges - the sons of thunder)
*Phillip
*Thomas
*Bartholomew
*Matthew - The publician called the Levi - Wrote Matthew
*James - Son of Alphaeus Brother of Judas
*Lebbaeus Thaddaeus - Judas - Son of Alphaeus Brother of James
*Simon Zelotes - The Canaanite”

#28 - Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples after the resurrection?

2004-10-23T13:28:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's confusion:

On a mountain top in Galilee.
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Matthew 28:16

In a room in Jerusalem.
"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." Mark 16:14
"And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." Luke 24:33-37
" 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." John 20:19

Explanation
The event on the mountaintop is one of the later appearances of Jesus. There is nothing in the passage in Matthew that indicates this as the first appearance, and there is no reason why the evangelist Matthew could not skip a few appearances if he thought it best for his audience in his personal record of the events. We must remember that many people of his generation had heard of the appearances, and there is a very strong probability that the Gospel of Mark was already written and distributed at the time of the writing of the Gospel of Matthew. Here is an exposition of the matter by commentator Matthew Henry:

“This evangelist[Matthew] passes over several other appearances of Christ recorded by Luke and John. The disciples had seen Jesus several times at Jerusalem, yet they went into Galilee because He appointed them to do so. Now was the time that He was seen of five hundred brethren at once, but some doubted of those who were present. These doubts were afterward removed, and their faith grew up to a full assurance.”

#29 - How many of Arah's offspring returned from Babylon?

2004-10-22T13:41:00.000-07:00

775
Ezra 2:5: The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy and five.

652
Nehemiah 7:10: The children of Arah, six hundred fifty and two.

#30 - What was in the Ark of the Covenant?

2004-10-21T13:41:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's misunderstanding:

Only the two tables of Moses.
"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt." 1 Kings 8:9
"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of Egypt." 2 Chronicles 5:10

The tables of Moses, a golden pot filled with manna, and Aaron's budded rod.
"The ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant." Hebrews 9:4

Explanation:
Very likely, the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were put in the Ark of the Covenant some time between the end of Solomon’s reign and the destruction of Jerusalem = hundreds of years. 1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10 describe the contents of the Ark at the same event: the dedication of the Temple by Solomon. The verses say “There was nothing” not “there is nothing” or “there was never anything else in the Ark”. There was no ordinance that stipulated that nothing else which was holy could be placed in it later. Who did, and the reason for placing the additional items in, is unknown, but apparently someone did later on.

#31 - Was Asa perfect?

2004-10-20T16:09:00.000-07:00

Response by Wendell Leahy

Yes
2Chronicles 15:17: The heart of Asa was perfect all his days.
NIV states: (Although he did not remove the high places from Israel, Asa's heart was fully committed to the Lord all his life).

No
2Chronicles 16:7: Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah, and said unto him, Because thou hast relied on the king of Syria, and not relied on the LORD thy God, therefore is the host of the king of Syria escaped out of thine hand.

2Chronicles 16:10: Then Asa was wroth with the seer, and put him in a prison house; for he was in a rage with him because of this thing. And Asa oppressed some of the people the same time.

2Chronicles 16:12: And Asa ... was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians.

Response:

Perfect, Perfection
(Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology)

partial quote:

Two word-groups in the Hebrew Old Testament are translated "perfect" or "perfection": tamam [m'T] and calal [l;l'K]. The former connotes wholeness, soundness, integrity, and often takes on ethical significance; the latter connotes completeness, perfection, and can carry the aesthetic sense of comeliness or beauty. Nearly all New Testament occurrences translate Greek words sharing the tel- stem, from which some half-dozen words are formed that bear the sense of completion or wholeness.

Old Testament references to perfection using the calal [l;l'K] root speak often of a passing perfection, a beauty granted by God but squandered, whether by God's own people (Lam 2:15; Ezek 16:14) or by a city-state like Tyre (Ezek 27:3, 4, 11; 28:12). The same word is used positively of Zion (Psalm 50:2). Elsewhere the psalmist contrasts the Lord's commands with what seems perfect from a human point of view: "To all perfection there is a limit; but your commands are boundless" (119:96).

Robert W. Yarbrough
Copyright © 1996 by Walter A. Elwell
Baker Book House Company

This is one of those typical claims that critics always seem to pose and make as a claim. In essence, this is called a fallacy and as such cannot be used as a valid premise, for the premise is based upon the usage of the word [perfect] (from the Biblical explanation), with the implication of what most people would understand in our modern day English. The critic has failed to look at the true meaning of the word [perfect] as given throughout the entire Bible, especially being well explained in the New Testament.

I will use one example with Noah (but there many more throughout the Bible, such as Job for example). In all honesty, I do not know why the SAB makes this claim with Asa (nearly 1/3 the way into the Old Testament) yet fails to mention from the beginning, how this word is used and the true biblical meaning behind it:

Genesis 6:9: These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

The question here to consider is this; was Noah perfect? The answer is an obvious no, for no person is perfect, for all have fallen short of perfection (there is only one perfect man in the entire Bible and that is Jesus). Only God is perfect. In fact, this is the basic premise behind the entire word of God, and what is being pointing out to all who read his word, is that "none are perfect" and as such all are condemned (John 3:16-21)

Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Therefore, the NIV has rightfully stated (translated) the basic understanding for the usage of this word - perfect: "Asa's heart was fully committed to the Lord all his life". As is clearly revealed in God's word is that all have sinned, and fall short of perfection, but that, when the heart is set to be "committed" to the Lord, God sees this as perfection. Not because "we are perfect" (for we are sinners by nature, which is why Christ died, to redeem all who have sinned) but that we have sought repentance of our sin and work towards perfection, through Jesus Christ, the One who was and is 'perfect' (the essence of the word [perfect] which the critic is attempting to make as absolute in all cases, which is not what the bible claims whatsoever, in fact just the opposite).

The word usage here has no correlation to that which is perfection, for only God is perfect. This "so-claimed" contradiction is just another example of the complete ignorance of people who make such ridiculous claims, having no idea that the Bible is replete with this basic understanding of the word usage for [perfect].

Additionally, to choose a person (Asa) halfway through the Old Testament to make this claim as a contradiction is, well, laughable at best. In fact, these type of claims only reinforce our position that for the most part, the "so called" contradiction is not actually given because a contradiction truly exists, but that the critic is simply making a failed attempt at mocking and ridicule. To make such a claim only shows the true motive and intent of the critic, which is not to discover truth, but to merely overwhelm someone with endless babble and rhetoric. As from my point of view, this is just another one of those claims, that in truth, with a simple look into this word, the answer is clearly given throughout the scriptures and that even a child could grasp the true meaning and purpose of this word; perfect.

1John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

#32 - Did Asa remove the high places?

2004-10-19T16:11:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's perplexity:

Asa removed the high places.
"Also he [Asa] took away out of all the cities of Judah the high places." 2 Chronicles 14:3-5

Asa did not remove the high places.
"But the high places were not removed: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the Lord all his days." 1 Kings 15:14
"But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days." 2 Chronicles 15:17

Explanation:
One historical fact that needs to be understood is that Israel was divided into two kingdoms when Asa began to reign: the House of David reigned over Judah and Benjamin, and the rest of Israel was under the House of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. However, Abijah (Asa’s father) had conquered much of Israel.

