Professional Documents
Culture Documents
New Folder
New Folder
New Folder
Apologetics Without Apology Bethlehem - Messiah's birthplace Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day Cattle Contradiction? Christs Crucifixion Was Not on Friday Christs Real Birth Date Is Not December 25 Christs Resurrection Was Not on Sunday Cock-a-doodle-do Twice? Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy Dead, or Dying? Destruction of Tyre Did Behemoth Have a Navel? Did Both Thieves Revile Christ? Did God Create Animals or Man First? Did Jeremiah Err Regarding Jeconiah? Did Jesus condone stealing? Did Jesus Go to Gerasa or Gadara? Did Jesus instruct his followers to buy a sword Did Jesus Lie to His Brothers? Did Jesus Say That? Did Jesus Sweat Blood? Did Luke make a mistake involving Theudas and Judas the Galilean? Did Michal Have Children? Did Moses Make a Scientific Mistake? Did Saul Know David Prior to Goliath's Death? Did Yeshua adjust God's Torah of clean and unclean foods? Different Names, Same Person Do Matthew and Acts contradict concerning Judas' death? Does God Need to Rest? Does God Punish Innocent People? Does God Tempt People? Does Ps. 58:8 err about melting snails? Does the Bible Say God Repents From Doing Evil? Does the Bible Teach Geocentricity? Does the Bible wrongly call the bat a bird? Gopher Wood Has anyone seen God or not? How can Jesus be God when the Hebrew Bible says God is not a man? Cf. Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9. How long was the ark at Abinadab's house? How Many Supervisors Did Solomon Have? How Much Water Could The Sea Hold? How Old Were Ahaziah and Jehoiachin When They Began Their Respective Reigns? How Rude? If God is Jealous Doesn't That Make Him the Divine Hypocrite? In What Order Did Satan Tempt Jesus? Is the Bible wrong about hares chewing cud? Ishmaelites or Midianites? Jacob's Journey to Egypt Jesus and the Canaanite Woman Jesus' Sermon on The Mount or the Plain? Knowing When Lilith in the NIV? Not a bone of him shall be broken - a nonexistent prophecy? Onan's Sin / Judah and Tamar Red Sea Divided and Congealed Scarlet Worm Searching for Sargon Seventy years of Babylonian rule Should David have been Stoned? Should was be became in Genesis 1:2? Six or Eight Days? Solomons Basin and Pi - A Bible Error? Take It, or Leave It The Bible refers to the four corners of the earth. How can a spherical earth have corners? The Bible Teaches That the Heavens Were a Solid Dome, Embedded with Stars? The Calling of the Apostles The Census of David The Myth of the Councils The Tower of Babel They Heard Him--They Heard Him Not?
Conventional Revised Conventional Revised "hate" put aside "love" deed, an act toward "know" examine "believe" fixate "trumpet" horn "faith" bondedness, loyalty "save" preserve, except "adulterous" unbonded "lest" unless, otherwise "lost" wandered "amen" definite "rent" tore "reward" goal, ends "baptize" dip "spirit" wind, ghost, thoughtform "fell", "fallen" descended "blaspheme" speak against "suffer" endure, allow "swear" oath "nation" bloodline, lineage "the", "a", "is" function as, function of "peace" completion "good" order "testament" commitment "evil" chaos "holy" allocation, designation "earth" land, planet "brother" kinsman "star" luminary "sister" kinswoman "come" arrive, approach "friend" ally "ladder" stairway "neighbor" fellow, person "clean", "pure" refined "trembling" application of regulations "forgive" let off "glory" luminosity "righteousness" on path "heart" inner principality, thought "wickedness" off path "hear" listen "confess" attest "see" look, view "beg" request, inquire "bless" bow a knee; kneel "eye" view, perception "blessed" bowed to, knelt toward "serve" assist, attend "life", "soul" self "fear", "revere" regard as a chief authority "time", "ever" age "church" assembly "lead" guide "worship" bow, prostrate toward "angel" emissary "foolish" without regard, heedless "sword" weapon "command" waypoint, direction "name" character "perfect" without transgression "woe" lament "truth" absolute, precision "mystery" secret "son" continuer of the household "defile" stain "father" support of the household "lie" inaccuracy, deviation "great" plentiful "grace" benefaction "if" when conditionally "rest" cease "sacrifice" substitution "kid" infant cattle, infant lamb "husband", "owner" protection of a household "dragon" dinosaur "bride" one who allows protection "lilith" screech owl "adultery" to take other man's wife "unicorn" wild ox Conventional Revised "if, ei, possible, dunaton" when conditionally powerful Mt 24:24 "and the nations shall bring treasure, tishbokta" and the nations shall bring glory Rev 21:24 "sitting on, epi, seven mountains" sitting among seven mountains Rev 17:9 "and the violent, biastai, are seizing it" and those breaking forth are seizing it Mt 11:12 "it is necessary, anekdeton, that sin will occur" it is inevitable that sin will occur Lk 17:1 "the sons of god, elohim" the sons of angels Gn 6:2 "you wrestled god, el, and prevailed" you wrestled an angel and prevailed Gn 32:28 "we are now the children of god, theos" we are now the continuers of yhwh 1 John 3:2 "a camel, gamlo, through the eye of a needle" a thread through the eye of a needle Mt 19:24 134 Thou Shall Not Kill: Does God Violate His Own Commandment? 136 To The Wilderness or a Wedding? 137 Too Much Activity on Day Six? 138 Was Jesus Mistaken? 140 Was the Robe Placed on Jesus Scarlet or Purple? 141 Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ? 144 Were Dinosaurs on Noahs Ark? 146 Were the Iron Chariots Too Powerful? 147 What About the Unicorn and the Satyr? 149 What happened to the Amalekites? 151 When Did Baasha Reign? 152 When Did Jesus Call the First Apostles? 153 When Did Nebuzaradan Enter Jerusalem? 156 When did the Temple Veil Tear? 157 When were Abraham's descendants supposed to return? After four generations, or seven? 158 Where Did Josiah Die? 159 Where is the Prophecy that Jesus Shall be Called a Nazarene? 161 Who Incited David to Number Israel? 163 Who Killed Goliath? 164 Who Wrote on the Second Pair of Tablets? 165 Why did God harden Pharaohs heart? 166 Why did Jesus call himself the son of man? 167 Why Did Jesus Heal On The Sabbath? 174 Why did Jesus say, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
By Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl. Catholic Biblical Apologetics, Copyright 1985-1997, Paul Flanagan and Robert Schihl Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture texts are taken from the NewAmerican Bible with Revised New Testament and Revised Psalms 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the NewAmerican Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner. Email comments to pdflan@catholicapologetics.org
Last Updated: January 3, 1997
Thank you to Christopher Technology Consulting for hosting this site.
AboutBibleProphecy.com
100 Prophecies, explains ancient Bible prophecies and how they were fulfilled in history. $8.99. Click here to learn more.
EXAMPLE 1: "
Although thou art little among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge to be Ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah.
"
- Rabbi David Kimchi (also known as Redak or Radak, and David Kimchi or David Kimhi). So, who was Rabbi David Kimchi? And what qualified him to interpret ancient Jewish scripture? "David Kimhi, known as Redak, c.1160 - c.1235 . . . wrote Mikhlol [completeness], long the leading Hebrew grammar, The Book of Roots, a dictionary of the Bible, and The Pen of the Scribe, a manual of punctuation. Standard editions of the Hebrew Bible frequently included his learned and lucid commentaries. . ." This is cited from a Web site at www.infoplease.com, using the keyword "Kimhi" So, for what it's worth, a Jewish Rabbi, who clearly had no
Other items
About us E-mail us HOME
reason to "distort" a prophecy on behalf of Christians, clearly described Micah 5 as being a prophecy about a Messiah. And, Rabbi Kimchi was a grammarian who wrote a book about Biblical commentaries and a book about the roots of Biblical words. I would think that his qualifications would compare quite well against those of any Bible skeptic who claims that Micah 5 was not about a Messiah.
EXAMPLE 2: "
And you Bethlehem-Ephrathah who are too little to be counted among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you in My name shall come forth the Messiah who is to be ruler in Israel and whose name has been called from eternity, from the days of old.
"
- Targum Jonathan on Mikah 5:2 in the Tanakh
EXAMPLE 3: " The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah. "
- Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a
EXAMPLE 4: "
O, thou Bethlehem Ephrata ... although thou art little in the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me a Man, a Ruler in Israel whose goings forth are from the days of old ... that is from the Seed of David ... who was of
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2204
Dr. McMillen observed: We should commend the many hundreds of workers who labored at great expense over a number of years to discover that the safest day to perform circumcision is the eighth. Yet, as we congratulate medical science for this recent finding, we can almost hear the leaves of the Bible rustling. They would like to remind us that four thousand years ago, when God initiated circumcision with Abraham.... Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K (1984, p. 93). Moses information, as recorded in Genesis 17:12, not only was scientifically accurate, but was years ahead of its time. How did Moses have access to such information? The answer, of course, is provided by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16Every scripture is inspired of God. REFERENCES Holt, L.E. and R. McIntosh (1953), Holt Pediatrics (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts), twelfth edition. McMillen, S.I. (1984), None of These Diseases (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Copyright 1993 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Scripturally Speaking" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
Contact Us Help
About Us
Afrik aans
Deutsch
Espaol
Franais
Nederlands
MENU
HOME NEWS & UPDA TES INSIDE THE CHURCH A Look Inside the Church W ho Is David C. Pack ? W ho Was Herbert Arm strong? 2011 Feast of Tabernacles Am bassador Center Am bassador Youth Cam p DONA TION INFORMA TION THE A POSTA SY & SPLINTERS THE REA L TRUTH MA GA ZINE THE WORLD TO COME PROGRA M BIBLE STUDY TOPICS Prophecy Gods Prom ised Protection Marriage and the Fam ily O ne World Governm ent World Econom ic Collapse The Sabbath LITERA TURE Book s & Book lets Articles Q uestions & Answers Bible Introduction Course Trends & Conditions Reports Am bassador Youth Magazine Childrens Bible Lessons The Pillar Magazine LITERA TURE BY SUBJECT MEMBER SERVICES Holy Day Calendar Behind the Work Film PRESS RESOURCES Print this Page Display Adobe PDF Docum ent Find a Congregation
Search
bishops at Rome had decreed that they possessed the pow er to supersede and change the times and law s of God (see Daniel 7:25). They rew rote history and changed the order of events in order to introduce their false doctrines. Their effort to change the day of the resurrection to Sunday w as simply a continuation of the Babylonian traditionthat Nimrod (father of the Babylonian Mystery Religion) w as resurrected on a Sunday. By A.D. 321, Roman Emperor Constantine established Sunday as part of the official state religion, thus legitimizing all the various traditions attached to that day. What Really Happened from Burial to Resurrection Christs crucifixion took place on Passover day, the 14th of Abib (or Nisan), the first month in Gods Sacred Calendar. This occurred in the year A.D. 31, in w hich Passover fell on a Wednesday. Many fail to consider the prophecy that the Messiah w ould be cut offin the midst of the w eek (Dan. 9:26-27). Wednesday falls in the middle of the w eekthe very day upon w hich Passover fell in A.D. 31. According to the Roman calendar, this date w as Wednesday, April 25. Betw een the ninth and tw elfth hours (3:00 - 6:00 p.m.), Christ died (Luke 23:44-46). W ith Governor Pilates permission, Joseph of Arimathaea procured the body, w rapped it in linen (John 19:40) and placed it in the sepulcher (Luke 23:50-53). By the time the burial w as complete, the Sabbath drew on (vs. 54). Thus, the burial took place on Passover day, shortly before sunset. That Passover w as a preparation day, in that it preceded an annual Sabbath. This annual Sabbath (called the First Day of Unleavened Bread) w as called a high Sabbath or high day (John 19:31) and fell on a Thursday that year. It w as on this day that the high priest and the Pharisees came to Pilate to ensure that Christs tomb w as securely guarded and sealed (Matt. 27:62-66). Mark 16:1 records w hat took place on that Friday: And w hen the sabbath w as past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sw eet spices, that they might come and anoint Him. (Verse 2 jumps to Sunday morning.) The phrase, and w hen the Sabbath w as past, refers to the high day that occurred on Thursday. Since the w omen could not buy spices on the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday), Friday w as the only time they could have done so. Luke 23:56 states, And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. After buying the spices, they returned and prepared them to be applied to Christs body in the tomb, w hich they planned to do after resting on the w eekly Sabbath. Luke 24:1 states, Now upon the first day of the w eek [Sunday], very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices w hich they had prepared, and certain others w ith them. The w omen found the tomb empty (vs. 3). Tw o angels in shining garments informed them that Christ w as already risen (vs. 4-6). Mark 16:2 states that the w omen w ere present at the rising of the sun. This means Christ w as resurrected before sunrise. John 20:1 further tells us that Mary Magdalene came early w hen it w as yet dark and found the stone that sealed the tomb w as already rolled aw ay. No sunrise resurrection could have occurred because Christ w as already resurrected! Now here does Scripture record that Christ rose at sunrise on Sunday morning. How ever, it does tell us that Christ w ould be in His grave for three days and three nights. Anyone w illing to believe the Bible should not find this difficult to accept. In fact, it is the only logical conclusion that can be draw n. Christ w as placed in the tomb just before sunset on Wednesday. Three complete days (three days and three nights) bring us to the end of the w eekly Sabbath, just prior to sunset, w hen Christ w as resurrectedjust as He had prophesied! Proofs to Confirm the Y ear A.D. 31 The Sacred Calendar reveals that Passover occurred on a Wednesday in A.D. 31. By first establishing the day of the w eek and day of the month of the Passover in 1931, w e can arrive at the day of the w eek and day of the month of the Passover in A.D. 31. Precisely one hundred 19-year time cycles w ould have elapsed. Follow ing this method helps greatly in computing the difference of elapsed time betw een the Roman and Sacred calendars during that 1,900-year time span. After this, w e can safely calculate the month and w eek in w hich Passover fell in A.D. 31. (Our free booklet The Truth About Gods Calendar explains these calculations in greater technical detail.) Various Hebrew calendar softw are programs calculate w hen Passover or any other Holy Day fell in almost any year, even before A.D. 31. The follow ing historical accounts w ill further validate the evidence presented here. The Decree of Artaxerxes
In the seventh year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, a decree w as made to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 7). It follow ed the decree of Cyrus, in w hich he acknow ledged that the LO RD God of heaven had charged him to build Him an house at Jerusalem, w hich is in Judah (Ezra 1:2). Artaxerxes decree became significant because of a prophecy revealed to Daniel. Daniel 9:25 states, Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the w all, even in troublous times. This show s that there are 62 w eeks + 7 w eeks69 prophetic w eeks (or 483 days). Applying the day-for-a-year principle (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6), w e arrive at 483 years from the decree until the beginning of Christs ministry. The decree w as made during the seventh year of Artaxerxes reign (457 B.C.). This date is historically w ell documented. By subtracting 457 from 483, w e come to the year A.D. 26. W hen counting from B.C to A.D., astronomers correctly add one year since there is no year zero, w hile historians and chronologers generally neglect to do this. Adding one year brings us to A.D. 27the prophesied year of the beginning of the ministry of the Messiah. Luke 3:23 tells us, And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age The context of this verse is after John the Baptist had begun his ministry and just before Jesus began His. Since Jesus w as 30 years old in A.D. 27, He w ould have been born in 4 B.C. Remember, w e must add one year to compensate for no year zero. Thus, from 4 B.C., advancing 30 years brings us to A.D. 27. This leads us to the next historical proof that further confirms w hen Christ w as born. The Time of Herods Death Shortly after Christs birth, an angel w arned Joseph in a dream that he and his w ife Mary w ere to take the child and flee into Egypt. They stayed there until the death of Herod (Matt. 2:15). Christ w as an infant less than one year of age w hen Herod died. Matthew 2:16 show s that Herod slew all the children that w ere in Bethlehem and, all the coast thereof, from tw o years old and under, according to the time w hich he had diligently inquired of the w ise men. Herod knew the childs approximate age, but w ent beyond that age to include those up to age tw o, to make sure that the prophesied Messiah w ould not escape execution. To better establish the exact time of Herods death, w e find in Josephus Antiquities of the Jews a reference to a lunar eclipse. A footnote in the W histon translation of Josephus states, This eclipse of the moon (w hich is the only eclipse mentioned by Josephus) is of greatest consequence for the determination of the time for the death of Herodand for the birth and entire chronology of Jesus Christ. It happened March 13th, in the year of the Julian period 4710, and the 4th year before the Christian era (Bk. XVII, ch. vi, sec. 4). According to Josephus, Herod died the follow ing year, 3 B.C. Soon after Herods death, the angel instructed Joseph to return to the land of Israel w ith Mary and Jesus, w ho w ould have been about one year old. Time of Construction of the Temple As mentioned, Christ w as 30 years old (Luke 3:23) w hen He began His ministry in A.D. 27. Now , w e w ill see how the chronology of the temple harmonizes w ith the chronology of Christ: Then answ ered the Jew s and said unto Him, W hat sign show You unto us, seeing that You do these things? Jesus answ ered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I w ill raise it up. Then said the Jew s, Forty and six years w as this temple in building, and w ill You rear it up in three days? But He spoke of the temple of His body (John 2:18-21). This occurred on the first Passover during Christs ministry, in A.D. 28. The Jew s said that the temple had been under construction for 46 years. By adding one year to compensate for no year zero, this means that the temples construction began in 19 B.C., the 18th year of Herods reign. In Antiquities, Josephus w rote, And now Herod, in the eighteenth year of his reign undertook a very great w ork, that is to build of himself the temple of God (Bk. XV, ch. xi, sec. 1). From 19 B.C., w e advance 46 years since the beginning of the reconstruction of the temple, arriving at A.D. 28the first Passover after the beginning of Christs ministry. The Reign of Emperor Tiberius Other historical evidence involves the time of the beginning of John the Baptists ministry. Luke 3:1 begins, Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea It then describes the beginning of Johns ministry. The reign of Roman Emperor Tiberius began about A.D. 11 or 12, since he reigned concurrently w ith Augustus Caesar for about 2 years. If w e add the 15 years of Tiberius reign to A.D. 11 or 12, w e arrive at A.D. 26 or 27. Here again w e see the biblical chronology verified by history. The 15th year of Tiberius brings us precisely to the beginning of John the Baptists ministry, w hich w as just before the time of Christs ministry. The Governorship of Pontius Pilate Historians agree that Pilate ruled for ten years. Luke 3:1 show s that during the 15th year of Tiberius reign, Pilate w as governor. Some historical accounts, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, date Pilates rule from A.D. 26 to 36. W hen he w as recalled, he immediately sought
help from his close political ally, Emperor Tiberius. Yet, w hile Pilate w as en route to confer w ith him, Tiberius died, in A.D. 37. W ith Tiberius death, Pilates rule ended the same year. Therefore, Pilates ten-year rule w ould have had to coincide w ith the years A.D. 27 to 37. Now lets recap: Pilates governorship over Judea began in early A.D. 27, during the 15th year of Tiberius rule. Meanw hile, John the Baptist began his ministry in early A.D. 27, w hich preceded Christs ministry by several months. Christs ministry w ould not have begun until the autumn of A.D. 27 since (1) He w as 30 years old w hen His ministry began and (2) He w as born in the autumn of 4 B.C. (Read our booklet The True Origin of Christmas.) Christs ministry could not have begun later than A.D. 28 because, at that point, the temples 46-year construction w ould have been finished. Thus, the autumn of A.D. 27 corresponds w ith numerous secular and historical proofs, as w ell as Scripture. The Length of Christs Ministry Remember the prophecy in Daniel 9, w hich established 483 years, from 457 B.C. to A.D. 27. Verse 27 establishes the length of Christs prophesied ministry: And He shall confirm the covenant w ith many for one w eek: and in the midst of the w eek He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate [margin: desolator]. Christ w as to confirm the covenant for one w eek. According to the day-for-a-year principle, the seven days of that w eek equal seven years. Yet, in the midst of the w eek, the Messiah w as to cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease. This w as done by offering His ow n life to cover the sins of all humanity, as part of Gods Plan of salvation. The Messiah w as cut off (vs. 26) in the midst of the w eekafter 3 days, or prophetic years. His earthly ministry lasted precisely 3 years. Then He w as cut offcrucifiedin the middle of the w eekWednesday. In this prophecy, the midst of the w eek had a dual meaning, as does most prophecy. Since Christs ministry began in the autumn of A.D. 27, this means that He w as crucified in the spring of A.D. 31, 3 years later. John 2:23 records the first Passover of His ministry in A.D. 28: Now w hen He w as in Jerusalem at the Passover, in the feast day, many believed in His name, w hen they saw the miracles w hich He did. Afterw ard, Christ began teaching in the area of Judea near Jerusalem. Luke 6:1 records an event during the Passover season in the second year of His ministry, in A.D. 29: And it came to pass on the second Sabbath after the first, that He w ent through the corn fields; and His disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. The term the second Sabbath after the first means the second high day, w hich w as the Last Day of Unleavened Bread. Although this event is covered in Matthew 12:1-8 and Mark 2:23-28, only Lukes account, w ritten in Greek, makes clear w hich Sabbath this w as. The Greek term, deuteroproton sabbaton, literally means the second Sabbath of the first rankor the second high day of that Passover season. John 6:4-5 records the follow ing, w hich preceded the third Passover (A.D. 30) of Christs ministry: And the Passover, a feast of the Jew s, w as near. W hen Jesus then lifted up His eyes, and saw a great company come unto Him, He said unto Philip, W here shall w e buy bread, that these may eat? This is also recorded in Matthew 14:15, Mark 6:35-36, and Luke 9:12. The fourth and final Passover of Christs ministry is the most documented Passover of all. All four of the gospels cover it in detail. Notice Luke 22:1-2: Now the feast of unleavened bread drew near, w hich is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill Him; for they feared the people. John 11:55 records, And the Jew s Passover w as near at hand: and many w ent out of the country up to Jerusalem before the Passover, to purify themselves. Christs final Passover completed His earthly ministry of 3 years. Again, it began in the autumn of A.D. 27 and ended in the spring of A.D. 31, on a Wednesdayin the midst of the w eek. The w orld of professing Christianity claims that Christs crucifixion occurred on a Friday, in A.D. 33. How ever, it can easily be documented by Gods Sacred Calendar that none of the four Passovers during Christs ministry fell on a Friday. The four Passovers fell on Monday (A.D. 28), Saturday (A.D. 29), Wednesday (A.D. 30), and Wednesday (A.D. 31), respectively. We have show n from Gods Word, His Sacred Calendar and mans secular history that the crucifixion did not take place either on a Friday or in A.D. 33. Rather, Christ w as crucified and buried on a Wednesday in A.D. 31. Now that you are armed w ith the truth, w ill you accept it or the blind traditions of professing Christianity?
RELATED LITERATURE
The True O rigin of Christm as The Truth About Gods Calendar
Yahoshua (Jesus) the Christ was not born on December 25, as many Christians have been taught to believe. Scholarly research on the subject shows he was born on or around 1 Tishri on the Hebrew Calendar - the first day of the Hebrew Civil New year - which at that time, corresponded to about September 29 on the modern Julian Calendar. Saturnalia - the original Christmas The early church, in an attempt to convert the heathen and pagans Christianized the Roman pagan holiday of Saturnalia by celebrating Christs birth on that date. This festival on December 25th was in existence long centuries before Jesus was born. It was a pagan festival, to which a Christian terminology has been applied and most of our Christmas customs (nice though some of them have become) are of pagan origin. It was the old Babylonian Feast of Bacchus, the drunken Festival. In Rome, December 25th was the Feast of Saturn, and like the Babylonian feast from which it derived, was also a feast of unrestricted drunkenness. What is perhaps our commonest Christmas custom, the Christmas Tree, was just as common in pagan Egypt and Rome, but in Egypt it was a palm tree while in Rome it was a fir tree.1 Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival held in December that contained many of the elements of pre-Christian paganism that later influenced modern Witchcraft/Wicca. The character known as the Lord of Misrule is one example. This particular mythos was to have more influence upon later European customs than perhaps any other. In the pre-Republican calendar the festival started on December 17 and usually ran for several days, ending on the Winter Solstice. Bonfires blazed during this time, and the celebration was marked by orgies, carnivals, transvestism, and gift giving. Masters and slaves changed places and the world was turned upside down for a short period. All of this was overseen by the Lord of Misrule...The person chosen to play the Lord of Misrule had to be a young attractive man, strong and virile. For thirty days prior to the festival he was allowed to indulge himself in any and all pleasures as he pleased. He was dressed in royal robes and treated like a king. The young man represented the god Saturn in whose honor the festival was originated...At the end of the festival he was slain upon the altar of Saturn by having his throat cut.2 The Christmas Tree The Winter Solstice marks the shortest day of the year. In most Wiccan/Witchcraft traditions the theme of the Winter Solstice is linked to the rebirth/renewal of the sun. This is often personified as the Child of Promise. In the ancient mythos, the sun god is born at the Winter Solstice and dies at the time of the harvest season. In many traditions of northern Europe this day is associated with the myth of the Holly King, who is slain by his brother the Oak King. From this point on the days become longer as the Wheel of the Year turns toward summer. In the traditional Wiccan mythos, the new sun god is born at the Winter Solstice. The period of the Winter Solstice is also known as Yule. Its symbols include the holly and the pine, the latter representing the evergreen that itself symbolizes the undying light of the sun. It has long been the custom to decorate a sacred tree at this time, an ancient custom recalling a time when Divinity was believed to dwell in trees.3 Many Christians today have adopted the pagan practice of tree-worship while acknowledging the birth of Christ. That pagan practice, among others, was adopted by the early church in an effort to bring the heathen in and convert them. The heathen, however, have converted the Christians. The Bible warns; "Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.4
Notes 1. Pyramidology Book II, 1970 Adam Rutherford, p. 341 2. Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft,Raven Grimassi, 2000 Llewellyn Publications, pp 312-313 3. ibid, p. 401. 4. Jeremiah 10:1-4
It has been presumed by many that Anno Domini (A.D.) represents the year in which our Lord was born. However, there is no year 0 A.D., unlike our numerical system which goes: -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 The years in the B.C./A.D. system go like this: 2 B.C. 1 B.C. 1 A.D. 2 A.D. The Anno Domini (A.D.) dating system dates back to around 525 A.D. where it was devised by a Roman monk named Dionysius Exiguus. It arose from his efforts to calculate the date of Easter. It was not adopted until the eighth century where Western Europe began operating under that system. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, even popes continued to date documents according to regnal years and AD only gradually became more common in Europe from the 11th to 14th centuries.1 In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to adopt the Anno Domini system. As for the actual birth year of Christ, several prominent secular and church historians place it at 2 B.C. on our current Gregorian calendar. Researcher, Adam Rutherford cites works done by Tertullian, one of the earliest Christian Fathers as stating the Roman emperor Augustus began his rule 41 years before Christs birth and died 15 years after Christs birth. Irenus, who was born about a century after Christs crucifixion also confirms Tertullians account, according to Rutherford, as do works by Clement and Eusbius.2 Since all historical accounts indicate the reign of Augustus as starting in 43 B.C. (by our calendar), it follows that Christ was born in 2 B.C., which is 41 years afterward. As a means of interlocking the dates, Tertullian also states Christ was born 28 years after the death of Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, who died in 30 B.C. Historians wrongly attribute an eclipse in 4 B.C., noted by Josephus, as the date of King Herods death. But, if Herod died in 4 B.C., how could he have ordered the Martyr of the Innocents as described in Matthew, chapter 2? Rutherford explains that Josephus was a historian, not an astronomer and did not normally log incidents of eclipses. However, a very significant eclipse did occur on the evening of December 29, 1 B.C. that does fit better with Josephus account of Herods death. Also, an account by Josephus of Herods near-death illness escalating at the time of the December eclipse shows Herod would have died shortly thereafter, around mid-January, 1 A.D.3 which does allow for him to have been alive at the time of Christs birth.
Notes: 1. www.newadventorg/cathen/03738a.htm 2. Pyramidology Book II, 1970 Adam Rutherford, pp. 309-311. 3. op cit. pp. 312-327.
In the story leading up to Christs inception, His mother-to-be, Mary, came to visit Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. It is through this account, found in Luke, chapter 1, that we are able to more closely fix the date of the birth of Christ. St. Luke indicates that Elizabeths husband was Zacharis and a priest of the course of Abia. 1 While on duty, as a priest, he was visited by an angel and informed his wife was to have a son named John.2 After his obligations to the ministry ended, he departed to his house and he and Elizabeth conceived a child. During Elizabeths sixth month of pregnancy, the angel Gabriele visited Mary, the virgin, and informed her she was going to give birth to Iesous3, which is the name of our Lord in Greek.4 During Elizabeths sixth month of pregnancy, Mary comes to her house to visit and stay with her, where she stayed for about three months.5 The story then goes on that Elizabeth gave birth to John and ultimately Mary gave birth, as well. In order to fix the time of conception, one must look to the time of Zacharias ministry. At that time, the priests were divided into 24 classes 6 and it is known that each class officiated at the Temple in turn for a week.7 If it is known at which time any one of the classes or courses officiated it is a simple matter to trace the times of the succession of courses backward or forward. Researcher, Adam Rutherford has done the research on Zacharias; The first day of the week of course began at the end of the Sabbath at sundown. From the Talmudic statements and Josephus we learn that the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus on 5th August, A.D. 70 and that the 1st course of priests (that of Jehoiarib) had just taken office. The previous evening was the end of the Sabbath: so the datum line for our calculations is Saturday (Sabbath) 4th August, A.D. 70. The period of the course of Jehoiarib, the 1st course of priests, was from the evening of the 4th of August, A.D. 70 to the evening of the following Sabbath on 11th August. As we have seen, Jesus was born in the fall of 2 B.C. From St. Lukes Gospel quoted above we note that John the Baptist was only five months older than Jesus, so he also was born in 2 B.C., but earlier in the year, in the Spring, hence the conception nine months before would take place in the summer of the previous year, 3 B.C. Now this conception just followed the end of Zacharias week of service in the Temple, i.e., with the end of the turn of duty of the course of Abia (Abijah), which was the 8th course. Reckoning from the above datum line, 4th August, A.D. 70 for the beginning of the week of duty of the 1st course, we find that the 8th course ended its turn and came off duty on 13th July, 3 B.C. Thus Zacharias returned home from the Temple at the end of the 2nd week of July, 3 B.C. and Elizabeths conception therefore would be in that weekend (13th-14th July) and the birth of John the Baptist would take place about 40
week of July, 3 B.C. and Elizabeths conception therefore would be in that weekend (13th-14th July) and the birth of John the Baptist would take place about 40 weeks later, in the weekend of 19th-20th April, 2 B.C., precisely at the Passover of that year.8 The beginning of Elizabeths sixth month of pregnancy began in the fourth week of December, when Mary came to visit and conceived our Lord. The 40 weeks required from Marys conception in the beginning of the 4th week of December, 3 B.C., till the birth of Jesus would thus bring us to the beginning of the fifth week of September, 2 B.C., as the due date for Jesus birth; and the Monday of that week was September 29th in the evening of which the Hebrew New Year (1st Tisheri) and Feast of Trumpets began.9 Using Zacharias ministry, Elizabeths pregnancy term and Marys visit at the start of her sixth month, this shows the conception of Christ in the first part of the last week of December and His birth occurring on or around September 29, 2.B.C. - which was also known as Rosh Hashanah - the 1st day of the Hebrew civil New Year - not December 25 as is commonly celebrated today.
Notes: 1. Luke 1:5; I Chronicles 24:10 2. Luke 1:11-13 3. Luke 1:26-31 4. Iesous - 30F@H, Strongs #2424 5. Luke 1:36-56 6. I Chronicles 24:7-19 7. Pyramidology, Book II, 1970 Adam Rutherford, p. 335 8. op cit. 9. op cit., p. 336
When the wise men from Matthew and the Shepherds from Luke show up on stage at the Christmas pageant every year, few stop to think that they come from different Gospels and different times. The Shepherds show up at the manger on the night of the birth, but the wise men show up at a house much later. The term wise men is derived from the Greek :(@l magos, meaning a magician, oriental scientist, sorcerer.1 The traditional account of the Magi, culled largely from Herodotus, is that they were a Median race who acted as priests of the Persians, but whose persistence as a race is frequently attested and occasionally causes violent conflicts. They were priests of Zoroaster, giving their time largely to astrology, the interpretation of dreams, natural science and medicine.2 The Shepherds of Luke 2 visited the newborn Christ while he was still lying in a manger.3 The word babe in that verse is translated from the Greek $Dn@l brephos, meaning infant or newborn babe4 while the wise men in Matthew came to their house, not a manger, and described the baby as a B"*\@< paidion, meaning a little child or young child5 The house (not the manger) in which the Magi found the infant Jesus points to the fact that this visit followed Jesus birth by a considerable interval, perhaps of months6 King Herod gave the order to slay all male children two years of age and under shortly after the visit of the wise men, in order to kill Christ because he considered him a competing king. Seeing that the age limit for the slaughter was fixed in accordance with Jesus age, had he been under one year old at the time, the order would have been one year and under, but the fact that the order was to slay all of two years and under shows that Jesus was more than one year old, but under two years, when Herod gave the order soon after the visit of the Wise Men.7 Herod was normally cruel, but not crazy or psychotic. That order could have only come from a crazy man - or one who is mentally deranged. Adam Rutherford has reviewed Josephus records (Antiq., XVII, vi, 1) to show that near the end of Herods life, he was suffering from a debilitating illness that would have caused him to become mildly psychotic just before his death. Since Herod died shortly after the close of 1 B.C., and Christ would have been around two years old at the time, the account of the Wise Men forms a splendid interlocking chronological check, mutually confirming both the date of Jesus birth (in 2 B.C.) and that of the death of Herod the Great (nearly two years later).8 As for the Shepherds in the fields coming to see the baby Jesus, There is a saying of the Talmudists that the flocks were taken to the fields in March and brought back in November. This of course could only apply to the higher mountainous parts of Palestine. In many of the lower parts of the country the flocks were able to be in the fields all year round. The little town of Bethlehem itself is situated about 2,550 feet above sea level...One can realize therefore that the Bethlehem area was one of those districts where the sheep were brought in during the winter, and if this be correct, then according to the time of the movement of the sheep stated by the Talmudists, Jesus would not be born in the winter but sometime between March and November when the sheep were out in the fields at night. As Jesus was born in the fall of the year, we can eliminate the months from March to June and his birth therefore was between July and November.9 As was shown in Part 3, in last issue of the Fort Fairfield Journal, that date was on or around September 29, 2 B.C.
Notes
1. Strongs #3097 2. Peloubets Bible Dictionary, 1925 John C. Winston Co., p. 379 3. Luke 2:16 4. Strongs 1025 5. Strongs 3813 6. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 1962 Moody Press, p. 933 7. Adam Rutherford, Pryamidology, Book II, pp. 327-329 8. ibid 9. op cit, p. 333
The Great Pyramid in Egypt sits in the exact center of the entire earths geographical land mass. For example, the North-South meridian line is the longest land meridian, as is the East-West Latitude line from the Great Pyramid - dividing the earths terrain equally. The Great Pyramid appears to be mentioned in the Bible, in the Book of Isaiah, as a sort of monument (translated pillar from the Hebrew Matstsebah) with a message that would be revealed some time after Isaiahs time. In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them. - Isaiah 19:19-20 KJV (also confirmed in the Catholic Bible, Rev. John P. OConnell, Ed. 1950 Catholic Press, Inc.) The Great Pyramid does sit in the midst (middle) of the Land of Egypt, as well as on the border of Upper (desert) and Lower (lush greenery) Egypt. A further corroboration is found in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew alphabet also serves as the Hebrew number system. The alpha-numerical values of all the Hebrew letters that are found in Isaiah 19:19-20 added together come to 5,449. Using information found in the so-called Enoch Circle of the map room, a key which defines a Pyramid Inch is found. The Pyramid Inch is almost identical to the current British inch we use today.1 By measuring the height of the Great Pyramid from its base to its original summit platform (there was never a capstone placed on it), its height in Pyramid Inches also equals 5,449 - just as the Hebrew characters in the Isaiah verses total. Another intriguing feature of the Great Pyramid is, when using the Pyramid Inch as equal to one year, a chronological chart is formed using the ascending and descending passageways which indicate the date of its construction , the time of the Israelites Exodus from Egypt, Christs birth date (Sept. 29, 2 B.C.), Christs death and resurrection, the start and finish of Pauls ministry, World War I, the Great Depression, World War II and many other interesting dates (this is too complex a topic to go into detail in this short thesis, I recommend acquiring books on Pyramidology from Artisan Publishers, to those who are interested in further study). At the point in the Ascending Passageway where Christs birth and death dates are encoded, the floor of the Queens Chamber connects with the birth date; and the expansion into the Grand Gallery, His resurrection date. These points form an angle that is 26 18 9 also known as The Christ Angle. When placed on the North face of the Great Pyramid, this angle of slope, when taken as a rhumb line (not a great circle arc) bearing north of true east, describes a direct route that passes successively over the Israelites crossing of the Sea of Reeds (Red Sea); through Bethlehem, and over the point where the Israelites crossed the Jordan. The two crossings define the beginning and ending of the children of Israels wanderings, after coming out of Egypt2 and also strictly defines Bethlehem as a very significant point, considering it was the birth place of Christ. The Christ Angle serves to interlock Christs birth date and birth place, as well as the divine nature of the Great Pyramid, which was constructed over 2,000 years before Christ was born.
Notes 1.) Pyramid inch equals 1.001064 British inches, Pyramidology; Book I, 1972 Adam Rutherford, p. 69. 2.) The Great Pyramid Decoded, 2001 E. Raymond Capt, p. 81.
