Talk:Bible/Archive 7

Inclusive Language

Tightened NPOV of tone a bit, removing language that might be perceived as advocacy and providing a more neutral tone while (hopefully) leaving content essentially the same. Also, if anyone has a source available it would be very helpful to report what percent of bibles sold use gender-neutral language versus what don't. It might be useful for NPOV purposes to report something about why people who use each approach prefer it for balance. The current language speaks exclusively about secular developments and opinions. Might be useful to bring in what the people who actually develop and use Bible translations think and why they use the approaches they use. If people in different denominations have e.g. theological reasons for prefering one or approach to another, these might be relevant explanatory background. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one can find a serious biblical scholar that uses gender neutral language, because that isn't what the Greek or Hebrew text states. Therefore, it is not a true translation to use gender neutral language. However, many people prefer Bibles with this language, because it fits their views. Also, there are different types of inclusive language: vertical and horizontal. poopsix 09:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

contradictions

There are many contradictions in the bible, where it will say one thing and turn around and say something completely different. Such as in Deuteronomy 4:2, where god says that nothing of the laws he lays down in the old testament shall be changed. Yet, around comes Jesus in the new testament forming a "new convenant" and suddenly all these rules from the old testament do not apply (stoning your child, making a rapist pay and marry your daughter if he deflowers her, the killing of ALL male prisoners and taking of their women; I could literally go on with all these rules incompatible with today's morals). If the bible is the word of god, and the word of god is infallible, why would their be such contradictions in his divine word? I think this is something that can be added to the criticism section.

Heh, nevermind I found out that there are several articles dedicated to bible criticism alone.

fiction

i think the bible belongs in the fiction, or mythological category? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.247.228 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

From the Jewish POV it should be in the section on laws and judicial systems.--Mrg3105 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is of course not the business of Wikipedia to push either viewpoint(but not illegal). See WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Old Testament

I felt the need for a new thread in discussion. It is not logical to call any part of TaNaKh 'Old Testament' because Christianity has replaced it with something which they recognise as their dogmatic guidance. Christianity does not recognise any part fo the TaNaKh as a true testament, and do not obey any part of it, and this needs to be clearly spelled out in the article.--Mrg3105 03:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Although there is some truth to what you've said here, perhaps this observation is a bit harsh. While some Christians do believe that the so-called Old Testament has been replaced, there are others who hold it to be divinely inspired. To say that Christianity as a whole does not recognize any part of the TaNaKh is an overstatement. As to whether they obey any part of it, I will admit that many of us Christians have disobeyed some of its laws, but there are also Jewish people who have done the same thing. To put a statement in the article that Christians do not at all recognize the TaNaKh would be both an over-simplification and a very POV-pushing invitation for argument. Ijkopl 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New section, "Textual Criticism"

I added this new section - taking in material from a smaller existing section and covering much of the same ground, but more fully. The existing section was called "Criticism of the Bible", which I feel was a bit loaded - it's the text that's being criticised, not the bible itself. It tends to concentrate on the OT rather than the New, because that's the area I know more about - I recognise that this is a weakness, but I don't have the knowledge to write anything about NT criticism. The section adopts a historical approach, and I've tried to set out the major stages in the development of biblical criticism, and some of the major names. For comment. PiCo 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy of the bible

I deleted the section headed Advocacy of the Bible - the complete section read as follows: Christian apologists advocate a high view of the Bible and sometimes advocate the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. It doesn't tell the reader anything worth knowing. PiCo 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say, right move. I can't see that section becoming anything other than a POV fork. Pastordavid 06:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Talmudic Tradition

Moved the following text to Talk and renamed the remainder "Criticism by early western scholars":

The Jewish tradition, later adopted by Christian scholars, was that the various texts were composed by the authors with whom their traditional titles are associated - the book of Joshua by Joshua, the books of Samuel by Samuel, and so on - acting under divine inspiration. The tradition can be traced to the 5th century AD and the composition of the Jerusalem Talmud. The Talmudic view was questioned from the very beginning, with attention focussing specifically on the Pentateuch, (the first five books of the Christian Old Testament), ascribed by the tradition to Moses.