Asa was a good king whose “heart was perfect all his days”. The key point is that he removed the high places from Judah and apparently Benjamin as well. We see a continuation later of Abijah’s conquest, by Asa:

“And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the LORD his God was with him. So they gathered themselves together at Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa.” 2 Chronicles 15:9-10

Other tribes, that were under the House of Jeroboam before, now joined themselves to the House of Judah temporarily, for Asa’s reign. Therefore, if we look at 1 Kings 15:14 and 2 Chronicles 15:17 again, we can undoubtedly conclude that the high places were removed from Judah and Benjamin, but not from “Israel”(the designation, at that time in history, given to any tribe in Israel other than Judah and Benjamin).

#33 - How many of Asaph's offspring returned from Babylon?

2004-10-18T16:59:00.000-07:00

Response by Eric Vestrup
Tecktonics Apologetics Ministries

128
Ezra 2:41: The singers: the children of Asaph, an hundred twenty and eight.

148
Nehemiah 7:44: The singers: the children of Asaph, a hundred forty and eight.

Response: Nehemiah 7, Ezra 2, OT
Do These Chapters Hopelessly Contradict Each Other?

Some would call these two chapters a skeptical goldmine. Dennis McKinsey writes: "...we have a listing of the subclans that returned from the Captivity and the number of people in each. In the KJV, out of approximately thirty-five subclans listed over half of the numbers are in disagreement. Furthermore, someone doesn't know how to add very well because the totals are in error. Ezra 2:64 says `The whole congregation together was 42,360,' when one can see by easily adding the figures together that the total is 29,818. Nehemiah 7:66 also says, `The whole congregation together was 42,360' when one need only add those figures to see that it's actually 31,089. Ezra erred by 12,542, and Nehemiah erred by 11,271."

It should be immediately recognized that both the authors of Ezra and Nehemiah are aiming to convey exact figures. It would be the height of laziness and unfaithfulness to the intended meaning of the text to state that we are merely dealing with round figures. Those who read 1 Esdras will run into the same problem with the total there as well. Do we here have a bona fide case for errors in the autographa? Any reasonable apology that is faithful to the evidence and to the possibility that we might have a genuine error here must address two problems: first, the divergences in the number of people in the clans listed both in Ezra and Nehemiah; second, how to account for the far-off totals.

Let the first issue be addressed. Both Ezra and Nehemiah are referring to the same event here, the return from the Babylonian Captivity. This event is not punctiliar but is an event that was realized in an interval and not a point of time. If it is reasonable to conjecture that perhaps the lists in Ezra and Nehemiah reflect the counts at different times during the time interval in which the return took place, then we have a reasonable possibility (but of course dogmatism must be avoided!) for explaining some of the divergent numbers. Higher totals might reflect clans who added people along their journey, lower totals might reflect deaths or certain types of attrition on the journey (say). Most of the divergences are fairly small: the largest divergences are between the count for Seenah (Ezra 2:35 and Neh 7:38, Nehemiah as 300 more), Azgad (Ezra 2:12 and Neh 7:17, Nehemiah having 1,100 more), Zattu (Ezra 2:8 and Neh 7:13, Ezra having 100 more), the men of Bethel and Ai (Ezra 2:28 and Neh 7:32, Ezra having 100 more). Note that these are all round-number divergences: 100, 300, and 1100. There are also some sizable numerical divergences not expressed in round numbers: the case of Hashum (Nehemiah has 105 more), Arah (Ezra has 123 more), and Adin (Nehemiah has 201 more).

Assuming that the reasonable conjecture that Ezra and Nehemiah present counts at different times in the return for argument's sake, I am at a loss to say dogmatically that this conjecture reasonably explains the differences. I have reservations concerning believing that the conjecture reasonably explains the differences -- the difference of 1,100 for Azgad seems on the surface too large a difference to account for by stating that the lists were composed at different times. The serious student of the problem can profit by reading the discussion of this problem by Archer in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties , pp. 229-231, and by consulting Keil and Delitzsch's Old Testament Commentary on Ezra 2, pages 1352-1367, (page numbers for the Associated Authors and Publishers edition).

In reading the aforementioned works which represent the conservative viewpoint, one will find that the solutions are conjectural. The reader who is genuinely interested in the problem can decide for himself or herself if the discussions of the problem strain credulity or assume too much. I am an agnostic on the problem with the information out there. But we conservatives must admit at once that the Ezra/Nehemiah discrepancy is a genuine issue whose final solution eludes us. Perhaps future research will uncover information that clarifies the issue in a way that makes harmonization seem more reasonable. Perhaps future research will clarify the issue in a way that makes the problem harder for those who would try to reconcile the discrepancy. Perhaps we have as of the present all the information that we will ever have. As we don't have all of the information, the reader will have to decide for himself or herself whether or not dogmatism for an error in the originals is warranted. I personally have seen enough divergences reconciled in my studies, both Biblical and non-Biblical, to know that what appears as a blatant error turns out to have a nice (but not necessarily simple) solution. I have confidence here that more facts which one could obtain by "being there" would help us reconcile the numerical differences. But, honesty compels me to admit that this confidence is based on past experience more than the facts in this case.

On the other hand, the major apologists such as Archer and Geisler in their books express the possibility of their presented solutions being true with much greater confidence than I do. So, the opinion among apologists is varied. But the reader should keep in mind that this difference of opinion among apologists in no way nullifies the strength of the problem which must be faced. (JPH note: a reader has pointed out that Nehemiah declares that he found this register, which means only that he is required to have inerrantly reported its contents -- not that the contents of what he found be inerrant.)

----------

#34 - Did Peter ask Jesus where he was going?

2004-10-17T17:00:00.000-07:00

#35 - On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?

2004-10-16T17:01:00.000-07:00

Response by Wendell Leahy

(......to be posted...)

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's bewilderment:

On an ass and a colt.
"Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon." Matthew 21:5-7

On a colt.
"And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him." Mark 11:7
"And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon." Luke 19:35

On a young ass.
"And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon." John 12:14

Explanation:
Matthew 21:5-7 basically answers the dispute. He rode on an ass and a colt. Perhaps he rode on the colt longer than he rode on the ass, and that’s why it was mentioned in two of the Gospels with the colt by itself. John, whose Gospel is known for adding subtle spiritual details in its content, mentions only the ass. This point is important to notice: Mark, Luke, and John do not say “He sat on an ass only” or “He sat on a colt only. Matthew and John are known for having more exposition by Jesus on deeper spiritual truths, especially John. That is why John, knowing the prophecies, mentions that He sat on an ass. He may not have mentioned the colt because they were already written in the previously documented accounts, Mark and Luke. Matthew, himself one of the disciples like John (who both witnessed the event), listed the ass and the colt, perhaps because he was more meticulous, as he came from the profession of tax collecting.

Also, it is crucial to note that, in Mark and Luke, Jesus rides the colt before- and as- they waved palm branches in His path and worshipped Him. John records Jesus riding the ass immediately after this event.

#36 - Does the bible condemn astrology?

2004-10-15T18:58:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's discomfiture:

Yes, the Bible condemns astrology.
“Neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.” Deuteronomy 18:10-12
“There shall not be found among you any ... that useth divination, or an observer of times.... For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD.” Leviticus 19:26
“Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.” Isaiah 47:13-14
“Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.” Jeremiah 10:2

No, the Bible approves of astrology.
“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:” Gen.1:14
“The stars in their courses fought against Sisera.” Jg.5:20
“Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.” Mt.2:1-2
“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars.” Lk.21:25

Explanation:
To begin in answering this question, I will give a definition of astrology, courtesy of World Book Encyclopedia:

“Astrology is the study of how the sun, moon, planets, and stars are supposedly related to life and events on the earth. It is based on the belief that the heavenly bodies form patterns that can reveal a person's character or future. ... The basic principle of astrology is that the heavenly bodies influence what happens on the earth. Astrologers learn about this influence by casting (drawing) a circular chart called a horoscope or birth chart. A horoscope shows the position of the planets in relation to both the earth and the stars at a certain time. In most cases, it shows the position of these bodies at the time of a person's birth. ... The system used by astrologers to cast a horoscope is based on a special view of the universe. This view involves four elements: (1) the earth, (2) the planets, (3) the zodiac, and (4) the houses.”