Part 6: Conclusion
By: David Deschesne
Yahoshua (Jesus) the Christ was not born on December 25, as we have been led by our traditions to believe. At the Council of Arles in 314, Constantine retained his own divine status by introducing the omnipotent God of the Christians as his personal sponsor. He then dealt with the anomalies of doctrine by replacing certain aspects of Christian ritual with the familiar pagan traditions of sun worship, together with other teachings of Syrian and Persian origin. In short, the new religion of the Roman church was constructed as a hybrid to appease all influential factions. By this means, Constantine looked towards a common and unified world religion - Catholic meaning universal - with himself at its head. [emphasis in original]1 It was the adoption of these pagan practices of tree worship, Sun worship with the observance of the Saturnalia festival on December 25, and other pagan rituals involving holly, Yule logs and mistletoe that coalesced over the centuries into the traditions most Christians associate with Christs birth today.
Thus it is clearly proved that our present Christmas Day is erroneous. This festival on December 25th was in existence long centuries before Jesus was born. It was a pagan festival, to which a Christian terminology has been applied and most of our Christian customs (nice though some of them have become) are of pagan origin. It was the old Babylonian Feast of Bacchus, the drunken festival. In Rome, December 25th was the Feast of Saturn, and like the Babylonian feast from which it was derived, was also a feast of unrestricted drunkenness. What is perhaps our commonest Christmas custom, the Christmas Tree, was just as common in pagan Egypt and Rome, but in Egypt it was a palm tree while in Rome it was a fir tree.2 The early Pilgrims and Puritans who settled in what is now the United States didnt celebrate Christmas traditions on December 25th because they understood the pagan origins. Instead, they treated it as just another work day. They also noted the fact that there was no Biblical authority for the date of Christs birth or for the celebration thereof.3 In all likelihood, Christ was born on September 29, 2 B.C., which was 1 Tisheri - the first day of the Hebrew civil year and also the Feast of Trumpets. Using Zacharias ministry, his wife, Elizabeths conception of John, the timing of Marys visit with Elizabeth, and the season in which the Shepherds who visited the young Child would have been in the fields to begin with, we find more evidence to support a late fall birth than a mid-winter one. The most intriguing piece of evidence is that a chronology appears in the Great Pyramid of Egypt, which is mentioned in Isaiah 19, that seems to indicate a birth date for Christ at September 29, 2 B.C. - the 2 B.C. date is also corroborated by secular historians accounts of Christ in comparison to the reign of Augustus, Herod and Cleopatra. The Great Pyramid was constructed around 2,500 years before Christs birth and was sealed up until 820 A.D. when the Arab, Caliph Al Mamoun found the entrance. Since the Great Pyramid seems to accurately indicate the birth, death and resurrection of Christ within its chronologically laid-out passageways, it has been concluded by some researchers that its design is of Divine origin.
Notes: 1. Rule By Secrecy, 2000 Jim Marrs, p. 354, citing Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln. 2. Pyramidology, Book II, 1970 Adam Rutherford, p. 341. 3. The Congregational Way, 1966 Marion Starkey, pp. 34, 271
Contact Us Help
About Us
Afrik aans
Deutsch
Espaol
Franais
Nederlands
MENU
HOME NEWS & UPDA TES INSIDE THE CHURCH A Look Inside the Church W ho Is David C. Pack ? W ho Was Herbert Arm strong? 2011 Feast of Tabernacles Am bassador Center Am bassador Youth Cam p DONA TION INFORMA TION THE A POSTA SY & SPLINTERS THE REA L TRUTH MA GA ZINE THE WORLD TO COME PROGRA M BIBLE STUDY TOPICS Prophecy Gods Prom ised Protection Marriage and the Fam ily O ne World Governm ent World Econom ic Collapse The Sabbath LITERA TURE Book s & Book lets Articles Q uestions & Answers Bible Introduction Course Trends & Conditions Reports Am bassador Youth Magazine Childrens Bible Lessons The Pillar Magazine LITERA TURE BY SUBJECT MEMBER SERVICES Holy Day Calendar Behind the Work Film PRESS RESOURCES Print this Page Display Adobe PDF Docum ent Find a Congregation
Search
Did Jesus rise from the grave on Sunday morning? Had He been there for three days and three nights? He said this was the only sign (Matt. 12:40) that He was the Messiah! Doescanthis sign coincide with the tradition of a Good Friday crucifixion near sunset and a sunrise resurrection on Easter Sunday?
W hat proof did Christ offer that He w as the Messiah? The Pharisees challenged Him on this very point and He gave them an answ erHis sign that He was true: An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas w as three days and three nights in the w hales belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matt. 12:39-40). How , then, does the Good Friday-Easter Sunday tradition fit? Can 72 hours (three days and three nights) be made to fit into a period betw een late day Friday and early Sunday morning? W hy do so few even seem to question this only sign that Christ said He would give that He was the Messiah? Could He have been w rong on this single great proof of w ho He w as and still have been the Messiah? Since no one directly w itnessed His Resurrection, w e must examine the only available authority on this great eventyour Bible! The apostle Paul said to Prove all things; hold fast that w hich is good (I Thes. 5:21). The Bible is the revealed Word of God. It is His w ritten revelation to mankind. Prepare to be shocked at w hat the Bible does and does not say on this vital point! W hile professing Christians w illingly accept the common traditions of men, true disciples (learners, students) of Christ w ant to know w hat HE says. Christ w arned, In vain do they w orship Me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men (Mark 7:7-8). W hat standard w ill you use? W ill you accept the recorded facts of history found in Gods Wordor continue w ith the familiar, comfortable traditions of men? The Tremendous Importance of His Sign Is it any surprise that Satan the devil w ould w ant to deny that Christ w as the Messiah? Is it any surprise that he w ould seek to relegate the story of Jonah and the w hale to folklore, myth, symbolism and superstition? If this miracle never occurred, then Christs sign, based entirely upon it, is nothing more than hollow and pointless allegory. Consider w hat is at stake in Jesus statement in Matthew 12:39-40. Jesus placed His ENTIRE
IDENTITY on the line w ith His sign. If He failed His only sign, then He is not our Savior and
nothing He said can be trusted. In effect, if His prophecy of this sign failed, then He must be considered a false prophet. He w ould be a fraud and should not be follow edand MA NKIND HA S NO SA V IO R! Do not confuse the fact of the resurrections occurrence as being the sign, w ith the question of how longthe precise length of timeHe w ould be in the grave before His resurrection took place. This w as the test of His sign. Be under no illusion about the position of Bible criticssometimes know n as higher critics. W hile it is embarrassing to w atch them try to explain aw ay Christs only sign, they really have no choice. If Christs sign remains intact, the Good FridayEaster Sunday tradition w ould be exposed as groundlessfalseand collapse in a heap! Some Bible commentaries nearly leave one breathless in astonishment w hen they assert that three days and three nights, in the Greek language, can actually mean three periods of timeeither day or night. Friday night, Saturday daylight and Saturday night are portrayed as these three periods of time. At least some are honest enough to acknow ledge that the Friday-Sunday tradition is, in fact, only about half the length of time that Christ said He w ould be in the grave. What Are Days and Nights? Can w e know for certain or must w e speculate on the meaningthe definitionof a day or the meaning of a night? Does the Bible leave this definition open to opinionw ith one mans opinion as good as another? Jonah 1:17 plainly says, And Jonah w as in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. The Old Testament w as w ritten in Hebrew . Here, scholars face a dilemma w hen they explore the phrase three days and three nights. Some of these same scholarsw ho are actually criticsacknow ledge that the Hebrew language must mean a 72-hour period of time. There is no room for any periods of time theories in the Hebrew . Here is the problem! Christ said His time in the grave w ould be as Jonah w as three days and three nights in the great fishs belly The w ord as sets the standard of comparison. It leaves no room to negotiate the meaning of the Greek. The margin of Jonah 2:2 even compares Jonahs time in the great fish to the grave. In this verse, the Hebrew w ord translated hell is sheol. It literally means the grave. The comparison of Christ to Jonahin a gravebecomes complete. Did Christ understand the length of a day or the length of a night? He did! In John 11:9-10, He asked, Are there not TWELV E HO URS in a day?But if a man w alk in the night, he stumbles. The Bible mentions in several places that Christ rose the third day. How long w as this? The first half of the creation chapter, in Genesis 1:4-13, plainly says that God divided the light from darkness. And God called the light Day and the darkness He called Night. And the evening [darkness] and the morning [light] w ere the first dayAnd the evening [darkness] and the morning [light] w ere the second dayAnd the evening [now THREE periods of darkness called nightthree nights] and the morning [now THREE periods of light called daythree days] w ere the third day. This is the Bibles definition of the length of time accounted for w ithin the phrase the third day. It spanned three periods of darkness and three periods of light. We have proven that each of these periods is tw elve hours. Six times tw elve hours equals 72 hours! W hat could be more plain? The Source of the Problem We have now established the exact duration of Christs time in the tomb as a 72-hour period. He was there for three days and three nights as Jonah w as We w ill shortly examine four additional scriptures that prove the same thing. In Mark 7:13, Christ strongly w arns against making the w ord of God of none effect through your tradition. How is it that intelligent, w ell-educated Bible scholars seem to know that Jesus w as crucified on Friday and resurrected on Sunday? W hat is it about Christs clear, straightforw ard sign that they cannot accept? The answ er lies in the comfort of long-held but clearly FA LSE traditions! One of the most important rules of Bible study is to gather all of the scriptures on a subject to get the complete picture of that subject. There are other scriptures that prove the 72-hour duration of Christs time in the tomb. John 2:19-21 states, Jesus answ ered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I w ill raise it upBut He spoke of the temple of His body. Clearly, the use of the phrase in three days means that Christs time in the tomb could not exceed 72 hoursor it w ould not be within the three-day period.
Conversely, Matthew 27:63 establishes Jesus time in the tomb as not less than three days, or 72 hours, for it says, After three days I w ill rise again. Examining tw o additional verses in Marks gospel account prove the same parameters of John 2 and Matthew 27. Notice Mark 8:31: And He began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. A late Friday afternoon entombment means a late Monday afternoon resurrection. It is as simple as counting one, tw o, three! Finally, in reference to this verse, if it stood alone w ithout other scriptures to qualify itit must be plainly admitted that Christs use of the w ord after does not, by itself, limit His time in the tomb to 72 hours. He could still be there longer. He just could not be there one bit less than 72 hours. This much should now be clear. We are now ready for Mark 9:31: They shall kill Him; and after that He is killed, He shall rise the third day. This verse presents another limitation on Christs time in the tomb. Consider! This verse, if taken by itself, places His time in the grave betw een 48 and 72 hours. The phrase the third day caps the duration at 72 hoursbut it also creates a minimum of 48 hoursor the period w ould be somew here in the second day! Again, if this verse is to be taken alone, a Friday afternoon crucifixion requires a resurrection sometime after late Sunday afternoon and no later than late Monday afternoon. Establishing the Tim e of the Resurrection The follow ing fact should be clear. The exact moment and time of day w hen Christ w as placed in the tomb had to coincide w ith the exact time of day of His Resurrection. We must establish precisely when Christ w as placed in the tomb. We w ill then know precisely w hen He left the tomb. Plainly, any time of day or nightmorning, noon, afternoon, evening, midnight, etc.that Christ w ould have entered the tomb w ould have to be the very same time He w ould depart it by His resurrection! W hile on the stake, after the ninth hour (three oclock in the afternoon), Jesus cried out (Matt. 27:46-50; Mark 15:34-37; Luke 23:44-46) and died. Luke 23:44 also makes a reference to the sixth hour, and there w as darkness in all the earth until the ninth hour. The sixth hour is six hours after sunriseor noon! This w ould make the ninth hour three oclock. These events occurred on the day before the Sabbaththe day called the preparation (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54). We should recognize that the Bible counts days as the period from evening to evening (Lev. 23:32) or sunset to sunset. Recall Genesis 1: the evening [night or darkness] and the morning [day or light] John 19:42 explains, There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jew s preparation day. Jew ish burial law (vs. 31) forbade the bodies of the dead remaining unburied at the outset of any Sabbath day or feast day. Remember, Luke 23:46 explained that Christ died at, or shortly after, three oclock in the afternoon. He w ould have been buried soon thereafterprior to sunset. We have not yet established the day of the w eek that the crucifixion occurred. How ever, our previous computation and comparison of related scriptures reveals that Christ must have risen sometime after three oclock in the afternoonon w hatever w ould have been the day that w as three days later. A brief summary is in order at this point. Again, Christs Messiahship is at stake. Based on w hen He w as buried (sometime betw een three and six oclock on the day of His crucifixion), His sign as our Messiah w as that He mustI repeat He mustrise at the same time 72 hours later. Otherw ise, He is an impostor and a fraud, and w e have no Savior. Unless w e w ish to make the w ord of God of none effect through [our] tradition, w e must now admit that a popular, great tradition has crashed in a heap of rubble. Some honest questions remain. The Crucifixion Preceded a SabbathBut Which Sabbath? We have now reached the important issue of w hen to start counting the 72-hour period of Christs sign. It involves the Sabbath. But which Sabbath? Could this question lie at the heart of w hy people assume a Friday crucifixion? We have already proven from all four Gospels that the day of Christs crucifixion w as called the preparation. John 19:14 explains it w as the preparation of the Passover. How ever, verse 31 goes further by stating, for that sabbath day w as an high day. W hat does this mean? W hat is a Sabbath that is a high day? Any Jew w ill tell you that a high day is a FEA ST DA Y or an A NNUA L HO LY DA Y ! Leviticus 23 describes seven of these days that the nation of ancient Israel w as commanded to keep year by year. A simple review of this chapter (verses 24, 26-32 and 39) reveals that God considered these days to be Sabbaths. Notice that Leviticus 23:2 refers to all of these Sabbaths as the feasts of the LO RD and even these are my feasts. This same verse also calls them holy convocationsmeaning commanded assemblies. These days do not fall on the same day, year after year, any more than do the common pagan holidays that most people observe today. Matthew 26:2 states, You know that after tw o days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified. (Leviticus 23 show s that the Passover w as the one feast that w as not also a Sabbath, w herein w ork w as prohibited.) There is no doubt that Christ w as crucified on the Passover. (Read our free booklet How Often Should the Lords Supper Be Taken?)
The original Passover is described in Exodus 12. A lamb w as slain and the blood of this lamb w as struck over the doorposts of all the Israelite houses. It w as this blood that caused the death angel to pass over any particular house, thus saving the firstborn of that house from death! Hence, the term passover. The Old Testament Passover alw ays preceded the annual Sabbath called the first Day of Unleavened Bread. This day w as a high day or a feast day to be celebrated each year, again, on the day immediately follow ing the Passover. Notice Numbers 28:16-17: And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LO RD . And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast. This feast w as the first Day of Unleavened Bread. Jesus Christ w as slain by crucifixion on the exact same day that the Passover lamb had been slain every year. W hile the above referenced booklet w ill take the reader into greater detail on this point, suffice to say that I Corinthians 5:7 plainly states, Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. John the Baptist called Christ the Lamb of God, w hich takes aw ay the sin of the w orld (John 1:29). Christ w as crucified on the Passover and this day then w ould automatically be a preparation day for the feast day, or annual high day Sabbathw hich w as to begin almost immediately after His burial. As mentioned, annual Sabbaths could occur on any day of the w eek. Tuesday and Thursday are more common than any other day for the first Day of Unleavened Bread, follow ing the Passover. Thursday is probably the most common of all. For instance, in the thirty-six years (counting inclusively) betw een 1998 and 2033, the first Day of Unleavened Bread occurs on a Thursday 12 times, and on a Tuesday 10 times. All other days are less often during this period. In the year of Christs crucifixion, according to the Hebrew calendar, the Passover occurred on a Wednesday! This means that the annual Sabbath had to be one day lateror Thursday! It was, in fact, THIS SABBATH that was approaching, thus requiring the swift burial of Jesus body prior to its arrival. The w eekly Sabbath, or Saturday, w as to occur tw o days after that. Which Was the Day of the Resurrection? If Christs Resurrection w as not on Sunday, then w hen w as it? The w orld commonly believes that it w as Sunday morning. Does the Bible say this, or have millions made an assumption? John 20:1 says, The first day of the w eek comes Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and sees the stone taken aw ay from the sepulchre. Compare this verse w ith Mark 16:2 and Luke 24:1. It is now very early Sunday morning (it is still dark) and the tomb is open. Do these verses supply the supposed proof for the Sunday resurrection tradition? Do they support Easter sunrise services? A problem already presents itself. Christ is gone from the tomb before sunrise! Now notice Luke 24:6. Mary Magdalene, and the others w ith her, are described as finding tw o angels standing before them. These angels stated plainly to these w omen, He is not here, but is risen. Also see Mark 16:6 and Matthew 28:5-6. Christ w as GONEHe w as already risen! Notice the past tense of the tw o angels statement. We can now establish the day of Christs resurrection. We have already established the time of day of His death and the burial soon thereafter and, therefore, also the time of His resurrection. It w as late afternoon, betw een 3 and 6 p.m. Obviously, Christ w as already risen, by this time, in the darkness of Sunday morningbecause He had been gone from the grave since late afternoon on SATURDAY! Let us state this plainly. Christ died on the late afternoon of a Wednesday Passover and w as resurrected three days later on the late afternoon of the very next Saturday. Thus, the resurrection did not even occur on Sundayperiod! Christs Sign Fulfilled W ho w ill you believe? W ill it be theologians, scholars, higher critics and other traditionalists, w ho love to profess Jesus, but reject the sign that He gave? Or w ill you believe the w ords of your Biblethat Jesus Christ rose from the dead exactly as He said He w ould? It is now time to read a different Gospel account of the tw o angels statement to the w omen at the tomb. This time notice Matthew 28:6. It states, He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. This w ould be impossible if Christ had been in the grave one second more or one second less than 72 hours. The One w ho said, Are there not tw elve hours in a day? w as w ell aw are of exactly how long His sign required that He remain in the belly of the earththe grave. Not only did Christ state that He w ould fulfill His sign but it w as also established by the mouth of tw o w itnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), w ho happened to be mighty angels of God. Paul adds a final, great, corroborating proof that Christ did spend three entire days and three entire nightsfrom late Wednesday afternoon until late Saturday afternoonin the tomb. In I Corinthians 15:3-4, Paul validates the w ords of Christ and the tw o angels w ho w itnessed His fulfillment. Notice: For I delivered unto you first of all that w hich I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that He w as buried, and that He rose again THE THIRD DA Y according to the scriptures. Further, the prophet Daniel gave a prophecy he described as seventy w eeks (Dan. 9:24-27). In this prophecy, the Messiah w as foretold to be cut off in the midst of the w eek. Wednesday
In this prophecy, the Messiah w as foretold to be cut off in the midst of the w eek. Wednesday is literally the fourth, or middle day, of a seven-day w eek. So then, it was in the midst of the w eek that Christ w as cut off. (It should be noted that this prophecy in Daniel w as a foretelling of Christ also being cut off in the midst of His ministryafter 3 1/2 years [Fall A.D. 27 to Spring A.D. 31]if the biblical application of a day for a year is properly applied to the seventieth w eek of that prophecy.) Are There Other Questions for Examination? Some w ill say, But w hat about this scripture or w hat about that scripture or this point or some other point? Are there other questions that should be examined? Some ask about Mark 16:9. Certain people suppose that this verse proves the Sunday resurrection theory. Does it? Simply reading the verse makes plain that it does not say Christ w as rising but rather He w as risen from the grave. Take time to read the verse. It uses past tense because, as w e have seen, Christ had been gone from the grave for about tw elve hours (since late Saturday afternoon) by this time on Sunday morning. But w hat about Luke 24:21? It states, and beside all this, today is the third day since these things w ere done. The phrase these things is a reference to all the events related to the crucifixion. Verses 18-20 describe the particulars of these things to be Christs delivery to Pilate, His trial, His crucifixion, His beating, His death, up to the setting of the seal and the w atch over His tomb, w hich occurred the follow ing dayThursday. This discussion occurred on Sunday, and Sunday was the third day since all of these things w ere completed (on Thursday) w ith the setting of the w atch on Christs tomb. Therefore, this is not a verse w hich can be used to set aside everything that all of the other scriptures on this subject have proven. A Final Proof Matthew 28:1 contains an important statement that bears examination before this subject can be laid to rest. Notice that this verse begins w ith the phrase In the end of the sabbath. Most versions render it this w ay, but some use the phrase After the Sabbath. The Ferrar Fenton translation correctly renders this phrase. Fenton translates this phrase w ith after the Sabbaths (plural). Fenton is possibly the only translator to note that the original Greek has the w ord SA BBATHS in the plural. This is important. We w ill see w hy. Notice Mark 16:1: Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sw eet spices. Their purpose w as to anoint the body of Jesus. They w ere not able to buy their spices until after the Sabbath w as passed. Yet Luke 23:56 explains that they prepared these spices and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. W hile this may appear confusing, it need not be if these tw o passages are studied carefully. Only one possible explanation emerges. It is that these w omen bought and prepared their spices on Friday, after the Thursday annual high day Sabbathor the first feast day of Unleavened Breadand then rested on the w eekly Sabbath, w hich w as Saturday according to Gods plain command found in Exodus 20:8-11. Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56 must refer to two separate Sabbaths of that crucifixion w eekw ith a day in betw een, Friday. Any other explanation creates a contradiction of scripture and the Bible never contradicts itself. Sunday is Not The Lords Day There is another very important reason w hy theologians and many others must conclude that the resurrection was on Sunday! Sunday is commonly referred to as the Lords Day. W hile the true Lords Day of the Bible is actually the Day of the Lordthe DA Y O F HIS WRATH (Joel 2:1-11; Rev. 1:10; 15:1, 7)the term the Lords Day has come to be synonymous w ith Sunday. But w hy? The reason is simple. If Sunday can be established as the day that Christ w as resurrected, it can be a means of validating and authorizing the keeping of Sunday by the churches of the w orld, in place of Gods true Sabbath. You have already seen references to the Sabbath day in this booklet. Exodus 20:8-11 show s that the keeping of the Sabbath is the Fourth Commandment! It w as alw ays the seventh day of the w eek and God never authorized Sundayw hich w ould be keeping the first day instead. God hallow ed it at creationlong before there w ere any Jew s or Israelites to keep it (Gen. 2:1). The Sabbath w as to be kept forevercontinuallyand throughout the generations of Israel, Gods intended model nation (Ex. 31:12-17). Christ kept it (Luke 4:16) and said that He w as Lord of it and that it w as made for man (Mark 2:27-28). He did not say it w as made for the Jews only. Paul observed it (Acts 13:42, 44; 17:2; 18:4). The subject of keeping the Sabbath as Gods command for true Christians is a big subject requiring its ow n book to explain it. Therefore, more than the Good Friday-Easter Sunday tradition collapses if Christ w as in the grave for 72 hours instead of 36. The largest single reason for the unscriptural tradition (recall Mark 7:7) of Sunday-keeping collapses at the same time. God has alw ays said, Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy (Ex. 20:8). He has never said, Remember Sunday to keep it holyand just call it the Lords day! The reader is left to ponder this. (Request our free book Saturday or Sunday Which Is the Sabbath? for absolute proof of w hich day is the Christian Sabbath.) What is the Source of Y our Beliefs? Herbert W. Armstrong concluded his booklet THE RESURRECTION Was NOT on Sunday w ith:
mentioned two crowings, a contradiction therefore exists. Realistically, there were two rooster crowings. However, it was the second one (the only one Matthew, Luke, and John mentioned) that was the main crowing (like the fourth buzzer is the main buzzer at a football game). In the first century, roosters were accustomed to crowing at least twice during the night. The first crowing (which only Mark mentioned14:68) usually occurred between twelve and one oclock. Relatively few people ever heard or acknowledged this crowing (Faussets Bible Dictionary). Likely, Peter never heard it; else surely his slumbering conscience would have awakened. The second crowing took place not long before daybreaklikely around three oclock ( Nelsons Illustrated Bible Dictionary). [Please remember, biblical hours cannot be translated exactly into our modern clock-hours.] It was this latter crowing that commonly was called the cockcrowing. Why? Because it was at this time of night (just before daybreak) that roosters crowed the loudest, and their shrill clarion was useful in summoning laborers to work (McClintock and Strong, 1968, 2:398). This crowing of the roosters served as an alarm clock to the ancient world. Mark recorded earlier in his gospel account that Jesus spoke of this main crowing when He stated: Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is comingin the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning (Mark 13:35, emp. added). Interestingly, even when workers were called to work via artificial devices (e.g., bugles), this time of the night still was designated by the proverbial phrase, the cockcrowing (McClintock and Strong, 2:398). If you lived in the first century and your boss said to be ready to work when the rooster crows, you would know he meant that work begins just before daybreak. If he said work begins at the second crowing of the rooster, likewise, you would know he meant the same thingwork begins just before daylight. These are not contradictory statements, but rather two ways of saying the same thing. When Jesus said, Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times (Matthew 26:34), it seems obvious that He was using the rooster crows in the more conventional way. Mark, on the other hand, specifies that there were two crowings. In the same way that the husband gives his wife more detailed instructions concerning a football game, Mark used greater precision in recording this event. It may be that Mark quoted the exact words of Jesus, while the other writers (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) saw fit to employ the less definite style to indicate the same time of night (McGarvey, 1875, p. 355). Or, perhaps Jesus made both statements. After Peter declared that he never would deny the Lord, Jesus could have repeated His first statement and added another detail, saying: [E]ven this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times (Mark 14:30, emp. added). We cannot be sure why Marks account is worded differently than the other writers, but by understanding that the rooster crowing commonly was used to indicate a time just before daybreak, we can be assured that no contradiction exists among the gospel writers. REFERENCES Animals (1986), Nelsons Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft) Cock (1998), Faussets Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Cock-crowing, McClintock, John and James Strong (1968), Cyclopaedia of Biblical Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of St. Marks Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).
AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Share
PART ONE:
A chronological summary of Daniel 9:24-26 1. There would be a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. 2. Jerusalem and the Temple would be rebuilt. 3. Then an anointed one (messiah) would be "cut off" (an idiom for "rejected" or "killed"). 4. Then Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed again. I came up with this summary after reading various renderings of this verse in various translations of the Christian Bible and of the Jewish Tanakh. (The Tanakh is the Jewish Bible; it contains the writings of what we Christians refer to as the Old Testament). I believe that this chronology fits most of the renderings that I have seen, whether they are translations by Christians or by Judaists. My summary is in no way original - many Christians, such as Josh McDowell, have come up with the same chronology long before I did.
PART TWO:
A summary of how Daniel 9:24-26 was fulfilled All of these events later happened, in the same order in which they are described in Daniel 9:24-26: 1. After the Medo-Persians had conquered the Babylonian empire about 2540 years ago, they ruled a vast empire that included the land of Israel. About 2446 years ago (about 445 BC), Persian king Artaxerxes gave permission to the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem, which was still in ruins after having been destroyed earlier by the Babylonians. 2. The Jews rebuilt the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. 3. Then, in about 33 AD, Jesus entered Jerusalem as the Messiah who had been promised by Old Testament prophets. But, many people rejected Jesus as the Messiah and He was crucified by the Romans. 4. About 40 years after Jesus was crucified, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. (The Temple has not been rebuilt since then).
PART THREE:
How Daniel 9:24-26 was "Fulfilled to the day" according to scholars such as Josh McDowell First, McDowell, and other scholars, separate the prophecy into three parts: 1. The "7 sevens" in Daniel 9:25. 2. The "62 sevens" in Daniel 9:25. 3. And the 70th "seven" in Daniel 9:27. Then, they combine the first two periods for a total of 69 "sevens." They combined the first two periods because it is at after the completion of those two periods that the anointed one appears, and that's what we are trying to calculate - when the anointed one was supposed to appear.
Other items
Next, they interpret the "sevens" as "seven years" or periods of seven years, rather than a period of seven days or seven weeks or seven months. Part of the reason that this is interpreted as "years" is because of the reference to "years" in Daniel 9:2. (Daniel 9:2 refers to the "seventy years" prophecy that Jeremiah spoke of in Jeremiah 25).
Other items
About us E-mail us HOME
PART FOUR:
The mathematics of calculating Daniel 9:24-26 and the issue of the 360-day "prophetic" calendar At this point, we're adding the 7 "sevens" and the 62 "sevens" for a total of 69 "sevens". And we are interpreting the 69 "sevens" to mean 69 periods of seven years, for a total of 483 years. So, we are saying that there would be a period of 483 years from the time that a decree is given to rebuild Jerusalem to the time that a Messiah is to appear. Some Christian scholars say that the period of 483 years should not be thought of in terms of our modern solar calendar which is based on a 365.25 days to a year. Instead, we are to use a "prophetic" calendar which has 360 days to a year. Many ancient calendars, including the Jewish calendar, were based on a lunar year of 12 months, with each month lasting 30 days each. Many ancient peoples, including the ancient Jews, did realize that there actually were more than 360 days to a year and so they would tack on an extra five days at some point during the year. Another reason some scholars say that we should apply a 360-day calendar to Daniel's prophecy is because of various Bible references that allude to a fixed 30-day month view of time. For example, in Genesis 7:24, it says that the flood lasted 150 days. And, in Genesis 7:11, it says the flood began in the 17th day of the second month. And in Genesis 8:4, it says that the flood subsided on the 17th day of the seventh month, when the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. So, these passages present us a 5-month period of time that is described as being 150 days in length. And that of course is five 30-day months. There are other Bible passages that indicate that time is being measured in fixed 30day month periods. Revelation 12:6 mentions a 1,260 day period which, in my view, clearly relates to the three-and-a-half-year period mentioned in Revelation 12:13-14 and in Daniel 9:27. For three-and-a-half years to equal 1,260 days, one would have to measure years in 360-day increments. That of course doesn't mean that the earth's orbit of the sun is going to speed up or change, it just simply means that the prophetic year is a measure of time in which a "year" has 360 days, nothing more, nothing less. It's no different than weighing a bag of groceries using the metric system of kilograms and then using the old English system of pounds and ounces. It is not that one system causes the groceries to weigh more or less, but rather the two systems describe the weight in different units. So too does the prophetic year in comparison to our solar calendar - it uses a different system to measure time. So, we take the 483 years that we had calculated earlier and we multiply the 483 by 360. In other words, we are viewing the 483 year period described in Daniel 9:25 as "prophetic years" of 360 days each. And, 483 times 360 equals 173,880. And that gives us a total of 173,880 days. Now, we want to apply these 173,880 days to our calendar, which has 365.25 days to a year. Why? So that we can use our calendar in trying to figure out the year that this part of Daniel's prophecy was to begin its fulfillment and when this part of Daniel's prophecy was to be completed. So, we divide the 173,880 days into years of 365.25 days. And, that equals 476 (solar) years. Now, we need to figure out when this 476 year period was supposed to begin.
PART FIVE:
When was Daniel's "69 weeks of years" supposed to begin? At this point we are trying to figure out when the 476-year period begins. The prophecy in Daniel 9:24-26 begins with a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. Many people have proposed different years for different decrees. And I won't pretend to have the "only correct answer," because I don't know if I have that or not. In any event, here are four decrees that are often discussed in relation to Daniel 9:24-26: 1. The decree from Cyrus in 539 BC. (see Ezra 1:1-4) 2. The decree from Darius in 519 BC. (see Ezra 5:3-7) 3. The decree from Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 BC. (see Ezra 7:11-16) 4. The decree from Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444 BC. (see Nehemiah 2:1-8) As cited in McDowell's book, a Christian scholar named J.D. Wilson contends that only the decree from Artaxerxes to Nehemiah applies to this prophecy. As cited in
McDowell's book, Wilson explains: "The words of the decree are not given, but its subject matter can easily be determined. Nehemiah hears of the desolate condition of Jerusalem. He is deeply grieved. The King asks the reason. Nehemiah replies, 'the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire.' The King bids him make request. He does so promptly, asking for an order from the King that 'I be sent to the city that I may build it.' And, as we read, he was sent, and he rebuilt Jerusalem." And so, that is J.D. Wilson's reason for using the Artaxerxes to Nehemiah. The next issue is finding a date for that decree. McDowell, page 199 of his "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," reads: "The decree was given in 444 B.C., based on the following: 1. 'In the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes' (Nehemiah 2:1). 2. Artaxerxes' accession was in 465 B.C. 3. There is no day-of-month specified, so according to the Jewish custom the date is understood as the first day of the month, which would be Nisan 1, 444 BC. 4. March 5, 444 B.C. is our corresponding calendar date." Many scholars use the March 5 date, but not all use the 444 BC year. Some use 445 BC as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. I myself haven't done enough research to decide which year is most likely to be the correct year. Regardless of whether you accept the date as being March 5, 444 BC or March 5, 445 BC, we now have a starting point for Daniel's prophecy.
PART SIX:
When was Daniel's "69 weeks of years" supposed to end? We are now at the point where we can try to pinpoint when the Messiah was supposed to make his appearance. If we agree on the points that have been made earlier, then we simply calculate 476 years into the future, using 444 BC as the starting point. To do that, if I am not mistaken, we count 443 BC as the first of the 476 years. Why - because the first began in 444 BC and it ended in 443 BC. So we start counting from 443 BC. So, we have 443 years on the BC side of measuring time and that leaves us with 33 years on the AD side to account for the full 476 years. Using this formula, we arrive at 33 AD the year in time in which the Messiah was to appear. And that would correspond to the time that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. The reason the donkey is important is that in Zechariah 9:9, the prophet Zechariah speaks of a King riding a donkey and presenting himself as the King to Jerusalem. Alfred Edersheim, a Christian Jew who lived during the 1800s, studied ancient Rabbinical writings, and said that Zechariah 9:9 was often interpreted as being about a Messiah. In the book, "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," Edersheim wrote: "The Messianic application of this verse in all its parts has already been repeatedly indicated. We may here add that there are many traditions about this donkey on which the Messiah is to ride; and so firm was the belief in it, that, according to the Talmud, `if anyone saw a donkey in his dreams, he will see salvation' (Ber 56 b)." So then, what better way for a Messiah to announce himself in Jerusalem than to enter the great city on the back of a humble donkey? There are theories that pinpoint the exact date of the exact year that Jesus rode into Jerusalem. The dates that I have seen in my review of other people's research is April 6, either April 6, 32 AD, or April 6, 33 AD. (And, again, the difference in the year depends on whether the 20th year of Artaxerxes was in 444 BC or 445 BC). And, some scholars have claimed that there are exactly 173,880 days from March 5, 444 BC to April 6, 33 AD (and, 173,880 days from March 5, 445 BC to April 6, 32 AD).
PART SEVEN:
What ancient Rabbis thought of Daniel 9:24-26 I found a Web site that pulls together various ancient writings from Rabbis, commenting on Daniel, chapter 9. That Web site's address is: http://www.inerrancy.org/dan.htm According to that Web site, at least a handful of ancient Rabbis agree that it is correct to view Daniel 9 as providing a timeline for the arrival of a Messiah. Below are a few examples that I copied verbatim from that Web site: "1a. Maimonides (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon): "Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise [rabbis] have
barred the calculation of the days of Messiahs coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah" (Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 p.24.)" "1b. Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi: "I have examined and searched all the Holy Scriptures and have not found the time for the coming of Messiah clearly fixed, except in the words of Gabriel to the prophet Daniel, which are written in the 9th chapter of the prophecy of Daniel (The Messiah of the Targums, Talmuds and Rabbinical Writers, 1971) p.141-142 (These two quotes were taken from The Creator Beyond Time and Space by Mark Eastman, M.D. and Chuck Missler (The Word for Today, 1996))." Assuming that these citations are accurate renderings of what the Rabbis had said, it seems clear that these Rabbis believed that Daniel 9:24-26 referred to a Messiah, a very important Messiah, and that the Bible passage provided the information needed to calculate the Messiah's arrival. As for the first example, Maimonides of course was a Judaist, not a Christian, and so from his point of view, the prophecy had not yet been fulfilled. And that would account for his comments about calculating the Messiah's arrival.
PART EIGHT:
My conclusions about Daniel's "69 weeks of years" Perhaps we can't all agree, at this time, on every specific detail involved in calculating a starting point for Daniel's prophecy about the 69 weeks of years. But, eventually, we might have additional information from archaeologists and historians to help pinpoint that starting point. But at this present time, it seems to me that there is widespread agreement among Christian scholars on the following issues: 1. That there is evidence in the Bible to support the concept of the "prophetic calendar" which measures time in terms of 360-day years. 2. That there is evidence in the Bible to support the view that the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah is, or at least could be, the starting point of Daniel's prophecy. 3. That there is strong evidence from historians and archaeologists to pinpoint "twentieth year of Artaxerxes" as being either 444 BC or 445 BC. 4. That the events described in Daniel's prophecy do line up as follows: That there would be a decree to rebuild Jerusalem. Then Jerusalem and the Temple would be rebuilt. Then an anointed one (messiah) would make his appearance and then be "cut off." Then Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed again.
See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.