The Bible expressly condemns and prohibits astrology. The pseudo-science is a form of divination, and opens people up to the demonic realm directly.

The skeptic has a problem with the Genesis Creation account because it mentions “signs” in the same sentence as “lights in the firmament of heaven”. It is imperative to understand that “astrology” is not the same as “astronomy”. The latter is a bona fide, rational science. Here is another definition from World Book Encyclopedia, on Astronomy:

“Astronomy is the study of the stars, planets, and other objects that make up the universe. Astronomers observe the locations and motions of heavenly bodies. However, almost all astronomers are interested in more than just observing these objects. They also seek answers to such questions as "What are stars made of?" and "How do they create their light?" For this reason, most astronomers are also astrophysicists--that is, they study physical and chemical processes that occur in the universe.”

The Creation account is referring to astronomical principles.

The "observer of times" in the Deuteronomy and Leviticus is not just someone who notices the seasons, but someone who makes a practice of reading patterns in the constellation to gain insight into spiritual secrets. This type of fascination for the night sky can be observed in the term used by ancients: "heavens", for what we would call now "the sky" and "the universe".
Turning to the verse in Judges, it mentions “stars” which fought against Sisera. Undoubtedly, this designation is referring to angels. Angels are commonly known as the stars of heaven, and Jesus Christ is the “Morning Star”. An excerpt from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:

“The phrase ‘the host of heaven’ is applied to stars, which were sometimes worshipped by idolatrous Jews (Jeremiah 33:22, 2 Kings 21:3, Zephaniah 1:5); the name is applied to the company of angels because of their countless numbers (compare Daniel 7:10) and their glory.”

In order to know what the angels did in the case of Sisera, let us back up a few verses to Judges 4:15:

"And the LORD discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet."

Something put Sisera into an awful fright. It was almost certainly the angels with their swords, wreaking havoc on his army.

The star that the wise men witnessed in Matthew 2:1-2 is obviously one of God’s angels calling attention to the magnificent, supernatural event of Jesus’ birth. Perhaps it was the same Angel that guarded Israel in the wilderness after the Exodus. The curiosity of these men was ignited by the star’s unbelievable glow. The commentator Matthew Henry offers more suggestions:

“Some think this star put them in mind of Balaam’s prophecy that a star should come out of Jacob, pointing at a scepter that shall ‘rise out of Israel’, Numbers 24:17. Others impute their inquiry to the general expectation at that time, in those eastern parts, of some great prince to appear.”

The statement by Jesus in Luke 21:25 is taken out of context. Jesus is elucidating the events which will unfold in the End Times, which is the season of His second coming. The “signs” are referring to the “signs of the times”, as in: visible clues. Here is a quote from Revelation which illustrates what these signs pertaining to the heavenly bodies will be:

“And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.” Revelation 6:12-13

On a side note, the “stars” in this verse are very likely meteors.

To say that the passages in Genesis, Judges, Matthew, and Luke are referring to Astrology is the same as making an erroneous assumption such as: because I read my book, it implies that I worship my book. Despite the mention of celestial bodies at times in the Bible, God forbids all divination, which includes Astrology.

#37 - How many of Azgad's offspring returned from Babylon?

2004-10-14T12:16:00.000-07:00

#38 - When did Baasha die?

2004-10-13T12:17:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's problem:

In the 26th year of King Asa's reign.
"So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his son reigned in his stead.... In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah began Elah the son of Baasha to reign over Israel in Tirzah, two years." 1Kings 16:6-8

Sometime after the 36th year of King Asa's reign.
"In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah...." 2 Chronicles 16:1

If these two verses are true, then Baasha fought with Judah ten years after his death!

Explanation:
For this answer, I would like to direct readers to Eric Lyons' excellent article on this problem at Apologetics Press, entitled When Did Baasha Reign?

#39 - How many languages were there before the Tower of Babel was built?

2004-10-12T12:24:00.000-07:00

Response by Wendell Leahy

The skeptic's befuddlement:

There was only one language.
"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." Genesis 11:1
"And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language.... Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.... Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth:" Genesis 11:6-9

There were many languages.
"By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one after his tongue." Genesis 10:5
"These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues." Genesis 10:20
"These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues." Genesis 10:31

Explanation:
ANSWER:
Chapters 10 and 11 are not given in chronological order. Genesis chapter 10 gives the genealogies of Noah’s sons and their generations.

The chronological order given is first 1) the tower of Babel 2) the confusion of languages (chapter 10 gives the generations of Noah - with each their own tongue).

Chapter 10 follows the tower of Babel and tells us of different language. Genesis 11 tells us how the different languages originated.

Evidence that the chronological order is verified:
a) Babel is already mentioned in chapter 10, prior to its description in chapter 11: 10:10: And the beginning of his kingdom (Nimrod) was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
b) Peleg is mentioned as an eyewitness to the division of languages in chapter 10: 10:25: And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

#40 - How many of Bani's offspring returned from Babylon?

2004-10-11T12:41:00.000-07:00

#41 - In whose name is baptism to be performed?

2004-10-10T12:43:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's embroilment

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 28:19

In the name of Jesus.
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ." Acts 2:38
"... the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Acts 8:12
"They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 8:16
"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Acts 10:48
"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:5

Explanation:
Jesus Christ is the “name” which is “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” To believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in the Trinity. In His ministry, Jesus stated that Jehovah was His Father many times, and told His disciples that He would be with them through the Comforter, the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is part of God the Father and Jesus the Son. These verses from John express these truths beautifully:

“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. ... And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.” John 14:10, 16-18

Therefore, baptizing in the “name of Jesus Christ” indisputedly implies the effectual seal of “the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”. All three are in Jesus Christ, even though He is separately known as “the Son”. To baptize in the “name of the Son” is not quite the same. To use Jesus Christ’s name, you must believe in Jesus Christ and be His follower: which means believing His doctrine. The “name of Jesus Christ” represents His identity outlined in His teachings.

On a somewhat related note, demons will demand that a believer in Christ be specific of His identity when exorcising them; he/she must say “Jesus” and “Christ” together, and oftentimes “of Nazareth” must be included. The Name of Jesus Christ carries the power of His Word.

When only “Lord” is mentioned in Acts 10:48, it means Jesus Christ; the writer(Luke) is referring to the same apostle(Peter), preaching the same doctrine as when the Jesus’ name was specifically stated previously. Luke knows that his readers will understand who it is when he just says “Lord” at that point.

Response by Wendell Leahy

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19
In the name of Jesus. Acts 2:38, 8:12, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19)

People's New Testament:
The end or result of baptism is also given. Converts were to be baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It is a positive affirmation of the Old Testament that where the name of the Lord is recorded there will he meet his disciples, or there will be his presence (see Exod:20:24).

The Lord declares that the three names, that of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, are recorded in baptism. In this rite, then, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit meet the believer; the Father to receive him as a child, the Son to welcome him as a brother, and to cover him with the mantle of his own purity; the Holy Spirit to endow him with that Spirit by which he can say, "Abba, Father." "Into the name of" is equivalent to "into the presence of," or "into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Spirit."

Exodus: 20:24
An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

John Gill:
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;
by the authority of these three divine persons, who all appeared, and testified their approbation of the administration of this ordinance, at the baptism of Christ: and as they are to be invocated in it, so the persons baptized not only profess faith in each divine person, but are devoted to their service, and worship, and are laid under obligation to obedience to them, Hence a confirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity, there are three persons, but one name, but one God, into which believers are baptized; and a proof of the true deity both of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and that Christ, as the Son of God, is God; since baptism is administered equally in the name of all three, as a religious ordinance, a part of divine instituted worship, which would never be in the name of a creature.

This is the first, and indeed the only, place in which the Trinity of persons is expressed in this order, and in the selfsame words. Galatinus F6 pretends, that the ancient Jews used the same way of speaking. It would be well if proof could be made of it: he asserts it to be in Zohar on (Deuteronomy 6:4) , and in the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel on (Isaiah 6:3) . In the former he says, it is expressed thus, "hear, O Israel; the Lord", he is called "the Father; our God", he is called the Son; "is one Lord", this is "the Holy Ghost", who proceeds from both; and again, by the same R. Simeon, it is said, "holy", this is (ba) , "the Father"; "holy", this is (Nb) , "the Son"; "holy", this is (vdqh xwr) , "the Holy Ghost": and in the latter after this manner, "Holy Father, Holy Son, and Holy Holy Ghost"; but no such words are now to be found in either of these places. He affirms, that he himself saw a copy of Jonathan's Targum that had these words. The Jews often speak of the Tetragrammaton, or name of four letters, the name Jehovah, which they say is not lawful to be pronounced; and also of the name of twelve letters, which the above writer F7 makes to be "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"; and of forty two letters, which from a book called Gale Razia, he says is,

``Father God, Son God, Holy Ghost God, three in one, and one in three;''

which in the Hebrew language make up so many letters; but this wants better authority.

Tetragrammaton
Wikipedia
Jay C. Treat, School of Arts & Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
Jewish Encyclopedia

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament:
Baptism in (eiß, not into) the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in the name of the Trinity. Objection is raised to this language in the mouth of Jesus as too theological and as not a genuine part of the Gospel of Matthew for the same reason. Matthew 11:27, where Jesus speaks of the Father and the Son as here. But it is all to no purpose. There is a chapter devoted to this subject in my The Christ of the Logia in which the genuineness of these words is proven. The name of Jesus is the essential part of it as is shown in the Acts. Trine immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority. For the use of eiß with onoma in the sense here employed, not meaning into, see Matthew 10:41ff. (cf. also Matthew 12:41).

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

In the name of Jesus. Acts 2:38

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown:
For the promise--of the Holy Ghost, through the risen Saviour, as the grand blessing of the new covenant.

John Gill:
in the name of Jesus Christ;
not to the exclusion of the Father, and of the Spirit, in whose name also this ordinance is to be administered, (Matthew 28:19) but the name of Jesus Christ is particularly mentioned, because of these Jews, who had before rejected and denied him as the Messiah; but now, upon their repentance and faith, they are to be baptized in his name, by his authority, according to his command; professing their faith in him, devoting themselves to him, and calling on his name. The end for which this was to be submitted to, is,

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament:
and be baptized every one of you (kai baptisqhtw ekastoß –mwn). Rather, "And let each one of you be baptized." Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed "in the name of Jesus Christ" (en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19 (eiß to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eiß to onoma and en twi onomati with baptizw since eiß and en are really the same word in origin. In Acts 10:48 en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou occurs, but eiß to onoma in Acts 8:16; Acts 19:5. The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eiß onoma prophtou (Matthew 10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Matthew 28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See on "Mt 28:19" for discussion of this point. "Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord" (Page)

"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Acts 10:48

John Wesley:
In the name of the Lord - Which implies the Father who anointed him, and the Spirit with which he was anointed to his office. But as the Gentiles had before believed in God the Father, and could not but now believe in the Holy Ghost, under whose powerful influence they were at this very time, there was the less need of taking notice, that they were baptized into the belief and profession of the sacred Three: though doubtless the apostle administered the ordinances in that very form which Christ himself had prescribed.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament:
In the name of Jesus Christ (en twi onomati Ihsou Cristou). The essential name in Christian baptism as in 1 Corinthians 2:38; 1 Corinthians 19:5. But these passages give the authority for the act, not the formula that was employed (Alvah Hovey in Hackett's Commentary. See also chapter on the Baptismal Formula in my The Christ of the Logia). "Golden days" (aurei dieß, Bengel) were these for the whole group.

"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19:5

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament:
The name of the Lord Jesus (to onoma ton kuriou Ihsou). Apollos was not rebaptized. The twelve apostles were not rebaptized. Jesus received no other baptism than that of John. The point here is simply that these twelve men were grossly ignorant of the meaning of John's baptism as regards repentance, the Messiahship of Jesus, the Holy Spirit. Hence Paul had them baptized, not so much again, as really baptized this time, in the name or on the authority of the Lord Jesus as he had himself commanded (Matthew 28:19) and as was the universal apostolic custom. Proper understanding of "Jesus" involved all the rest including the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Luke does not give a formula, but simply explains that now these men had a proper object of faith (Jesus) and were now really baptized.

John Gill:
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus;
not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John's baptism, and of the success of his ministry, showing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John's baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle's name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in (Acts 19:4,5) then what he did, (Acts 19:6) where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles (men) and (de) , which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and show the words to be a continuation of the apostle's speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. Beza's ancient copy adds, "for the remission of sins".

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary: God

The New Testament. From the Christian point of view, the God of the Old Testament is the same God as in the New, except he manifests himself in different ways, most importantly in the incarnation. Yet the basic attributes of God are the same as those of the Old Testament. In one sense, the study of God in the New Testament is a study of Christology, even though that is not the focus of this article.

The generic term for God in the New Testament is theos, but kurios, the Greek rendering of the Hebrew YHWH, is frequently used instead of the generic term. Long before the Christian era, the Jews had stopped pronouncing the divine name so as not to disrespect of defame it. Instead, they gave to this four-consonant name (YHWH) the vowels of another Hebrew word, Adonai, which means "my Master" or "my Lord." Rather than pronouncing it, they pronounced the loan word, Adonai. When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the name YHWH or Adonai was rendered by the Greek word kurios, which means "Lord." So the God of the New Testament is frequently called kurios or Lord, as is Jesus.

The New Testament, like the Old, does not try to prove God's existence. Rather it declares, also like the Old Testament, that he exists and manifests himself in various ways, but finally he speaks through his Son Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1-4), who is superior to angels, priests, and all other manifestations of the divine Word.

Jesus Christ, Name and Titles of Crosswalk.com

#42 - Did Jesus baptize anyone?

2004-10-09T17:19:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's puzzlement:

Yes.
"After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized." John 3:22
No.
"Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." John 4:2

Explanation:
There are two different explanations to arrive at in the case of Jesus’ baptisms. Either He baptized believers personally, in the beginning, and then delegated the responsibility to His disciples later; or, His disciples had done all of the baptizing “in His name”.

For the former possibility, notice that John 4:2 says “baptized not”, not “never did baptize”, so the matter is uncertain based on this verse.