Submit
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Copyright 2011, aboutbibleprophecy.com. All rights reserved. Our copyright policy.
in Mark 5:23 as some would have us to think. According to Craig Blomberg, arti (even now or just) has some connotations that suggest not always a present reality, but an inevitable reality (cf. Matthew 3:15; 23:39; 1 Corinthians 4:13). Therefore, Blomberg concluded that it is possible Matthew was relating the inevitability and certainty of Jairus daughter dying, rather than making a statement about her current condition (1992, p. 160). Adam Clarke mentioned in his commentary on Matthew that 9:18 could be translated, my daughter was just now dying (1996). Albert Barnes agreed, saying: The Greek word, rendered is even now dead, does not of necessity mean, as our translation would express, that she had actually expired, but only that she was dying or about to die. The passage [Matthew 9:18EL] may be expressed thus: My daughter was so sick that she must be dead by this time (1997). Therefore, the alleged contradiction may be a simple misunderstanding of what Matthew actually wrote about the dying child. A better explanation to this alleged discrepancy is that Jairus uttered both statements: Mark and Luke mention her severe sickness, while Matthew speaks of her death. As in so many other places, each writer reported only a part of what occurred and what was said. Does Matthews omission of the coming of the messengers who tell Jairus that his daughter has just died mean that his account contradicts the others (Mark 5:35; Luke 8:49)? Certainly not! Nor do his additional details. R.C. Trench, in his classic work on the miracles of Jesus, made the following observation concerning the differences in the gospel writers accounts of what was said when Jairus approached Jesus: When the father left the child, she was at her last gasp; and he knew not whether to regard her now as dead or alive; and, yet having not received certain knowledge of her death, he was perplexed whether to speak of her as departed or not, expressing himself one moment in one language, and at the next in another. Strange that a circumstance like this, so drawn from life, so testifying of the things recorded, should be urged by some as a contradiction (1949, pp. 107-108, emp. added). Strange indeed! Skeptics who attack Gods Word with unsupported allegations will continue to fail. The Bible is and always has been the inerrant Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21). And based upon the evidence we have, it is reasonable to believe that Bible is inspired by God. There is no other book like it on the planet. Evidence to substantiate the Bibles claims of its own inspiration can be drawn from such external evidence as the historical documentation of biblical people, places, and events, or archaeological artifacts that corroborate biblical statements or circumstances. The internal evidence includes the Bibles unity, predictive prophecy, and scientific foreknowledge (to list just three examples). The Bible is unparalleled in human history and bears testimony to the fact that the very existence of it cannot be explained in any other way except to acknowledge that it is the result of an overriding, superintending, guiding Mind. REFERENCES
AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Share
Destruction of Tyre
A detailed look at Ezekiel 26:1-21 and some faulty objections that skeptics have
As for the prophecy found in Ezekiel 26, the difference between a believer and a skeptic can boil down to a single word - the word "they" in verse 12. The skeptics contend that the word "they" in verse 12 refers to Nebuchadnezzar's men in verses 7-11. And if that were true, then one could argue convincingly that the prophecy was not fulfilled. But, the believers, including myself, contend that the word "they" in verse 12 refers to the "many nations" in verse 3 and the "nations" in verse 5. And if this is true, then one could argue convincingly that the prophecy was fulfilled. With this rendering of the word "they", Tyre was supposed to be attacked by a succession of nations, like the sea casting up its waves, one at a time, over time. And Tyre was indeed attacked by a succession of nations over time. Since the days of Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre has been conquered or ruled over by the Greeks, the Persians, the Romans, the Crusaders and the Arabs, who destroyed the city, again, in 1291. Skeptics and believers can certainly agree that verses 7-11 are specifically about Nebuchadnezzar and his men. But, nowhere in those verses is the word "they" ever used. In fact, it almost seems that Ezekiel goes out of his way not to use the word "they." Take a look: ". . . I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon . . ." ". . . He will ravage your settlements on the mainland . . ." ". . . he will set up siege works against you . . ." ". . . He will direct the blows . . ." ". . . with his weapons . . ." ". . . His horses will be so many . . ." ". . . when he enters your gates . . ." ". . . The hoofs of his horses will trample . . ." ". . . he will kill your people . . ." Nebuchadnezzar is not the "many nations" referenced in verse 3. Instead, he is the first of the "many nations" referenced in verse 3. And the word "they" in verse 12 is not a continuation of the Nebuchadnezzar theme, but rather a continuation of the "many nations" theme of which Nebuchadnezzar is the starting point. Only in verses 7-11 is Nebuchadnezzar specifically and unquestionably referred to. And in these verses, only the mainland of Tyre is addressed - never the island. The destruction of the island and the looting of the island, then, is the job of the "many nations" of verse 3. And many nations did attack, conquer and rule over the island. As for the claim that Ezekiel 29:17 is an admission from Ezekiel that his prophecy about Tyre failed, because Nebuchadnezzar did not get any loot from Tyre, take a look again at verses 7-11. Those are indeed the only verses that specifically mention Nebuchadnezzar, and these verses do not refer to loot or plunder. Like the destruction of the island itself, the prophecy of plunder was to be carried out by the "many nations" of verse 3. In verses 19-21, Ezekiel said that there would come a time when the city is "desolate," "no longer inhabited," and submerged underwater. I believe that this was fulfilled completely by Alexander when he tossed the ruins of mainland Tyre into the sea to build the land bridge that helped him to conquer the island of Tyre. Alexander's conquest brought an end - a permanent end - to the Phoenician Empire. And from that point on, the Phoenician city of Tyre ceased to exist. A city cannot be more
Other items
desolate or more uninhabited than one that no longer exists. And yes, there is indeed a city called Tyre in modern-day Lebanon, and indeed it might be sitting on the exact same spot as the original Tyre. But this is Lebanon's Tyre - not the Phoenician Tyre that had taunted the Jews and had gloated over the destruction of the Holy City of Jerusalem. It was the Phoenician Tyre that Ezekiel was speaking of, and that city no longer exists: "The principal ruins of the city today are those of buildings erected by the Crusaders. There are some Greco-Roman remains, but any left by the Phoenicians lie underneath the present town." - Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition.
Other items
About us E-mail us HOME
See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.
Submit
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Copyright 2011, aboutbibleprophecy.com. All rights reserved. Our copyright policy.
By Wayne Jackson Some have suggested that behemoth, mentioned in Job 40:15ff, could have been some species of dinosaur. However, since verse 16 speaks of behemoths navel, would not this exclude dinosaurs since dinosaurs were egg-layers, and egg-layers have no navels? The rendition navel, as found in the King James Version of 1611, derives from the original Hebrew term, sharir. Scholars suggest that the term originally meant firm, hard, hence, denoted the firm parts of the belly (William Gesenius, Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979, p. 850). In Job 40:16 it simply signifies sinew, muscle (Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles Briggs, Hebrew-English Lexicon, London: Oxford University Press, 1907, p. 1057; cf. R.L. Harris, Gleason Archer, Bruce Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Chicago: Moody, 1980, Vol. II, p. 957). Modern scholars contend that the term merely means the muscles of his belly (J.E. Hartley, The Book of Job, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988, p. 525). The King James Version thus reflects an erroneous rendition of the original term. Here is another important fact. In the Hebrew text sharir is plural. Would this suggest, as per the KJV, that behemoth had more than one navel? Such would be a unique feature indeed, indicating that behemoth was twice-born! Note the judicious comments of Albert Barnes: The word here rendered navel means properly firm, hard, tough, and in the plural form, which occurs here, means the firm, or tough parts of the belly. It is not used to denote the navel in any place in the Bible, and should not have been so rendered here (The Book of Job, London: Blackie & Son, n.d., Vol. II, p. 248). The navel quibble, which is alleged to negate any identification of Jobs behemoth with some dinosaur species in the ancient world, is void of merit.
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/591
wrote of thieves reviling Christ, instead of thief. REFERENCES Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light), reprint.
Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
all believe that it could (or should) be rendered had formed. And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree. The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purposei.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complimentary nature of the subjectdistinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, p. 117). Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe summarized some of the differences in Genesis 1-2 in the following chart (1992, p. 35): Genesis 1 Genesis 2
The fact is, Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of Gods work of creation as set forth in chapter 1.... [C]hapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69). In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account of chapter one. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man. If one still rejects both the possibility of yatsar being translated had formed, and the explanation of the two chapters being worded differently because of the purposes they serve, a final response to the skeptics allegations is that the text never says that there were no animals created on the sixth day of creation after Adam. Although in my judgment it is very unlikely that God created a special group of animals to be named by Adam (after creating all others before the creation of manGenesis 1:20-27), some commentators hold this view. After his comments concerning the translation of yastsar, Victor Hamilton indicated that the creatures mentioned in 2:19 refer to the creation of a special group of animals brought before Adam for naming (p. 176, emp. added). Hamilton believes that most all the animals on the Earth were created before Adam; however, those mentioned in 2:19 were created on day six after Adam for the purpose of being named. In U. Cassutos comments on Genesis 2 regarding the time Adam named the animals, he stated: Of all the species of beasts and flying creatures that had been created and had spread over the face of the earth and the firmament of the heavens, the Lord God now formed particular specimens for the purpose of presenting them all before man in the midst of the Garden (1961, p. 129, emp. added). Both of these long-time Bible students recognize that the text never says there were no animals created after Adam, but that all animals were created either on days five and six (before and possibly even after Adam was created). However unorthodox (or unlikely) this position may be, it does serve as another reason why skeptics have no foundation upon which to stand when they assert that a contradiction exists between Genesis 1:24-27 and 2:19. REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Cassuto, U. (1961), A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes). Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books). Hamilton, Victor P. (1990), The Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition. Kitchen, Kenneth (1966), Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Inter-Varsity Press). Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
By Wayne Jackson I have two questions based upon Jeremiah 22:30. First, this passage states that no one was to rule upon the throne of Judah after Coniah (Jeconiah). Yet Zedekiah followed Jeconiah upon the throne (2 Kgs. 24:18). Second, the passage says that Jeconiah was to be childless. But 1 Chronicles 3:17 indicates that he had several sons. Can you clear up this puzzle? Jeconiah is designated by three names in the Old Testament. He is called Jehoiachin (2 Kgs. 24:6; 2 Chron. 36:8), Jeconiah (1 Chron. 3:16-17; Jer. 24:1), and Coniah (Jer. 22:24,28; 37:1). In Matthews genealogy, the Greek form, Jechonias, is found (1:11-12). Jeconiah was the 19th king of the southern kingdom of Judah, and the next-to-last in that line. He reigned only a few days past three months (2 Kgs. 24:8). The prophecy uttered by Jeremiah (22:30) should be studied very carefully. When all of the facts are considered, it contains no mistake. Note the following. 1. The prophecy does not state that no king would follow Jeconiah. Here is the precise declaration.
Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah. The oracle simply says that no seed (descendant) of Jeconiah would enjoy a prosperous reign, ruling in Judah. The historical facts are these. None of Jeconiahs sons ever ascended to Judahs throne. Rather, he was replaced by Zedekiah, who was not his son, but his uncle (2 Kgs. 24:17). Zedekiahs 11-year reign was fraught with much turbulence. Ultimately, he was arrested by the Babylonians who killed his two sons, blinded him, and deported the ruler to Chaldea in fetters (2 Kg. 25:7). 2. The declaration that Jeconiah was to be childless must be viewed in the larger context of the biblical data regarding him. First of all, the immediate context reveals that the term childless is not to be pressed in a literal sense. Verse 28 specifically says that he and his seed were to be cast into the land which they know not, i.e., Babylon. Ultimately, he had seven sons (1 Chron. 3:17-18), and the eldest of these may have been born already (it is hardly likely that he had the full complement of seven when he was only eighteen years of age cf. 2 Kgs. 24:8). Second, the expression childless is employed in verse 30 in the sense of a royal offspring. He was childless in that he had no son who would inherit his throne and rule over Judah. This clearly is the meaning of the judgment pronounced. As Professor J.A. Thompson observed, Jeconiah did not prosper in his own lifetime, nor through his offspring (The Book of Jeremiah, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 485). It is interesting to note that a clay tablet, exhumed from the ruins of ancient Babylon, mentions Jeconiah and five of his sons, with the notation that rations were provided them to sustain their
livelihood in captivity (see James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East, Princeton: NJ: Princeton University Press, 1958, Vol. I, p. 205). There is, therefore, no inaccuracy in Jeremiah 22:30. Wayne Jackson has written for and edited the Christian Courier since its inception in 1965. He has also written several books on a variety of biblical topics including The Bible and Science, Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth, The Bible on Trial, and a number of commentaries. He lives in Stockton, California with his dear wife and life-long partner, Betty.
Obviously, "stealing" was not an issue here. Jesus' opponents did not accuse the disciples of stealing. Stealing is ALWAYS unlawful, not only on the Sabbath. Maybe you are projecting your own thoughts into something that was not considered stealing at this time and culture? In fact, the question is clearly answered in the Torah.
Deuteronomy 23: 24 25 If you enter your neighbor's vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. If you enter your neighbor's grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain.
The disciples of Jesus and Jesus himself were fully in accordance with this law. The only disagreement between Jesus and the religious authorities was on the issue whether the plugging of grain due to hunger was to be considered work and forbidden to do on the Sabbath.
not have sufficient information to decide whether given passages are metaphorical or literal, timeless or specific. Christians who take this view still have the problem of deciding between the competing claims of Luke 22:35-38, and pacifist passages such as Matthew 26:52 and Matthew:38-48. I think we can definitely rule out option (3), and I see no benefit in option (4). That leaves options (1) (the sword is metaphorical) and (2) (selfdefence is OK). My personal opinion is that metaphorical interpretation is harder to justify and so this passage provides a limited justifcation for fighting in self-defense. If that is so, and God does allow the use of violence in self-defence, we must note the following caveats: 1. Violent self-defence (i.e. the use of weapons in self-defense) can only be used as a last resort. There is no record of Jesus or the apostles ever resorting to it, despite extreme persecution. 2. If we are fighting attackers off, we must still continue to love them. To me, that means taking all possible means to minimise harm to all parties - as if the attacker was a member of our own family. 3. Violence must never be against a ruling authority, however much we dislike or disagree with it, because in such a situation peaceful resistance is always possible. It can only be used in the chaos of a simple violent attack on ourselves. In light of Romans 13 (Click here for a fuller discussion of Romans 13), which says that all authorities (even the enemy) are ordained by God, we may add two further principles if we allow war in self defence: 4. If the defence is won, there is no justification for then proceeding to attack the other country, because their government was instituted by God also. 5. If the defence is lost, then the new government must be accepted. While it may be opposed peacefully, there is no justification for a continued guerilla war against it. This goes against both Romans 13 (the accepting of governing authorities) and the principle of loving our enemy. So yes, Luke 22:35-38 may provide some justification for fighting in self-defence. But, in light of other teaching of Jesus, it can only be used in strict self-defence, and must not be divorced from his command to love our enemies. Home Contact Us.
Copyright ?? 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author??s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2223
The observant viewer of Mel Gibsons movie, The Passion of the Christ, will note that in the garden scene, one manifestation of the
agony of Jesus was the tiny blotches of blood that surfaced on His facial skin. This feature of Christs suffering is alluded to by Luke the author of the New Testament books of Luke and Acts, who himself, by profession, was a physician. His writings manifest an intimate acquaintance with the technical language of the Greek medical schools of Asia Minor. Of the four gospel writers, only Dr. Luke referred to Jesus ordeal as agony (agonia). It is because of this agony over things to
come that we learn during His prayer his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground (Luke 22:44). Only Luke referred to Jesus sweat (idros)a much-used term in medical language. And only Luke referred to Jesus sweat as consisting
of great drops of blood (thromboi haimatos)a medical condition alluded to by both Aristotle and Theophrastus (Hobart, 1882, pp. 80-84). The Greek term thromboi (from which we get thrombus, thrombin, et al.) refers to clots of blood (Nicoll, n.d., 1:631;
Vincent, 1887, 1:425). Bible scholar Richard Lenski commented on the use of this term: As clots, thromboi, means that the bloo mingled with the sweat and thickened the globules so that they fell to the ground in little clots and did not merely stain the skin (1961, p. 1077). The Greek word hosei (as it were) refers to condition, not comparison, as Greek scholar Henry Alford observed: The intention of the Evangelist seems clearly to be, to convey the idea that the sweat was (not fell like, but was) like drops of blood;i.e., coloured with blood,for so I understand the hosei, as just distinguishing the drops highly coloured with blood, from pure blood. To suppose that it only fell like drops of blood (why not drops of any thing else? And drops of blood from what, and where?) is to nullify the force of the sentence, and make the insertion of haimatos not only superfluous but absurd (1874, 1:648, italics and parenthetical items in orig.; cf. Robertson, 1934, p. 1140).
We can conclude quite justifiably that the terminology used by the gospel writer to refer to the severe mental distress experienced by Jesus was intended to taken literallyi.e., that the sweat of Jesus became bloody (cf. Robertson, 1930, 2:272). A thorough search of the medical literature demonstrates that such a condition, while admittedly rare, does occur in humans.
Commonly referred to as hematidrosis or hemohidrosis (Allen, 1967, pp. 745-747), this condition results in the excretion of blood o blood pigment in the sweat. Under conditions of great emotional stress, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can rupture (Lumpkin,
1978), thus mixing blood with perspiration. This condition has been reported in extreme instances of stress (see Sutton, 1956, pp. 1393-1394). During the waning years of the twentieth century, 76 cases of hematidrosis were studied and classified into categories
according to causative factors: Acute fear and intense mental contemplation were found to be the most frequent inciting causes (Holoubek and Holoubek, 1996). While the extent of blood loss generally is minimal, hematidrosis also results in the skin becoming extremely tender and fragile (Barbet, 1953, pp. 74-75; Lumpkin, 1978), which would have made Christs pending physical insults even more painful.
From these factors, it is evident that even before Jesus endured the torture of the cross, He suffered far beyond what most of us w ever suffer. His penetrating awareness of the heinous nature of sin, its destructive and deadly effects, the sorrow and heartache th it inflicts, and the extreme measure necessary to deal with it, make the passion of Christ beyond all comprehension. REFERENCES Alford, Henry (1874), Alfords Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint). Allen, A.C. (1967), The Skin: A Clinicopathological Treatise (New York: Grune and Stratton), second edition. Barbet, P. (1953), A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image Books). Hobart, William K. (1882), The Medical Language of St. Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1954 reprint). Holoubek, J.E. and A.B. Holoubek (1996), Blood, Sweat, and Fear. A Classification of Hematidrosis, Journal of Medicine, 27[3-4]:115-33.
AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Share
Did Luke make a mistake involving Theudas and Judas the Galilean?
Question: A reader sent the following question via email: "Acts 5:33-39 gives an account of speech by the first century Pharisee Gamaliel, in which he refers to two movements other than the Way. One lead by Theudas (v 36) and after him led by Judas the Galilean. Josephus placed Judas about 6 AD. He places Theudas under the procurator Fadus 44-46 AD. Two problems emerge. First, the order of Judas and Theudas is reversed in Acts 5. Second, Theudas's movement comes after the time when Gamaliel is speaking." Response: This claim has been circulated on several Web sites. The people who make this claim, whether they realize it or not, are assuming that there can only be one person named Theudas, when in fact there might have been more than one person with that name. In other words, Luke, the author of the book of Acts, and Josephus, a first century historian, could simply be talking about two different people named Theudas. Luke's Theudas sounds like a religious leader who had a following of about 400 people. Josephus' Theudas sounds like a different person, a magician who claimed to be a prophet and who had a large following, one that was large enough to provoke a deadly confrontation from the government. For these and other reasons, many scholars and writers believe that Luke and Josephus are talking about two different people with the same name. Here is Luke's account of a person named Theudas, from the book of Acts, after some members of the Sanhedrin wanted to execute Peter and the Apostles for preaching about the resurrection of Jesus: 33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God. - Acts 5:33-39, NIV translation And here's is Josephus' account of a person named Theudas: "Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government."
Other items
- Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 5. It shouldn't shock skeptics or nonbelievers that there could be more than one person with the name of Theudas. In fact, the Jewish Encyclopedia mentions a third man named Theudas, who lived during the second century: "Theudas introduced into Rome the practise of eating on the eve of Passover a lamb prepared in accordance with the custom observed in Jerusalem with regard to the sacrificial lamb (Pes. 53a, b; Ber. 19a; Be?ah 23a)." Return to list of Questions and Answers
Other items
About us E-mail us HOME
See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.
Submit
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Copyright 2011, aboutbibleprophecy.com. All rights reserved. Our copyright policy.
Q.
The Bible speaks of two animals, the coney and the hare, as chewing the cud. Isn't the Bible mistaken on this point? These animals do not actually chew the cud, do they?
A.
An infidel once wrote: Something that has long perplexed me is the way that inerrancy proponents can so easily find scientific foreknowledge in obscurely worded Bible passages but seem completely unable to see scientific error in statements that were rather plainly written. This skeptic then cited Leviticus 11:5-6, where the coney and the hare are said to chew the cud, and boasted that since these animals do not have compartmentalized stomachs like those in ruminants (e.g., the cow), Moses clearly made a mistake. What shall we say to this charge? First, no scientific mistake can be attributed to the Bible unless all of the facts are fully known. In such an alleged case, the biblical assertion must be unambiguous. The scientific information must be factual. And an indisputable conflict must prevent any harmonization of the two. Do these criteria obtain in this matter? They do not. Second, we must note that the words coney (Hebrew shaphan) and hare (arnebeth) are rare and difficult words in the Old Testament. The former is found but four times, and the latter only twice. The etymology of the terms is obscure. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament), shaphan is rendered by dasupoda, meaning rough foot, and arnebeth becomes choirogrullion, literally, swine-pig. Hence, identification becomes a factor. It is commonly believed, however, that the arnebeth is some species of hare, and that shaphan denotes the Syrian hyrax. But, so it is claimed, neither of these chews the cud. A number of scholars have noted that both of these animals, even when at rest, masticate, much like the cow or sheep, and that Moses thus employed phenomenal language (i.e., describing something as it appears), for the purpose of ready identification, inasmuch as these creatures were ceremonially unclean and thus prohibited for use as food (Archer, 1982, p. 126). That is not an impossible solution. Bats, for example, are listed along with birds in Leviticus 11, not because both are mammals, but simply because both fly. The Scriptures do not necessarily follow the arbitrary classification systems of man. When Christ said that the mustard seed is less than all seeds, (Matthew 13:33), He was speaking from the vantage point of the Palestinian citizennot that of a modern botanist. We today employ phenomenal jargon when we speak of the Sun rising and setting. Technically, it is not correct to refer to a womans amniotic fluid as water, and yet doctors employ this language frequently. Why do we not allow the biblical writers as much literary license as we ourselves employ? The bias of agnosticism is utterly incredible. There is, however, another factor that must be taken into consideration. Rumination does not necessarily involve a compartmentalized stomach system. One definition of ruminate is simply to chew again that which has been swallowed (Websters Dictionary). And oddly enough, that is precisely what the hare does. Though the hare does not have a multi-chambered stomachwhich is characteristic of most ruminantsit does chew its food a second time. It has been learned rather recently that hares pass two types of fecal material. In addition to normal waste, they pass a second type of pellet known as a caecotroph. The very instant the caecotroph is passed, it is grabbed and chewed again.... As soon as the caecotroph is chewed thoroughly and swallowed, it aggregates in the cardiac region of the stomach where it undergoes a second digestion (Morton, 1978, pp. 179-181). This complicated process provides the rabbit with 100% more riboflavin, 80% more niacin, 160% more pantothenic acid, and a little in excess of 40% more vitamin B 12 (Harrison, 1980, p. 121). In a comparative study of cows and rabbits, Jules Carles concluded that rumination should not be defined from an anatomical point of view (e.g., the presence of a four-part stomach); rather, it should be viewed from the standpoint of a mechanism for breeding bacteria
to improve food. Cows and rabbits are similar in that both possess a fermentation chamber with microorganisms that digest otherwise indigestible plant material, converting it into nutrients. Some of the microorganisms in these two animals are the same, or very similar. Carles has stated that on this basis it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants (as quoted in Brand, 1977, p. 104). Dr. Bernard Grzimek, Director of the Frankfurt Zoological Gardens in Germany, likewise has classified the hare as a ruminant (1975, pp. 421-422). On the other hand, the hyrax also is considered by some to be a ruminant, based upon the fact that it has a multiple digestive process. The hyrax has a very long protrusion, a caecum, and two additional caeca near the colon. At least one of these protrusions participates in decomposition of cellulose. It contributes certain enzymes necessary for breakdown of the cellulose (Morton, 1978, p. 184). Grzimeks Animal Life Encyclopedia (1975) considers the hyrax as a ruminant. Professor Joseph Fischel of the University of California has suggested that the biblical allusion to the coney as a cud-chewer probably was due to the structure of its digestive system, the protuberances in its large stomach together with its appendix and maw possibly being regarded as analogous to a ruminants four stomachs (1971, p. 1144). In his significant study of the intestinal microflora in herbivores, scientist Richard McBee observed that the hyrax has a fermentation chamber for the digestion of grass by microorganisms (as quoted in Brand, 1977, p. 103). Finally, the precise meaning of gerah, rendered chewing the cud in most versions, is uncertain. Many orthodox Jews consider it simply to mean a second mastication, or the semblance of chewing. Samuel Clark stated that the meaning of gerah became expanded, and the rodents and pachyderms, which have a habit of grinding with their jaws, were familiarly spoken of as ruminating animals (1981, 1:546). In view of the foregoing facts, it is extremely presumptuous to suggest that the Mosaic account contains an error relative to these creatures. A sensible interpretive procedure and/or an acquaintance with accurate information would have eliminated such a rash and unwarranted conclusion. Archer, Gleason (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Brand, Leonard R. (1977), Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?, Origins, 4(2):102-104. Clark, Samuel (1981), Leviticus, The Bible Commentary, ed. F.C. Cook (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Fischel, Joseph W. (1971), Hyrax, Encyclopedia Judaica (New York: Macmillan). Grzimek, Bernard, ed. (1975), Grzimeks Animal Life Encyclopedia (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold). Harrison, R.K. (1980), Leviticus (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press). Morton, Jean Sloat (1978), Science in the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Originally published in Reason and Revelation, December 1989, 9[12]:47-48.
1997). Third, it could be that Saul did, in fact, remember David, but because of jealousy over Davids momentous victory (cf. 1 Samuel 18:8-11), and perhaps of hearing that Samuel had been to Bethlehem to anoint him as the next king (1 Samuel 16:1-13), Saul simply wanted to act like he did not know David. Such a scenario is not difficult to envision. Today, a teacher or coach might inquire about a student whom he or she already knows, yet in hopes of instilling more submission into the arrogant teen, the faculty member acts somewhat aloof. One textual indication that such may be the explanation of 1 Samuel 17:54-58 is that Saul still referred to David, the bear-killing, lion-slaying, Goliathdemolisher, as a stripling (Hebrew `elem17:56, ASV) and young man (Hebrew na`ar17:55,58). Although these two words do not necessarily carry a belittling connotation, neither designation seems very appropriate for a man who had just tried on the armor of King Saula man once described as shoulders upwardtaller than any of the people (1 Samuel 9:2)and had just killed one of the fiercest enemies of Israel. Truly, Sauls supposed ignorance of David and his family may well have been a performance instigated by, what physician Herman van Praag once called, haughtiness fed by envy (1986, 35:421). Finally, one must realize that the text does not even actually say that Saul did not know David. It only records that Saul asked, Whose son is this youth? (1 Samuel 17:55; cf. vss. 56,58). It is an assumption to conclude that Saul did not recognize David. The king simply could have been inquiring about Davids family. Since Saul had promised to reward the man who killed Goliath by giving his fathers house exemption from taxes in Israel (17:25), Saul might have been questioning David in order to ensure the identity of Davids family. Furthermore, 18:1 seems to presuppose an extended conversation between the two, which would imply that Saul wanted even more information than just the name of Davids father. Truly, any of these possibilities could account for Sauls examination of David. The burden of proof is on the skeptic to show otherwise. As respected law professor Simon Greenleaf concluded regarding the rule of municipal law in relation to ancient writings: Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise (1995, p. 16, emp. added). Until skeptics logically negate the above possible solutions to the questions surrounding 1 Samuel 16-17, and are able to prove beyond doubt that the Bible writer made a genuine mistake, one does not have to doubt the integrity of the biblical text. REFERENCES Greenleaf, Simon (1995), The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics). Inerrancy: Where Conservative Christianity Stands or Falls, (no date), [On-line], URL: http://users.vei.net/smijer/christianity/bunk.html. Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Morgan, Donald (2003), Biblical Inconsistencies, [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml. Thomson, William M. (1859), The Land and the Book (New York: Harper and Brothers). Tobin, Paul N. (2000), Internal Contradictions in the Bible, The Rejection of Pascals Wager, [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/internal.html. van Praag, Herman M. (1986), The Downfall of King Saul: The Neurobiological Consequences of Losing Hope, Judaism 35:421. Wells, Steve (2001), Skeptics Annotated Bible, [On-line], URL: http://www.Skepticsannotatedbible.com. Youngblood, Ronald F. (1992), The Expositors Bible Commentary1 & 2 Samuel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Search
Contact Us
Messianic Living
Judaism
Resources
id The answer shouldn't be hard to find. It should be right there in the four gospels.
In Leviticus, chapter 11, God detailed exactly which animals were edible and which were not. He did so, not as an arbitrary test of obedience, but for the benefit of His creation. God knew long before modern science that pork is bad for your heart. He knew that shellfish are the garbage-disposals of the sea and have their own unique place in the food chain, separate from human consumption. [Lev. 11 talks about "Clean" and "Unclean". What exactly does the Bible mean by "Clean" and "Unclean"? (i) "Clean" and "Unclean" do not directly refer to "righteous" and "sinful". In ancient Israel, "uncleanness" (for any reason) prohibited the worshipper from entering God's Temple, so the prophets often use "uncleanness" as a symbol for sin. (ii) Most categories of "Unclean" relate to coming into contact with blood, dead bodies, certain diseases and childbirth. Most of these parallel modern sanitation and quarantine precautions. (iii) "Clean" and "Unclean" foods do not refer to "washed" and "dirty". The Bible assumes we would only want to eat things of good quality, properly prepared. (iv) One particular area of "Unclean" relates to what foods we might think are edible (not obviously poisonous), but that God categorizes as "unclean" - unacceptable to the true worshippers of God. Vegetables, herbs, grain, bread, etc. are "clean". So are coffee, tea, chocolate, beer, wine, spirits, tomato sauce and salza. "Clean" animals include cows, sheep, goats, deer. "Unclean" include pigs, horses, camels, rats, cats, dogs, snakes, raccoons, squirrels, most insects. "Clean" birds include chicken, turkeys, geese, ducks, doves. "Unclean" birds include eagles, sparrows, crows. "Clean" sea-food includes salmon, trout, and those fish with fins and scales. "Unclean" seafood includes catfish, sharks, scampi, octopus, squid, shellfish, whales.] Y eshua knew this Torah and obeyed it. Of course, He often came into conflict with the Pharisees over the traditions which they had added to God's law over the years, but that is altogether different than doing away with the laws themselves. Nevertheless, it is a widely held view that Y eshua set aside the Torah of God, including those delineating what was good to eat and what was not. Some people believe this view is supported by an incident recorded in the seventh chapter of Mark's gospel. Y eshua's disciples were being criticized for eating without first washing their hands (Mark 7:5). Y eshua condemned the Pharisees for their arbitrary administration of Torah. Drawing a sharp distinction between the tradition of the elders on the one hand, and the commandment of God on the other, Y eshua accused them of invalidating the word of God by their tradition. Notice that Y eshua firmly supports the Torah. Having made that point, He offers an answer to the question of eating with unwashed hands: "There is nothing without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man" (Mark 7:15). There are several important things to notice about this verse. First, Y eshua is speaking in the present tense and is talking about the way things are. He is not offering new legislation or abrogating the old. The statement was true when Leviticus was written and it is true today. The dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are Torah and are not annulled. Finally, there are two very different Greek words that have to do with defilement or uncleanness. The words are koinos and akthartos. They mean, respectively, "common" and "unclean". Koinos in the usage of the day simply meant the opposite of "holy". That which was koinos was "unhallowed", or"unholy". Akthartos, on the other hand, is the opposite of "clean". It has more to do with moral or physical uncleanness or corruption. The word "defile" as Y eshua uses it in this passage is from the root of the Greek word koinos. It has to do with the spiritual defilement of the heart, not the physical defilement of the flesh. Y eshua explains what He means by pointing out the obvious: "Do you not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without enters into the man, it cannot make him unholy; because it enters not into his heart" (verses 18, 19). Y eshua is not talking about eating dangerous or unlawful things which could ruin your health or take your life. He is talking about eating with unwashed hands. His point is that a little bit of dirt on your hands cannot defile your heart - cannot make you unholy. The unholiness of which He speaks is caused by things like theft, covetousness, and fornication which proceed out of the heart of a man (verses 21, 22). Note well, the question of clean and unclean meats is nowhere discussed. The subject under discussion is eating with unwashed
hands. Y eshua says that food does not enter into the heart, "but into the belly, and goes out into the draught (literally: the latrine), purging all meats" (verse 19). This last phrase simply means that all foods are purged from the body and has nothing to do with a change in the Torah. Unaccountably, some translations add a phrase to this verse which is in no ancient Greek text. It reads, "This He said, making all meats clean." This is pure interpretation on the part of the translators and is totally unwarranted by the original text. If Y eshua had intended to do away with the Torah of unclean meats, His listeners could not have missed the point. If He had made a statement that all foods are now clean, it would have created one of the biggest controversies of His ministry. Did His listeners understand Y eshua to he abrogating the dietary laws of the Torah? There were Pharisees present when Y eshua made the statement. How would we expect them to respond if Y eshua had plainly said that swine's flesh was good for food? There is not a hint in the account that they understood Y eshua that way. If they had, they would have needed no hired witnesses against Y eshua at His trial. They could have charged Him with speaking against Moses and the Torah. No such charge was made. The Gospel of Matthew also records the event as nothing more than a discussion of eating with unwashed hands (Matthew 15:120). It offers no indication that Y eshua was talking about unclean meats. Peter was present, and years later he still refused to eat anything common or unclean (koinos or akthartos), even in the face of a direct command from God (Acts 10:9-16). There can be no mistake about Peter's understanding or intent, because the procedure was repeated three times, and three times Peter declined to eat. But this is a direct commandment from God. Would God command Peter to do something that was wrong? It's a valid question, but we must inquire a step further. Is there such a thing as a metaphorical or rhetorical command? Is there such a thing as a command which is figurative, given for effect or emphasis ? Certainly such commands do exist. Notable is Y eshua's statement: "If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee." No one believes that he should literally pluck out an eye merely because he stole something. After all, the impetus to steal did not arise from the eye. Y eshua's commandment is phrased in the most imperative of terms, but yet we all understand it to be figurative, given for effect and emphasis. Consider also God's commandment to Abraham regarding the sacrifice of Isaac. Can we infer from this illustration that human sacrifice must be lawful or God would not have used that as a test of Abraham's obedience? Plainly the commandment in Peter's vision is a rhetorical commandment and Peter drew no inferences from it other than the one stated. Furthermore, the stronger case you make that this is a direct commandment from God, the more significant becomes Peter's refusal to eat. On what basis did Peter refuse? Obviously on the basis of the Torah, because it was the Torah which defined what was common or unclean. Peter knew better than to break God's Torah merely because a voice from heaven told him to do it. Peter initially doubted the meaning of the vision. If Y eshua, during His ministry, had taught that meats previously termed unclean were now cleansed, Peter could hardly have missed the significance. In that case, his refusal to eat common or unclean meats could only be seen as stubbornness on his part. Whatever response we might have expected from Peter, it seems unlikely that he would have "doubted in himself" what the vision might mean. Peter's initial doubt makes no sense if Y eshua had plainly taught the cleansing of all meats. Perhaps the most important evidence regarding Acts 10 is that Peter's ultimate interpretation of the vision had nothing to do with meats. He explained to Cornelius, "Y know how it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto ou one of another nation; but God has showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28). This is the only
What then does God think of "Easter" Ham ! (Our comment not the author of this article)
There is one other reference to this subject in Paul's letters. It is his warning to Timothy about end time apostasy (I Timothy 4:1-5). "Many shall depart from the faith", Paul says, "giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons." One of these "doctrines of demons" is "commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." What, precisely, does this mean? Well, initially it is important to note that this is not merely a discussion of eating meat. To the King James translators, "meat" was not animal flesh, but food in general. The Greek word is broma which means "food". Upon taking a closer look, this cannot refer to a command not to eat the "unclean meats" of Leviticus 11. If it did, it would be tantamount to calling Leviticus 11 a doctrine of demons! Additionally, the doctrine specifically refers to a command to abstain from those foods which God created to be received. It may be presumed that He created things which were not to be received as food. Paul continues: "For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified [set apart] by the Word of God and prayer" (I Timothy 4:4, 5). Where in the Bible are foods "set apart" for human consumption? In Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Paul did not say that everything created by God was good for food without qualification. Some things created by God are not fit for human consumption. Paul was condemning those who go beyond the Word of God to prohibit clean foods. The apostle John was also present when Y eshua made His statement about eating with unwashed hands. Very late in John's life, he received an apocalyptic vision. In this vision he saw an angel descend from heaven and heard him cry, "Babylon the great is fallen, and has become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird " (Revelation 18:2). Here, late in the first century, there is apparently still such a thing as an unclean bird. There is one other incident in Y eshua's ministry that may shed some light on His intent relative to unclean meats. When He encountered a man possessed with a "legion" of demons, the demons pleaded with Y eshua to allow them to enter a herd of swine feeding nearby (Mark 5:1-13). If Y eshua had declared pork fit to eat, why did He allow such wholesale destruction of valuable private property? There may also be some symbolism involved in the question. No animal more symbolizes filth than the swine. Demons are called unclean spirits, and are allowed to enter, possess, and destroy swine. Babylon is become the hold of every foul demonic spirit and every unclean and hateful bird. The unknowing ingestion of unclean meat bears no symbolic meaning. The choice to eat swine s flesh may be quite symbolic. Contrary to popular belief, Y eshua did not come to destroy any part of God's Torah, including the health and dietary laws. He came to redeem those who had broken the Torah, and to magnify the Torah (Isaiah 42:21). Y eshua said that not the smallest letter nor stroke of the pen would pass from the Torah until heaven and earth passed. People should not look for which portions of Torah have been done away. There isn't any. However, the Messianic Believer is justified in asking how Messiah Y eshua would administer the Torah. And since Messiah Y eshua lives in each of us, each of us is fully responsible before God to obey the Torah not as some Pharisees might demand, but as Messiah Yeshua would have us to do.