If He did indeed never baptize anyone personally, then John 4:1 as well will give us more comprehension of that position:

“When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)” John 4:1-2

In this passage, first it says He baptized, then it says that He Himself didn’t. These statements together infer that to say “Jesus baptized” meant “the disciples of Jesus baptized”. It is somewhat like saying “The U.S. won the war” even though it was specifically won by the individual soldiers operating as part of the military unit.

Taking John 3 in its entirety into consideration, it is highly probable that Jesus Himself at least baptized some people in the beginning of His ministry.

#43 - Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff?

2004-10-08T17:26:00.000-07:00

Response by Wendell Leahy

The Skeptics are confused about shoes...

He told them to go barefoot, without a staff.
Matt: 10:10 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purse, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves."
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece."

He told them to wear sandals and carry a staff.
Mark 6:8-9: And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals."

Explanation:
John Gill writes concerning Matthew 10:10

for the workman is worthy of his meat; which seems to be a proverbial expression, and by which Christ intimates, that they were workmen, or labourers in his vineyard, and they, discharging their duty aright, were entitled to food and raiment, and all the necessaries of life: this to have, was their due; and it was but a piece of justice to give it to them, and on which they might depend. So that this whole context is so far from militating against a minister's maintenance by the people, that it most strongly establishes it; for if the apostles were not to take any money or provisions with them, to support themselves with, it clearly follows, that it was the will of Christ, that they should live by the Gospel, upon those to whom they preached, as the following words show: and though they were not to make gain of the Gospel, or preach it for filthy lucre's sake; yet they might expect a comfortable subsistence, at the charge of the people, to whom they ministered, and which was their duty to provide for them.

John Wesley writes concerning Mark 6:8-9

Be shod with sandals - As you usually are. Sandals were pieces of strong leather or wood, tied under the sole of the foot by thongs, something resembling modern clogs. The shoes which they are in St. Matthew forbidden to take, were a kind of short boots, reaching a little above the mid - leg, which were then commonly used in journeys. Our Lord intended by this mission to initiate them into their apostolic work. And it was doubtless an encouragement to them all their life after, to recollect the care which God took of them, when they had left all they had, and went out quite unfurnished for such an expedition. In this view our Lord himself leads them to consider it, Luke 22:35: When I sent you forth without purse or scrip, lacked ye any thing?

So that, in Matthew he mentions shoes, while Mark mentions sandals

Shoes and Sandals are not the same....

Shoes: what is bound under, a sandal, a sole fastened to the foot with thongs
Sandals: a sandal, a sole made of wood or leather, covering the bottom of the foot and bound on with thongs...

As concerning 'stave', Matthew mentions 'staves' as in plural, while Mark mentions 'stave', meaning, only one....

People's New Testament, explains this simple statement....

With the staff each one had, but without an extra supply. A staff was always carried in walking over the rugged mountains of Palestine.

The Apostle Paul explains a little more and sums it up quite well...

1 Corinthians 9:14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should earn their living by the gospel.

Reponse by Dave Marr

The skeptic's doubt:

He told them to go barefoot, without a staff.
"Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purse, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves." Matthew 10:10
"And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece." Luke 9:3

He told them to wear sandals and carry a staff.
"And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals." Mark 6:8-9

Explanation:
In Matthew and Luke, when Jesus says not to take shoes or staves, He says it in a description of extra items not take: a purse, money, two coats, food. He does not want anything burdening them in their journey, and He also wanted to teach them to rely completely on God’s loving provision for His followers. Just as people do in our day and age, people in Jesus’ time usually had a few pairs of shoes (sandals in their case). Additionally, people traversing these dirt roads wore out sandals fairly quickly. The disciples were already wearing sandals when Jesus gave them these instructions. He doesn’t say “take off your sandals and walk barefoot”. That would be folly on the roads of Israel. He just didn’t want them taking extra, unnecessary items. The same pertains to the staffs: it is very reasonable to assume that they already each had one with them when Jesus was discussing these issues. He does not expressly prohibit carrying a staff anywhere in these reports.

The focus of the accounts of the instructions in Matthew and Luke is on restriction of unnecessary baggage. Mark gives a summary of all of the instructions on this issue. Just because there is an omission of a mention of shoes and staffs in two of the accounts does not mean that Jesus didn’t indeed tell them to wear shoes and carry a staff. This example is one reason why we have the four Gospels: to fill in all of the pertinent details that perhaps other writers overlooked or didn’t value. Everyone has there own style of reporting events, i.e., the truth.

#44 - Who was Bashemath's father?

2004-10-07T09:44:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic asks: Who was Bashemath's father?

She was the daughter of Elon the Hittite.
Gen:26:34 And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite."

She was the daughter of Ishmael.
Gen.36:2-3: "Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and ... Bashemath Ishmael's daughter."

Easton's Bible Dictionary
Bash’emath means; fragrant, pleasing, daughter of Ishmael, the last married of the three wives of Esau. (Genesis 26:34; 36:3,4,13) (B.C. after 1797.) In (Genesis 28:9) she is called Mahalath.

Elon - the Hittite
Esau: At the age of forty years, to the great grief of his parents, he married (Genesis 26:34,35) two Canaanitish maidens, Judith, the daughter of Beeri,and Bashemath, the daughter of Elon. When Jacob was sent away to Padan-aram, Esau tried to conciliate his parents (Genesis 28:8,9) by marrying his cousin Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael.

The name Bashemath (correctly Basemath) probably comes from the Semitic word-stem b-s-m, meaning “fragrant” (for example, besem means “balsam” in Hebrew). When you add the Hebrew feminine ending –ath, you get Basemath, “fragrant woman.” The possibility exists that Mahalath (daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebajoth) and Adah (daughter of Elon the Hittite) were both given the nickname “fragrant” (Douglas 1982: 124). In other words, the Bashemath, daughter of Elon, in Gen. 26:34 is the same as the Adah, daughter of Elon, in Gen. 36:2, while the Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, in Gen. 36:3 is the same as Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, in Gen. 28:9.

Esau’s Wives by Stephen Caesar
Critics frequently point to what they believe is a contradiction in the Book of Genesis. According to Gen. 26:34 and 28:9, Esau’s wives were as follows:
*Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite (Gen. 26:34)
* Bashemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite (Gen. 26:34)
* Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth (Gen. 28:9)

However, according to Gen. 36:2-3, his wives were:
* Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite
* Aholibamah, granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite
* Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth

After first marrying Judith the daughter of Beeri, Esau may have married Adah the daughter of Elon and nicknamed her “Fragrant.” The possibility exists that Adah died, whereupon he married Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, and nicknamed her “Fragrant,” in honor of his dead wife. Another possibility is that Esau divorced Adah “the Fragrant” (which was allowed by secular Near Eastern law in the Patriarchal Era), and then married Mahalath, nicknaming her “the Fragrant” to spite Adah. Thus, Esau’s various marriages can be plausibly reconstructed as follows:

* First wife: Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite
* Second wife: Adah, “the Fragrant” (Bashemath), daughter of Elon the Hittite; deceased or divorced
* Third wife: Mahalath, “the Fragrant” (Bashemath), daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebajoth * Fourth wife: Aholibamah, granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite

#45 - What was the volume of the molten sea in Solomon's temple

2004-10-06T09:44:00.001-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's uncertainty:
2000 baths. "It contained two thousand baths." 1 Kings 7:26
3000 baths. "It received and held three thousand baths." 2 Chronicles 4:5

Explanation:

The reasonable explanation for this is that the molten sea had the capacity to hold 3000 baths(standard of water measurement), but it normally contained 2000 baths. Perhaps at one time, or at certain times it held larger amounts, but it appears that it usually contained 2000.

#46 - How many of Bebai's offspring returned from Babylon?

2004-10-05T10:20:00.000-07:00

Re: Questions #10, 11, 29, 33, 37, 40, 46, 54, 55, 56, 94, 222, 250, 262, 300, 309, 355

Response by Dave Marr:
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."

Response by Wendell Leahy:
Dave gave a reasonable answer to the problems with the Babylonian census. The Baylonian census between Ezra and Nehemiah, and the many questions by SAB, are in essence one in the same questions and can be reduced to one simple response...

editors note:
Once all responses have been posted, I will link all the 'census' questions into one post....

#47 - Who named Beersheba?

2004-10-05T09:56:00.001-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's concern:
Beersheba was named by Abraham.
"Wherefore he [Abraham] called that place Beersheba." Genesis 21:31

Beersheba was named by Isaac.
"And he [Isaac] called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day." Genesis 26:33

Explanation
Abraham originally dug the well, and gave it its name. Isaac returned a generation later, and his servants dug a well near his father’s old well. Isaac knew that his father named the place Beersheba; God appeared to him the night before, which accentuated the importance of this area. When Isaac again called it Sheba, as his father had, the name was in a sense ratified, and the name “stuck”. What is probably meant as well in Genesis 26:33 is that Isaac didn’t change the name, but rather kept the same name as his father had used. Thus, no one in later generations would dishonor their fathers by naming it something else, especially considering God’s appearance and the altar Isaac made there.

#48 - Should we believe everything?

2004-10-04T10:38:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's hesitancy:

We should believe everything.
"Believeth all things." 1 Corinthians 13:7

We should believe only when the evidence warrants belief.
"The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." Proverbs 14:15
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Explanation:
Essentially, 1 Thess. 5:21 is the correct approach for believers in Jesus when confronted with new information. In this verse, “things” pertains to all knowledge. Yet, generally, “things” is a non-descript, vague word that depends on the context in order to extract its meaning. Such is the case with the mention of “things” in 1 Cor. 13:7. Chapter 13 is a book which describes Christian charity, or love. The passage is directing a believer on how to love from the vantage point of their faith. The whole of verse 7 is: “Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”

In this verse, we can see that there are different types of “things”. “Things” in the case of “beareth” and “endureth” means “trials”. That doesn’t then mean that we must “believeth all trials”. That doesn’t make much sense; trials happen to us directly and visibly- only the insane would not believe that they are happening to them. Therefore, another meaning for “things” exists in this verse.

In order to find it, we must use our usual method of interpretation, and back up a verse to get a better context. Here is verse 6[speaking of charity]: “Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;” From this passage, Christian charity “rejoices in the truth”. Thus, Christian love is rooted in the love of the truth. If all of Chapter 13 pertains to a true faith in Jesus Christ, as I stated above, then “believeth all things” and “hopeth all things” accurately translates as “believeth all things of the faith” and “hopeth all things of the faith”, just as we are to “endureth all things pertaining to the faith”. As previously expressed, this believing and hoping stems from a spirit of rejoicing in the “truth” = the Gospel message. 1 Corinthians 13 is speaking to Christians who were already grounded in the knowledge of God, but they needed some help expressing God’s love through Christ.

---------------------

Response by Wendell Leahy

This is basically a philosophical question....... I like to use this example:

Knowledge brings belief.....
Belief brings faith...
Faith brings Wisdom and Understanding....

#49 How many believers were there at the time of the Ascension

2004-10-03T07:19:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

How many believers were there at the time of the ascension?

The skeptic's irresolution:

There were 120 believers after the ascension.
"the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty." Acts 1:15

There were more than 500 believers before the ascension.
"He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." 1 Corinthians 15:6

Explanation:
This case appears to be one where the skeptic is straining to find a “contradiction”. None exists. There were likely far more than 500 believers before the Ascension. 1 Corinthians 15:6 says that “more than 500 brethren” witnessed Jesus. It doesn’t say “all brethren”. After the Ascension, there were probably far more disciples. In Acts 1:15, Peter is speaking to a select group of believers, the “core of the group” so to speak. At this meeting, there happened to be “about an hundred and twenty” present. Again, this verse does not say “all”.

#51 Who were the sons of Benjamin?

2004-10-02T11:45:00.000-07:00

Responses by Looking Unto Jesus.net

THE ATHEIST'S COMPLAINT:
Who were the sons of Benjamin? Genesis 46:21, Numbers 26:38-40, 1 Chronicles 7:6 and 1 Chronicles 8:1-2 do not agree. Is there a contradiction?

Genesis 46:21
Belah, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Ehi, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim, Ard,

Numbers 26:38-40
Bela, Ashbel, Shupham, Hupham

1 Chronicles 7:6
Bela, Becher, Jediael

1 Chronicles 8:1-2
Bela, Ashbel, Aharah, Nohah, Rapha

RESPONSE: June 26, 2005 / Volume 5, Issue 26

In Genesis 46, Benjamin is said to have 10 sons: Bela, Becher, Ashbel, Gera, Naaman, Eri, Rosh, Muppim, Huppim and Ard. From the text in Numbers, we are told of only 5 sons of Benjamin: Bela, Ashbel, Ahiram, Shupham and Hupham. In this text, Ard and Naaman are identified as sons of Bela, and thus grandsons of Benjamin. In 1 Chronicles 7, only three sons of Benjamin are mentioned: Bela, Becher and Jediael. Shuppim and Huppim are listed as great grandchildren of Benjamin, through Bela's son Ira. Finally, in 1 Chronicles 8, there are 5 sons of Benjamin listed: Bela, Ahsbel, Aharah, Nohah and Rapha, with several others mentioned as grandchildren.

First, it should be understood that the Hebrew word "ben" (translated son) is not exclusive to immediate relations. The word is used of not only an individual's sons, but also his grandsons. This being the case, it is certainly acceptable for grandsons to be listed as "sons of Benjamin".

Why the varying numbers in the different accounts? It is possible that some writers intended only to list the prominent members of Benjamin's family, while others sought to be more extensive. It would seem to be fruitless to attempt to sift through Benjamin's lineage, or any other of which there may be some dispute, for those who oppose the Bible on such a basis as this, even if we could lay out the details of the genealogy accurately, would still no doubt be unbelieving.

There is no contradiction.

--------------

#50 How old was Benjamin when his clan migrated to Egypt?

2004-10-02T11:40:00.000-07:00

Response by Looking Unto Jesus.net

THE ATHEIST'S COMPLAINT:
How old was Benjamin when his clan migrated to Egypt? Some verses say he was an infant (Genesis 44:20, 22), while other verses say he was a grown man with ten sons (Genesis 46:8, 21). Is there a contradiction?

He was an infant.
Genesis 44:20: We have a father, an old man, and a child [Benjamin] of his old age, a little one.
Genesis 44:22: The lad cannot leave his father.

He was a grown man with ten sons.
Genesis 46:8, 21: And these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt. ... And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard.

RESPONSE: June 20, 2004 / Volume 4, Issue 25

Consider the words used of Benjamin which cause the questioner to think that he was an infant:
"child" - Heb. yeled, which is used of a child, or descendent. Though commonly used of those who are young, it need not be of an infant. Benjamin was indeed a child to his father, and even to the rest of his brothers, as he was the youngest.

"young" - Heb. qatan, which can mean small or insignificant, but with regard to people, refers to one who is young, younger or youngest. Although it may commonly be used of those who are very young, it is likewise valid to use it of Benjamin, as he was indeed the youngest of all Jacob's sons.