Bible Study Notes: A Series of Essays on Subjects that Affect Your Life Note some terms in this article have been changed by Congregation Netzar T orah Yeshua such as: Yesuha in place of Jesus, Messiah in place of Christ, and a more consistent use of T orah rather than law - Return Home This Site was created by Messianic Teacher Glenn Kay Copyright 2010 Congregation Netzar Torah Yeshua
Copyright ?? 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
temple and left doubling himself over with grief. A check of the lexicons shows that such a meaning is indeed possible, but I found only one actual example listed -- the vast majority of the meanings given were for a physical hanging; there was only one example of a figurative meaning as described. So I would say that this is a possible solution, but not likely. However, I would now opt for the idea that this is an example of Matthew's creative use of an OT "type". This would combine the idea that Matthew is not actually describing Judas' death, with Matthew's use of the OT texts as typologies. Audrey Conrad, in "The Fate of Judas" (Toronto Journal of Theology [7] 1992), notes that Matthew's unique words "departed" and "hanged himself" are found in combination in another place in the LXX: 2 Samuel 17:23 And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose, and gat him home to his house, to his city, and put his household in order, and hanged himself, and died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his father. Conrad notes that rabbinic interpretation of Ps. 41:9 ("Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.") thought that Ahithophel was the traitor David was describing -- and of course this same verse was applied by Jesus to Judas (John 13:18). Conrad still thinks there are not enough parallels (!) but we would maintain that the parallels are sufficient, and that Matthew is indeed alluding to the traitor Ahithophel in this passage, and is therefore NOT telling us that Judas indeed hung himself, but that Judas fulfilled the "type" of Ahithophel by being a traitor who responded with grief and then died. Matthew is thereby making no statement at all about Judas' mode of death, and Luke's "swelling up" stands alone as a specific description of what happened. It makes no sense for the author to tell us that Judas' guts burst without telling us why it happened. Spilling out of guts because of swelling is such a rare event that surely if Luke believed that this extraordinary thing actually happened to Judas, he would have made certain to provide the extraordinary explanation for its occurrence. This "surely" is the objection of a low-context modern demanding full explanations for every unusual event, but when it comes down to it, neither Luke nor any person could have been able to "provide the explanation" without knowing why it happened. Unless Luke or some other physician had access to Judas (not likely) they could not so much as mount a guess as to "why". (See here -- secular historians have no problem with similar ideas.) Matthew says the priests bought the field, but Acts says that Judas did. So who did it? The alternate site opts for this explanation: The chief priests did not want to put the money paid for the betrayal of Jesus back into the temple treasury as it was "blood money." So they bought an "agros:" a field to bury strangers in. Because blood money was used to purchase the field it was called "the field [agros] of blood." This is different than the property [chorion] that Judas purchased himself referred to in Acts Chapter 1. The problem here is that both Acts and Matthew connect the purchase specifically with Judas' act of treachery. Thus I cannot accept this solution. However, it does lead into our own answer. There are a few factors at here -- one linguistic, the others sociological. The word used by Matthew for "bought" is agorazo -- a general term meaning, "to go to market." It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word: Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one. Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering.
Therefore the translation of "buy" (and "sell") is made according to context. How does this mean anything with regard to Judas? First note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to "get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase." This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas' and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his. And that leads to another question no one has yet raised, but which I will: It seems too much of a coincidence, that the priests managed to buy the exact same field that Judas died in. Not at all. Once Judas died in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas' name (see below) to turn into a cemetery. If Judas threw the money away, it wasn't his anymore, it belonged to the priests. This is where our social factor comes into play. Note that the money cannot be put in the treasury -- it cannot be made to belong to the temple again -- because it is blood money. Keener observes in his Matthean commentary [657-8]: Ancient Eastern peoples regarded very seriously the guilt of innocent blood, sometimes viewed in terms of corporate responsibility. Like Pilate the priestly officials wanted nothing further to do with the situation, and likewise understand that the blood was innocent... The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean -- though even today a charity may refuse money if it is gained by ill-gotten means. Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose blood money it was. The property and transaction records available to the public and probably consulted by Luke would reflect that Judas bought the field -- or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point. Matthew says the name 'Field of Blood' came because it was bought with blood money. Luke says it was because Judas split his guts all over. So which is it? This objection assumes that what was "known unto all the dwellers" was Judas' gut-bust episode, but it would seem that the phrase modifies all that precedes it: "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Judas' gut-burst would hardly warrant a "field of blood" designation for the whole property. There would not be blood everywhere. The "Field of Blood" name was derived -- even as Matthew says -- from the act of purchase with the reward of Judas' iniquity -- what iniquity? The betrayal of innocent blood, which Luke recorded in his own Gospel. -JPH
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/605
REFERENCES Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr. and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody). Shbath (1995), Enhanced Strongs Lexicon (Electronic Database: Logos).
Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press
With regard to 2 Samuel 12:14-18, Geisler and Howe assert on page 130 of their book, [T]he Scripture does not indicate that Davids child was being punished for Davids sin. Rather, the Bible indicates that the death of the child was Davids punishment. . . . If it is thought that allowing the child to die was an unjust way to punish David, it must be remembered that David trusted in the righteousness of God when he said in faith, I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.. . . David trusted that God had taken his child to heaven and that he would be with the child when he died. And, on page 172 of their book, Geisler and Howe argue that the child was probably spared a life of sorrow and trouble as the illegitimate offspring of the illicit relationship of David and Bathsheba. Furthermore, Gleason L. Archer indicates in his book entitled Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties that death is not as bad as many people seem to think. On page 185 he declares, [W]e may think of death as a fearsome menace, a terrible curse, a final stroke of judgment. Insofar as death that is to say, physical death with its separation of the soul from the body means the end of all opportunity to find God and to glorify Him with a godly life, there is something very solemn and awesome about death. But Gods Word tells us very plainly that physical death, regardless of how it looks to the human observer, is not the end for any man. He goes right on into the eternal phase of his career. . . . In other words, the physical death of a person who will spend eternity with God after they die is not a terrible thing. Many Christians believe that a child who has not reached the age of accountability will go to heaven (i.e., will spend eternity with God). The age of accountability can be defined as the time when a child first becomes sufficiently mature to understand that certain behavior is wrong (i.e., immoral or sinful). Generally, a child reaches the age of accountability by the time he (or she) is 13, and sometimes several years earlier. Because David and Bathshebas baby had not even been born, he obviously had not reached the age of accountability. [For further discussion of whether or not children who die before they
reach the age of accountability will go to heaven, see our article entitled Does God Make Exceptions for Those Who Have Not Heard the Gospel Message?]
Thousands of Israelites Died, Apparently Because King David Took a Census of the Nation of Israel That Was Contrary to the Will of God First Chronicles 21:1-14 states that approximately 70,000 men died from a plague that God inflicted on Israel, evidently as punishment for the sin that King David committed when he took a census that was against Gods will. On page 221 of his book, Archer speculates that Davids motive for taking the census was pride in his achievements as a military genius and in the prosperity that the entire kingdom had attained under his leadership. He goes on to say, It is a mistake . . . to assume that Davids countrymen were not also involved in this same attitude of pride. Perhaps, as Archer suggests, the Israelites sin was pride, but it may have been something else in fact, they may have committed many sins. An account of the census is also given in 2 Samuel 24, which states in verse one, Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel. . . . Although no reason is given in the 2 Samuel passage as to why God was angry with the people of Israel, it is clear that they were not innocent. All the Firstborn Egyptians Died as a Result of the Final Plague that God Brought on Egypt to Induce the Pharaoh to Free the Israelites from Bondage The Exodus 12:29-30 account of the killing of the firstborn Egyptians raises the question as to why these people were slain, if they had no
control over Pharaohs decision not to let the Israelites leave Egypt. On page 114 of his book, Archer provides the following explanation: The fortunes of the citizens of any country are bound up with the government that guides their national policy, whether that government be a democracy, a party dictatorship, or monarchy. A foolish or wicked government . . . brings disaster and distress on all its subjects. . . . So it was with Egypt in Moses day. The consequences of the decisions made by Pharaoh . . . were binding on all the people. Geisler and Howe express the belief that, if the Egyptian people had tried to do so, they may have been able to persuade Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave Egypt. On page 74 of their book, Geisler and Howe assert, Although the power of the people is severely limited under a dictatorship as that of Egypt, it is conceivable that the people could have revolted so as to either force Pharaoh to change his mind, or to overthrow him. . . . The Egyptians were obviously content to leave such matters in the hands of their king. By doing so, they were not innocent of the decisions which were made by their king. The judgment of God was not directed only at Pharaoh or the heads of state of the land, but on Egypt as a whole, since they were equally responsible for the oppression and bondage of the people of God. On Several Occasions, Tribes of People, Sometimes Including Women and Children, Were Killed by the Israelites In one incident during their travel in the wilderness after leaving Egypt, the Israelites killed every Midianite male and every Midianite woman who has known a man intimately (Numbers 31:7-17). In a subsequent incident, as the Israelites were seeking to conquer the land where they would settle, they killed everyone in Jericho, except for one woman and all her family members who were with her in her house (Joshua 6:21-23). How can such actions be justified? Concerning the killing of the Midianites, Geisler and Howe assert on page 110 of their book, [I]t was not on the authority of Moses that Israel performed this destruction. Rather, it was at the direct command of God. . . . The abominable nature of the influence which the Midianites had upon Israel in leading them into idolatry merited the destructive judgment of God. . . .The moral justification for this action is found in the fact that God has the right to give and take life. In reference to the killing of the inhabitants of Jericho, Archer says on page 158 of his book, Such complete destruction might appear to be needlessly harsh, since it included infants who were too young to have committed overt sin. . . . In answer to this humanitarian objection, we need to recognize first of all that the biblical record indicates that Joshua [the leader of the Israelites] was simply carrying out Gods orders in this matter. The loss of innocent life in the demolition of Jericho was much to be regretted, but we must recognize that there are times when only radical surgery will save the life of a cancer-stricken body. Subsequently, on the same page of his book, Archer explains that, if the inhabitants of Jericho had been permitted to live, their moral depravity might have infected the Israelites. Thus, in both of these instances, God instructed the Israelites to kill people who, as a nation, were extremely sinful, and who would have been likely to influence the Israelites to commit similar sins. As for the killing of innocent children, we reiterate what we said in our discussion of the death of the child who was fathered by King David when he had sexual intercourse with Bathsheba while she was still married to Uriah: Many Christians believe a child who has not reached the age of accountability will go to heaven
(i.e., will spend eternity with God). In conclusion, we realize that it is not always be possible for humans to completely understand the reasons for everything that God does. Therefore, the explanations we have provided in an attempt to rationalize the killing of seemingly innocent people may not entirely satisfy the reader. However, if God is the Creator of life, He is sovereign, so He has the right to terminate life, whether through the actions of people He instructs to do so or by His own actions. Furthermore, if we are willing to accept the fact that God is righteous, as is taught throughout the Bible (e.g., 2 Chronicles 12:6; Ezra 9:15; Nehemiah 9:8; Psalm 11:7; 116:5; 119:137; 129:4; 145:17; Lamentations 1:18; Daniel 9:14), then we have good reason to trust Him to do the right thing in every matter.
Copyright 2007 by Harvey Armour. If you have any questions or comments about this article, contact Harvey Armour at harveyarmour@yahoo.com. Mr. Armour desires to provide helpful insights from a Christian perspective on financial matters and difficult biblical matters. The information provided with regard to articles on personal or family money management is not intended to replace professional advice. Please consult with your own independent attorney and tax accountant to review and approve your financial decisions.
Ps. 58:8 As a snail w hich melteth, let every one of them pass aw ay: like the untimely birth of a w oman, that they may not see the sun. W hat have we here -- a sort of fantastic creature-feature idea of a snail which slowly dissolves in the heat? Not exactly. The Hebrew word here is temec, and this is the only place where it appears in the Bible. The main meaning here is liquefaction, with a root in a word referring to dissolution. All agree that slugs and snails leave a trail behind as they move -- this is not something that is hard to observe or unknown. And of course, it is obvious that this liquid comes from their own bodies -- and presumably, especially in a hot, desert climate like Palestine's, a snail that doesn't find a source of moisture to replenish itself is going to eventually shrivel away: hence the comparison to the "untimely birth of a woman." For this objection to work, it would have to be assumed that temec means "dissolve" in the sense that snow, for example, melts -- but there is no point of comparison, and no reason why this word cannot refer to the dehydration process we describe. -JPH
Keyword Search
Apologetics
Answers for Atheists Design vs. Evolution Biblical Creation Bible Authenticity Slideshows YouTube Videos Christian Theology Aberrant Theology Christian Tribulation Christian Life Issues Discovery Course God's Love Abortion Discussion Forum Links Book Reviews Movie Reviews
Page Links
one's INTRODUCTION Repentance is the act of turning away fromhave sin to righteous behavior. As some skeptics pointed out, the Bible says that God has repented from doing evil:
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exodus 32:14) And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD Rich Deem was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite. (2 Samuel 24:16) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (Jonah 3:10) Does this mean that God is a sinner and is in need of repentance? The Bible is quite clear that God is not the author of evil and insists that He is incapable of doing so.1 Is this a contradiction? Skeptics love the King James Translation so much, one would think that they were still back in medieval England. Use of this translation is problematic these days, since it uses an archaic version of modern English, which doesn't necessarily mean the same things today as when it was translated over 400 years ago. So the phrase "it repented the Lord" does not mean that God repented from doing evil.
Introduction King James version Hebrew meanings Translation comparison Other Hebrew words God's omniscience Conclusion Related Pages References Print Email Page Translate Font: A A
A
Answers
Is God Real? Is Christianity True? God's Character Evil & Suffering Religion is stupid Bad Christians Bible & Science Bible Contradictions Objections to Christianity Common atheist's myths No Evidence of the Supernatural?
Search
Search Site
Ministry Info
About us Contact us Privacy Policy RSS Feed
Testament. The word translated "repented" is the Hebrew verb nac ham (Strong's H5162). It has a number of meanings, including "to be sorry," "console oneself," "repent," "regret," and "be comforted."3 The actual meaning intended is determined from the context. For example, the King James version translates Genesis 6:6 as "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." The New American Standard translates the verse as "The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart." More comparisons of archaic (King James) versus modern (New American Standard) English translations can be seen in the table below:
Hebrew meanings All the verses above, and others,2 come from the Hebrew Old
Comparison of Translations
Verse Genesis 6:6 King James And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them. And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite. And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite. Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him at all to death? did he not fear the LORD, and besought the LORD, and the LORD repented him of the evil which he had pronounced against them? Thus might we procure great evil against our souls. New American Standard The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. When the LORD raised up judges for them, the LORD was with the judge and delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the LORD was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who oppressed and afflicted them. When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, "It is enough! Now relax your hand!" And the angel of the LORD was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but as he was about to destroy it, the LORD saw and was sorry over the calamity, and said to the destroying angel, "It is enough; now relax your hand." And the angel of the LORD was standing by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. "Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and entreat the favor of the LORD, and the LORD changed His mind about the misfortune which He had pronounced against them? But we are committing a great evil against ourselves."
New Pages
Was Jesus God? Once Saved Always Saved? God is Not "Fair" Christians & Suicide Judging the Sabbath Land Plants Before Animals? Four Views on Divine Providence Did God have a wife? Alien Life in Meteorites? Singularity Movement Creating Life in the Lab NASA's ArsenicEating Bacteria The Moral Landscape 'Goldilocks' Planet Has Life? Stephen Hawking
Judges 2:18
General
Send an e-Card Webmaster Resources Personal Pages Humor 2 Samuel 24:16)
Site Helps
Site Help En Espaol Help I can't see! Bookmark G&S Toolbar Report page errors Jeremiah 26:19 1 Chronicles 21:15
Jonah 3:10
souls. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
great evil against ourselves." When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
Besides the Hebrew word nac ham, there is another Hebrew verb with one meaning "to repent." This word, shub (Strong's H7725), has additional meanings of "to return," "to turn back," etc.4 When used with the meaning of turning from sin (i.e., to repent), it is never used in reference to God, but always used with reference to human beings.5 So, in reality, the Bible never says that God repents of doing evil, but, in fact, indicates that God does not repent.1
knows everything (omniscience) brought into question when God feels sorry over some decision He has made or changes His mind? After all, if God was really omniscient, wouldn't He have known what was going to happen, so that He could have chosen another path? God's omniscience does not mean that God changes His character to pretend that everything is fine when human beings sin. For example, in Genesis 6:6, the Lord was sorry because of the rampant sin that mankind had fallen into.6 So, even though God knew what was going to happen, He was sad that human beings were thinking only about how to sin more and more. We basically have the same reaction to our own children. We grieve when they make bad choices, although if we had it to do over, we would still have brought them into the world. What about instances where God "changed His mind?" Shouldn't one expect that an omniscient God would never have to change His mind? If we examine the verses where God "changes His mind" we find in every instance that either the people themselves or a spokesman for the people repents of the sin that was going on. For example, God sent Jonah to the city of Nineveh to warn them that they were going to fall under His judgment. If God had never intended to "change His mind" He would have never sent the reluctant Jonah to the city. In fact, God had to go to extreme lengths to get Jonah to go, and Jonah was ultimately very unhappy when Assyrians repented and God did not destroy them all.7 So, God really didn't change His mind, but was giving the people a chance to repent of their evil ways in order to avoid judgment. In some instances the people repented and were spared, and in other instances they continued to rebel and were destroyed. So, God's purpose in warning people of impending judgment was get them to change their minds. The King James English translation uses archaic English that didn't have the same meaning 400 years ago as it does now. So, the archaic translations indicating that God "repented" really indicated that God was sorry or "changed His mind." Since God never sins, He has no need of repentance. Some skeptics have pointed out that an omniscient God should never change His mind, since He always should know what was going to happen. In reality, God never changes His mind, but warns rebellious people to give them the opportunity to change their minds before He judges them.
God's Omniscience? Even though God never really repented, isn't the assertion that God
Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Is Satan Real? Paul Invented Christianity? Ancient Hebrew Inscription Babies Go To Heaven? Medical Marijuana 'Benefits' Genetics & Homosexuality Origin of Homochirality Natural Evil Is Religion Child Abuse? Why are Scientists Atheists? God of the Gaps Who Created God? Living Together a Good Idea?
CONCLUSION
RELATED PAGES
Did God Create Evil - Does the Bible Say So? A Loving God Would Not Send Billions of People to Hell, Would He? God's Chosen People, the Jews: Isn't God Unfair in Showing Such Preference? Thou Shall Not Kill- Does God Violate His Own Commandment? Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People? If God is Jealous Doesn't That Make Him the Divine Hypocrite? There is Too Much Evil and Suffering For God to Exist? Is it Possible for God to Provide 'Partial Free Will' and Eliminate All Evil? The Professor Teaches About Evil and Christianity What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion If God Existed, Prayer Would Have Brought World Peace?
REFERENCES
1. "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? (Numbers 23:19) "For the LORD your God is a compassionate God; He will not fail you nor destroy you nor forget the covenant with your fathers which He swore to them. (Deuteronomy 4:31) "For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe. (Deuteronomy 10:17) "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He. (Deuteronomy 32:4) "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." (1 Samuel 15:29) "Now then let the fear of the LORD be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the LORD our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe." (2 Chronicles 19:7) "Therefore, listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do wickedness, And from the Almighty to do wrong. (Job 34:10) "Behold, God is mighty but does not despise any; He is mighty in strength of understanding. (Job 36:5)
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178
Psalm 19:6 is a passage that often is cited as another example of Scripture teaching pre-Copernican astronomy. In this verse, the Sun is said to move, rather than the Earth, and therefore is said by some to imply that the Sun revolves around the Earth. There are many other verses in the Bible that talk about the Sun going down or rising up. This hardly should be surprising, however, since events in the Bible often are written in accommodative or phenomenal languagei.e., the language used to express phenomena as man sees them. Even today we teach our children that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and astronomers and navigators use the Earth as a fixed point for purposes of simple observation, expressing distances and directions in relation to it. The weatherman on the evening news often will state that the Sun is going to rise at a certain time the following morning and set at a certain time the following evening. Why does no one accuse him of scientific error? Because we all are perfectly aware of, and understand, the Copernican view of the solar system, and because we likewise understand that our weatherman is using phenomenal language. In addition, scientific foreknowledge could be claimed from Psalm 19:6 if a more literal interpretation was applied in the following way. Astronomers now know that the Sun moves in a gigantic orbit around the center of the Milky Way galaxy; traveling at 600,000 miles an hour it would take the Sun 230 million years to make just one orbit! It also is believed that our galaxy is moving with respect to other galaxies in the Universe. The Suns going forth is indeed from one end of the heavens to the other. In any case, there is no way to substantiate the claims that the Bible teaches geocentricity, or that it promotes any other anti-scientific concept. REFERENCES Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Steidl, Paul (1979), The Earth, the Stars, and the Bible (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed).
Copyright 1986 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Scripturally Speaking" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (See also Deut. 14:11, 18) Is there a biological error here? Aren't bats mammals, not birds? Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects. It would also have included pterosaurs, if they had been around. Even modern ecologists classify waterdwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers). It's similar to refuting geocentrism charges against the Bible by showing that even modern astronomers use terms like "sunset" and "sunrise" without being accused of being geocentrists, so why shouldn't we make the same allowance for the Bible writers. It is not sufficient answer to say that "experts in Hebrew" chose the word "bird". Hebrew experts aren't experts in animal biology. The KJV chose "bird" and apparently no one sees a need to change it -- though they ought to. I am wondering if those who make this objection are seriously proposing that when the Hebrews used this word, they actually had in mind the modern classification scheme which defines "bird" as a warm-blooded creature of a certain class who had feathers. Nor will it do to argue that the "Word of God should be perfect at all times and in all circumstances." If this is how "perfection" is to be understood -- if the Bible is supposed to be prepared for our every change in natural understanding of unalterable data -- then all we'd have to do to make the Bible "wrong" is change our terminology on things. In other words, if the Bible says, "the sky is blue," we can change our definition of what is "blue" and then say that the Bible is wrong. So would it be seriously suggested that the Bible might have to say, for example: This is what the Lord says: "The sky is blue -- although Joe Padooski, living in 1874 AD, will define this as others would define 'green' and he will call the color in question 'Fred'." Those who make this sort of complaint don't want answers. The objection has no legitimacy. What about Deut. 14:11? It uses a different word - tsippowr. A close look at the word in question shows that tsippowr isn't even related to the list that
Keyword Search
follows it, except in the most general sense. The word comes from tsaphar, a word that means to skip about or even to depart early (cf. Judges 7:3). The reference is obviously to the sort of bird that skips around on the ground and would be easy pickin's for the peasant diet (Strong's lists the sparrow in its definition). Such would not describe ANY of the animals in the list afterwards (hence the adversarial "but" in 14:12) and the return in 14:20 is to the more general category of 'owph (owner of a wing) of which both the listed members AND the tsippwor would be part. Note that the two words are reflective of different categories in Gen. 7:14, in the same way that "cattle" are from "beasts". -JPH
ARK MODEL This model shows the construction technique called "spaceframe," though usually considered modern, this concept would not have been outside the grasp of Yahweh as he designed the ship for Noah. If the ark was constructed of wood, as the Bible claims, then it must have been built this way. It is the combined opinion of naval architects that a ship this large cannot be constructed of any type of wood using conventional keel and rib construction methods. Wood is not strong enough for a boat this large if it were made in the usual way. However, built in this "spaceframe" manner, using iron pins at the connections thereby allowing for 100% connection efficiency in torsion, compression and tension, all stresses required by such connections would be reduced by "tributary loading." A wooden ship this large could indeed be built and would be many times stronger, perhaps 10 fold than its conventional counterparts. (Click here or on the image for a full-screen. Hit "Back" to return.)
"Gopher wood" "Gopher wood" is a misreading and scribal error. "Kopher" wood is correct and means wood (any wood) that is covered with Kopher. Kopher is bitumen. In the Genesis text (6:14), the context is clear. The GPR wood used, (a scribal error) is to be covered in KPR. G and K in Hebrew are so similar that inexperienced Hebrew "scholars," such as those translating the King James Version of the Bible, could have been prone to such errors, indeed, they made many such errors. Acts 7: 45 & Hebrews 4: 8 are classic examples of such scribal errors. gpr = "g," as in gopher, k pr = "k,"as in kopher Here is a simple visual comparison of the letters, cross-reference your Hebrew language guide:
(click here for images of the ark anchor stones found at Kazan)
Home
Jesus Saves
Donate
Store
What's New?
Forums
Radio
Schools
Submit Correction
Part of a series on
Genesis Deuteronomy
Gen. 1 & 2, Don't Genesis 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts? Gen. 4:17, Where did Cain get his wife? Gen. 7:2-3, How many kinds did Noah bring into the ark, two or seven? Ex. 6:2-3, Has anyone seen God or not? Ex. 20:8, Should we keep the Sabbath or not? Lev. 11:13-19, Is a bat a bird? Num. 15:32, Why was a man killed for gathering sticks on the Sabbath? Deut. 2:32-33, Why did the Israelites destroy cities and kill all of the people inside? Deut. 5:9, Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not? Deut. 21:18-21, Stone a rebellious son
Weekly Newsletter
E-mail Submit
15%Discount
Tweet off of Logos Bible Program. CARM highly recommends
Question: How can Jesus be God when the Hebrew Bible says God is not a man? Cf. Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9. Answer:
None of those biblical texts say God CANNOT be a man, but say that God IS not a man, a major difference: "God IS not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" Numbers 23:19 "And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he IS not a man, that he should have regret." 1 Samuel 15:29 "I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath." Hosea 11:9 It is true that during the Old Testament period God hadnt become a man, but this doesnt deny that God could choose to later become a man, specifically in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Hebrew Bible itself supports the view that God can become a man, without ceasing to be God, since there are places where God appeared in human form: "The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw THREE MEN standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash YOUR FEET and rest under this tree. Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way-now that you have come to your servant. Very well, they answered, do as you say He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. WHILE THEY ATE, he stood near them under a tree. Where is your wife Sarah? they asked him. There, in the tent, he said. THEN THE LORD SAID, I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son THEN THE LORD SAID TO ABRAHAM, Why did Sarah laugh and say, "Will I really have a child, now that I am old?" Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son. Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, I did not laugh. BUT HE SAID, Yes, you did laugh. WHEN THE MEN GOT UP TO LEAVE, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. THEN THE LORD SAID, Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? ... THEN THE LORD SAID, The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know. The men turned away and went toward Sodom, BUT ABRAHAM REMAINED STANDING BEFORE THE LORD . Then Abraham APPROACHED HIM and said: Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing - to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? THE LORD SAID, If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake WHEN THE LORD HAD FINISHED SPEAKING WITH ABRAHAM, HE LEFT, and Abraham returned home." Genesis 18:1-5, 8-10a, 13-17, 20-26, 33 To support the premise that God actually appeared as one of the three men note that Genesis 18:22 says the men got up and headed towards Sodom and Gomorrah, whereas Yahweh remained behind with Abraham: "So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD." RSV Now if Yahweh wasn't one of the three men then we would expect to find that all three men went ahead to Sodom. But this is not what we find since the very next chapter says: "The TWO angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth, and said, 'My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way.' They said, 'No; we will spend the night in the street.' But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate." Genesis 19:1-3 RSV Only two men show up at Sodom, which the text identifies as two angels. Where was the third man? You guessed it, the third man had remained behind to talk to Abraham since that man was actually Yahweh God who had appeared with the other two! Noted Messianic Jewish scholar, writer, and evangelist Dr. Michael L. Brown mentions the interesting comments the rabbis made about this specific text: "According to the Talmud (b. Bava Messia 86b), God himself was paying Abraham a personal sick call, checking on him after the ordeal of circumcision. Here is the expanded translation of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (the actual words of the Talmud are in bold). We read that Abraham went out
and saw the Holy One, blessed be He, standing at the door of his tent, as the verse says, 'And the Lord
and saw the Holy One, blessed be He, standing at the door of his tent, as the verse says, 'And the Lord appeared to him by the terebinths of Mamre.' This is what the verse is referring to when it says (Gen 18:3): 'And he said, "O Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, do not, I pray you, pass by Your servant."' In this verse
Abraham was speaking to God himself (and so addressed Him as Lord and referred to himself as His servant.) When God saw that Abraham was busy tying and untying the bandages of his circumcision, He said to Himself, 'It is not fitting that I stay here while Abraham is taking care of His wound.' He was about to remove His presence when Abraham pleaded with Him to stay a little longer. And this is also what the verse refers to when it says (Genesis 18:2): 'And he raised his eyes and looked, and, behold, three men stood by him; and when he saw
Furthermore, Moses also calls God "a man of war" (ish milhamah): "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." Exodus 15:3 KJV Other places where God is called a man of war include: "The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war (ish milhamah): he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies." Isaiah 42:13 KJV The foregoing demonstrates that in some ways God and man are alike, i.e. both God and man have a warrior spirit. Yet in other respects God is completely unlike man, namely that God is perfectly holy and consistent whereas man is not. Thus, passages such as Numbers 23:19 do not rule out the possibility of God appearing as a man and/or becoming a man. It simply states that God's essence is distinct from man, without denying the fact that God could/would eventually take on a human nature. In reality, these texts simply illustrate that God is not a man by nature and doesnt therefore lie or change his mind like men normally do. What this basically means is that if God chose to become a man then he wouldnt be like other men he would be completely pure and holy. And since God did become man in Christ we find that this is exactly the kind of person Jesus was, namely, absolutely pure and sinless: "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God." Mark 1:24 "Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." John 6:68-69 "The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory, but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood." John 7:18 "And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?" John 8:29, 46 "I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me," John 14:30 "But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses." Acts 3:14-15 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21 "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." Hebrews 4:15 "For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens." Hebrews 7:26 "how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Hebrews 9:14 "knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." 1 Peter 1:18-19 "He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth." 1 Peter 2:22 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit," 1 Peter 3:18 "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 1 John 2:1 "And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin." 1 John 3:3, 5 To conclude, Christians believe that God wasn't always a man, but later became man at the Incarnation. The eternal Word of God took on a real human nature, while still remaining fully God in essence. A Series of Answers to Common Questions Answering Islam Home Page
AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Share
Other items
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/545
A helpful concept to remember when one is dealing with alleged discrepancies is the idea that a simple difference is not necessarily a contradiction. Just because two texts differ in the way they relate the facts does not necessarily mean that there exists no possible reconciliation of the texts. Lets look at one example of texts that differ, yet do not contradict each other. 1 Kings 5:16: Besides Solomons chief officers that were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, who bare rule over the people that wrought in the work. 2 Chronicles 2:18: And he set threescore and ten thousand of them to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand that were hewers in the mountains, and three thousand and six hundred overseers to set the people at work. These two verses frequently have been accused of contradicting one another because 1 Kings mentions 3,300 supervisors over the people, while 2 Chronicles mentions 3,600 overseers. To label these passages as contradictory represents a misunderstanding that could be based on several factors. One possible solution to this alleged contradiction is that the author of 2 Chronicles could be including a number of reserves who were standing ready to work should any of the regular supervisors get sick or accidentally be killed. In their essay on alleged Bible contradictions, Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, et. al. wrote: This is not too great a problem. The most likely solution is that the author of 2 Chronicles included the 300 men who were selected as reservists to take the place of any supervisors who would become ill or who had died, while the author of the 1 Kings 5:16 passage includes only the supervisory force. With the group as large as the 3,300, sickness and death certainly did occur, requiring reserves who would be called up as the need arose (n.d.). The profoundly respected Old Testament commentators, Keil and Delitzsch, offered another solution. They pointed out the fact that 1 Kings 9:23 mentions 550 chief officers of Solomon, thus giving the total number of supervisors in 1 Kings 5:16 and 9:23 as 3,850. Also mentioned is the fact that 2 Chronicles 8:10 mentions 250 chief officers of Solomon, bringing the total number of officers in 2 Chronicles 2:18 and 8:10 to exactly 3,850the same total as in 1 Kings. The difference does not lie within the numbers of the text; rather, the two authors simply classified the officers according to different standards. Whereas the chronicler might have been dividing the supervisors according to their nationality, the author of 1 Kings seems to have been dividing them by their authority (1982, 3:63-64). So we see that any hint of contradiction can be cleared away quite easily, and it is once again evident that a simple difference is not necessarily a contradiction. REFERENCES Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Smith, Jay, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, and James Schaeffer (no date), 101 Cleared-Up Contradictions in the Bible, [On-line], URL: http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm.
Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/547
REFERENCES
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition.
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/593
performing miracles for the purpose of proving His deity and the divine origin of His message (see Miller, 2003, pp. 17-23), His relationship to His mother was about to change. Finally, the point also must be stressed that honoring fathers and mothers does not mean that a son or daughter never can correct his or her parents. Correction and honor are no more opposites than correction and love. One of the greatest ways parents disclose their love to their children is by correcting them when they make mistakes. Similarly, one of the ways in which a mature son might honor his parents is by taking them aside when they have erred, and lovingly pointing out their mistake or oversight in a certain matter. How much more honorable would this action be than to take no action and allow them to continue in a path of error without informing them of such. We must keep in mind that even though Mary was a great woman who found favor with God (Luke 1:30), she was not perfect (cf. Romans 3:10,23). She was not God, nor the mother of God (viz., she did not originate Jesus or bring Him into existence). But, she was the one chosen to carry the Son of God in her womb. Who better to correct any misunderstanding she may had had than this Son? REFERENCES Clarke, Adam (1996), Adam Clarkes Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of the St. Johns Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), Jesus, Imperfect Beacon, Biblical Errancy [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld /bepart11.html#issref113. McKinsey, C. Dennis (no date), Problems with the Credentials and Character of Jesus, Biblical Errancy [On-line], URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/errancy/issues/iss190.htm. McKinsey, C. Dennis (1995), The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus). McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus). Miller, Dave (2003), Modern-day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation, Reason & Revelation, 23:17-24, March. Morris, Leon (1995), The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), revised edition. Robertson, A.T. (1932), Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman). Vincent, Marvin R. (1997), Word Studies in the New Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).
Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
Apologetics
Answers for Atheists Design vs. Evolution Biblical Creation Bible Authenticity Slideshows YouTube Videos Christian Theology Aberrant Theology Christian Tribulation Christian Life Issues Discovery Course God's Love Abortion Discussion Forum Links Book Reviews Movie Reviews
Page Links
it like INTRODUCTION The Bible makesHe clear that God is not but is humans in that never commits sins, absolutely However, English translations of the Hebrew scriptures say that God is jealous. Both the Old Testament 2 and New Testament 3 say that jealousy is a bad thing. In fact, jealousy is listed as one of the sins that will land a person in hell.4 So, if God is jealous and jealousy is a sin, then God must be the divine hypocrite. holy.1
Introduction God's jealousy Human jealousy Human vs. God Conclusion Related Pages References Print Email Page Translate Font: A A
A
comes from the Old Testament books of the law of Moses. The "jealousy" is always in the context of idol worship, beginning in the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20. "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Exodus 20:5) for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God-- (Exodus 34:14) "For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (Deuteronomy 4:24) 'You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, (Deuteronomy 5:9) for the LORD your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the LORD your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off, the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 6:15) What these five verses have in common is that they all share the same Hebrew adjective, qanna' (Strong's H7067),5 translated with the English word "jealous." The interesting thing about this word is that it is only used in reference to God. In no instance is the word qanna' used to describe human jealousy. The reason that God is "jealous" is because He wants people to choose to love Him.6 Jesus said that the most important commandment was to love God.7 God does not want us to waste out time worshipping pretend gods that do not exist.8
Answers
Is God Real? Is Christianity True? God's Character Evil & Suffering Religion is stupid Bad Christians Bible & Science Bible Contradictions Objections to Christianity Common atheist's myths No Evidence of the Supernatural?
Search
Search Site
Ministry Info
About us Contact us Privacy Policy RSS Feed
G & S Toolbar
General
Send an e-Card Webmaster Resources Personal Pages Humor
Site Helps
Site Help En Espaol Help I can't see! Bookmark G&S Toolbar Report page errors
worship of idols that competes with His love to prevent a dedicated relationship with Him, jealousy between people takes on quite a number of forms. Two different New Pages Hebrew words are used to describe human jealousy. The Hebrew verb qana' (Strong's H7065)9 Was Jesus God? refers to a passionate jealousy or envy.10 The Hebrew noun qin'ah (Strong's H7068)11 takes on Once Saved a wide range of meanings from sexual passion (or jealousy) to a zeal for God to anger or Always Saved? 12 The exact meaning (and the English translation is usually determined from the context. envy. God is Not "Fair" The differences between the words describing human vs. godly Christians & Human vs. godly jealousy are profound. For example, the jealousy that keeps one out Suicide jealousy of heaven is defined as "an envious and contentious rivalry, jealousy" Judging the (Thayer's Greek Dictionary). God does not envy an human being or anything that any human Sabbath being possesses. God has no rivals. The apostle Paul indicates that there is a godly form of Land Plants 13 The main reason why atheists think that God should not be jealous is that, as an jealousy. Before Animals? English word, "jealousy" has virtually universal negative connotations. In the original languages Four Views on in which the Bible is written, Hebrew and Greek, the words translated as "jealousy" in English Divine Providence do not always have negative connotations. In fact, the Greek word often translated "jealous" Did God have a is zelos, from which we get the English word "zealous," referring more to zeal and ardor rather wife? than jealousy. Alien Life in Jealousy is as being a many Meteorites? CONCLUSION people thinkoften thought of description negative trait. So,means that the Bible's of God as jealous Singularity that He must be a divine hypocrite. However, this page has shown that in the Movement original languages in which the Bible is written, the words do not have those Creating Life in negative definitions. Since the word used to describe the jealousy of God is not the Lab even the same word used to describe human jealousy, it is clear that the apparent NASA's Arseniccontradiction is just a result of an inability of the translated language (English) to Eating Bacteria accurately reflect the original language (Hebrew). There is no slight on the character of God in the original language. The Moral Landscape 'Goldilocks' Planet RELATED PAGES Has Life? Stephen Hawking Thou Shall Not Kill- Does God Violate His Own Commandment? is Wrong About Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People? God There is Too Much Evil and Suffering For God to Exist? Is Satan Real? Did God have a wife? Asherah Worship in Israel Paul Invented Did God Create Evil - Does the Bible Say So? Christianity? What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion A Loving God Would Not Send Billions of People to Hell, Would He? Ancient Hebrew
Human jealousy Whereas God's "jealousy" is primarily restricted to a jealousy over the
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/549
If you have ever compared Matthews account of Satan tempting Jesus in the wilderness with Lukes account, you quickly will notice that there is a difference in the sequence of the recorded events (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Both Matthew and Luke agree that Satan first tested Jesus by challenging Him to turn stones to bread. However, while the two disciples of Jesus agree on the content of the next two tests, the second and third temptations recorded by Matthew are flip-flopped in Lukes account. Matthew recorded that Satans second temptation involved him trying to persuade Jesus to throw Himself down off the pinnacle of the temple. The third temptation listed by Matthew was Satans attempt to get Jesus to worship him. Even though Luke mentioned the same two events, he listed them in the reverse order Satan first desired adoration from Jesus, and then he challenged Him to throw Himself down off the pinnacle of the temple. Based upon this difference, skeptics claim we have a clear-cut discrepancy. The problem with this allegation is that it is based upon an assumption. Those who claim that the disorder of temptations is a contradiction, presuppose that history always is written (or spoken) chronologically. However, common sense tells us otherwise. Open almost any world history textbook and you will see that even though most events are recorded chronologically, some are arranged topically. For example, in one chapter you may read about the European civilization in the late Middle Ages (A.D. 1000-1300). Yet, in the very next chapter you might learn about Medieval India (150 B.C.-A.D. 1400). Authors arrange textbooks thematically in order to reduce the confusion that would arise if every event in world history textbooks were arranged chronologically. Even when we rehearse life experiences to friends and family, oftentimes we speak climactically rather than chronologically. A teenager may return home from an amusement park and tell his father about all of the roller coasters he rode at Six Flags. Likely, rather than mentioning all of them in the order he rode them, he will start with the most exciting ones and end with the boring ones (if there is such thing as a boring roller coaster). Had Matthew and Luke claimed to arrange the temptations of Jesus chronologically, skeptics would have a legitimate case. But, the fact of the matter is, neither Matthew nor Luke ever claimed such. Either one of the two gospel writers recorded these events in the order they happened, or both of them wrote topically. Most biblical scholars believe that Matthew was concerned more with the order of events in this story because of his use of words like then (4:5, Greek tote) and again (4:8, Greek palin). These two adverbs seem to indicate a more sequential order of the temptations. Luke simply links the events by using the Greek words kai and de (4:2, 5-6, translated and). [The NKJVs translation of kai as then in Luke 4:5 is incorrect. It should be translated simply and (cf. KJV, ASV, NASV, and RSV)]. Similar to the English word and not having specific chronological implications, neither do the Greek words kai and de (Richards, 1993, p. 230). In short, Luke s account of the temptations of Jesus is arranged topically (or possibly climactically), whereas Matthews account seems to be arranged chronologically. This is just one more example of an alleged Bible contradiction that has been refuted rather easily by a proper use of both reason and revelation. REFERENCES Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).
Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
Lev. 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (See also Deut. 14:7) This is one of the most popular objections in the Skeptical book, and it's basically this: Hares (or some say rabbits, but "hare" is what is in mind here) are not ruminants; they practice refection. Refection is a process in which animals like hares eat their own dung mixed with undigested material. The Hebrew does not use the word for "dung". Therefore this passage is wrong. The objection is also registered against the verses mentioning the coney, or hyrax; however, the identification of this animal is uncertain -- we will assume it to be an animal that refects as well. Two issues are at hand: the definition of "cud" and that of "chewing." Let's take a close look at the Hebrew version of both. Here is the word for "cud" according to Strong's: Keyword Search gerah, the cud (as scraping the throat):--cud. There are a few factors we need to keep in mind here. First, this word is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law. Second, refection is a process whereby these animals pass pellets of partially digested food, which they chew on (along with the waste material) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. It is not just "dung" that the hares are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for "dung" was not used here. Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call "chewing the cud." They regurgiate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva. So then: partially digested food is a common element here. We therefore suggest that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food -- the process is not the issue, just the object. Objection: Are you more of an expert in Hebrew than all those Bible scholars like Strong who decided that 'cud' was the best word to use here? More of an expert in Hebrew, no -- the problem is that those Hebrew experts aren't experts in animal biology. It's commonly noted, in a weaker defense of this verse, that hares look like they chew cud, such that even Linneaus was fooled by them and classified them as ruminants -- and even many modern books on rabbits and hares have no reference to it. Everyone sees rabbits and hares chewing and might come to the same conclusion, but few know about refection -- least of all experts in Hebrew who spend most of their days indoors out of the sight of hares. Hares refect at night and underground. Isn't it more likely that Moses made a mistake like Linneaus, based on appearances?" Hares actually do this mostly at night and underground -- not always; and the reason for this is that the behavior usually takes place 3-8 hours after eating. But the reason so few people know about this behavior today is because we spend so much time indoors -- and because when we are outdoors, we tend to stomp around and scare timid creatures like hares. So little wonder we don't see it much -- and even rabbit owners don't see it because they of course feed their bunnies on their schedules -- so that refection happens while they are asleep. In contrast, the ancients lived mainly outdoors and
many of them were pastoral sorts who spent hours in the field. So -- don't think for a moment that this wasn't something the average ancient wouldn't have known about. They were a lot more observant than we are (because they needed to be to survive) and spent a lot more time in places where they could see this behavior. At the same time, it would be rather pointless -- and an argument from silence -- to make the point that refection is not mentioned in any other ancient documents. For this objection to have merit, one must produce a surviving ancient documentation that should have mentioned it, but didn't -- and that's rather a hard row to hoe. The verse says 'bring up' the cud -- sounds like regurgitation to me. Our other key word here is 'alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on literally every page of the OT. This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than "bring up." It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (The literal rendering here is, "maketh the gerah to 'alah.") Now in the verses in question, 'alah is used as a participle. Let's look at the other verses where it is used this way (NIV only implies some of these phrases; where in parentheses, the phrase is in the original, sometimes in the KJV): Josh. 24:17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt.... 1 Sam. 7:10 While Samuel was sacrificing (offering) the burnt offering... Nahum 3:3 Charging cavalry, flashing swords (lifted), and glittering spears! Isaiah 8:7 ...therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River... 2 Chron. 24:14 When they had finished, they brought the rest of the money... Ps. 135:7 He makes clouds rise (up) from the ends of the earth... 2 Sam. 6:15 ...while he and the entire house of Israel brought the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (Similar quote, 1 Chr. 15:28) So: the Hebrew word is question is not specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does "maketh" the previously digested material to "come" out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does) and does thereafter does chew "predigested material". The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it. -JPH
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/619
suggests that the number seventy-five is the result following the reading from the Septuagintwhich includes the grandchildren of Joseph (cf. 1 Chronicles 7:14-21). [NOTE: The Septuagint and the Masoretic text may differ, but they do not contradict each otherthe former simply mentions some of Josephs descendants who are not recorded by the latter.] In Albert Barnes comments concerning these differences, he appropriately noted: Why the Septuagint inserted these [Josephs descendantsEL], it may not be easy to see. But such was evidently the fact; and the fact accords accurately with the historic record, though Moses did not insert their names. The solution of difficulties in regard to chronology is always difficult; and what might be entirely apparent to a Jew in the time of Stephen, may be wholly inexplicable to us (1949, p. 123, emp. added). One of the more inexplicable things regarding the 70 (or 75) of the house of Jacob who went to Egypt, revolves around the mention of some of Jacobs descendants who apparently were not born until sometime after the journey to Egypt was completed. If one accepts the Septuagints tally of 75, including the grandchildren of Joseph, he also must conclude that Manasseh and Ephraim (Josephs sons) fathered these children sometime after Jacobs migration to Egypt, and possibly before Jacobs death seventeen years later (since Ephraim and Manasseh still were very young when the house of Jacob moved to Egypt). If one excludes the Septuagint from this discussion, there still are at least two possible indications in Genesis 46 that not all seventy were born before Jacobs family arrived in Egypt. First, Hezron and Hamul (the sons of Perez) are included in the seventy (46:12), yet the evidence strongly leans toward these great-grandsons of Jacob not being born until after the migration. Considering that Judah, the grandfather of Hezron and Hamul, was only about forty-three when the migration to Egypt took place, and that the events recorded in Genesis 38 (involving his family) occurred over a number of years, it seems logical to conclude, as did Steven Mathewson in his Exegetical Study of Genesis 38, that Judahs sons Perez and Zerah were quite young, perhaps just a few months old, when they traveled to Egypt. Therefore it would have been impossible for Perez to have fathered Hezron and Hamul, his two sons mentioned in Genesis 46:12, before the journey into Egypt (1989, 146:383). He went on to note: A close look, however, at Genesis 46:12 reveals a variation in the mention of Hezron and Hamul. The end of the verse reads: And the sons of Perez were Hezron and Hamul. Yet throughout Genesis 46, the listing of descendants was done without the use of a verbal form. For example, verse 12a reads, And the sons of Judah: Er and Onan and Shelah and Perez and Zerah (146:383). Hebrew scholar Umberto Cassuto commented on this special phraseology, saying, This external variation creates the impression that the Bible wished to give us here some special information that was different from what it desired to impart relative to the other descendants of Israel (1929, 1:34). Cassuto also explained what he thought was the intention behind this special use of the verb were. It intended to inform us thereby that the sons of Perez were not among those who went down to Egypt, but are mentioned here for some other reason. This is corroborated by the fact that Josephs sons were also not of those who immigrated into Egypt, and they, too, are mentioned by a different formula (1:35). A second indication that all seventy were likely not born before Jacobs family migrated to Egypt is that ten sons (descendants) of Benjamin are listed (46:21). If Joseph was thirty-nine at the time of this migration (cf. 41:46), one can figure (roughly) the age of Benjamin by calculating the amount of time that passed between their births. It was after Josephs birth that his father, Jacob, worked his final six years for Laban in Padan Aram (30:25; 31:38,41). We know that Benjamin was more than six years younger than Joseph, because he was not born until sometime after Jacob discontinued working for Laban. In fact, Benjamin was not born until after Jacob: (1) departed Padan Aram (31:18); (2) crossed over the river (Euphrates31:21); (3) met with his brother, Esau, near Penuel (32:22,31; 33:2); (4) built a house in Succoth (33:17); (5) pitched his tent in Shechem (33:18); and (6) built an altar to God at Bethel (35:1-19). Obviously, a considerable amount of time passed between Jacobs separation from Laban in Padan Aram, and the birth of Benjamin near Bethlehem. Albert Barnes conservatively estimated that Benjamin was thirteen years younger than Joseph (1997). Biblical commentator John T. Willis said Benjamin was likely about fourteen years younger than Joseph (1984, p. 433). Also, considering Benjamin was referred to as lad (boyNIV) eight times in Genesis chapters 43 and 44, which record events directly preceding Jacobs move to Egypt, one would not expect Benjamin to be any more than 25 or 26 years of age at the time of the migration. What is somewhat perplexing to the Bible reader is that even though Benjamin was by far the youngest son of Jacob, more of his descendants are named in Genesis 46 than any other son of Jacob. In fact, some of these descendants of Benjamin apparently were his grandsons (cf. Numbers 26:38-40; 1 Chronicles 8:1-5). But how is it that ten of Benjamins descendants, along with Hezron and Hamul, legitimately could appear in a list with those who traveled to Egypt, when all indications are that at least some were yet to be born? Answer: Because some of the names are brought in by prolepsis (or anticipation). Although they might not have been born by the time Jacob left for Egypt, they were in his loinsthey came from his body (Genesis 46:26). Renowned Old Testament commentators Keil and Delitzsch stated: From all this it necessarily follows, that in the list before us grandsons and great-grandsons of Jacob are named who were born afterwards in
Egypt, and who, therefore, according to a view which we frequently meet with in the Old Testament, though strange to our modes of thought, came into Egypt in lumbis patrum (1996). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown agreed, saying: The natural impression conveyed by these words [these are the names of the children of Israel which came into EgyptEL] is, that the genealogy which follows contains a list of all the members of Jacobs family, of whatever age, whether arrived at manhood or carried in their mothers arms, who, having been born in Canaan, actually removed along with him to Egypt. A closer examination, however, will show sufficient grounds for concluding that the genealogy was constructed on a very different principlenot that of naming only those members of Jacobs family who were natives of Canaan, but of enumerating those who at the time of the immigration into Egypt, and during the patriarchs life-time, were the recognized heads of families, in Israel, though some of them, born after the departure from Canaan, could be said to have come into Egypt only in the persons of their fathers (1997, emp. added). While all seventy mentioned in Genesis 46 may not have literally traveled down to Egypt, Moses, writing this account more than 215 years later (see Bass, et. al., 2001), easily could have used a figure a speech known as prolepsis to include those who would be born shortly thereafter, and who eventually (by the time of Moses) would have been the recognized heads of families. REFERENCES Barnes, Albert (1949), Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Barnes, Albert (1997), Notes on the Old and New Testaments (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Bass, Alden, Bert Thompson, and Kyle Butt (2001), Questions and Answers, Reason & Revelation, 21:49-53, July. Cassuto, Umberto (1929), Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1973 reprint). Jamieson, Robert, et al. (1997), Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft). Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database: Biblesoft), new updated edition. Lenski, R.C.H. (1961), The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg). Mathewson, Steven D. (1989), An Exegetical Study of Genesis 38, Bibliotheca Sacra, 146:373-392, October. Willis, John T. (1984), Genesis (Abilene, TX: ACU Press), orig. published in 1979 by Sweet Publishing Company, Austin, Texas.
Copyright 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
Links Contact Me
Mark 7:24-30 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter." She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.
Was the woman a Greek or a Canaanite? The World Book Encyclopedia says in its article on Phoenicia: The word Phoenicia may have developed from the word Canaan, meaning land of purple, the name first used for ancient Palestine and Syria. Canaan was a main source of red-purple dyed goods. The Greeks probably used their word phoinix, which meant red-purple, when referring to the people who traded these red-purple goods to them. Phoinike, or Phoenicia, eventually became the name of Canaan's coastal strip. Mark tells us the woman was born in Syrian Phoenicia, so this is in agreement with Matthew's statement that she is a Canaanite. Mark also tells us the woman is Greek, which may mean that one or both of her parents were Greek. This is no more a contradiction than it is for descendents of immigrants to America to describe themselves as ChineseAmerican, Mexican-American, etc.
Weren't Jesus' remarks mean? Why didn't he heal her daughter immediately? Jesus tested the woman with a test he knew she would pass. Jesus treated the people he healed as individuals, and dealt with each person differently based on their level of faith. Some people's requests were granted when they asked (Mt 8:2-3); some were healed without asking for it (Mk 5:1-13, 25-29); some were asked if they believed Jesus could heal them before they were healed (Mt 9:27-30). Jesus may have done this to teach the woman and the disciples:
the woman learned that she could always trust in God's love and mercy, even when her requests were not immediately answered (something Jesus taught the disciples in Lk 18:1-8), and the disciples learned that God's salvation and mercy were extended to the Gentiles as well as the Jews.
Other responses (offsite) Why was Jesus so mean and insulting to the Canaanite woman? by Glenn Miller Christian Debater on Jesus' treatment of the woman (This page is taken out of a frameset - see the home page) Bumbulis, Smith and White on the woman's race
Related articles The exclusion of Gentiles in the Old Testament Is the Bible biased against Jews or Gentiles?
Links Contact Me
Copyright ?? 2002 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author??s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
Is one of a set of six articles which relate to the subject of knowing when. 1. Can You Know When without knowing the day and hour? Did other generations know when? 2. A brief look at some history of Prophetic Times and the people who understood them. 3. How Old Is Gods Plan for Mankind? Or, how old is earth and the recorded history of Gods actions? 4. Can we determine How Long a generation is? Does this relate to the fulllment of prophecy? 5. This Generation: What did Jesus mean when He said, This generation...? 6. Now consider this question of knowing when from a dierent Perspective
This Page
Lord will be? I will not give you a one-word answer, because one word would not be fair to either you or me. I will be pleased to explain what I believe and give you the Bible evidence on which I base my belief. Jesus said, No man knows the day or hour... The Truth is in Ma hew 24:32-36. The lie is based on the Truth in verse 36. The Truth which Satan wants to hide from Gods People is in verse 34. Study verses 32-36 carefully. When you use your concordance to look up these terms, (day and hour) you will nd that Jesus used them, or they were used about the miracles He did, to mean, Exact time. You can prove that to your own satisfaction: would you be changing His meaning to say, No man knows the exact time? No, we are Not going to change a word of what He has said, we are going to keep what He said. He said, Day or Hour. Saying that we cannot know When IS changing what He said. The terms Day and Hour indicate exact time -- not general time. Ma hew used these terms in the same sense (exact time) in 8:13, 9:22 and 15:28. The lie is, No one can know When the Lord will come. The truth is, No man can know the day or hour (exact time) of the Lords coming. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Paul wrote, As ye see the day approaching... Hebrews 10:25. He is speaking of That Day, the day of the Lord, and acknowledges we will recognize that That Day is near. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that That Day should overtake you as a thief. Paul is writing to the Saints; the Elect, the Church who would be here on That Day. Pauls statement is not a question, nor is its meaning questionable. It is a statement of fact. In contradiction to Satans lie, Paul tells us The Faithful will not be surprised by the Lords coming. 1 Thes. 5:4. Mat. 25:2. Do these Scriptures (Mat. 24:36 and Heb. 10:25) contradict each other? No. There are many Prophecies which describe events that will occur just prior to That Day. Will the Saints see the troops gathering in the valley of Megiddo? When the armies of the world gather in that valley, those of understanding will know That Day is near. ...at the very door. Mat. 24:33, Luke 21:25-26. Isa. 34:1-4 and Rev. 16:16.
coming or pay a ention to the human events which fulll prophecy. Do you see? Satan has taken the words Day or hour out of Gods Word and inserted When!
SATAN LIES Satan lies when he tells us that Gods Children will not know when He is coming. We cannot know the Day or the Hour, but we can know that He will come in our generation, we can know the season. No, I do not know the Day or Hour, though I do know it will our generation. And now you know.
Top of Page
Those who love Truth will search for it, those who dont, wont. See: The Signs of Our Time
CREDITS : DOME OF THE ROCK SEEN THROUGH THE ARCH IS NETTA W. S HOSHANI HTTP ://HOLYLANDNETWORK.COM/JERUSALEM/PICT /COLOR1.JPG JERUSALEM AT SUNSET IS PETER LANGER :: WWW.PETERLANGER.COM JERUSALEM 2 IS :: WWW.PADFIELD.COM OTHER IMAGES OF JERUSALEM WERE FOUND ON THE INTERNET AND MAY BE SUBJET TO
in the NIV?
only that she is a wild-haired and winged creature with nymphomaniac tendencies (Erubin 100b, Niddah 24b, Shabbat 151b); and the mother of demons (Bava Batra 73a )." 21. Lilith Magazine also declares that Lilith is mentioned in the Bible. "Such a characterization of Lilith may have been drawn from the single Biblical mention of "lilith" (Isaiah 34:14): "The wild creatures of the desert shall meet with the jackals, the goat demon shall call to his fellow, the lilith shall also repose there and find for herself a place of rest." 22. Upon attempting to verify this verse in the Authorized King James Bible, we found no such mention of Lilith, or the goat demon, but rather the following: "The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest." (KJV) It should be noted that the NIV translation allows for the interpretation of the previous verse to include demons and the Lilith teachings. "Desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and wild goats will bleat to each other; there the night creatures will also repose and find for themselves places of rest.: (NIV) The footnotes to this verse include reference to " Desert creatures...hyenas ... wild goats. Sometimes connected with demons night creatures. Outside the Bible a related Semitic word refers to a "night demon." From the web site, "Lilith and the Talmud," we learned that Lilith and related topics are covered in sections of The Babylonian Talmud: "b. Erubuin 18b: "Rabbi Jeremia ben Eleazer said, "During those years (after their expulsion from the Garden) in which Adam, the first man Was separated from Eve, he became the father of ghouls and demons and lilin." Rabbi Meir said, "Adam, the first man, being very pious and finding that he has caused death to come into the world, sat fasting for 130 years, and separated himself from his wife for 130 years, and wore fig vines for 130 years. His fathering of evil spirits, referred to here, came as a result of wet dreams." 23. "Section b. Erubin 100b, refers to Lilith growing long hair; B. Nidda 24b refers to Lilith as a demoness with a human appearance except that she has wings;" 24. b. Shab. 151b of The Babylonian Talmud states: "One may not sleep alone in a house, for Lilith takes hold of whoever sleeps alone in the house." 25. b. Baba Bathra 73-b continues with: "Rabba bar bar Hana said, " I once saw Hormin, a son of Lilith, running on the battlements of Mahoza. When the demonic government heard of it, they killed him [for showing himself]." 26.
AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Share
See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.
Submit
ONAN
SUMMARY - GENESIS 38:1-10 Judah, son of Jacob, married the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua and conceived three sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. Judah took Tamar to be the wife of his first-born son Er, but Yahweh killed him for his wickedness. Judah sent Onan to Tamar to perform the duty of raising children for his brother. Not wanting to raise children for his brother, Onan went into Tamar but withdrew and spilled his semen on ground. This displeased Yahweh, so he killed him. DECONSTRUCTION Judah went to Adullam to meet his friend Hirah. There he saw the daughter of a Canaanite named Shua. He married her and they tried to have children right away. 1It happened at that time that Judah went down from his brothers, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. 2There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua; he married her and went in to her, She conceived three sons. Er first, then Onan, then Shelah. 3and she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er. 4Again she conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Onan. 5Yet again she bore a son, and she called his name Shelah. She was in Chezib when she bore him. Judah chose Tamar to marry his first-born son Er. But Yahweh killed him because he was wicked. 6And Judah took a wife for Er his first-born, and her name was T amar. 7But Er, Judah's first-born, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. Then Judah told Onan to take his older brother's place and produce an offspring for him. 8Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. After he penetrated Tamar, he pulled out and spilled his semen on the ground. -There were two actions. First he penetrated Tamar; then he withdrew and spilled semen on the ground. By penetrating her he became the rightful husband. 9But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. But Yahweh was displeased for what he did, so slew him. 10And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.
SUMMARY - GENESIS 38:11-30 Judah consigned Tamar to live in her father's house until Shelah was of age, but he feared for the same fate as Shelah's older brothers. When Judah's wife died, Judah's remaining son Shelah had grown up, and he had not offered Tamar to him. Seeing Judah's reluctance, Tamar put on a veil and dressed as a harlot. She went to a place where she knew Judah would pass by. When Judah saw her, he stopped to ask for a sexual favor. She accepted his offer of a kid from his flock, but she held his signet, cord and staff as collateral until he could deliver the kid. Judah went into her and she conceived. Judah tried to deliver the kid, but he could not find the harlot, not knowing it was Tamar. Three months later, Judah heard Tamar got pregnant by playing the harlot. He called for her to have her burned, but when she presented the signet, cord and staff to prove Judah was the father, he praised her superior righteousness; For Judah had withheld Shelah from marrying her. Tamar bore twins, Perez and Zerah. DECONSTRUCTION So Judah consigned Tamar to remain in her father's house until Shelah grew up, but he feared Shelah would die like his brothers. - If it was a matter of Shelah avoiding the mistakes of his brothers, Judah might have nothing to fear. But if it had to do with racial purity, Shelah would face certain death. 11Then Judah said to T amar his daughter-in-law, "Remain a widow in your father's house, till Shelah my son grows up"-for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So T amar went and dwelt in her father's house. In the course of time, Judah's wife died. He went with his friend Hirah to Timnah where his sheepshearers were. - We could argue that Yahweh killed Judah's wife too. 12In course of time the wife of Judah, Shua's daughter, died; and when Judah was comforted, he went up to Timnah to his sheepshearers, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite. When Tamar heard Judah was going to Timnah to shear his sheep, she took off her widow's garments and put on a veil to cover herself. Since Shelah was grown up, and she was not given to him for marriage, she sat on the road to Timnah, waiting for Judah. 13And when T amar was told, "Your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his sheep," 14she put off her widow's garments, and put on a veil, wrapping herself up, and sat at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage. When Judah saw her, her veiled face led him to believe she was a harlot. 15When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face. Not knowing who she was, he asked for sex, saying "Come let me come in to you." She asked "What will you give me, that you may come in to me?" 16He went over to her at the road side, and said, "Come, let me come in to you," for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. She said, "What will you give me, that you may come in to me?" Judah offered a kid from the flock. Tamar wanted a pledge until he delivers the kid. 17He answered, "I will send you a kid from the flock." And she said, "Will you give me a pledge, till you send it?" She accepted a signet, his cord and his staff. So he went in to her and she conceived by him. 18He said, "What pledge shall I give you?" She replied, "Your signet and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand." So he gave them to her, and went in to her, and she conceived by him. When Tamar left, she put back on her widow's garments. 19Then she arose and went away, and taking off her veil she put on the garments of her widowhood. Judah wanted to deliver the kid but he could not find her. 20When Judah sent the kid by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman's hand, he could not find her. 21And he asked the men of the place, "Where is the harlot who was at Enaim by the wayside?" And they said, "No harlot has been here." 22So he returned to Judah, and said, "I have not found her; and also the men of the place said, 'No harlot has been here.'" 23And Judah replied, "Let her keep the things as her own, lest we be laughed at; you see, I sent this kid, and you could not find her." About three months later, Judah heard how Tamar got pregnant by playing the harlot. "Bring her out, and let her be burned," said Judah. 24About three months later Judah was told, "T amar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover she is with child by harlotry." And Judah said, "Bring her out, and let her be burned." Tamar came with the signet, the cord and the staff. 25As she was being brought out, she sent word to her father-in-law, "By the man to whom these belong, I am with child." And she said, "Mark, I pray you, whose these are, the signet and the cord and the staff." Judah acknowledged them and said she was more righteous than he because he did not give her to his son Shelah. He did not lie with her again. - He couldn't kill the mother of his children. Her righteousness was in preserving his name as one of Abraham's descendants. 26Then Judah acknowledged them and said, "She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah." And he did not lie with her again. When the time of delivery came, out came twins Perez and Zerah. 27When the time of her delivery came, there were twins in her womb. 28And when she was in labor, one put out a hand; and the midwife took and bound on his hand a scarlet thread, saying, "This came out first." 29But as he drew back his hand, behold, his brother came out; and she said, "What a breach you have made for yourself!" Therefore his name was called Perez. 30Afterward his brother came out with the scarlet thread upon his hand; and his name was called Zerah. ANALYSES The question is why was Yahweh displeased with Onan to kill him?
Mosaic Law Technically, the laws of Moses did not apply to Judah, but they do provide a guide to the beliefs of those times. 1. The widow of one brother cannot marry outside the family. The next surviving brother shall take her as his wife and bear children to the name of the dead brother so his name may not be blotted out of Israel. - There was an ancient belief that as long as a man's name was remembered, he continued to exist. 5"If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. 6And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his brother who is dead, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. (Deut. 25:5-6) 2. Judah could not marry Tamar because she was once at once a widow and defiled by Onan. 13And he shall take a wife in her virginity. 14A widow, or one divorced, or a woman who has been defiled, or a harlot, these he shall not marry; but he shall take to wife a virgin of his own people, (Lev. 21:13-14) 3. Semen discharge is unclean until the evening as long as it was washed with water. - In isolation, Onan's semen discharge would not provide grounds for killing him. 2"Say to the people of Israel, When any man has a discharge from his body, his discharge is unclean. 3And this is the law of his uncleanness for a discharge: whether his body runs with his discharge, or his body is stopped from discharge, it is uncleanness in him. (Lev. 15:2)
16"And if a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until
the evening. 17And every garment and every skin on which the semen comes shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. 18If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening. (Lev. 15:16-18) Family background 4. Judah was one of Jacob's twelve sons and the patriarch of David's tribe. 5. By Judah marrying a Canaanite woman, their sons were half Canaanite. That this is mentioned was meant to draw attention to their alien background. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob married within the family. Abraham married Sarai, his half sister. 31T erah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan; but when they came to Haran, they settled there. (Gen. 11:31) Isaac married Rebekah, the daughter of Abraham's nephew. 15Before he had done speaking, behold, Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, came out with her water jar upon her shoulder (Gen. 24:15) Jacob married the daughters of his uncle Laban. 15Then Laban said to Jacob, "Because you are my kinsman, should you therefore serve me for nothing? T me, what shall your wages be?" ell 16Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. (Gen. 29:15-16) 6. We are not told Tamar's family and religious background; but it is not questioned. Judah thought her suitable to marry his son, and later called her more righteous than he for enabling him to honorably continue his namesake. She was to Judah as Mary was to Joseph. 7. Why did Judah fear his son Shelah would perish if he sent her to Tamar? Because he would have been killed before he had the chance to produce children. Numbers 26:20 calls him the namesake of the Shelanites, a clan not related to the Israelites. No matter who the mother of his children was, he could not carry the name of Judah into the tribes of Israel. Conclusion 8. The story was written in such a way so Judah and Tamar would come out looking righteous because miscegenation with Canaanites was discouraged. Onan had the bad luck of having the wrong mother.
search...
Jun
27
Welcome
Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org
EXODUS 14: 16, 19, 20, 21 But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea. And the Angel of God, which went before the damp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them. And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel: and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night. And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. [Dake A.R.B.] The bottom of the Red Sea was actually made dry. At the place where Israel crossed it was about 12 miles wide, and from 75 to 100 ft. deep. Imagine a wide path with walls of ice [15:8] on both sides 75 to 100 ft. high! [And the Angel of God][ v19]: This was one of the members of the Godhead who is often called the Angel of Jehovah, or Angel of God. [see point 13, 44 appearances of God, p 63. He is called Jehovah in Ex. 13:21-22 [show/hide]; 14:21-25, 31 etc. Dake]. The cloud was dark on one side and luminous on the other so as to give light to the whole camp of Israel. It kept the 2 camps separate all night [v20]. Note how God used created things to perform His will [v21]. This was a divine miracle, not something accomplished by the mere forces of nature itself. Not only was this done suddenly by divine power, but it was likewise undone suddenly by the same power [v21, 26-31]. A wind blowing strong enough to make a path through the sea 12 miles across and hold the waters up like a wall 75 to 100 ft. high without any other miraculous force at work, would have been strong enough to blow all the Israelites and Egyptians away. The waters were congealed or frozen to solid ice on both sides of the people as they went through the sea [v25; 15:8]. It would have to be extreme hardness of heart and stubbornness on the part of man to fight God under these circumstances. The many acts of God recorded throughout Scripture, sometimes as many as 80 in a chapter, truly prove that He is a real person whose acts are to be understood in the same literal sense as those performed by men, angels, and other beings. We have no authority to give them a spiritual, symbolic, or figurative meaning simply because they are the acts of God. His creation of the universes, the stars and planets, angels and men, fish, beast, and bird are accepted as literal; and thus it should be with all other acts of God so plainly stated as such, in the Bible. Dake A.R.B.
Popular Posts
How to Work in Any Enviroment: T.D. Jakes Proverbs 6:12-19; The Seven Abominations Exodus 3:1-6; The Burning Bush; Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. B.C. 1491 Binding Prayer Test of the True Prophet vs. Lying Spirit (False Prophet) Enoch: The Oldest Man That Ever Lived The most important day in America in 50 years Exodus 17:8-16; The Conflict with Amalek; The Defeat of Amalek. The Picture of Moses, Aaron and Hur, these three old men, of which two, Aaron and Hur holding up Moses' arms when he grows weary. B.C. 1491 Nasa Proves the Bible is True: The Missing Day Exodus 18:1-5; Jethro's Visit to Moses: He brings his wife Zipporah and sons, Gershom and Eliezer. B.C. 1491
Categories
Afflictions Sickness Plagues (9) Blessing or Curse (4) Books: Reading (14) End Times: Last things/Last Days (129) Fasting and Prayer (9) Global Commentary (3435) Health News (56) Holy Spirit: Source of all Life & Power (17) Infinite God (97) Interesting Reflections (470) Introduction to The Bible N.T. (27) Introduction to The Bible O.T. (39) Israel Prophetic (163) Israel Today (517) Israel: Middle East (1195)
Awesome Post:
1
Vote
Leave a Reply
Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website
Philologos Bible Prophecy Research Title: Scarlet Worm Submitted by: research-bpr@philologos.org Date: May 23, 1999 Update: April 06, 2001 URL: http://philologos.org/bpr/files/w010.htm
Scarlet Worm Bible & Science tape series Henry Morris Look at the 22nd Psalm. This is the great Psalm of the crucifixion of Christ written 1,000 years before it was fulfilled. It describes in great detail the sufferings of Christ on the cross. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" he cries out. Then down in verse 6...he says "But I am a worm (08438), and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people." What did he mean by saying "I am a worm"?...This particular worm is different from other kinds of worms. There are different kinds of worms, different varieties, but this is a particular worm. It means more than just he is not a man. Isaiah 52 says, "his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men." He was literally made corruption personified; he didn't even look like a man there on the cross*; it is talking about more than that here. He says "I am a worm and no man." This is a scarlet worm and the reason it was called that was because it had the ability to secrete a scarlet fluid which was used in making the scarlet dye that they used in ancient days. As a matter of fact, when you find the word "scarlet" in the bible, it's the same word. "Though your sins be as scarlet," it's the same word exactly. The worm was identified with the crimson color. The life cycle of that worm is something like this: when the mother worm was ready to give birth to the baby worms, she would find the trunk of a tree, a post or a stick somewhere and then she would plant her body in that wood and she would implant her body so firmly in it that she could never leave it again. And then the young would be brought forth and the mother's body would provide protection for the babies as long as they needed before they could get out and take care of themselves. Then the mother would die, and in the process, the scarlet fluid would stain her body and the body of the young and the tree and so on. The Lord Jesus said "I am like that scarlet worm." He's making peace through the blood of his cross; he's bringing many sons into glory through the suffering. And this is a graphic testimony of the fact that eternal life comes out of the suffering and death of the Son of God. *Please see "Why Did Christ Die Before the Two Robbers?" by John D. Keyser [65k] for more on how Jesus fulfilled these prophecies of being scarred for us. The basic premise of the article is that Jesus was stoned in accordance with the Jewish law against blasphemers while hanging on the cross. ____________________ Exodus 16:20 20 Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms (08438), and stank: and Moses was wroth with them. Exodus 25:4 And blue, and purple, and scarlet (08438) (08144), and fine linen, and goats' hair, 08144 - scarlet, crimson properly, the insect 'coccus ilicis,' the dried body of the female yielding colouring matter from which is made the dye used for cloth to colour it scarlet or crimson. Exodus 26:1 Moreover thou shalt make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet (08144) (08438): with cherubims of cunning work shalt thou make them. Exodus 26:31 And thou shalt make a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet (08144) (08438), and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims shall it be made: Exodus 26:36 And thou shalt make an hanging for the door of the tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet (08438) (08144), and fine twined linen, wrought with needlework. Exodus 27:16 And for the gate of the court shall be an hanging of twenty cubits, of blue, and purple, and scarlet (08144) (08438), and fine twined linen, wrought with needlework: and their pillars shall be four, and their sockets four. Exodus 28:5,6 And they shall take gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet (08144) (08438), and fine linen. And they shall make the ephod of gold, of blue, and of purple, of scarlet (08144) (08438), and fine twined linen, with cunning work. Exodus 28:8 And the curious girdle of the ephod, which is upon it, shall be of the same, according to the work thereof; even of gold, of blue, and purple, and scarlet (08144) (08438), and fine twined linen. Exodus 28:15 And thou shalt make the breastplate of judgment with cunning work; after the work of the ephod thou shalt make it; of gold, of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet (08144) (08438), and of fine twined linen, shalt thou make it.
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1787
Copyright 2002 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Bible Bullets" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Share
Seventy years of Babylonian rule: A detailed look at Jeremiah 25:9-12 and some objections that skeptics have
Many people have questioned the accuracy of Jeremiah's prophecy about a 70-year period during which Babylon would dominate Judah and hold Jews as captives in Babylon. These questions, in my opinion, are based on a mistaken belief that the captivity was supposed to last 70 years. My response is in three parts: Part 1. Summary of my understanding of the prophecy Part 2. My explanation of when the 70 years ended. Part 3. My theory on when the 70 years began. Part 1. Summary of my understanding of the prophecy: 1. Jeremiah 25:9-12 said that Judah would serve Babylon for 70 years. 2. Jeremiah 29:10 makes it clear that Babylon's domination of Judah would include a captivity during which Jews would be taken as captives to Babylon. 3. Jeremiah 29:10 said that the captivity would end when the "70 years" ended. 4. But Jeremiah never said that the captivity itself would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years. 5. Babylon's rule lasted 70 years, from 609 BC when the last Assyrian king, Ashuruballit II, was defeated in Harran, until 539 BC when the Medo-Persians conquered Babylon. Part 2. My explanation of when the 70 years ended: The people who have questioned the accuracy of this prophecy are, as far as I have been able to determine, are correct in that the captivity Jews in Babylon did not last 70 years, if the commonly assigned dates for the captivity are taken seriously. Most historical sources that I have seen state that 539 BC was the year that Babylon was conquered by the Medo-Persians. And that would seem to be a reasonable ending date for the captivity. But when did the captivity begin? Some say it began in 597 BC, when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem. If this date is accepted, then the captivity spanned no more than 59 years. So how does or 59 years equal 70 years? It can't and it doesn't. Believers, including myself, often point out that the book of Daniel states that there was an earlier taking of captives from Judah to Babylon, in either 605 BC or 606 BC, depending on which source of information is used. And, the believers often point out that although Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BC, he didn't release the Jews until the following year, in 538 BC or even 537 BC. And some believers have assigned the actual year in which the Jews of Babylon did begin to return to Judah was 537 BC or 536 BC. Using the two extremes as the starting and ending points, one could arrive at a 70-year span. But, in my opinion, none of this is even necessary because Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years. He only said that Babylonian rule would last 70 years. In Jeremiah 25:9-12, it said that Judah and the surrounding nations would serve Babylon for 70 years. But, Jeremiah does not say that the forced deportation of Jews from Judah would last 70 years. The captivity is something that grew out of Babylon's domination of Judah. The domination was supposed to span 70 years, but Jeremiah never said that the captivity itself would span 70 years. Below is the NIV translation of Jeremiah 25:9-12: Jeremiah 25:9-12 9 I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon," declares the LORD, "and I will bring them against this land and its
inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an everlasting ruin. 10 I will banish from them the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of millstones and the light of the lamp. 11 This whole country will become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 "But when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the LORD, "and will make it desolate forever. But, in Jeremiah 29:10, Jeremiah does clearly say that the captivity will terminate at the end of the 70-year period. Below is the NIV translation of Jeremiah 29:10: Jeremiah 29:10 This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place. In Daniel 9:1-2, the prophet Daniel refers to the 70 years in that "the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years." But he too does not state that the captivity was supposed to last 70 years. What did he mean by "desolation?" Some might argue that he meant "captivity." But that would be an assumption, and nothing more than an assumption. And, in my opinion, given the fact that Daniel is probably referring to the Jeremiah prophecy, it would be a weak assumption to think that he meant "captivity" when he said "desolation." The desolation could simply refer to Babylonian domination, lasting from 609 BC to 539 BC. Others might claim that the "desolation" that Daniel referred to might actually be a reference to the 70 years in which the Temple had been destroyed. The Temple, and Jerusalem, were destroyed in 586 BC by the Babylonians. The Temple, which was rebuilt, was consecrated in 516 BC, 70 years after its destruction. Below is the NIV translation of Daniel 9:1-2: Daniel 9:1-2 1 In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom-2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. In 2 Chronicles 36:19-21, the Bible refers to a 70 year period during which the land of Judah enjoyed its Sabbath rests. This Bible passage begins with a reference to the 586 BC destruction of Jerusalem, during which the Temple was also destroyed. If it specifically meant to apply Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy to the destruction of the city, then that application could find fulfillment in that the Temple remained destroyed and non-operational for 70 years, from 586 BC to 516 BC. After the Jews rebuilt the Temple, it was consecrated in 516 BC. But regardless of how the 70 years reference is being used in this passage, it does not say that the captivity itself would last 70 years. Below is the NIV translation of 2 Chronicles 36:19-21: 2 Chronicles 36:19-21 19 They set fire to God's temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there. 20 He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia came to power. 21 The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah. In Zechariah 1:12, the prophet Zechariah makes a passing reference to a 70 year period. But that passage also does not in any way contradict my contention that the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah refers to Babylonian rule and that Jeremiah never said that the captivity would last 70 years. Part 3. My theory on when the 70 years began: When did Babylon begin its domination of Judah? We know that there are historical records that claim that the Assyrian Empire dominated Judah, and many other nations. And we know that the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonian Empire. In 612 B.C. the Babylonians and the Medes conquered Nineveh, which at that time was the capital of the Assyrian Empire. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica: " Nineveh suffered a defeat from which it never recovered. Extensive traces of ash,
Other items
About us E-mail us HOME
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/521
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
For in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth.