"lad" - Heb. na'ar, used of a boy, a servant or a young man. Though Benjamin had his own children, he was still Jacob's boy, and comparatively, a young man before his brothers.

An older man might refer to his forty year old son as "a child of his old age". That does not make the forty year old an infant. He might likewise be called "young", and even a "lad"; these words do not change the fact that he is a forty year old. Words used to describe age are relative.

Note the reason why "the lad cannot leave his father". It was not because Benjamin was an infant, but "if he should leave his father, his father would die." Jacob had already lost Joseph, and could not bear to lose Benjamin also. Perhaps Jacob was overprotective, maybe even "babied" Benjamin, but that does not change the fact that he was a grown man.

There is no contradiction.

----------

Response by Tecktonics Apologetics Ministries

Genesis 44:20, 22
How old was Benjamin? Some see contradiciton between these verses, which they suppose imply a child, and 46:8, 21 which refer to Ben's kids. On the surface this isn't even a problem since it only reflects what Joseph's brothers say to Joseph, trying to get out of the tight spot of bringing Benjamin to him. However, none of the words here require seeing Benjamin as particularly young. "Child" is yeled, meaning any offspring and is also used of the older brothers (see here). "Little one" can mean smallest, youngest, or least. "Lad" (44:22) is na'ar and means any boy from infancy to adolescence, but it also means a servant. The brothers imply that Benjamin serves Jacob in his old age.

Genesis 46:4
I(God) will go down with thee (Jacob) into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again: and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes.Dennis McKinsey writes, "According to Hebrew the phrase "and Joseph" should have been translated as "then Joseph" In other words, the prophecy was that Jacob would return to Israel from Egypt while still alive. Yet one need only read Gen. 47:28-30 and 50:2-6....to see that Jacob died in Egypt before his entry into Israel." Neither the NIV, NRSV, NASB, or KJV translates "and" as "then", and McKinsey provides no scholarly support for his argument. In any event, one need only read v. 3, "do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you a great nation there", to see what is going on. "You" in v. 4 is then referring to Jacob’s descendants, otherwise Jacob was a great nation all by himself.

Genesis 49:13
Zebulun shall dwell at the shore of the sea; he shall become a haven for ships, and his border shall be at Sidon. McKinsey writes, "Two aspects of this prophecy are false. The borders of Zebulun never extended to the sea and never reached the city of Sidon." This was true as to the initial distribution of the land, but the borders were shifted from time to time. In regards to shore dwelling, Josephus (Ant. V 1:22) says that Zebulun’s lot included "that which belonged to Carmel and the sea." As for Sidon, the term was sometimes used as a synecdoche for Phoenicia as a whole (Judg. 3:3, 1 Kings 17:9), and their territory did stretch down to Zebulun at one point.

#52 Were Naaman and Ard the sons or the grandsons of Benjamin?

2004-10-02T08:03:00.000-07:00

Response by dave Marr

They were the sons of Benjamin
“And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard.” Genesis 46:21

They were the grandsons of Benjamin
“The sons of Benjamin ... Bela ... And the sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman.” Numbers 26:38-40

As I have stated in another response, “son” when mentioned in the Bible can either mean an immediate son, or a son in further, future generations (Just as the Jews are “sons of Abraham” and Jesus is the “Son of David”). The reason why grandsons were listed along with immediate sons in Genesis 46 is unknown.

----------

Response by Wendell Leahy

This question is only a repeat and related to #5:
Who was Abijabs mother

"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"

#53 - Did Jesus ascend from Bethany or Mount Olivet?

2004-10-01T08:14:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

The skeptic's quandary:

Jesus ascended from Bethany.
"He led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." Luke 24:50-51

Jesus ascended from Mount Olivet.
"And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.... Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet." Acts 1:9, 12

Explanation:
Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven from the Mount of Olives. Bethany is near Jerusalem, adjoining the Mount of Olives. The Gospel of Mark illustrates this fact clearly:

“And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethprage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he[Jesus] sendeth forth two of his disciples” Mark 11:1

#54 How many of Bethlehem and Netophah's offspring returned from Babylon?

2004-09-30T11:51:00.000-07:00

Response by Eric Vestrup
Tektonics Apologetics Ministries

179
Ezra 2:21-22: The children of Bethlehem, an hundred twenty and three. The men of Netophah, fifty and six.

188
Nehemiah 7:26: The men of Bethlehem and Netophah, a hundred fourscore and eight.

Nehemiah 7, Ezra 2
Do These Chapters Hopelessly Contradict Each Other?

----------

#55 How many of Bezai's offspring returned from Babylon?

2004-09-29T11:57:00.000-07:00

Response by Eric Vestrup
Tektonics Apologetics Ministries

323
Ezra 2:17: The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and three.

324
Nehemiah 7:23: The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and four.

Nehemiah 7, Ezra 2
Do These Chapters Hopelessly Contradict Each Other?

----------

#56 How many of Bigvai's offspring returned from Babylon?

2004-09-28T12:00:00.000-07:00

Response by Eric Vestrup
Tektonics Apologetics Ministries

2056
Ezra 2:14: The children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six.

2067
Nehemiah 7:19: The children of Bigvai, two thousand threescore and seven.

Nehemiah 7, Ezra 2
Do These Chapters Hopelessly Contradict Each Other?

----------

#58 - How many blind men were healed near Jericho?

2004-09-27T12:00:00.000-07:00

Response by Dave Marr

"And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him. And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David." Matthew 20:30

Only one.

"And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me." Mark 10:46

"And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging." Luke 18:35

Here is a case where the skeptic will fool those who aren’t paying close attention to detail. Matt. 20:30 says: “And as they departed from Jericho”. Mark 10:46 states: “And they came to Jericho” and Luke 18:35 concurs: “And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto Jericho”. These are clearly two different events: Mark and Luke records the entry to Jericho, and Matthew records Jesus’ departure.

network

2004-07-28T01:13:00.000-07:00

A1Transmission
Aeroskyn
Al's Small Engine inc
American Gutter Inc
aroundKC
ashes to ash-tronauts
electricalcontractorkansascity
eLocalclassified
First Page Results
freight graffiti
gingivitiss
graffiti kansas city
hdvmanagement
Herrington Auto Inc
Industrial Surplus of Kansas City
JES Automotor
John Marr Bobcat and Top Soil
jukeboxlarry
Kansas city graffiti
kansas city paint
kansas city paint 2
kansascitycomputerservices
kansascityonline | wordpress |
kc graffiti 2
Keystone Heights Online
KeyWest Lock and Safe
LBA plumbing heat cooling | wordpress |
Master Transmission
nite scenes
Northtown Auto Service | wordpress |
O'Gormans Automotive | wordpress |
Phone Biz On Hold
Pro Circuit Incorporated | blogger | wordpress |
Reasons to vote all of them out
Recruit Look | wordpress |
SBH Foklift and Material Handling
skeptics annotated bible - a response
SportsRecruiting.net
stickerz of kansas city
the strait gate
the strait gate II
the strait gate III
The Transmission Shop
thejedshed
thejedshed.myphotoalbum.com
Toothy Grins Publishing
weather wars
Well Done Plumbing Sewer and Drain Service | wordpress

Which one does the ACLU consider a threat?

2000-11-26T13:27:00.000-08:00

#317 - When were the stars made?

1999-12-12T21:40:00.000-08:00

Response by TreeFinger

When were the stars made?

Genesis 1:16-19
(On the fourth day of creation, after the earth was made.)

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The chronological account of Genesis 1 states that all the stars were made on the fourth day, they were created after the earth, as this was made prior to day 1.

Job 38:4-7
(Before the earth was made.)

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

In Job 38:4 and Job 38:6, God Himself speaks of the foundations of the earth that He laid. He then speaks of when He laid the foundations of the earth, the morning stars sang together, seemly forming a contradiction.

Explanation
The key word to this seeming contradiction is the word 'morning' before 'stars' in Job 38:7. If God really meant the physical stars we see in our sky at night that were formed on the fourth day, why would He add the word 'morning' before them? The phrase 'morning star' does not always mean a star that is seen in the morning. It was used figuratively for Jesus:

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

The phrase used here represents Christs light, as stars seen in the morning must be bright. It is also used figuratively of a glory to be given to the faithful saints:

Revelation 2:26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
Revelation 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
Revelation 2:28 And I will give him the morning star.

Whether this is an actual star seen in the morning or not, it is used to represent an amount of light or glory given to Him who serves God faithfully. Stars themselves are also used figuratively of false teachers:

Judges 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.

There is no reason why these morning stars mentioned in Job 38:7 cannot be use figuratively for angels, as all other mentions of the phrase 'morning star(s)' are used figuratively in some way. Stars also do not sing, but it is said of the angels to sing. The phrase 'sons of God' is mentioned many times meaning angels and is coupled with 'morning stars' here to represent them as light.

It also does not necessarily follow that Job 38:7 is in direct relation to (although may be included of) the laying of the foundations of the earth. As Job 38:5 also deviates from being directly related to the earth and its foundations, Job 38:7 may be also.

In conclusion, 'morning stars' may very well be being used figuratively of angels of light. And that Job 38:7 does not have to be directly related solely to the foundations of the earth being layed, but in general relation to when God created everything. If it is in relation to physical stars that sing, God created the stars and when He did, they sang. Rather than God having the stars sing before they were created, whilst the foundations of the earth were being layed.

#259 - Were plants created before or after humans?

1999-12-11T14:36:00.000-08:00

Response by TreeFinger

Plants were created before humans.
Gen 1:11-13 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Plants were created after humans.
Gen 2:4-7 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, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Explanation
Gen 1:27, 31 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The chronological account made in Genesis 1 states that plants were made on the 3rd day, and then man was made on the 6th day, so plants were created before humans.

Genesis 2 reveals to us greater details into the creation of Adam, the garden (and its plants), the animals in the garden and Eve during the 6th day. This seemingly contradicts the creation of plants on the 3rd day before man rather than the creation of plants on the 6th day after man.

The creation of the garden on the 6th day required some specific plants for that were designed for man. They were pleasing to the sight (Gen 2:9), maybe to show Adam Gods awesome creative power and remind him of His glory and power, as was the behemoth and leviathan used for this purpose to Job (Job 40, 41). These may also be made pleasing to the sight in relation to Rom 1:20:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So that man is left without excuse because God has made Himself knowable to us through His creation from the very beginning of it. They were good to eat from (Gen 2:9), which implies that all other plants that were made on the 3rd day were not 'good' for man to eat from or that these plants were better or superior in some way so that they would classify as ‘good’ to eat for man ('good' is traslated here in the same way as through the whole of Genesis 1, which is used to mean perfection. So God has made the garden of Eden with plants that are perfect for man to eat from.) In Gen 2:8 it does not state that God created plants on this day on the earth (which Gen 1:11-13 clearly states and is done so on the 3rd day), but reads:

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

To plant a garden you first need plants, otherwise God would have created plants from scratch at the time when He planted the Garden of Eden. These plants were readily available as they were created on the 3rd day. Another difference between the creation of plants in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is that in Genesis 1 plants were created to fill no specific area, it was the general creation of plants to fill the earth. Although plants in Genesis 2 were planted to form the Garden of Eden in a specific location, this difference shows more evidence towards each passage not referring to the same creation of plants. There was in fact a general creation of plant life on the 3rd day of creation (Genesis 1), then on the 6th day of creation God planted the Garden of Eden specifically for man to live in (Genesis 2).

This 'so-called' contradiction is related to #8
#8 Two contradictory creation accounts?

Related:

How long did creation take?

Genesis 1:3-31, Genesis 2:1-3
(Six days.)

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

The entire account of creation during Genesis 1 is entirely chronologically, this concludes with Genesis 2:2, stating that the work was finished on the seventh day, clearly indicating in relation to Genesis 1 that the heavens and the earth took 6 days to create.

Genesis 2:4
(One day.)

Genesis 2:4 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,

This concludes Genesis 1 by saying that the heavens and the earth were created in one day, ‘in the day that…’ this contradicts the whole chronological account of creation listed in Genesis 1.

Explanation

We know from Genesis 1:2 that in the beginning ‘the earth was without form, and void’, this was before the first day took place in Genesis 1:5 when God made light (this was not light from the sun or any star, as they were not made until Genesis 1:14-19 on the 4th day), this pre-supposes that the earth was made before or was made during the 1st day. The heavens were first made during Genesis 1:14-19 on the 4th day. Although the Bible is a very literal book, it also uses in some cases metaphors, similes, symbolism and poetry.
To be able to decipher whether the verse or phrase is literal or not, we need to compare these verses or phrases to others in scripture that are similar. Otherwise we would not know whether or not some verses or phrases are literal, which causes many conflicts and contradictions within the Bible. If we are able to find all possible meanings to the original Hebrew/Greek words used, we may exchange the meanings until we find one that does not contradict or conflict with other passages.

The Hebrew word used for ‘in the day’ in Genesis 2:4 is ‘yome’:

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

We know that ‘in the day’ cannot be literal; otherwise this would mean that the heavens and the earth were created both in 1 and in 6 days. If we compare how this phrase is used throughout the Bible, we see it can be used in many cases are figuratively:

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is obviously figuratively used because if Adam and Eve were to die the literal 24 hour day in which they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, we would not be here today.

Leviticus 14:1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying,
Leviticus 14:2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing…

The cleansing of a leper takes a whole 8 days to complete, if we were to take ‘in the day’ to be literal, we would come across a contradiction by definition of cleansing to be an 8 day process whilst the cleansing of a leper being ‘in the day’ of the cleansing. This is clearly not a literal day, but a figurative day referring to the period of 8 days it takes to be cleansed.

Numbers 6:9 And if any man die very suddenly by him, and he hath defiled the head of his consecration; then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it.

Another example of this regarding cleansing rituals. Here we have an example of a seeming contradiction within a verse if we were to take ‘in the day’ as being literal. This is because cleansing in this manner takes 8 days, with a sacrifice on the 8th day, and so he is not cleansed until the 8th day. But he only shaves his head on the 7th, so ‘he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing’ simply means that he shall shave his head on the 7th day, during the period of time it takes for him to be cleansed (8 days).

Numbers 25:18 For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake.

Here we have a good example of ‘in the day’ representing a period of time, as a plague does not last for a single day (and not in this case), but for a period of time, specifically stating that ‘in the day’ is referring to the plague.

So we see that ‘in the day’ can easily be used figuratively if the context allows for it. So the heavens and the earth are in Genesis 1 created in 6 days (chronological), which does not allow in Genesis 2:4 for it to be also created in 1 day, therefore ‘in the day’ used in Genesis 2:4 is used figuratively.

*******
Related:

The Age of the Universe
tothesource.org

gifs and stuff

1999-11-26T21:55:00.000-08:00