The Hebrew matches Gen 1:1, i.e., "the heavens [plural] and the earth." One reading is that this speaks of absolute creation. A creation that instantaneously brings into being the matter-energy system that makes up the universe of which we are a part. In this inclusive universe the earth is, and is ready to be acted upon. Alternatively, in the local space view, Exod. 20:11 is still taken to confirm that there is no gap between Gen. 1:1-2. [7] The question of something all-inclusive is found in Gen. 2:1: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." This finishing did not take aeons of time, but six days from the beginning of that work. (Clearly, the scope of all-inclusive would be read differently by interpreters depending on their stance on Gen. 1:1-2.) Where Gen. 1:1-2, and 2:1, may be considered to speak in a more extended way of (perhaps) a "closed universe" "all the host of them" may represent that inclusive totality. On any view of origins from science, or its application to the interpretation of Genesis, the following caution is apt: "Science is not some abstract eternal truth. It is what scientists produce fallibly. It is revisable. It is prone to error."
Linguistics of become / became [8] hyth becomes became only when it is accompanied (more often followed) at some point within the sentence by an additional linguistic component, like the Hebrew letter l (lamed). Without this additional (prepositional) l component hyth could not have the sense of became, it would remain was. This additional l element acts as a preposition: to (sometimes there may be another preposition. See [11](a), and n.5). In became translations this Hebrew l (lamed), in English to, is rarely apparent. This is because became is a composite of l (or some other preposition) combined with the verb to be (e.g., was). It could be put literally as: it was to = became. In fact, in Gen 2:10 the translators actually have gone further and added (in)to in their became rendering!
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
Of course, hundreds of instances of this became (= was plus to) construction exist in the Hebrew Bible. [9] Became is introduced in Genesis 2:7:
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Became introduces the result of a cause-effect sequence. Was would not be able to do this. This first instance of became has a related form of hyth (was), and the Hebrew l (English to) is attached to nephesh (soul), giving lenephesh (or more conventionally transliterated, with consonants only: lnp). Word-for-word this is: and there was the adam to soul living [Hebrew: wyhy hdm lnp yh.] 1 Corinthians 15:45 confirms this became sense, here: "The first man, Adam, was made (Gk. egeneto = became) a living soul." Paragraph [11], below, looks in more detail at the Greek term for was made/became egeneto. This term is differentiated from was in the Greek NT Both Greek . terms have distinct roles in parallel with the Hebrew ones. [10] The difference between hyth = was, and hyth l = became (to), is clear in 1 Kg 2:15:
And he said, Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign: howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and became (to) my brother's: for it became his (became to him) from Yahweh.
[11] (a) A New T estament quotation of Psalm 118:22 assists in confirming this distinction between was ( hyth) and became (hyth l). The Psalms translation is become is from hyth l:
The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.
This text is cited four times in the Greek New T estament (Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10; Lk. 20:17; 1 Pet. 2:7). Became, or is become, is from egenth [cf. ginomai]. Egenth is not the Greek (he/it) was, that is n (cp. John 1:1-2 in (d), below). So, the Greek became [egenth] aligns with the Hebrew hyth l, thus supporting the Hebrew forms became sense. (b) Another case is is become of him from Exodus 32:1, 23, cited in Acts 7:40. The Hebrew for this expression is hyh lw and correlates with the Greek: egeneto aut . The Greek egeneto is related to is become [ egenth] in [11](a), above. Here is another case distinguishing was from become, that also shows how become in Hebrew is constructed. (c) Equally, the 'became' sense is distinguishable in NT Greek from was in 1 Cor. 13:11. As in: "When I became [Gk. gegona, cf. ginomai and thus related to egeneto] a man," contrasted with: "When I was a child." Was [mn] in this NT text is connectable grammatically to the verb to be in Gen 1:2s was. (Cp. the Greek first person past tense I was [mn] with the third person past tense it/there was [ n ] in Jno. 1:1-2. See [11](d), below.) The Greek NT then, can be used comparatively both with the Hebrew, and with itself, to demonstrate the distinction between was and became. This can be applied to , hyth (was) in Gen. 1:2. (d) If one compares John 1:1-2 with Gen. 1:1-2 was is the first instance of a be-verb usage in both. Was (Hebrew hyth, and Greek n ) is linked to a state of affairs in both texts associated with in the beginning: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." The typical copulative (linking) and narrative past tense role of was occurs in other sentences in this context, like Jno. 1:4: "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." Egeneto, rendered in KJV as was made, or become, also occurs repeatedly in this context (from Jno. 1:3ff.) It is clearly to be differentiated from was. [12] The Hebrew verb form hyth has a simple Past T ense role for reporting in a recount (or historical narrative), some state-of-affairs, or condition. As shown above, syntactically it has a copulative (connecting) function, like is does. Was is like is in the past, in these typical contexts: Gen. 29:17, Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was [hyth] beautiful and well favoured. (So, in 2 Sam 14:27, re. T amar.) Gen. 36:12, And Timna was [hyth] concubine to Eliphaz Esau's son Gen. 38:21, 22, And they said, There was [hyth] no harlot in this place. Was records how Rachel looked naturally. There is no suggestion that something happened to cause her to become beautiful! [13] Conclusion from this linguistic analysis: hyth in Gen. 1:2, is the first occurrence of the verb to be in The Bible. There is no verb parallelism, nor any other linguistic device in this context, that would modify hyth to became. Comparing Scriptural usage yields distinct expressions for was and became. They are thus able to be clearly differentiated and their function, or application, described or generalised. Was is the sense of the Hebrew hyth in Gen. 1:2. Became would be a loaded sense, extra-Biblically influenced (e.g., directed by concerns from modern science.)
[14] What this outcome means. Without became some other way of arriving at a void and formless earth, in some gap of time since the beginning, would need to be presented and proved. Even if the earth is old, some other way of establishing this would be required, was does not apparently help! With no 'became' language to say it 'became' (any how, or any way) without form and void, that it was so, in this state, relates textually to in the beginning. Thus, this condition of the earth did not come about in some 'gap' (missing from the text) since the beginning, but in the beginning. This is important. For this implies that, until God in that beginning created the heavens and the earth, there was not an earth to be of the form or voidness recorded. Therefore, in terms of Genesis 1:1-2, this outcome - 'was without form and void' - relates to the initial creative act, not to some intervening cataclysm. New heavens and new earth [15] Later Scripture (e.g. John 1 and Colossians 1) sees the physical creation as encoding (for) the spiritual in Christ. The material stuff that now is, is nevertheless the basis of (for) the ultimate: "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created" (Rev. 4:11). [16] The future "new heavens and earth wherein dwells righteousness" (2 Pet. 3:13), with its prophetic background in Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22, introduces the idea of a transition from a former state, to a newly made one. What Isaiah foretells is of a re-development of our existing earth (and heavens). This is the only time in the Old T estament that we get a previous creation, or a re-development of the earth vista. Nevertheless, it shows the sort of language that we might have expected in Genesis 1:1-2 if such a transformation were depicted there after some global cataclysm. Finally, the word new in these prophetic contexts is used of a future (re-)creation. The Genesis work of making and creating does not include new as if to imply old, or former. This also ought to have some bearing on how was is not became.
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/571
Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558
By Wayne Jackson A skeptic claims that the Bible contains a mathematical mistake in 1 Kings 7:23 (cf. 2 Chron. 4:2). The writer states that the great basin in Solomons temple was fifteen feet in diameter, and forty-five feet in circumference. According to these figures, the circumference was three times the distance of the diameter. Actually, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is called pi, and the precise measurement of pi is 3.1415, not 3.0. Supposedly, then, this demonstrates the biblical text to be in error. How does the Bible believer respond to this? This alleged mistake is a classic example of the desperation of those who, for their own base motives, wish to discredit the Scriptures. The effort is futile. Consider the following points. 1. No contradiction or error can be charged against the biblical text unless all relevant facts are known. And all facts are not known in this instance. For example, it is not certain whether the diameter of this sea of brass was based upon the inside dimensions of the basin, or the outside (the thickness of the vessel was a handbreath (1 Kgs. 7:26) approximately three and one-half inches). It appears that the top of the basin was fashioned with a brim (see 7:24) that turned outward (which perhaps reflected the fifteen feet), while the inner diameter was less, in which case there could have been absolute mathematical orthodoxy. While this explanation is possible, there really is no reason to expect, or demand, a mathematically precise formula. 2. It is common in literature to employ rounded numbers, i.e., a definite figure to represent a general number, in providing descriptions. This procedure is utilized frequently in the Bible without hesitation or apology. When Israel was preparing to enter Canaan, the bulk of the nation was to remain about two thousand cubits away from the ark of the covenant (Josh. 3:4). On the day of Pentecost, about three thousand souls constituted the church (Acts 2:41; cf. 4:4). The children of Israel were in the wilderness of Sinai about forty years (Acts 13:18). The biblical writers were not under moral obligation to cite measurements in terms of feet, inches, and fractions thereof. If someone were to ask the skeptic (who framed the objection posed above) to state the length of a day, would he reply twenty-four hours, or would he be compelled to specify twenty-three hours, fifty-six minutes, and 4.09054 seconds (the actual measurement)? In fact, our critic stated that pi is 3.1415, whereas not even he was precise. Pi actually is 3.14159265+ (i.e., indefinitely imprecise). It is hardly consistent, therefore, to frame an imprecise objection against the Bibles alleged imprecision! While we are dealing with the temples brazen sea (cf. 1 Chron. 18:8), we might as well address another alleged discrepancy. In 1 Kings 7:26 it is stated that the basin held two thousand baths, while in 2 Chronicles 4:5 the volume is given at three thousand baths. Again, though, the problem is not insurmountable. 1. It is possible that the lower figure represented the amount of water normally contained in the vessel, while the latter affirmed the potential full capacity. The figures would thus would be
employed in different senses. 2. J. Barton Payne thinks that the difference can be explained on the basis of a scribal error in the Chronicles text (The Expositors Bible Commentary, F. Gaebelein, Ed., Zondervan, 1988, Vol. IV, p. 453). 3. Another possibility is that the record of Chronicles, which is from the post-Babylonian captivity period, may have employed a different standard of measurement for the cubit or bath, than did the earlier record (G. Goldsworthy, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Tenney/Barabas, Eds., Zondervan, 1975, Vol. 5, p. 318). Multiple interpretative possibilities do not accommodate a contradiction allegation! For a more indepth treatment of the relationship between the Bible and science, see The Bible and Science by Wayne Jackson.
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/556
Perhaps the most difficult alleged Bible contradiction that we have been asked to tackle at Apologetics Press was presented to us
some time ago by the mother of a dear friend. She asked, When Jesus sent out the twelve apostles on what is commonly called th limited commission, did He instruct them to take staffs or not? Her question was the result of studying the three following paralle passages in the synoptic Gospels (the difficult portions are in bold type). Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs (literally, a staff); for a worker is worthy of his food (Matthew 10:9-10). He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staffno bag, no bread, no copper in their money beltsbut to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics (Mark 6:8-9). And He said to them, Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs (literally, a staff) nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece (Luke 9:3).
A cursory reading of the above passages admittedly is somewhat confusing. Matthew and Luke seem to agree that Jesus prohibited
the disciples from taking a staff on their journeys, while Mark appears to give them permission to take one. Furthermore, althoug Luke does not record Jesus command regarding sandals, some have concluded that Matthew and Mark also contradict each other
on this point. To use the words of Steve Wells, author of The Skeptics Annotated Bible, In Matthews gospel, Jesus tells his disciple to go barefoot and take no staff. But the Jesus in Marks gospel (6:8-9) tells them to wear sandals and carry a staff (emp. added). Actually then, the question at hand is about staffs and sandals, even though Luke mentioned only staffs.
The differences between Matthew and Mark are explained easily when one acknowledges that the writers used different Greek verb
to express different meanings. In Matthew, the word provide (NKJV) is an English translation of the Greek word ktesthe. Accordin to Bauers Greek-English Lexicon, the root word comes from ktaomai, which means to procure for oneself, acquire, get (1979, p. 455). Based upon these definitions, the New American Standard Version used the English verb acquire in Matthew 10:9 (Do not acquire.), instead of provide or take. In Matthew, Jesus is saying: Do not acquire anything in addition to what you already
have that may tempt you or stand in your way. Just go as you are. As Mark indicated, the apostles were to take (airo) what the had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies (extra apparel, staffs, shoes, etc.) or making
preparations for their trip, but instead were instructed to trust in Gods providence for additional needs. Jesus did not mean for the apostles to discard the staffs and sandals they already had; rather, they were not to go and acquire more. To illustrate this point using a modern day scenario, consider the CEO who came to his Personnel Director near the end of the day and said that he needed her to fly to Los Angeles on a business trip immediately. If he told the director not to acquire anything for
this urgent trip, including clothes, shoes, or make-up, she would know that he meant not to take anything extra. Obviously the CEO did not intend for the Personnel Director to take off her shoes, clothes, and the make-up she already was wearing in order to make
the trip. Furthermore, if her boss came back five minutes later (to ensure that she understood his instructions clearly) and stated, Hurry. The plane is leaving in one hour. Dont take anything with you except what you are wearing, the Personnel Director would conclude the same thing she did the first timedo not take anything extra. The CEO said the same thing using two different phrases. Similarly, the wording in Matthew and Mark represent two different ways of saying virtually the same thing.
Most apologists and biblical commentators discontinue their discussion of these parallel passages at this point. They explain the difference between Matthew and Marks account of Jesus sending out the Twelve, but they omit Lukes account. In order to answer the skeptics criticism adequately, however, Lukes account must be included in this discussion. Otherwise, one still is left with an unanswered alleged contradiction. The differences surrounding Luke and Marks account are explainable, but it takes effort on the part of the reader to comprehend them. [The following facts must be read carefully in order to understand how the differences in these accounts do not point toward a contradiction.]
As is obvious from a comparison of the verses in Matthew and Luke, they are recording the same truththat the apostles were not to spend valuable time gathering extra staffsonly they are using different words to do so. Provide (Greek ktaomi) neither gold nor silvernor staffs (Matthew 10:9-10, emp. added).
Take (Greek airo) nothing for the journey, neither staffs (Luke 9:3, emp. added). Luke did not use ktaomi in his account because he nearly always used ktaomi in a different sense than Matthew did. In Matthews account, the word ktaomai is used to mean provide or acquire, whereas in the books of Luke and Acts, Luke used this word to mean purchase, buy, or earn. Notice the following examples of how Luke used this word. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get (ktaomai) [Luke 18:12, emp. added, NAS] Now this man purchased (ktaomai) a field with the wages of iniquity (Acts 1:18, emp. added). Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased (ktaomai) with money! (Acts 8:20, emp. added). The commander answered, With a large sum I obtained (ktaomai) this citizenship (Acts 22:28, emp. added). [Luke 21:19 is the only place one could argue where Luke may have used ktaomai to mean something other than purchase, buy, or earn, but even here there is a transactional notion in it (Miller, 1997)].
When Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14), used the word ktaomai, he meant something different than when Matthew, th tax collector, used the same word. Whereas Luke used ktaomai to refer to purchasing or buying something, Matthew used the Greek verb agorazo (cf. Matthew 14:15; 25:9-10; 27:6-7). Matthew used ktaomai only in the sense of acquiring something (not
purchasing something). As such, it would make absolutely no sense for Luke to use ktaomai in his account of Jesus sending out the apostles (9:3). If he did, then he would have Jesus forbidding the apostles to purchase or buy money [Buy nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money.]. Thus, Luke used the more general Greek verb (airo) in order to convey the same idea that Matthew did when using the Greek verb ktaomai. Just as ktaomai did not mean the same for Luke and Matthew, the Greek word airo (translated take in both Mark 6:8 and Luke 9:3) often did not mean the same for Luke and Mark (see Miller, 1997). [Understanding this simple fact eliminates the
contradiction completely, for unless the skeptic can be certain that Mark and Luke were using the word in the same sense, he cannot prove that the accounts contradict each other.] Mark consistently used airo in other passages throughout his gospel to mean
simply take or pick up and carry (2:9; 6:29; 11:23; 13:16). That Luke (in 9:3) did not mean the same sense of airo as Mark did (in 6:8) is suggested by the fact that in Luke 19:21-22 he used this same verb to mean acquire. Another piece of comparative da between Mark and Luke is that when Mark recorded Jesus informing His listeners that to be His disciple one had to take up his cross (Mark 8:34), he used the word airo. Luke, on the other hand, used the Greek word bastazo (14:27) [Miller, 1997]. Without going any further with these language comparisons, one simply must understand that the Greek language (like most languages) is flexible enough so that sometimes two writers can use the same word to mean different things, and sometimes they can use different words to mean the same thing (as indicated by the following chart,* which serves as a summary of the comparisons and contrasts made in this article). ktaomai Matthew Mark Luke to purchase, buy to acquire agorazo to purchase, buy to take, pick up and carry to acquire to take, pick up and carry airo bastazo
*NOTE: Only the definitions that pertain to this article are shown. In case you think such language leeway in the Greek sounds absurd, remember that this flexibility appears frequently in the
English language. Consider two basketball coaches who are commenting on a player. One says, He is bad; the other says, He is good. The coaches may be using two different words to mean the same thing. The truth is, in some contexts the words bad and good are opposites, in other situations they are synonymous. Although many have been misled about the differences regarding Jesus instructions when sending out His apostles on the limited commission, the truth is that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all saying the same thing: Hurry up and get moving! REFERENCES
Bauer, Walter. (1979), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, ed. William F. Arndt an
The Bible refers to the four corners of the earth. How can a spherical earth have corners?
Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone. Paioh means a geometric corner Ziovyoh means right angle or corner Krnouth refers to a projecting corner. Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, fourcornered earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.
Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity. It is doubtful that any religious Jew would ever misunderstand the true meaning of kanaph. For nearly 2,000 years, religious Jews have faced the city of Jerusalem three times daily and chanted the following prayer: Sound the great trumpet for our freedom, Raise the banner for gathering our exiles, And gather us together from THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH into our own land. The Book of Isaiah describes how the Messiah, the Root of Jesse, shall regather his people from the four corners of the earth. They shall come
from every extremity to be gathered into Israel. "And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious." It shall come to pass in that day That the LORD shall set His hand again the second time To recover the remnant of His people who are left, From Assyria and Egypt, From Pathros and Cush, From Elam and Shinar, From Hamath and the islands of the sea. He will set up a banner for the nations, And will assemble the outcasts of Israel, And gather together the dispersed of Judah From THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (Isaiah 11:10-12, New King James Version)
Read more
Did Bible writers believe the earth was flat? Answer Who invented the flat Earth? Answer
[ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ]
Author: Dr. Joan Sloat Morton, Ph.D., as adapted from Science in the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 138,141. Supplied by Eden Communications (used with permission)
Copyright 1997, Eden Communications, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached Usage and Copyright page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.
www.ChristianAnswers.Net Christian Answers Network PO Box 200 Gilbert AZ 85299 Submit your Questions
Apologetics
Answers for Atheists Design vs. Evolution Biblical Creation Bible Authenticity Slideshows YouTube Videos Christian Theology Aberrant Theology Christian Tribulation Christian Life Issues Discovery Course God's Love Abortion Discussion Forum Links Book Reviews Movie Reviews
Page Links
The Bible Teaches That the Heavens Were a Solid Dome, Embedded with Stars?
by Rich Deem
teaches that on pillars INTRODUCTION The Biblesolid sky dome the earth was "flat and circular sittingMoon, and with a rotating overhead which carried the Sun, the the Stars and allowed water to leak through 'windows of heaven' or sluice gates to form clouds and rain."1 If the claim is true that the Bible teaches such a primitive cosmology, then nobody should believe that it originates from God nor follow its precepts. So, let's look at what the Bible really says about the heavens and the earth and whether the atheists' claims are valid. the ancients believed in a flat earth that was covered by a solid dome. Below are listed some examples of ancient cosmologies prevalent 2,000-5,000 years ago. Sumerians Ancient Sumerian hymns and myths provide a picture of the universe's Ancient Cosm ology. (anki) creation. The Sumerians believed that a primeval sea (abzu) existed before anything else and that the heaven (an) and the earth (ki) were formed within it. The boundary between the primeval sea and the earth (a flat disk) was a solid vault, within which was the gas-like atmosphere (lil). The stars, planets, sun, and moon were embedded in this solid vault.2 Each of the four major Sumerian deities was associated with one of these regions; An (god of heaven), Ki (goddess of earth, also known as Ninhursag, Ninmah, or Nintu), Enlil (god of the air, son of An and Ki), and Enki (god of the primeval sea). According to their myths, An and Ki were the progenitors of most of the gods.2 Greeks The Greek philosopher Anaximenes described the heavens as like a felt cap that turned on its head, with the stars fixed to this surface like nails.3 Jews Some of the Jews also endorsed solid dome cosmology, For example, Josephus, the Jewish first century Jewish historian, believed that the earth was surrounded by a crystalline firmament: After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts, and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews.4 A portion of the Jewish Talmud indicates that the Sun travelled under the firmament by day and above the firmament by night:
Search
Search Site
Introduction Ancient cosmologies Sumerians Greeks Jews Early Christians Bible verses The firmament Raqia Pillars of heaven Molten Mirror Vaulted dome Ends of the earth Biblical cosmology Conclusions Related Pages References Send Print Email Page Translate Font:A A
A
Answers
Is God Real? Is Christianity True? God's Character Evil & Suffering Religion is stupid Bad Christians Bible & Science Bible Contradictions Objections to Christianity Common atheist's myths No Evidence of the Supernatural?
Ministry Info
About us Contact us Privacy Policy RSS Feed
G & S Toolbar
"The learned of Israel say, "The sphere stands firm, and the planets revolve"; the learned of the nations say, "The sphere moves, and the planets stand firm." The learned of Israel say, "The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night above the firmament"; the learned of the nations say, "The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night beneath the earth."5 Early Christians Theophilus of Antioch, a second century Christian wrote that heaven was a dome-like covering: "For the Spirit being one, and holding the place of light,(2) was between the water and the heaven, in order that the darkness might not in any way communicate with the heaven, which was nearer God, before God said, 'Let there be light.' The heaven, therefore, being like a dome-shaped covering, comprehended matter which was like a clod."6 Here is what the book of Enoch (a non-biblical ancient text) says about ancient cosmology: And from thence I went to the ends of the earth and saw there great beasts, and each differed from the other; and (I saw) birds also differing in appearance and beauty and voice, the one differing from the other. And to the east of those beasts I saw the ends of the earth whereon the heaven rests, and the portals of the heaven open. And I saw how the stars of heaven come forth, and I counted the portals out of which they proceed, and wrote down all their outlets, of each individual star by itself, according to their number and their names, their courses and their positions, and their times and their months, as Uriel the holy angel who was with me showed me.7 Although it would seem from this list that many ancients, including Biblical passages reported to endorse Christians, believed in dome cosmology, this evidence does not
General
Send an e-Card Webmaster Resources Personal Pages Humor
New Pages
Was Jesus God? Once Saved Always Saved? God is Not "Fair" Christians & Suicide Judging the Sabbath Land Plants Before Animals? Four Views on Divine Providence Did God have a wife? Alien Life in Meteorites? Singularity Movement Creating Life in the Lab
Site Helps
Site Help En Espaol Help I can't see! Bookmark G&S Toolbar Report page errors
reported to endorse answer the original question - Does the Bible teach dome cosmology? dome cosmology Let's examine specific biblical passages that skeptics say teach dome
cosmology. The firmament The main reason why skeptics have said the Bible endorses dome cosmology comes from the King James version (KJV) translation of the Bible. Here is the KJV translation of Genesis 1:6-8: And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. (Genesis 1:6-8) The word "firmament" implies a solid material, coming from the Latin word "firmamentum," from Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. The Latin word firmamentum has the meaning of a "support," or "prop." However, the original Hebrew word, raqia,8 which Jerome translated into the Latin word firmamentum, is not nearly as specific. Raqia comes from the Hebrew verb raqa, which means "beat," "stamp," "beat out" and "spread out." Occurring 11 times in the Old Testament, raqa has the meaning to "stamp one's feet" (twice), stamp something with the feet (once), spreading metal (four times), spreading out the earth (three times), and spreading the sky or the clouds (once).9 So, the verb raqa does not necessarily refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not. Raqia The Hebrew noun raqia is used 17 times in the Bible. Eleven of those instances occur in 7 verses from Genesis 1.10 Five instances of raqia occur in Ezekiel's visions11 - once referring to the expanse (or extent) of the angels' wings and the other four referring to something that appeared to be like a gleaming crystal, although it is never identified as being a solid object. Two others occur in the Psalms,12 once referring to the expanse as described in Genesis (also written by Moses), and the second referring to the mighty expanse of God's power.12 So, raqia itself does not always refer to a solid object. Genesis 1:8 says that God Himself defines what the raqia is, saying "God called the expanse heaven." So, the so-called firmament is nothing more than heaven itself and does not comprise a separate structure. This fact is further emphasized in Genesis 1:20, where God says, "... let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."10 Obviously, birds cannot fly through a solid structure, clearly indicating that raqia is not a solid object. Pillars of heaven In the book of Job, Job is talking to his four "friends," and eventually to God Himself. During one of these long discourses, Job talks about God's creation, referring to the "pillars of the heavens." Skeptics say that the pillars hold up the solid dome firmament above the earth. However, before deciding exactly what these "pillars of the heavens" are, we should look at the verse in context: He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. (Job 26:7) He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. (Job 26:8) He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it. (Job 26:9) He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness. (Job 26:10) The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (Job 26:11) As one can see, Job comes up with some rather remarkable insights into the nature of the earth. He says that the earth is suspended over nothing and that the clouds carry water and have weight, yet do not fall to earth. In the context of the passage, it is clear that the "pillars" are the mountains, which quake at God's rebuke. Whereas the Quran says the earth is like a carpet 13 that is held in place by the heavy mountains, described as being like tent pegs,14 so that it won't move or shake,15 the Bible associates the mountains with shaking16 and says that, instead of placing the mountains on the earth, God caused the mountains to rise up.17 So, it is pretty obvious that these pillars aren't holding anything up, but are merely free-standing pillars, similar to those found in Solomon's Temple.18 The molten mirror Another example given for the claim that the Bible teaches there is a solid dome that holds the stars comes from the book of Job: "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, strong as a molten mirror?" (Job 37:18) Out of context, it seems like an open and shut case that the Bible teaches that the skies are solid. However, there are some definite problems with the English translation of this verse. First, the Hebrew word shachaq,19 translated "skies" is probably a bad translation of the Hebrew. The usual word that would have been used for "sky" or "heaven" is shamayim.20 The meaning of the Hebrew word shachaq is usually "cloud" or "dust."21 Looking at the context of Job 37, the entire beginning of the chapter is describing a violent storm.22 In three other instances within the same chapter, the word shachaq is translated as "cloud," so it would make sense to translate it as "cloud" in this verse, also. The Hebrew word rei, translated "mirror,"23
the Lab NASA's ArsenicEating Bacteria The Moral Landscape 'Goldilocks' Planet Has Life? Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Is Satan Real? Paul Invented Christianity? Ancient Hebrew Inscription Babies Go To Heaven? Medical Marijuana 'Benefits' Genetics & Homosexuality Origin of Homochirality Natural Evil Is Religion Child Abuse? Why are Scientists Atheists? God of the Gaps Who Created God? Living Together a Good Idea?
is found nowhere else in the Old Testament, so its exact meaning remains uncertain. However, it is derived from the Hebrew word raah, which means "to appear" or "to see."24 Further evidence that rei does not mean "mirror" comes from the Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (translated by the Jews into Greek during the 3rd to 1st centuries BC), where the translators used the Greek word horasis, which means "appearance."25 From this information, we can come up with a much better translation that fits the context of the chapter: "Can you, with Him, spread out the mighty clouds, with a molten appearance?" (Job 37:18) This translation fits the context much better, since the entire first part of Job 37 is about a storm. In addition, the sky does not have a molten, flowing appearance, but clouds do. So, from the context, it is pretty obvious that this verse is referring to the appearance of clouds and not some solid "firmament." The other complication for atheists trying to pin a solid sky teaching on this verse from Job is God's response to Elihu's sermon on creation. In the very next chapter, God rebukes Elihu with some pretty strong words: "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:2) In other words, God tells Job that his friend doesn't know what he is talking about. So much for this claim that the Bible endorses the idea that the skies are a solid dome. Since God Himself answered Job in a 5 chapter sermon, atheists would have a valid point if they found an error in any of those chapters. However, you won't find any complaints about the content of chapters 38-42. In fact, chapter 38 accurately establishes the initial conditions of the earth (covered with a thick layer of clouds): "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?... When I made a cloud its garment And thick darkness its swaddling band" (Job 38:4, 9) The vaulted dome Another Bible verse skeptics claims teaches dome cosmology comes from the book of Amos: The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth... (Amos 9:6) This is the only verse in which the word "dome" actually appears in English translations of the Bible, but it is only found in the NASB translation. Here are some other translations of the verse: It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth... (Amos 9:6, KJV) he who builds his lofty palace in the heavens and sets its foundation on the earth... (Amos 9:6, NIV) He built his palace in the heavens and let its foundations rest on the earth... (Amos 9:6, CEV) He that buildeth his ascension in heaven, and hath founded his bundle upon the earth... (Amos 9:6, DRB) It is he that builds his ascent up to the sky, and establishes his promise on the earth... (Amos 9:6, LXX)26 The Hebrew word in question is aguddah, meaning a band:- band(1), bands(1), bunch(1).27 The other translations use the word "foundation" (NIV) and troop" (KJV). Here are the other three verses in which the word aguddah appears: "And you shall take a bunch [aguddah] of hyssop and dip it in the blood which is in the basin, and apply some of the blood that is in the basin to the lintel and the two doorposts; and none of you shall go outside the door of his house until morning." (Exodus 12:22) And the sons of Benjamin gathered together behind Abner and became one band [aguddah], and they stood on the top of a certain hill. (2 Samuel 2:25) this not the fast which I choose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands [aguddah] of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free, And break every yoke?" (Isaiah 58:6) So, it is obvious that the NASB translation of Amos 9:6 is off base. This example is typical of the kind of objections raised by atheists. Their MO is to find an unusual translation (usually found in only one translation) and use this as "proof" that the Bible is inaccurate. Ends of the Earth The Bible makes numerous references to "the ends of the earth."28 Obviously, if the earth were spherical, it would have no ends. Don't these verses show that the Bible promulgates a flat earth theology? In reality, the Bible almost never refers to planet earth (except in its obvious cosmological passages). The Hebrew word erets, sometimes translated into the English word "earth," nearly always refers to local geography ("land") or the ground ("dirt"). Most often, passages reference specific geography (usually the land around Israel): of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), (Deuteronomy 13:7) "As the firstborn of his ox, majesty is his, And his horns are the horns of the wild ox; With them he will push the peoples, All at once, to the ends of the earth. And those are the ten thousands of Ephraim, And those are the thousands of Manasseh." (Deuteronomy 33:17)
May he also rule from sea to sea And from the River to the ends of the earth. (Psalms 72:8) He has remembered His lovingkindness and His faithfulness to the house of Israel; All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. (Psalms 98:3) Go forth from Babylon! Flee from the Chaldeans! Declare with the sound of joyful shouting, proclaim this, Send it out to the end of the earth; Say, "The LORD has redeemed His servant Jacob." (Isaiah 48:20) I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim And the horse from Jerusalem; And the bow of war will be cut off. And He will speak peace to the nations; And His dominion will be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth. (Zechariah 9:10) So, most often, the word "land: should be used in place of "earth." In many instances erets, doesn't refer to earth or land or dirt, but to the people who live in the land: "Those who contend with the LORD will be shattered; Against them He will thunder in the heavens, The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; And He will give strength to His king, And will exalt the horn of His anointed." (1 Samuel 2:10) All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You. (Psalms 22:27) God blesses us, That all the ends of the earth may fear Him. (Psalms 67:7) He has remembered His lovingkindness and His faithfulness to the house of Israel; All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. (Psalms 98:3) The coastlands have seen and are afraid; The ends of the earth tremble; They have drawn near and have come. (Isaiah 41:5) "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah 45:22) The LORD has bared His holy arm In the sight of all the nations, That all the ends of the earth may see The salvation of our God. (Isaiah 52:10) Behold, the LORD has proclaimed to the end of the earth, Say to the daughter of Zion, "Lo, your salvation comes; Behold His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him." (Isaiah 62:11) Although we tend to think of the earth as a cosmological entity, the word erets should, almost always be translated, "land" or "people." So, the "ends of the earth" really refers to lands surrounding Israel and its peoples. Four corners of the earth There are some references in some English translations to the "four corners of the earth," as exemplified in Isaiah: And He will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, NASB) Obviously, a spherical earth does not have corners. So, does this verse imply that the Bible teaches a flat earth? Other translations do not use the word "corners," as seen below: And he will put up a flag as a sign to the nations, and he will get together those of Israel who had been sent away, and the wandering ones of Judah, from the four ends of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, BBE) He will give a signal to the nations, and he will bring together the refugees from Judah and Israel, who have been scattered all over the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, CEV) And he shall set up a standard unto the nations, and shall assemble the fugitives of Israel, and shall gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, DRB) And He shall lift up a banner for the nations, and shall gather the outcasts of Israel, and gather those dispersed from Judah, from the four wings of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, LITV) He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12, NIV) Obviously, there is something unusual about these "corners." Actually, the Hebrew word translated "corners" is kanaph, which actually refers to the wing of a bird (translated literally in the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, LITV, above). So, the phrase is an idiom that refers to the four points of the compass (north, south, east, and west). The verse has nothing to do with the earth being flat. The next thing you know, the atheists will be claiming that the Bible says the earth is a bird, since it has wings! being a spiritual guide rather than a scientific one, it is not overly detailed. Even so, it is scientifically accurate. Overall, the Bible presents God as the Creator of the entire universe (matter, energy, space, and time). It makes the following audacious claims, which contradicted the prevalent ancient cosmologies, but have been confirmed by modern science: Time had a beginning.29 The universe had a beginning.30 The universe was created from the invisible.31 The dimensions of the universe were created.32 The universe is expanding.33 Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory).34 The universe is winding down and will "wear out" (second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death"-maximum entropy).35 Contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible does not say that the earth
Biblical cosmology The Bible does present a cosmological model of the universe, although,
is the center of the universe, but that the universe actually controls the earth.36 In addition, the Bible correctly identifies the order of creation.37 The Bible's description of the heavens comprise three different areas - the three "heavens." Of these heavens, the third heaven is God's abode,38 which is not part of the physical universe.39 The second heaven is also called "the highest heavens," and contains the stars.40 The first heaven is the atmosphere - the raqia or biblical expanse, in which the birds fly10 and clouds form to produce rain.41 Although many ancients did believe in a solid dome heaven, the claims that the Bible espouse this view are shown to be false. Skeptics who make these claims rely upon poor English translations of the original Hebrew verses, taken out of context, in order to "prove" that the Bible teaches a false cosmology. In contrast, this page shows that the Bible teaches an advanced cosmology that was not fully verified until the 20th century.
CONCLUSION
RELATED PAGES
Atheist Myth #1: Bible Teaches a Flat Earth and Solid Dome Heavens Slideshow , PowerPoint - 6.1 MB, audio 13.7 MB False Teachings in the Bible? Biblical "Contradictions" and False Teachings in the Bible? Science Contradicts the Bible? Accurate Biblical Descriptions of Scientific Principles Day-Age Genesis One Interpretation
REFERENCES
The Bible's flat earth/solid sky dome universe. From Capella's Guide to Atheism. Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology Anaximenes [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Flavius Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews: Book 1 - Chapter 1 Pesahim 94b (from Wikipedia) Theophilus to Autolycus Book 2, Chapter 13 Enoch 33:1-3 NASEC Hebrew Dictionary - Strong's H7549. raqia, [956a]; from H7554; an extended surface, expanse:-- expanse (16), expanse of heaven (1). 9. Verses in which raqa (Strong's H7554) are found: Then they hammered out gold sheets and cut them into threads to be woven in with the blue and the purple and the scarlet material, and the fine linen, the work of a skillful workman. (Exodus 39:3) So Eleazar the priest took the bronze censers which the men who were burned had offered; and they hammered them out as a plating for the altar (Numbers 16:39) "Then I pulverized them as the dust of the earth, I crushed and stamped them as the mire of the streets." (2 Samuel 22:43) "Can you, with Him, spread out the skies, Strong as a molten mirror?" (Job 37:18) To Him who spread out the earth above the waters, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; (Psalm 136:6) As for the idol, a craftsman casts it, A goldsmith plates it with gold, And a silversmith fashions chains of silver. (Isaiah 40:19) Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it, (Isaiah 42:5) Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone" (Isaiah 44:24) Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, And gold from Uphaz, The work of a craftsman and of the hands of a goldsmith; Violet and purple are their clothing; They are all the work of skilled men. (Jeremiah 10:9) "Thus says the Lord God, 'Clap your hand, stamp your foot, and say, "Alas, because of all the evil abominations of the house of Israel, which will fall by sword, famine, and plague!"'" (Ezekiel 6:11) 'For thus says the Lord God, "Because you have clapped your hands and stamped your feet and rejoiced with all the scorn of your soul against the land of Israel,"' (Ezekiel 25:6) 10. Raqia in Genesis 1: Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." (Genesis 1:6) And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. (Genesis 1:7) And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:8) Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; (Genesis 1:14) and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. (Genesis 1:15) And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, (Genesis 1:17) Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." (Genesis 1:20) 11. Raqia in Ezekiel: Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse, like the awesome gleam of crystal, extended over their heads. (Ezekiel 1:22) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/508
All Israel had one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword (emp. added). But 2 Samuel says, And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword (emp. added). It could be that the author of 2 Samuel was indicating the number of seasoned veterans or valiant men, while the author of 1 Chronicles was numbering any man who drew the sword, not just the valiant ones. Gleason Archer concluded: A possible solution may be found along these lines. So far as Israel (i.e., the tribes north of Judah) is concerned, the 1 Chronicles figure includes all the available men of fighting age, whether battle seasoned or not. But from 2 Samuel 24 we learn that Joabs report gave a subtotal of mighty men (ish hayil), i.e., battle-seasoned troops, consisting of 800,000 veterans. But in addition there may have been 300,000 more men of military age who served in the reserves but had not yet been involved in field combat. These two contingents would make up a total of 1,100,000 menas 1 Chronicles reports them, with employing the term ish hayil (1982, pp. 188-189). Remember that the only thing required to prove that a discrepancy does not exist is to provide a single possible solution (see Lyons, 2004). Archers explanation reveals quite clearly one possible solution. However, it is by no means the only one. Eric Vestrum lists another quite reasonable solution to the problem. There is another possibility that will be reasonable after examination. The reader should re-read 1 Chr 27. Notice here that there are 12 divisions of 24,000 men each, giving a total of 288,000 men. It is possible that the Chronicler counts these men whereas the author of 2 Sam does not. Notice that the 800,000 men in 2 Sam were included in a census, as David wanted to know how many men there were for fighting. Yet, as the numbers of divisions were apparently fixed at 24,000 per division, one would presumably not need to take a census of groups whose sizes are intrinsically defined by a priori fixed numbers. It is not requiring too much to state that it is reasonably possible that the author of 2 Sam did not include these 288,000 while the (different) author of 1 Chr did. With two different authors writing apart from each other at non-identical times, it is not at all specious to assert a reasonable plausibility to a different mode of reckoning in reporting the census (Vestrum). These two explanations suffice to prove that the numbers of men in Israel are not irreconcilable. Moving further into the explanation of these two verses, we must look at the alleged discrepancy between the number of men who drew the sword in Judah. The author of 2 Samuel gives 470,000, while the author of 1 Chronicles gives 500,000a difference of 30,000 men. (Please note that this is a difference of only 6%.) A simple, prima facie explanation would be that the authors were rounding to a different placethe chronicler rounding to the nearest hundred thousand, and the author of 2 Samuel rounding to the nearest ten thousand. Some have objected, however, and claimed that a rounding error of 30,000 men is just not reasonable. This objection, which is based on a western reading of the text that demands stiff, mathematically accurate numbers, does not allow for the more flexible use of numbers that often is exhibited in ancient eastern texts.
However, the rounding solution is not the only one available, as Archer pointed out. So far as Judah was concerned, 2 Samuel 24 gives the round figure of 500,000, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1 Chronicles 21. Now it should be observed that 1 Chronicles 21:6 makes it clear that Joab did not complete the numbering, for he did not get around to a census of the tribe of Benjamin (nor that of Levi, either) before David came under conviction about completing the census at all. Joab was glad to desist when he saw the kings change of heart. The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the Transjordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northernmost tribe of Dan and work southward back toward Jerusalem (v. 7). This meant that the numbering of Benjamin would have come last. Hence Benjamin was not included with the total for Israel or that for Judah, either. But in the case of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the already known figure of 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin (which lay immediately adjacent to Jerusalem itself). Hence the total of 500,000 included the Benjamite contingent. Observe that after the division of the united kingdom into North and South following the death of Solomon in 930 B.C., most of the Benjamites remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted (along with Simeon to the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was reasonable to include Benjamin with Judah and Simeon in the subtotal figure of 500,000even though Joab may not have itemized it in the first report he gave to David (1982, p. 189, parenthetical items in orig.). We can see, after looking closely at the two passages alleged to contain numeric contradictions, that several possible solutions exist for the reconciling of the verses. Once again, Gods inspired Word shines forth as the beacon of truth, resisting every accusation of contradiction or discrepancy. REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). Lyons, Eric (2004), Answering the Allegations, [On-Line], URL: www.apologeticspress.org/articles/506. Vestrum, Eric, Contradictions: Numerous, Theological, Chronological, Factual, Philosophical, Ethical, [On-line], URL: http://www.tektonics.org/EV_MCK04.html.
Copyright 2002 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
also the New Testament. However, it must be noted that this too was long after the true canonization of the Bible. Some 31 years earlier, Desiderius Erasmus had compiled a Greek New Testament for common printing. A German Bible translation containing both testaments was first printed in 1534. The oldest intact codices are from some 1200 years before Trent. In addition, there is the Latin Vulgate (5th century) and the Aramaic Peshitta (2nd Century). While the council did indeed declare a canon, it had absolutely no effect on the accuracy or reliability of the Bible. The text available today is practically identical to what was available before the 16th century. All Other Councils (AD 325-1965) There were other councils throughout the years. Most of them established or affirmed some heretical doctrine(s) or addressed some issue of the day, but none of them affected the Bible. Closing the Canon In the 16th and 17th centuries, there was a tremendous amount of upheaval in Christendom. In 1517, Martin Luther published The Ninety-Five Theses in protest to the Roman Catholic heresies of his day. A casual glance at history might suggest that Luther revolutionized Christianity. On the contrary, he sought to return it to the orthodoxy of the Bible. Unfortunately, he failed to repair the Roman Catholic church. At the same time, the printing press put the Bible into the hands of common people. While the scripture was hidden from the people, the corrupt papacy could say it said almost anything. This ultimately led to the poorly named Protestant Reformation. Though much of the spirit was in opposition to the heresies of Roman Catholicism, the effect was a renaissance of biblical understanding. The Roman Catholics held the Council of Trent during this time and declared a canon. In various ways, the protestants did the same. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) included a declaration of canon. Many, including Christians, will erroneously refer to these events as the closing of the canon. The canon was truly closed the moment the final book was received. Drawn across the landscape of time before the printing press, we find overwhelming manuscript evidence about the Bible. There are reportedly more than 5000 ancient manuscripts for just the New Testament with less than 100 years separating the evidence from the originals. In contrast, there are only 7 copies of the works of Plato and they are 1200 years separated from the originals. Among the New Testament evidence, scholars claim a 99.5% textual agreement. In addition, we have the writings of so-called church fathers, the educated of antiquity. While these men were fallible and some of them downright corrupt, they quoted the Bible and left us written evidence to the fact. We can use this dated evidence to compare for textual reliability. We can also use ancient translations like the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate to shed further light. At no point in history was a council convened to fabricate the Bible. While unscrupulous men have certainly attempted to alter the accuracy of the Bible in their favor, the scriptures claim that God would prevent them from doing so, and it would seem that he has. There is still room for a lively discussion about the inclusion of apocryphal books, but regardless of the councils, we still have access to all of those books today and can choose for ourselves.
Did the actual Tower of Babel exist? Within the land of Sumer are many structures called Ziggurats meaning "high". The Ziggurats have names such as; "Temple of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth", "Temple that Links Heaven and Earth", "Temple of the Exalted Mountain", "Temple of Exalted Splendor", and "Temple of the Stairway to Pure Heaven". The Ziggurats were built with sun dried bricks, burnt bricks and bitumen mortar. These Ziggurats may not be the "Tower of Babel" but are most likely replicas of an older original. When was this account written? There have been two possibilities proposed by scholars. The first is that the books of Genesis through Deuteronomy were written by Moses placing the writing around 1500 BCE. The second possibility is that it was written by a Jewish scribe or priest sometime around 500 BCE. Regardless of the actual date of the writing, the question of the origin of the story remains. In ancient near east cultures, family and national historical accounts were meticulously and accurately passed down from generation to generation orally. Did the writer of the Genesis account record a traditional story or was it fabricated. The Genesis account identifies the land of "Shinar" as the location of the Tower of Babel. This is the land of "Sumer" where many ancient documents of the Sumerians have been discovered. Within these documents are stories paralleling many of the Genesis accounts including creation, Noah and the flood as well as the confounding of the languages. "In those days, the lands of Subur (and) Hamazi, Harmony-tongued (?) Sumer, the great land of the decrees of princeship, Uri, the land having all that is appropriate(?), The land Martu, resting in security, The whole universe, the people in unison (?) To Enlil in one tongue [spoke]. ... (Then) Enki, the lord of abundance, (whose) commands are trustworthy, The lord of wisdom, who understands the land, The leader of the gods, Endowed with wisdom, the lord of Eridu Changed the speech in their mouths, [brought (?)] contention into it, Into the speech of man that (until then) had been one. (translation from "The Babel of Tongues: A Sumerian Version" by Kramer, S.N., Journal of the American Oriental Society 88:108-11,1968) The Sumerian documents which include this account date back to about 3,000 BCE. Clearly, the account of the confusion of languages dates back long before the written Biblical record. The Biblical author of the Genesis account was in fact writing a traditional story and was not a fabrication on his part.
According to the Biblical account, all mankind migrated and settled in the land of Sumer after the flood. After the confusion of languages, the people scattered. If this were true, this amazing story would have been passed down from generation to generation throughout all of the different peoples and carried with them to their new settlements. The Genesis stories including creation, the fall of Adam and Eve, the Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages have been found in hundreds of cultures throughout the world such as the accounts below. Central America: And as men were thereafter multiplying they constructed a very high and strong Zacualli, which means a very high tower in order to protect themselves when again the second world should be destroyed. At the crucial moment their languages were changed, and as they did not understand one another, they went into different parts of the world. (Reference: Don Fernando de Alvara Ixtlilxochitl, Obras Historicas Mexico, 1891, Vol. I, p. 12.) Polynesia: But the god in anger chased the builders away, broke down the building, and changed their language, so that they spoke divers tongues. (Reference: R. W. Williamson, Religious and Cosmic Beliefs of Central Polynesia Cambridge, 1933, vol. I, p. 94.) American Indian, Crow: "Then Little Coyote did something bad. He suggested to Old Man that he give the people different languages so they would misunderstand each other and use their weapons in wars... Old Man did what Little Coyote said, and the people had different languages and made war on each other." (Reference: Jane Garry and Carl Rubino, Facts About the World's Languages H.W. Wilson, 2001) The Biblical account of the origin of languages cannot simply be dismissed as fiction as the facts above prove. All legends, traditions and myths are based on historical facts. Over time, they evolve and are adapted to the current culture. By comparing all related legends, traditions and myths, the common threads are signs of the original historical fact. In the case of the confusion of languages, the common thread is that many languages mysteriously appeared out of one language.
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/533
(the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phone. They heard a sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9) [1930, pp. 117-118, parenthetical items in orig.]. Consider also the words of Greek expert Ray Summers: Some verbs take their object in a case other than the accusative. There is a variety of usage at this point. Akouo may take its object in the genitive or the accusative. Usually akouo with the genitive means to hear without understanding. This probably explains the difficulty involved in Acts 9:7 and 22:9. The incident is the experience of Paul in seeing the light and hearing the voice on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:7 states that Pauls companions heard the voice (akouo with the genitive); Acts 22:9 says they did not hear the voice (akouo with the accusative). Thus both constructions say the same thing; the companions of Paul did not understand what the voice said to Paul; to them it was unintelligible sound (1950, p. 51). Numerous other Greek scholars have expressed the same viewpoint (see, for example: Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, pp. 31-33; Blackwelder, 1958, p. 139; Kittel, 1993, p. 216; Thayer; 1979, pp. 22-23; Vincent, 1975, p. 571; and Vine, 1985, p. 296). The word hear in Acts 22:9 can be used to indicate that it was a soundnot a voicethat the men heard on the road to Damascus. Finally, we should look at the simplest and most straightforward evidence. Interestingly, we have been given a parallel to the event recorded in Acts 9John 12:28-29. Here, just as in the passage in Acts, we have Jehovah speaking from heaven to a man (Jesus, in this instance). After the Lord spoke, notice the peoples response as recorded in verse 29: The multitude therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it had thundered. Others said, An angel hath spoken to him. So amazing and frightening was the sound of Gods voice that the multitude was not quite sure what to make of it. The voice must have reverberated like thunder, yet it was discernible enough that some mistakenly thought it was the voice of an angel. Had the crowd been interviewed, some would have said, We heard no voice, only thunder, while others would have responded differently by saying, Well, it sounded to us like a voice, maybe the voice of an angel. Both groups of people undoubtedly heard something when God spoke, but not everyone present understood what was said. The same is true of the men who traveled with Saul on the way to Damascus. They heard something, but not everyone present understood what was said. If these types of alleged contradictions were approached with the same innocent-until-proven-guilty attitude enjoined in a court of law, they would disappear like an early morning mountain fog hit by a hot, glaring, noonday Sun. Could Paul possibly have meant that the travelers did not understand the voice the heard? Certainly he could have. No one can rule out such a suggestion, especially in light of the account in Acts 9 where it is clear that the men did perceive a voice (rather, a sound) but did not comprehend any of the words spoken. As the old adage says, when a passage is removed from its context it becomes merely a pretext. Only when a passage is examined in light of all the biblical teaching on a particular subject can the details of the situation be known completely. REFERENCES Arndt, William and F.W. Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). Barker, Dan (1994), [On-line], URL: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/1/1voice94.html. Blackwelder, Boyce W. (1958) Light from the Greek New Testament (Anderson, IN: Warner). Kittel, Gerhard (1993), Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Robertson, A.T. (1930) Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman). Summers, Ray (1950), Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, TN: Broadman). Thayer, Joseph (1979), Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Vincent, Marvin R. (1975), Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Vine, W.E., Merrill Unger, and William White, Jr. (1985), Vines Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson).
Apologetics
Answers for Atheists Design vs. Evolution Biblical Creation Bible Authenticity Slideshows YouTube Videos Christian Theology Aberrant Theology Christian Tribulation Christian Life Issues Discovery Course God's Love Abortion Discussion Forum Links Book Reviews Movie Reviews
Page Links
Thou Shall Not Kill: Does God Violate His Own Commandment?
by Rich Deem
kill." Atheists claim that God INTRODUCTION The sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not the destruction of entire cities, just violated His own commandment in ordering to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. Isn't this an open and shut case for the hypocrisy of the God of the Bible? One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years, the English language has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill."
Introduction All killing the same? God's killing The flood God's orders Killing children Conclusion Related Pages References Print Email Page Translate Font: A A
A
Search
Search Site
Ministry Info
About us Contact us Privacy Policy RSS Feed
However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt Answers not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic Is God Real? English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word Is Christianity used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless True? indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In God's Character fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could Evil & Suffering flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but Religion is stupid nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 Bad Christians Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing.6-8 The punishment for murder was the death Bible & Science sentence.9 However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.10 The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use Bible Contradictions deadly force if necessary.11 Objections to To answer the question whether God breaks His own commandments, Is God's killing Christianity we need to determine if God committed murder (i.e., killed people justified? Common atheist's without cause). The Bible is quite clear that God has killed people myths directly (the most prominent example being the flood) and indirectly (ordered peoples to be No Evidence of killed). If God ordered or participated in the killing of innocent people, then He would be guilty the Supernatural? of murder. Let's look at two of the most prominent examples. and their wives in the flood. Were any of these people killed unjustly? The Bible says specifically that all people (except Noah and his family) had become corrupted.12 Not only had all people become corrupted, but they were continually plotting evil!13 Is it possible that an entire culture can become corrupted? You bet! Recent history proves the point rather well. When the Nazis took over Germany before WWII, opposition was crushed and removed. When they began their purging of the undesirables (e.g., the Jews), virtually the entire society went along with the plan. Further examples are given on another page. So, the Bible indicates that no innocent people were killed in the flood. woman and child in Canaan? What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked.15 How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods.16 So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others17), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed. Surely God could have spared the children! People tend to assume that children are innocent, even if their parents are doing bad things. The assumption is unfounded. For example, Palestinian Muslim children are officially taught in grammar school to hate their Jewish neighbors.18 They are so well indoctrinated that some of them give up their lives in suicide bombings as children.19 Corruption literally does breed corruption, which is why God did not want the Hebrews tainted by the other corrupt cultures of the Middle East.
The flood According to the Bible, God killed every human except Noah, his wife, his sons,
New Pages
Was Jesus God? Once Saved Always Saved? God is Not "Fair" Christians & Suicide Judging the Sabbath Land Plants Before Animals? Four Views on Divine Providence Did God have a wife? Alien Life in Meteorites? Singularity Movement Creating Life in the Lab NASA's ArsenicEating Bacteria The Moral Landscape 'Goldilocks' Planet Has Life? Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Is Satan Real? Paul Invented Christianity?
G & S Toolbar
God orders killing What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, 14
General
Send an e-Card Webmaster Resources Personal Pages Humor
Site Helps
Site Help En Espaol Help I can't see! Bookmark G&S Toolbar Report page errors
Surely there must have been other innocent adults in those cities who were destroyed with the wicked! There actually is an example of a time when God was asked if He would destroy the innocent along with the wicked. Prior to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if He would destroy the righteous along with the wicked.20 God replied that He would spare the entire city for 50 righteous people.21 Abraham kept reducing the possible number of righteous people, asking God if He would destroy the entire city along with those number of righteous people.22 God's reply in each case was that He would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked. The lowest number Abraham asked about was ten righteous people, although the answer would likely be the same with as few as one righteous individual. How do we know this? God sent two angels to warn the four righteous people in Sodom to flee before
He destroyed the city.23 It is quite convenient that such details are usually left out of atheistic sites complaining about the "evil" perpetrated by God. In fact, God saved certain people from being killed in cities such as Jericho.24 The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is really not as general as the King James version would indicate. The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder. Although God ordered the extermination of entire cities, He did so in righteous judgment on a people whose corruption had led to extreme wickedness, including child sacrifice. Did God destroy the righteous along with the wicked? In an exchange with Abraham, God indicated that He would spare the wicked to save the righteous. He demonstrated this principle by saving righteous people from Sodom and Jericho prior to their destruction. The charge that God indiscriminately murdered people does not hold to to critical evaluation of the biblical texts.
CONCLUSION
RELATED PAGES
Did God Commit Atrocities by Ordering the Killing of Entire Cities of People? The Mercy of God as Found in the Old Testament There is Too Much Evil and Suffering For God to Exist? Is it Possible for God to Provide 'Partial Free Will' and Eliminate All Evil? Did God Create Evil - Does the Bible Say So? What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion A Loving God Would Not Send Billions of People to Hell, Would He? If God is Jealous Doesn't That Make Him the Divine Hypocrite? Why Are So Many Christians Hypocrites? God's Chosen People, the Jews: Isn't God Unfair in Showing Such Preference? Does the Bible Say God Repents From Doing Evil?
Christianity? Ancient Hebrew Inscription Babies Go To Heaven? Medical Marijuana 'Benefits' Genetics & Homosexuality Origin of Homochirality Natural Evil Is Religion Child Abuse? Why are Scientists Atheists? God of the Gaps Who Created God? Living Together a Good Idea?
REFERENCES
1. Thou shalt not kill. (Deuteronomy 5:17, KJV) 2. Modern translations: You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, NIV) You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, NASB) Do not put anyone to death without cause. (Deuteronomy 5:17, BBE) Do not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17, CEV) "'You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 ESV) "'Do not commit murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 GNB) "Never murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 GW) "You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 HNV) No murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 MSG) "You shall not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 WEB) 'Thou dost not murder. (Deuteronomy 5:17 YLT) 3. Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions: rat sach (Strong's H7523) 1. to murder, slay, kill a. (Qal) to murder, slay 1. premeditated 2. accidental 3. as avenger 4. slayer (intentional) (participle) b. (Niphal) to be slain c. (Piel) 1. to murder, assassinate 2. murderer, assassin (participle) (substantive) d. (Pual) to be killed Part of Speech: verb A Related Word by BDB/Strongs Number: a primitive root Same Word by TWOT Number: 220 4. then you shall select for yourselves cities to be your cities of refuge, that the manslayer who has killed [nakah] any person unintentionally may flee there. (Numbers 35:11) 5. Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions: nakah (Strong's H5221) 1. to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill a. (Niphal) to be stricken or smitten b. (Pual) to be stricken or smitten c. (Hiphil) 1. to smite, strike, beat, scourge, clap, applaud, give a thrust 2. to smite, kill, slay (man or beast) 3. to smite, attack, attack and destroy, conquer, subjugate, ravage 4. to smite, chastise, send judgment upon, punish, destroy d. (Hophal) to be smitten 1. to receive a blow 2. to be wounded 3. to be beaten 4. to be (fatally) smitten, be killed, be slain 5. to be attacked and captured 6. to be smitten (with disease) 7. to be blighted (of plants) Part of Speech: verb A Related Word by BDB/Strongs Number: a primitive root Same Word by TWOT Number: 1364
this Old Testament event in a way very similar to how we converse today about various matterswhether using a figure of speech, called prolepsis, where we assign a name or title to a time that precedes it, or where we refer to someone being alone in one sense, and a part of a larger group at the same time. Such accusations appear to say more about the heart of the critic than the truthfulness of Jesus and the Bible writers. [NOTE: For a full refutation of the idea that Jesus condoned breaking the Sabbath law, or that Matthew 12:1-8 and Mark 2:23-28 can be used legitimately as proof texts to justify situation ethics, please see Lyons (2003) and Miller (2003).] REFERENCES Danker, Frederick William, William Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, (2000), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). Lyons, Eric (2003), Did Jesus Condone Law-Breaking, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2323. McKinsey, Dennis (1998), Tough Questions for the Christian Church, Biblical Errancy, October, [On-line], URL: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/errancy/issues/iss190.htm. Miller, Dave (2003), Situationism, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2266.
Copyright ?? 2006 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author??s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/559
Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale;
Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after Christ died, the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples. In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is a very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D. The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of a first hand witness of the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated from 117138 A.D. contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing only on historical events. Instead, he focused also on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels. Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's.
Paul's Writings:
Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them (see Galatians 1-2). This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course contemporaries and since they all died before the turn of the century. Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus.
Hebrews
It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Authorship has been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc. The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24). The latest possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been written as early as A.D. 67. The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly signifying that the destruction of
James
This epistle claims to have been written by James, "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad, greetings," (James 1:1). The question is, "Which James?" Is it James, the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:2-3); James, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2-3), or the most commonly and accepted James who was the brother of Jesus? "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56And His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55-56). Notice the context of the verses suggests immediate family since it mentions Jesus' Mother, brothers, and sisters. Also, see Gal. 1:18-19 which says "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother." It is probable that James didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection as is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7, "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles." James was martyred by the order of the high priest Ananus after the death of the "procurator Festus in A.D. 61 (Josephus, Ant. 20. 9)." Therefore, the epistle of James was written before A.D. 61.
1 and 2 Peter
Both epistles clearly state that they were authored by Peter, an eyewitness of Jesus' life and post resurrection appearances. Though there has been some who have doubted the authorship of these two epistles, the clear opening statements of each epistle tell us Peter was the author. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus...", (1 Pet. 1:1) and "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours..." (2 Pet. 1:1). It certainly seems most logical that Peter is indeed the author of the letters that bear his name. Peter died at Rome during Nero's persecution of Christians around 64 AD so the epistles were obviously written before that time.
1, 2, 3 John
The writer of 1 John does not identify himself in the letter. The writer of 2 and 3 John refers to himself as "the elder," (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Regarding the first epistle, authorship can reasonably be determined to be that of John the Apostle. The opening of John is written from the perspective of someone who was there with Jesus (John 1:1-4). Also, "Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39) says of Papias, a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, 'He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John. Irenaeus, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 5.8), often quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies (3.15; 5, 8) he quotes from John by name, 1 John 2:18...Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 2.66, p. 464) refers to 1 Jn 5:16, as in Johns larger Epistle.'" "In the earliest canonical lists, dating from the end of the second century, 1 John already appears. Indeed, 1 John is quoted as authoritative by Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna [a disciple of John the apostle] before the middle of the second century. The attestation of 2 John is almost as good. There is no second-century reference to 3 John, but that is not surprising, since it deals with a specific, local issue." Furthermore, the style of the three epistles is very similar to that of the gospel of John. 1 John mentions the "word of life" (1 John 1:1) as does the gospel of John 1:1, etc. It appears that the epistles were written after the Gospel of John since the epistles seem to assume a knowledge of the gospel facts. Date of writing varies from A.D. 60 to the early 90's.
Jude
Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1). It is most likely that Jude, in true Christian humility, does not want to equate himself as the brother of Jesus as he is traditionally held to be and seems to be supported by scripture: "Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55).Instead, he mentions himself as a servant of Jesus, as James has also done. The date of writing seems to be anywhere from A.D. 68 to the early 90's. Remember that if Judas was a brother of
Jesus, he was born around after Jesus which would mean the later the writing date, the older was Judas. There is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem which could have been naturally included in the writing considering that Jude mentions judgments from God upon believers and unbelievers alike (Jude 5-12). Nevertheless, it appears that Jude may have quoted from James. Jude 17-18 says, "But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18that they were saying to you, "In the last time there shall be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." Compare this to 2 Pet. 3:3, "Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts." If this is a quote, it would place the epistle after the writing of 2 Peter.
Revelation
The author of the Book of Revelation is John. "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bondservant John," (Rev. 1:1). "Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, p. 308) (A.D.. 139161) quotes from the Apocalypse, as John the apostles work." Revelation was probably written at the end of John the Apostle's life. Some hold to the 90's and it is the last book written in the New Testament.
Conclusion
Though this information is basic, it supplies enough evidence to support the apostolic authorship of the New Testament documents. The debate on the dating of the books may never be absolutely settled, but as scholarship and archaeology advance, confirmation of early authorship of the New Testament continues to be validated.
Espaol English
Conclusion
The Bible is reliable in all areas, including its account of the Ark (and the worldwide catastrophic Flood). A Christian doesnt have to have a blind faith to believe that there really was an Ark. What the Bible says about the Ark can even be measured and tested today. For answers to other objections about the biblical account of Noahs Flood and the Ark (e.g., Where did all the water come from? How did Noah collect and then care for the animals? etc.), see the books featured below. Was There Really a Noahs Ark & Flood? covers these particular problems related to Noahs Flood, and Noahs Ark: A Feasibility Study covers these and more in detail.
Footnotes
1. This is based on the royal or long cubit of 20.4 inches. Back
Recommended Resources
What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs? Answers to all of the most-asked questions about dinosaurs from a biblical perspective.
Dinosaurs and the Bible There is compelling evidence that dinosaurs lived relatively recently and were documented by people and various nations! In this presentation, Dr. Lisle shows how to understand dinosaurs through biblical glasses.
NEW Answers Book 1 (The) Packed with biblical answers to over 25 of the most important questions on creation/evolution and the Bible, The NEW Answers Book is a must-read for everyone who desires to better understand the world in which they live.
By Wayne Jackson Why does the Bible contain references to such mythological creatures as the unicorn (Num. 23:22), and the satyr (Isa. 13:21)? How can such allusions be harmonized with the claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God?
Unicorn
The term unicorn is found nine times in the King James Version of the Bible (Num. 23:22; 24:8; Dt. 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psa. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isa. 34:7). Unicorn does not appear at all in the American Standard Version, nor in most other more modern versions. This should be a signal that the problem is one of translation, rather than a problem with the original, biblical text. In ancient mythological literature, the unicorn was a horse-like animal with a prominent horn protruding from the center of its forehead. There is no evidence that this creature is alluded to in the scriptures. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word that is found in the texts referenced above is reem, which is translated wild ox in the later versions. Most scholars believe the term refers to a large, fierce ox of the ancient world a beast that now is extinct. The translators of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) rendered remes by the Greek term monokeros (one horn), on the basis of certain pictographs which were among the ruins of ancient Babylon. The carvings depicted the wild ox in profile form, thus seeming to suggest that the creature had but a single horn (see Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, C. Pfeiffer, H. Vos, & J. Rea, Eds., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999, p. 83). Out of this background derived the one horn perception. Biblical evidence, however, indicates otherwise. Note that in Deuteronomy 33:17, the reem is described as having horns (plural), not a single horn. No mythology can be charged to the Bible in connection with the term unicorn.
Satyr
In Greek and Roman mythology, the satyr was a half-man/half-beast god, a companion of Bacchus. There is absolutely no relationship between this pagan concept and any passage in the Bible. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word sair is found about fifty-two times. It is related to the term sear (hair), which means a hairy one. Mostly the word is used of the male goat that was employed as a sin-offering especially that solemn sin-offering of the day of atonement (Lev. 16). In two cases, sair is translated satyr in the King James Version (Isa. 13:21; 34:14). In those passages it clearly alludes to wild goats of the sort that lived among the ruins of Babylon and Edom. Twice the term is rendered demon (Lev. 17:7; 2 Chron. 11:15 KJV), where it actually signifies a pagan god that takes the form of a goat (see ESV 2 Chron. 11:15). Of this latter passage, noted scholar J. Barton Payne wrote: Far from being mythological satyrs, as claimed by liberal criticism, the sirim appear to have been simply goat idols, used in conjunction with the golden calves (Wycliffe Bible Commentary, C. Pfeiffer, E. Ferguson, Eds., London: Oliphants, 1969, p. 400).
And so, once more, careful investigation demonstrates that the writers of the Bible have not lowered themselves to the superstitions of paganism. Critical charges ever destruct upon the shoals of truth.
AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | New: Bible maps | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | Articles | People in the Bible
Share
And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill country of Seir. 43 They killed the remaining Amalekites who had escaped, and they have lived there to this day. My answer here is the same as it is in previous paragraphs - that these verses are talking about Amalekites in a particular area. Look at 1 Chronicles 4:43, for example. There it talks about how "they have lived there to this day." That's a clear-cut reference to an area, a specific place, meaning the Amalekites that are being referred to are indeed the Amalekites who had formerly lived in that area, that specific place. There is no contradiction in any of these verses, and none of them contradict any of the others. Return to list of Questions and Answers
Other items
About us E-mail us HOME
See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.
Submit
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | New: Bible maps | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | Articles | People in the Bible
Copyright 2011, aboutbibleprophecy.com. All rights reserved. Our copyright policy.
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/562
In the book of 1 Kings we read that Baasha became the third ruler of the Northern kingdom (Israel) in the third year of Asa king o
Judahand reigned twenty-four years (15:33). Then, when Baasha died, his son Elah became king over Israel in the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah (16:8, emp. added). However, 2 Chronicles 16:1 reads: In the thirty-sixth year of th reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah and built Ramah, that he might let none go out or come in to Asa king Judah (emp. added). The obvious question that anyone has who reads these two passages is: How could Baasha be ruling over
Israel in the thirty-sixth year of Asas reign, when 1 Kings 16 clearly indicates that Baasha had died when Asa (the third king of the southern kingdom) was only in the twenty-sixth year of his reign? Is it possible to reconcile 1 Kings 16:8 with 2 Chronicles 15:19-16:1? Or, is this a legitimate contradiction that should lead all of us to conclude that the Bible is a worthless manmade book myths?
There are two possible solutions to this problem. To begin with, it may be that the numbers recorded in 2 Chronicles 15:19 and 16: simply are the result of a copyists error. Although skeptics may scoff at attempts to reconcile contradictions by claiming a copyis
must have made an error sometime in the distant past, the fact is, copyists were not infallible; inspired men were the only infallibl writers. Whenever duplicates of the Old Testament Scriptures were needed, copies had to be made by handa painstaking,
time-consuming task requiring extreme concentration. History records that copyists (such as the Masoretes) had as their goal to produce accurate copies of Scripture and that they went to great lengths to ensure fidelity in their copies. They were, nevertheless
still human. And humans are prone to make mistakes, regardless of the care they take or the strictness of the rules under which they operate. The copyists task was made all the more difficult by the sheer complexity of the Hebrew language and by the variou ways in which potential errors could be introduced. In their commentary on 2 Chronicles, Keil and Delitzsch proposed that the number 36 in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and the number 35 in
15:19 are a scribal error for 16 and 15, respectively. The ancient Hebrew letters yod and lamed, representing the numbers 30 and 10, could have been confused and interchanged quite easily (though inadvertently) by a copyist. Merely a smudge from excessive
wear on a scroll-column or a punctured or slightly torn manuscript could have resulted in making the yod look like a lamed. Furthermore, it also is possible that this error occurred first in 2 Chronicles 15:19. Then to make it consistent in 16:1, a copyist ma
have concluded that 16 must be an error for 36 and changed it accordingly (Archer, 1982, p. 226). Hence the numbers 35 and 36 could have arisen out of the original 15 and 16. With such an adjustment, the statements in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles are harmonize easily.
A second possibility as to why the numbers in 1 Kings 16:8 and 2 Chronicles 15:19-16:1 seem contradictory is because the number may refer to the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years after the division of the United Kingdom (which would have been Asas fifteenth and sixteenth years), rather than the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth years of Asas reign (Thiele, 1951, p. 59). The Hebrew word for
reign (malkuwth) also can mean kingdom. In fact, 51 out of the 91 times this word appears in the King James Version of the Ol Testament it is translated kingdom (cf. 2 Chronicles 1:1; 11:17; 20:30; Nehemiah 9:35; etc.). In their commentary on 2
Chronicles, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown favored this explanation saying, The best Biblical critics are agreed in considering this date to be calculated from the separation of the kingdoms, and coincident with the 16th year of Asas reign (1997). [The number 1 is obtained by subtracting the reigns of Rehoboam (17 years) and Abijah (3 years) from the 36 years mentioned in 2 Chronicles 16:1.] But, as Gleason Archer recognized, It is without parallel to refer to the kingdom of a nation as a whole and identify it thus with one particular king who comes later on in the ruling dynasty. And the fact that in its account of the later history of Judah no such usage can be instanced in Chronicles raises a formidable difficulty to this solution (p. 225). First Kings 16:8 reveals that Baasha could not have ruled over Israel in the thirty-sixth year of Asas reign in Judah. Either the numbers 35 and 36 in 2 Chronicles 15:19-16:1 are a copyists error, or they represent the total number of years since the United Kingdom divided. Whichever is the case, both provide possible solutions to the alleged problem that exists between the two passages. In no way should the differences that exist between 1 Kings 16:8 and 2 Chronicles 15:19-16:1 cause one to reject the Bible as Gods inspired Word. REFERENCES
Copyright ?? 2007 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/563
the rules under which they operate. The copyists task was made all the more difficult by the sheer complexity of the Hebrew language, and by the various ways in which potential errors could be introduced (even inadvertently) into the copying process. Geisler and Nix have compiled a list of at least seven important ways in which a copyist might change the text accidentally, including such actions as: (a) omissions of letters, words, or whole lines; (b) unwarranted repetitions; (c) transposition (the reversal of two letters or words); (d) errors of memory; (e) errors of the ear; (f) errors of the eye; and (g) errors of judgment (pp. 469-473). Such errors, especially before the Masoretes came on the scene, could account for the alleged discrepancy in the passages under discussion here. For example, Archer has noted: Even the earliest and best manuscripts that we possess are not totally free of transmissional errors. Numbers are occasionally miscopied, the spelling of proper names is occasionally garbled, and there are examples of the same types of scribal error that appear in other ancient documents as well (1982, p. 27). Dr. Archer then provided numerous examples of what he termed misreading similar-appearing letters, based on the complexity of the Hebrew language and its alphabetic/numeric system (pp. 37-39). It is at this point that the alleged discrepancies in 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52 may well enter the picture. Errors of the ear also might have played a part. If a scribe was writing the text as it was being read to him, the reader actually may have said one thing but the scribe heard another. Or, the difference between 2 Kings 25 and Jeremiah 52 may have been an error of memory. A scribe may have looked at an entire line, memorized it, and copied it from memory without looking at it a second time during the copying process. When he went to write one of the numbers in the two passages, however, his memory failed him; what he thought he remembered the original text having said was not what it actually said. When one stops to consider the extremely poor conditions under which most copyists worked (poor lighting, crude writing instruments, imperfect writing surfaces, etc.), it is not difficult to understand how inadvertent errors such as these might occur from time to time. The Masoretes had a policy of making notes in the margins of their copies in order to indicate obvious differences among the manuscripts from which they were copying. Further, they were not averse to calling attention to possible mistakes by their less meticulous forerunners. But the Masoretes made no such note of any alleged discrepancy between 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12. In this case, they may not have thought that a comment was warranted, considering the type of resolution I discussed earlier (i.e., that the two passages in question actually refer to the activities of two different days). But why can we not possess infallible copies of the infallible originals of the Bible books? Archer has observed that it is because the production of even one perfect copy of one book is so far beyond the capacity of a human scribe as to render it necessary for God to perform a miracle in order to produce it. No reasonable person can expect even the most conscientious copyist to achieve technical infallibility in transcribing his original document into a fresh copy.... But the important fact remains that accurate communication is possible despite technical mistakes in copying (p. 29). Indeed, accurate communication is possible despite technical mistakes in copying. In the more than twenty years that I have edited Reason and Revelation (the monthly journal on Christian evidences published by Apologetics Press), I never have had someone suggest that as a result of an inadvertent mistake they were unable to comprehend the meaning, or detect the intent, of an article. Cannot the same be said of the Bible? Surely it can! Archer concluded: Well-trained textual critics operating on the basis of sound methodology are able to rectify almost all misunderstandings that might result from manuscript error.... Is there objective proof from the surviving manuscripts of Scripture that these sixty-six books have been transmitted to us with such a high degree of accuracy as to assure us that the information contained in the originals has been perfectly preserved? The answer is an unqualified yes (pp. 29-30). In every case when the Bibles defenders refer to that Grand Book as being inspired, they are by necessity referring to inspiration as it pertained to the original manuscripts (routinely referred to as autographs), since there is no such thing as an inspired copy. Aha!, the skeptic might say, since you no longer possess those autographs, but only slightly flawed copies made by imperfect humans, that makes it impossible to know the truth of the message behind the text. Try applying such a conceptthat no longer being in personal possession of a perfect original makes knowing truth impossibleto matters of everyday life. Archer has done just that, using something as simple as a yardstick. It is wrong to affirm that the existence of a perfect original is a matter of no importance if that original is no longer available for examination. To take an example from the realm of engineering or of commerce, it makes a very great difference whether there is such a thing as a perfect measure for the meter, the foot, or the pound. It is questionable
whether the yardsticks or scales used in business transactions or construction projects can be described as absolutely perfect. They may be almost completely conformable to the standard weights and measures preserved at the Bureau of Standards in our nations capital but they are subject to errorhowever small. But how foolish it would be for any citizen to shrug his shoulders and say, Neither you nor I have ever actually seen those standard measures in Washington; therefore we may as well disregard themnot be concerned about them at alland simply settle realistically for the imperfect yardsticks and pound weights that we have available to us in everyday life. On the contrary, the existence of those measures in the Bureau of Standards is vital to the proper functioning of our entire economy. To the 222,000,000 Americans who have never seen them they are absolutely essential for the trustworthiness of all the standards of measurement that they resort to throughout their lifetime (p. 28). The fact that we do not possess the original autographs of the Bible in no way diminishes the usefulness, or authority, of the copies, any more than a construction superintendent not being in possession of the original measures from the Bureau of Standards diminishes the usefulness or authority of the devices he employs to erect a building. This point is made all the more evident when one considers the inconsequential nature of the vast majority of alleged discrepancies offered by skeptics as proof of the Bibles non-divine origin. Does not the quality of the discrepancies submitted to us by skeptics (like the one under review here) reveal just how desperate skepticism is to try to find some discrepancyany discrepancywithin the Sacred Text? But to what end? As Archer has noted: In fact, it has long been recognized by the foremost specialists in textual criticism that if any decently attested variant were taken up from the apparatus at the bottom of the page and were substituted for the accepted reading of the standard text, there would in no case be a single, significant alteration in doctrine or message (p. 30). The axe of infidelity has not felled the tree of inspiration. The skeptic may hack away to his hearts content. But in the end, it will be the axe, and he who wields it, that will fallnot the mighty timber that is Gods Word. Or, as the Bible itself concludes: As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, And every tongue shall confess to God. (Romans 14:11). REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Barnes, Albert (1972a reprint), Barnes Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Samuel- Esther (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Barnes, Albert (1972b reprint), Barnes Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Coffman, Burton (1993), Commentary on II Kings (Abilene, TX: ACU Press). Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix (1986), A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody), revised edition. Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint), Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). Spence, H.D.M. and J.S. Exell (1950), The Pulpit CommentaryI & II Kings (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/526
AboutBibleProphecy.com
Home | Prophecies | Prophets | Miracles of Jesus | About Jesus | People in the Bible | Articles | Site map
Share
When were Abraham's descendants supposed to return? After four generations, or seven?
Question: In Gen. 15:16, it says "In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Issac (Gen. 21:1-3), Jacob (Gen. 25:1926), Levi (Gen. 35:22-23), Kohath (Ex. 6:16), Amramn (Ex. 6:18), and Moses (Ex. 6:20). Response: In this case, the word "generation" in Genesis 15:16 is defined as being one "century" in length, in Genesis 15:13. This is because Abraham was a century old when his son Isaac was born. So, from Abraham's perspective, the words "generation" and "century" would be describing the same amount of time. And both of these verses in Genesis are viewing the future from Abraham's perspective. He is being told that his descendants would be in a foreign land for four centuries. Return to list of Questions and Answers
See an error?
See an error? Please let us know about it. You can type your comments in the box below and then click the Submit button. Thank you.
Submit
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/564
Pharaoh Necho killed him [JosiahJE] at Megiddo when he confronted him. Then, later, his servants moved his body in a chariot from Megiddo, brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb (23:29-30). When the writer of Chronicles wrote of these events, he recorded that after King Josiah was struck with arrows, he said to his servants, Take me away, for I am severely wounded. After that his servants therefore took him out of that chariot and put him in the second chariot that he had, and they brought him to Jerusalem. Then the text says, So he died, and was buried in one of the tombs of his fathers (2 Chronicles 35:23-24). Because the writer of 2 Kings recorded that Pharaoh Necho killed Josiah at Megiddo and the chronicler used the phrase,
so he died after writing that Josiahs body was returned to Jerusalem, skeptics charge that the recorded history of one or both of the writers is wrong.
If 2 Kings 23 were the only account we had of Josiahs death, then one might very well assume that he took his last breath at Megiddo. But, since 2 Chronicles 35 indicates that he was alert enough after he was shot to command his servants to take him away, we know
that he did not die immediately. However, he still may have died in Megiddo after he uttered this command. Or, he could have died on the way to Jerusalem. The accounts can be reconciled even if he had died in Jerusalem. Just because 2 Kings 23:29 says that Pharaoh
Necho killed Josiah at Megiddo does not have to mean that he actually died there. It easily could mean that he was mortally wounded at Megiddo and then died sometime later. If someone today is shot in a back alley late at night, he may be rushed to the hospital in hopes that his life might be saved. However, if he dies, whether it is on the way to the hospital or in the hospital, those who rehearse the details of the shooting likely will not say that he died in the hospital but that he was killed in the back alley. Furthermore, just because the writer of 2 Chronicles wrote the phrase, so he died, after he mentions that Josiah was brought to Jerusalem, does not mean that he did not die beforehand. As E.M. Zerr observed in his Bible Commentary: The statement and he died...is just a common form of expression in the Bible, where the several facts of a circumstance may be named with very little regard for their chronological order (1954, pp. 278-279, emp. in orig.). The acknowledgment of the chronicler that Josiah died is just thatan acknowledgment. It says nothing about when he died. The facts of the story are as follows: (1) Josiah was wounded fatally at Megiddo; (2) his body was rushed away to Jerusalem after he commanded his servants to take him away; and (3) he died sometime after he gave that command. The text is not clear as to the exact location of death. He could have passed away in Megiddo, or on his way to Jerusalem, or even in Jerusalem for that matter. However, the latter is not likely to have occurred since Jerusalem was over fifty miles from Megiddo (probably no less than a two-hour chariot ride). Neither account clearly defines the location of death, only that the location of the fatal injury occurred in Meggido. We must remember that where two different, but not conflicting accounts of an event are given, one more specific than the other, the one that is clearer should be used to explain the other (Zerr, pp. 278-279). Those who claim that these two passages are contradictory are grasping for straws that do not exist. The only difference in the texts is that one is more descriptive than the other. REFERENCES Zerr, E.M. (1954), Bible Commentary (Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Publications).
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/565
would live in that specific city, but in order to fulfill additional specific things that the prophets had said about Him. Lenski has done an excellent job of explaining this point: Jesus lived in Nazareth in order to fulfill the prophets; and the evidential reason by which we ourselves can see that his living in Nazareth fulfilled the prophets, is that afterward, due to his having lived there, he was called the Nazarene. We may add that even his followers were called Nazarenes. Matthew writes nothing occult or difficult. A Nazarene is one who hails from Nazareth. Matthew counts on the ordinary intelligence of his readers, who will certainly know that the enemies of Jesus branded him the Nazarene, that this was the name that marked his Jewish rejection and would continue to do so among the Jews. They put into it all the hate and odium possible, extending it, as stated, to his followers. And this is what was spoken through the prophets. One and all told how the Jews would despise the Messiah, Ps. 22:6; Isa. 49:7; 53:3; Dan. 9:26; every prophecy of the suffering Messiah, and every reference to those who would not hear him, like Deut. 18:18. The Talmud calls Jesus Yeshu Hannotzri (the Nazarene); Jerome reports the synagogue prayer in which the Christians are cursed as Nazarenes.... Compare Acts 24:5, sect of the Nazarene, and Pauls characterization. If Jesus had been reared in Jerusalem, he could not have been vilified as the Nazarene. It was God who let him grow up in Nazareth and thus furnished the title of reproach to the Jews in fulfillment of all the reproach God had prophesied for the Messiah through the prophets (pp. 88-89). Albert Barnes made the same assessment of this passage in his commentary on Matthew when he wrote: Some have supposed that he refers to some prophecy which was not recorded, but handed down by tradition. But these suppositions are not satisfactory. It is much more probable that Matthew refers not to any particular place, but to the leading characteristics of the prophecies respecting him.... When Matthew says, therefore, that the prophecies were fulfilled, his meaning is that the predictions of the prophets that he would be of a low and despised condition, and would be rejected, were fully accomplished in his being an inhabitant of Nazareth, and despised as such (1972, p. 21, emp. in orig.). So in the end, the skeptics $1,000 reward remained safely in his own pocket. His offer turned out to be vacuous, due to the fact that it rested on a completely incorrect interpretation of the passage in the first place. With time and study, the unfounded charge which suggested that Matthew had erred and that the Bible contains contradictions evaporated like an early morning fog hit by the hot noon Sun. REFERENCES Archer, Gleason L. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Arndt, William (1932), Bible Difficulties (St. Louis, MO: Concordia). Arndt, William (1955), Does the Bible Contradict Itself? (St. Louis, MO: Concordia). Barnes, Albert (1972 reprint), Barnes Notes on the Old and New Testaments: Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Haley, John W. (1951 reprint), Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate). Lenski, R.C.W. (1943), The Interpretation of St. Matthews Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Copyright 2004 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the authors name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
He did not do it directly. He merely allowed Satan to do it: Behold, he [Job] is in your hand, but spare his life (vs. 6). So Satan struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head (vs. 7). The dialog between God and Satan in Job chapter 2 leaves no doubt that what God permits to take place often is described by sacred writers as having been done by God. The inspired author of Job even reiterated this point forty chapters later, when he wrote: Then all his [Jobs] brothers, all his sisters, and all those who had been his acquaintances before, came to him and ate food with him in his house; and they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversity that the Lord had brought upon him (42:11, emp. added). In his commentary on 2 Samuel, Burton Coffman made mention that the same principle still is operative in the Christian dispensation. Paul pointed out that people who do not love the truth but have pleasure in unrighteousness are actually incited by God to believe a falsehood that they might be condemned (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned, etc. (1992, p. 329). Those discussed in 2 Thessalonians 2 made a decision to reject the truth of Gods Word (cf. vs. 10), and believe a lie. God sends a delusion, in the sense that He controls the worlds drama. The problem of how a loving God (1 John 4:8) can send a strong delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11), harden someones heart (Exodus 9:12), or incite someone to sin (as in the case of David numbering Israel2 Samuel 24:1), can be compared to Gods work in nature. In one sense, a person could speak of God killing someone who jumps from a 100story building to his death, because it was God Who set in motion the law of gravity (but He did not force the person over the edge). Some inspired writers wrote from this viewpoint, which was customary in their culture. Truly, similar to how Pharaoh hardened his heart because God gave him occasion to do such, and similar to how Job suffered because God allowed Satan to strike Job with calamity, God allowed Satan to incite David to sin (1 Chronicles 21:1). Israel suffered as a direct result of Satans workings in the life of King David, which God allowed. Thus, both God and Satan legitimately could be said to have incited the kingbut in different ways (and for different reasons). REFERENCES Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint). Butt, Kyle and Dave Miller (2003), Who Hardened Pharaohs Heart? [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2259 Coffman, Burton (1992), Commentary on Second Samuel (Abilene, TX: ACU Press).
Copyright ?? 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author??s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken. For catalog, samples, or further information, contact: Apologetics Press 230 Landmark Drive Montgomery, Alabama 36117 U.S.A. Phone (334) 272-8558 http://www.apologeticspress.org
This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/568
www.GotQuestions.org Question: "Why did God harden Pharaohs heart?" Answer: Exodus 7:3-4 says, But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my miraculous signs and wonders in Egypt he will not
listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my people the Israelites. It seems unjust for God to harden Pharaohs heart and then to punish Pharaoh and Egypt for what Pharaoh decided when his heart was hardened. Why would God harden Pharaohs heart just so He could judge Egypt more severely with additional plagues? First, Pharaoh was not an innocent or godly man. He was a brutal dictator overseeing the terrible abuse and oppression of the Israelites, who likely numbered over 1.5 million people at that time. The Egyptian pharaohs had enslaved the Israelites for 400 years. A previous pharaoh possibly even the pharaoh in questionordered that male Israelite babies be killed at birth (Exodus 1:16). The pharaoh God hardened was an evil man, and the nation he ruled agreed with, or at least did not oppose, his evil actions. Second, before the first few plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart against letting the Israelites go. Pharaoh's heart became hard (Exodus 7:13, 22; 8:19). But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart (Exodus 8:15). But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart (Exodus 8:32). Pharaoh could have spared Egypt of all the plagues if he had not hardened his own heart. God was giving Pharaoh increasingly severe warnings of the judgment that was to come. Pharaoh chose to bring judgment on himself and on his nation by hardening his own heart against Gods commands. As a result of Pharaohs hard-heartedness, God hardened Pharaohs heart even further, allowing for the last few plagues (Exodus 9:12; 10:20, 27). Pharaoh and Egypt had brought these judgments on themselves with 400 years of slavery and mass murder. Since the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and Pharaoh and Egypt had horribly sinned against God, it would have been just if God had completely annihilated Egypt. Therefore, Gods hardening Pharaohs heart was not unjust, and His bringing additional plagues against Egypt was not unjust. The plagues, as terrible as they were, actually demonstrate Gods mercy in not completely destroying Egypt, which would have been a perfectly just penalty. Romans 9:17-18 declares, For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. From a human perspective, it seems wrong for God to harden a person and then punish the person He has hardened. Biblically speaking, however, we have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23), and the just penalty for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Therefore, Gods hardening and punishing a person is not unjust; it is actually merciful in comparison to what the person deserves. Copyright 2002-2010 Got Questions Ministries.
Subscription options
Jesus often called himself the son of man.1 Two such occasions are recorded in Mat. 8:18-20 and Mark 14:61-62:
{18} Now when Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. {19} And a scribe came up and said to him, Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go. {20} And Jesus said to him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head. (Mat. 8:18-20)
{61} the high priest asked him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. (Mark 14:61-62)
When Jesus calls himself the son of man, he is making a connection between himself and the son of man phrases mentioned in the Old Testament, specifically, in the Book of Daniel. In Dan. 7:13-14, the prophet Daniel sees a vision involving one like a son of man:
RECENT COMMENTS
Bible Study on Did Christians corrupt the text of Psalm 22:16 to make it refer to the crucifixion? Adam Qadmon on What is Jude 9 (Michael, the devil and the body of Moses) about? S-Man on Did God create other people besides Adam and Eve? Graham Kent on How many years passed between Abraham and Moses? Luke Buckler on Are there examples in the Bible of people who believed but had no faith and people who believed and had faith? Leatitia Mc Carthy on Are there examples in the Bible of people who believed but had no faith and people who believed and had faith? Brad Lee on What light was there before the sun and moon were created? (Genesis 1:3-4,14-19) Hans on Does the Bible say men should not have long hair? John Watts on What did Jesus mean when he said before Abraham was, I am? Rob J Hyndman on Did Adam and Eve have a sexual relationship while in the garden of Eden? Rob J Hyndman on Where does the Bible say that the soul dies when the body dies? MarieaGrace on Did Adam and Eve have a sexual relationship while in the garden of Eden? MarieaGrace on Where does the Bible say that the soul dies when the body dies? Elul205770@gmail.com on Should Christians eat meat with blood? Rob J Hyndman on Where does the Bible say that the soul dies when the body dies?
{13} I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came man, one like a son of man and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. [14} And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
Notice the strong connection between Dan. 7:13 and Jesus words in Mark 14:61-61. By calling himself the son of man, Jesus was identifying himself as the fulfilment of the one like a son of man that Daniel saw in this prophetic vision. Jesus would have known from Dan. 7:13-14 that (a) he would one day ascend to Heaven to be with God (the Ancient of Days in the vision), and that (b) God would give him a kingdom on the earth that would last for ever. (a) has already happened (Acts 1:9; Acts 7:54-60). We are waiting for Jesus to return (Acts 1:11) to set up his kingdom on the earth in fulfilment of (b).
Notes
1. In the Gospels, Jesus is referred to as the son of man 79 times (ESV. Some of the occasions are repeated between the Gospels; all of them are Jesus words referring to himself). the Son of Man is by far the most frequent title that Jesus applies to himself (Tom Gaston, The Son of Man in Christadelphian eJournal of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 1. No. 4. Oct 2007, p. 5).
Topics: Jesus, prophecy, Son of Man
This answer was provided by Luke Buckler on Tuesday, 1 June 2010. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0.
Related answers
What are the signs of the return of Jesus Christ? What is the abomination that causes desolation spoken of by Daniel and Jesus? Will Jesus return on 21 May 2011? What does coming forth from ancient days mean? (Micah 5:2) What does the word became flesh mean?
Comments
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
FIND US ON FACEBOOK
BibleQ on Facebook
Like BibleQ
characters available
Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free
Bible News robjhyndman.com Recent news articles related to the Bible November 3 at 4:34pm via Shareaholic BibleQ Questions posted here will be answered at http://BibleQ.info/. Bible Questions Answered BibleQ.info Answers to questions about Bible history, Bible doctrine,
Matthew 4:4 4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Exodus 20:8 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. It has become popular today for Christians who seek to justify unbiblical behavior to point to Jesus' healing on the sabbath, and the opposition of the Pharisees and religious leaders to his doing so, as evidence that it is sometimes necessary to break "the letter of the law" in order to fulfil "the spirit of the law." (We should note here that neither of these phrases are biblical. "The letter", meaning "the Law of Moses", and "the spirit" are contrasted in Romans 2:29, Romans 7:6, and II Corinthians 3:6. "The letter" alone is used in reference to the Law in Romans 2:27. "The spirit," when contrasted with "the letter," refers not to the Law of Moses at all, but rather to the spirit of God given to those who believe on Jesus Christ ) In essence, the argument seems to be this: Jesus Christ occasionally found it necessary to disobey the written Word of God in order to do what God really wanted him to do. Likewise, we will find it necessary on occasion to disobey God's written Word in order to faithfully carry out God's will. Is this the case? Did Jesus Christ break the Law in order to keep it? Is it ever necessary for us to disobey God's Word in order to obey God? It should be clear already that this argument opens up a very large can of worms for any Christian trying to carry out the will of God. Once you break free from the written Word of God as your standard for truth, you can justify ANYTHING -- lying, stealing, adultery, murder -- as necessary for carrying out God's will, based on the expected beneficial results. Without the written Word of God as our standard, it is very hard not to fall back on "the end justifies the means" as our standard of behavior. Why did Jesus heal on the sabbath? Was he blatantly breaking the Law in order to do what he knew in his heart was God's will? Or did he have a concrete, biblical reason for doing what he did? Since we are supposed to be imitators of him in our walk with God, it is important that we find out why he did what he did, so that we know what we, ourselves, are supposed to do in similar circumstances, and why. Jesus gave a clue to his reasons in his castigation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23. Matthew 23:23. 23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Two things stand out here. First, Jesus wasn't reproving the Pharisees for their strict adherence to the Law. Rather, he reproved them for their hypocrisy, for play-acting, for faking it in their walk with God. They were careful to look on the outside like they were carrying out God's Law, while their hearts and motives remained filthy. Second, Jesus pointed out here that some parts of the Law are "weightier" than others. In other words, some parts of the Law have priority over others. In keeping the Law, then, obedience in the "weightier" parts should take priority. This does not, however, excuse us from doing the rest. Rather, we should endeavor "not to leave the other undone." But does that not leave us right back where we started? Fortunately, this is not all Jesus had to say on the subject of his Sabbath activities. Isaiah had prophesied that the Messiah would be of "quick understanding in the fear of the Lord..." (Isaiah 11:3) Nowhere is this more evident than in Jesus' handling of the Sabbath issues. Far from disobeying the Law regarding the Sabbath, Jesus understood it and obeyed it far better than anyone before or since. Jesus gave at least eleven different reasons for apparently breaking the Sabbath law . 1. Pulling an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath was permitted. 2. Circumcision is permitted on the Sabbath. 3. It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. 4. The precedent of David and his men eating the shewbread. 5. Priests work on the Sabbath and are blameless. 6. The ministry of the Messiah is greater than the ministry of the Temple. 7. God desires mercy from His people and not sacrifice. 8. The son of man is Lord of the Sabbath. 9. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 10. It is lawful to lead animals to water on the Sabbath. 11. The Father works on the Sabbath. As we examine these reasons, we will see the greatness of his respect for and adherence to God's written revelation. We will see how carefully Jesus distinguished between what men said, and what God said. We will gain greater insight into how Jesus applied the scriptures to everyday life, and how he balanced walking in love with walking according to the scriptures. And we will gain an even greater appreciation of the incredible insight Jesus had into the heart of God.
Luke 14:1-6 1 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. 2 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. 3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? 4 And they held their peace. And he took [him], and healed him, and let him go; 5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him
sabbath day circumcise a man. 23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?
24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Jesus gave an example here of a situation where two provisions of the Law were in conflict. Under the Law, a male child was to be circumcised on the eighth day. However, the Law also required that no work be done on the Sabbath day. Circumcising a child was clearly work. What did you do, then, when two provisions of the Law were in conflict? The rabbis had concluded that the provision requiring that the child be circumcised on the eighth day took precedence over the Sabbath prohibition against work. Jesus agreed with their conclusion, but argued that a similar issue was at stake on the issue of healing on the Sabbath. The Law required that a man love his neighbor as himself. Leviticus 19:17-18. 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD. Jesus identified this as one of the two key provisions of the Law. Matthew 22:35-39.
35 Then one of them, [which was] a lawyer, asked [him a question], tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. When you are sick, there is no real question about what you would like for yourself: you want to be made whole. What does it mean, then, to love your neighbor as yourself when your neighbor is sick or injured? It means helping your neighbor regain his health; whether that means setting a broken bone or ministering divine healing. For Jesus, loving your neighbor meant making a valid exception for adhering to the Sabbath law in order to minister to the very real need of your neighbor. In Matthew 12, two incidents of apparent Sabbath law breaking by Jesus and his disciples are described. In the second of these incidents, the issue was healing on the Sabbath. Jesus once again used the animal in a pit argument to make his case. Matthew 12:9-13. 9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue: 10 And, behold, there was a man which had [his] hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. 11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the
sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift [it] out? 12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched [it] forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other. But Jesus makes another statement here; and it is this which is really the point he is making: it is not contrary to the Law to do that which is good on the Sabbath days. Jesus understood that the purpose of the Law was not merely to get people to follow the right rules, but to produce a changed heart which issued forth willingly the right thoughts and actions desired by God. The provisions of the Law were a means to an end. Jesus point was that ministering to the needs of a man who needed healing was just the kind of righteous act, issuing forth from righteous motives, that God was looking for from those who obeyed Him by obeying His Law. This act of love was not a violation of the Sabbath, even though it technically involved working on a day on which the Law forbade work. Rather, it was exactly the kind of loving act that obedience to the Law was meant to encourage. The end purpose of knowing and doing the Law was bringing forth the right kind of fruit. Psalm 1 says of the man who delights in Gods Law and meditates on it (speaks it to himself) day and night, that he will be like a tree "that brings forth his fruit in his season." A certain scribe grasped this when he said in Mark 12:33, 33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And the Apostle Paul echoed this when, after listing the fruit of the spirit in Galatians 5, he wrote, "against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:23.) Galatians 5:14 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. In healing a man on the Sabbath day, Jesus was not rebelling against Gods instructions; rather, he saw in this mans need an opportunity to bring forth exactly the kind of fruit God was looking for, and he did not use the provisions of the Sabbath law as an excuse for not walking in love toward his neighbor. He balanced his obligation to love God with his whole heart and his obligation to love his neighor as himself, in this instance, by ministering to his neighbor on the Sabbath even though that was technically a violation of the Sabbath law. There is no law against bringing forth righteous fruit. In the other incident in this passage -- the incident which occurs first -- Jesus was accused, not of healing on the Sabbath, but of allowing his disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath. On the surface, this appears to be a much more grievous violation of the Sabbath law, and seems indefensable. However, Jesus gave at least five reasons for allowing his disciples to do what they did. Matthew 12:1-8. 1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw [it], they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for
them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
First, Jesus pointed to the incident where David and his men ate the shewbread, described in I Samuel 21.
I Samuel 21:1-6. 1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why [art] thou alone, and no man with thee? 2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed [my] servants to such and such a place. 3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give [me] five [loaves of] bread in mine hand, or what there is present. 4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. 5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women havebeen kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. 6So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away. As Jesus pointed out, what the priest did for David was contrary to the Law. But Jesus here makes his argument from the silence of the scriptures, for God nowhere in the scriptures condemns what the David and the priest did, but silently passes over it. From this, Jesus concludes that neither David and his men nor the priest were guilty of sin, even though they were disobeying an explicit provision of the Law. Rather, the priest was showing mercy to David in the best way he could. If he had had common bread on hand, he would have given that only to David, and strictly upheld the provisions of the Law. But he had no common bread on hand, and thus was forced to choose between not showing mercy, and disobeying a clear and explicit commandment of the Law. He chose the latter, and God honored his decision. Second, Jesus pointed out that the priests work every Sabbath day. The Law required that the priests offer both a morning sacrifice and an evening sacrifice seven days a week. However, this is at odds with the Sabbath law, which requires that men refrain from work on the Sabbath day. The priests were forced to choose between regularly omitting the commanded sacrifices each Sabbath, or regularly and systematically disobeying the Sabbath law in order to obey the sacrifice law. They chose the latter, and God approved of their decision. The ministry required of them in the Temple was important enough to warrant making an exception to the Sabbath law. Third, Jesus pointed out that if the ministry of the Temple was important enough to warrant this, the ministry of the Messiah was even more important. Thus the Messiah, in the course of carrying out his God-given duties, might need on occasion to make an exception to the Sabbath law in order to carry out the work God had given him to do. Fourth, Jesus quoted part of a verse from Hosea. Hosea 6:6. 6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Jesus explained that if one understood the meaning of the words, "I desired mercy, and not sacrifice," one would refrain from condemning one who had done no wrong in this matter. By pointing his hearers to this verse, Jesus was emphasizing that what God was looking for from men was not external obedience to a set of rules, but rather a changed heart from which sprang forth love for God, and lovingkindness and mercy for ones fellow men. This truth is emphasized by a passage in Zechariah. Zechariah 7:4-13. 4 Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying, 5 Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh [month], even those seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, [even] to me? 6 And when ye did eat, and when ye did drink, did not ye eat [for yourselves], and drink [for yourselves]? 7 [Should ye] not [hear] the words which the LORD hath cried by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and the cities thereof round about her, when [men] inhabited the south and the plain? 8 And the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah, saying, 9 Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: 10 And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. 11 But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. 12 Y they made their hearts [as] an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath ea, sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts. 13 Therefore it is come to pass, [that] as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the LORD of hosts: When Jerusalem rebelled against God, what was Gods plea to her? Was it, "Return to offering your sacrifices?" or, "Return to your fasting?" or even, "Return to keeping the Sabbath day holy?" Or was it instead, "Be honest in your judgments, and show mercy and love to your brother?" What was the bottom line of Gods will for them? If you understand this, you will understand the point that Jesus was trying to make here. It is not that the other things were not important; rather the point is that love and mercy and justice are the bottom line of what God is looking for, and not these other things. Fifth, and most important, Jesus pointed out that as the Messiah, he is the Lord of the Sabbath. This is not a minor point at all, but strikes right at the heart of the issue of Jesus actions and attitude with regard to the Sabbath. Matthew 12:8. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. The Sabbath is a day of rest ordained by God, set at the end of the week rather than at the beginning. It was patterned after Gods work in the
creation of the world, at which time He labored for six days, then rested on the seventh day. Man and woman were created on the sixth day: just in time to enter into Gods rest with Him. Unfortunately, man chose to sin and disobey God. One consequence of this was that man was forced to labor by the sweat of his brow for what he needed, rather than resting in what God had provided. The Sabbath was given to Israel as a promise of rest in the future. This promise of rest was tied to Israels possession of the Land promised to them by God. But when God commanded Israel to take possession of the Land, Israel refused. As a result, God swore in His wrath that they would not enter in to His rest. Israel eventually did enter into the Land under the leadership of Joshua. But Hebrews makes it clear that this was not a complete fulfilment of that promise. Hebrews 4:1-11. 1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. Since there still remains a Sabbath-rest to the people of God, when will His people receive this rest? When God plants His people in their Land under the rule of the True David, the Messiah. The weekly Sabbath foreshadows this, signifying the hope of Gods people that God will establish a day when their labors will be behind them, and they can enter into Gods rest. Jesus was -- and is! -- the Messiah. He was sent by God to Israel to invite them into Gods rest: the kingdom of the Messiah. Those who received him were promised entrance into the Messiahs kingdom, and entrance into Gods rest. Those who refused him rejected also the True Sabbath. The sad reality is that Israel had forgotten the true point of the Sabbath. It had become to them little more than a mandatory day off. They had forgotten that the Sabbath day was meant to be an object lesson, a reminder that a day was coming when God would give true rest to His people. The rest promised in the True Sabbath was not merely rest from physical labor. In the kingdom of the Messiah there will be rest from sickness and death as well, and rest from hunger and war. When Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath, then, he was giving a foretaste of the True Sabbath, for there will ultimately be no sickness in the kingdom of the Messiah. When Jesus raised the dead, he was giving a foretaste of the True Sabbath, for there will ultimately be no death in the kingdom of the Messiah. When Jesus fed the multitudes with loaves and fishes, he was giving a foretaste of the True Sabbath, for there will be famine or lack in the kingdom of the Messiah. There was an incredible irony in the charge of Sabbath-breaking brought against Jesus and his disciples by the Pharisees. Jesus disciples were being charged here with not properly observing the shadow of the True Sabbath which was the weekly Sabbath. The reality was that the disciples, by taking part in the ministry of Jesus the Messiah, were engaged with him in establishing and offering to Israel the True Sabbath. In rejecting Jesus and his ministry, the Pharisees, who were so intent on properly observing the weekly Sabbath, were setting themselves in opposition to everything the Sabbath represented. In Mark 2:23 - 3:6 is found a parallel record of this incident; but in this record, Jesus adds another reason for what he did. Mark 2:27. 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath : Jesus was pointing out here that man was not made to serve the Sabbath, but rather the Sabbath was given by God to serve man. The Sabbath law was given by God to man as a means of blessing him; it was not intended to enslave him. By their interpretations, the rabbis had turned the Sabbath law into a minefield for the unwary. The original prohibition was against doing your labors on the Sabbath. The rabbis had changed this into a prohibition against doing almost anything on the Sabbath. Looking into a mirror (because you might see a gray hair and be tempted to pluck it), giving alms to a beggar at your door, taking a loaf of bread to a hungry neighbor next door, and walking through a field of grain that was a little too high -- because you might accidentally knock down some grains and "harvest" -- were all considered violations of the Sabbath law. None of this had anything to do with what God had commanded. Such petty interpretations turned the day of rest intended by God into a grievous burden. Jesus seemed to be indicating here that the alleged violation of the Sabbath by his disciples did not constitute the kind of work the Sabbath law prohibited, but rather was a violation of the far too strict interpretation of the law given by the rabbis. As such, the charge made against his disciples was invalid. If the Pharisees had been willing to live by these rigid interpretations, that would have been one thing. But along with these interpretations they
had devised ingenious loopholes for those in the know, so that they themselves could do on the Sabbath things they had forbidden others to do. If your neighbor next door needed bread, for instance, the Pharisees held that you were breaking the Sabbath if you took a loaf next door, and your neighbor was breaking the Sabbath if he came next door and got a loaf; but one in the know could toss a loaf out the window to his neighbor in the window next door, and thus avoid "working." Jesus condemned this system of rigid interpretations coupled with loopholes in Matthew 23. Matthew 23:1-4. 1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers. Another consideration that puts this incident in perspective is the fact that the disciples were picking this grain from someone elses field. A Jew was allowed, if hungry, to pick enough food from someone elses field to eat on the spot. However, if you took some with you to eat later, you were stealing. The grain the disciples picked from the fields on this occasion was not enough in quantity to constitute stealing. Why, then, should it be regarded as enough to constitute work? Clearly there is something wrong with this conclusion. Again in Luke 6:1-11 we have a record of Jesus apparently working on the Sabbath, but this record also parallels Matthew 12:1-13, and gives us little information that is not available there. For this reason, we will omit this record from our study in the interest of brevity. In Luke 13 Jesus healed a woman who had a spirit of infirmity for eighteen years. When confronted about working on the Sabbath, he gave as his reason a variation on the argument about rescuing an ox on the Sabbath. Luke 13:10-17. 10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. 11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up [herself]. 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called [her to him], and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13 And he laid [his] hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. 14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. 15 The Lord then answered him, and said, [Thou] hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or
[his] ass from the stall, and lead [him] away to watering? 16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?
17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him. Jesus pointed out here that while working on the Sabbath was prohibited, opening a stall and leading an animal to water, while clearly work, was not. This was permitted so as not to cause hardship and suffering on the part of an animal. Jesus argued that if it was permissible to take action to keep an animal from suffering on the Sabbath, how much more permissible was it to do the same for a human being? Finally, John 5 records Jesus' healing of a lame man on the Sabbath. When the man was seen carrying his bed on the Sabbath and accused, he replied that the man who healed him had told him to do this. The Jews confronted Jesus with working on the Sabbath, and Jesus responded with still another reason for what he had done. John 5:15-17. 15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. 16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work . Jesus' argument here is simple and brutally effective. The work he was doing was supernatural, and required God's active participation for its accomplishment. God was Jesus' accomplice in this deed, his "partner in crime." This ended the discussion, but strengthened the resolve of the Jews to kill Jesus.
Many people read the records in scripture concerning Jesus and the Sabbath, and conclude that Jesus arbitrarily disregarded the Sabbath laws whenever they seemed to get in the way of what he felt was the loving thing to do. The reality is not quite so simple. The several different reasons that Jesus gave for his actions make it clear that he had given this issue much thought, and that central to his thinking was faithfulness to what his Father had revealed in His written word. The basis of Jesus' apparent willingness to break the Sabbath laws on occasion was his in-depth knowledge and understanding of the written word of God. Jesus took great care to understand what God's priorities were, and to apply these when he made his decisions. Furthermore, he applied himself to understand not only what the Law said, but why it said it. In addition, he made a sharp distinction between the word of God and the commandments and doctrines of men. Because of these things, he was able to stay on solid ground, firmly within the will of his Father, even when it appeared to others that he was disobeying the commandments of God. Jesus never once disobeyed his Father, but always did his Father's will. That's the pattern he wants us to follow. Like Jesus, we can so abide in God's word that we understand not only what God has said, but why He has said it. When we understand this, and when we understand God's priorities, we will be able to handle even difficult situations in a way
that maintains faithfulness not only with God's written word, but with God's heart as well. If you have questions or comments about this page, please contact Ivan Maddox Return
www.GotQuestions.org Question: "Why did Jesus say, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"" Answer: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast
thou forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46). This cry is a fulfillment of Psalm 22:1, one of many parallels between that psalm and the specific events of the crucifixion. It has been difficult to understand in what sense Jesus was forsaken by God. It is certain that God approved His work. It is certain that He was innocent. He had done nothing to forfeit the favor of God. As His own Son - holy, harmless, undefiled, and obedient - God still loved Him. In none of these senses could God have forsaken Him. However, Isaiah tells us that he bore our griefs and carried our sorrows; that he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him; that by his stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:4-5). He redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He was made a sin-offering, and He died in our place, on our account, that He might bring us near to God. It was this, doubtless, which caused His intense sufferings. It was the manifestation of Gods hatred of sin, in some way which He has not explained, that Jesus experienced in that terrible hour. It was suffering endured by Him that was due to us, and suffering by which, and by which alone, we can be saved from eternal death. In those awful moments, Jesus was expressing His feelings of abandonment as God placed the sins of the world on Him and because of that had to turn away from Jesus. As Jesus was feeling that weight of sin, He was experiencing separation from God for the only time in all of eternity. It was at this time that 2 Corinthians 5:21 occurred, God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. Jesus became sin for us, so He felt the loneliness and abandonment that sin always produces, except that in His case, it was not His sin it was ours. Copyright 2002-2010 Got Questions Ministries.