The claim that Jews only regarded Moses as the author of the Torah from the 5th century on or this is a peculiarity of the Jerusalem Talmud is unsourced and contradicts numerous statements by Talmudic figures (and biblical figures such as Malachi and Nehemiah) believed to have lived much earlier. Further, since the Jewish tradition is adequately explained in its own section, this section simply creates either redundant text or a POV fork. --Shirahadasha 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Chnaged the title again to Early Criticism, as it's not really very descriptive to call it Western. Id like to keep something about the tradition of authorship - this was the background against which textual criticism (the subject of this section) developed, and it's not restricted to the Jewish tradition (Christian textual critics were frequently imprisoned for questioning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch). PiCo 05:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

problems I see with this article

"The word "Bible" refers to the canonical collections of sacred writings of Judaism and Christianity." This is often not true. Many "Bible"s contain appocrypha not considered cannocial. It seems as if several definitions have been fused together rather than clearly explored. The word "Bible" is used to mean different things from the Jewish and Christian perspective other than what is stated. What was the criteria for determining the opening definition? Most common world wide usage? Most commonly held opinion on Wiki? On the internet? In scholarship?

"The Christian Bible..." what book store or library refers to the Christian collection of books as "the Christian Bible" and not simlpy "the Bible" is this simply a pov oversight?

Further down, In the "Inclusive language" section, What serious scholar advocates rewriting all of scripture to remove all gender refferences from the Bible and more importantly, who cares when it's the extreme minority making it inappropriate for this article? --68.22.19.194 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

When a person calls a book the Bible, that person is referring to what he or she considers to be canonical. Granted, not everyone considers the apocraphal/duetero-canonical/inter-testamental books to be canonical -- That is considered in the article. Yes, Jews and Christians do mean different things when they talk about the Bible -- thus the distinction between the Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible. As to how the opening paragraph was formed, it was formed by consensus. Editors, representing the many different understandings of the word "Bible," agreed on the current wording. As to the "Inclusive Language" section, there the article is only documenting a phenomena related to the Bible. It is not a question of whether we agree or not -- it is happening. Wikipedia cares because it is a verifiable, notable, fact. -- Pastordavid 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no correct definition of the Bible. Different groups have had different versions over two thousand years and Wiki cannot decide which is right. IT can report what most people accept, and should also mention other versions as well. They are all part of the story. -dabe57

I agree. The definition listed here should accurately & encyclopedicly refelct what those definitions are. --68.22.19.194 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, in articles on religion, Wikipedia generally regards different religious groups as representing different subjects, each of value in its own right, rather than merely different opinions on a single subject. Thus, rather than thinking of "the Bible" as being one subject with majority and minority views, Wikipedia's approach has sections on each major group's version of the Bible treating them as subjects of their own. This is why there are separate sections on the (Jewish) Hebrew Bible and the (Christian) Old Testament. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I also think separating and commenting on the varying points of view is encyclopedic and appropriate here. --68.22.19.194 15:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I also added the concept that to the various Christians the word Bible may include approcrypha in the opening definition, as per the discussion above, the majority portion of Christians use such Bibles. If the word appocrypha is not appropriate, please suggest the appropriate wording for books considered canocial by some and not by other in Christianity. Thank you. --68.22.19.194 15:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Christian" Old Testament refference from the Hebrew definition and placed it inside the Christian definition. --69.244.153.46 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted para from the lead

I've been asked to rstore this para (previously the final para) from the lead, which I deleted as too trivial:

The word Bible is sometimes used to denote a comprehensive collection on an number of topics, such as the Home Builder's Bible. In American vernacular the word Bible is commonly used as a descriptive word for other religous sacred books, such as referring to the Quaran as the Muslim Bible.

The reason given in the request for a restore was that it's normal to include popular useages in any Wiki article. I'm in two minds. The first sentence of the para is already in the lead - it mentions the use of the word Bible to mean any authoritative text. The second is more of a problem. I think calling the Quran a Bible is likely to be fairly offensive to Muslims (imagine the erverse happening on an Islamic website). Anyway, I'd like some help making the decision. Thanks. PiCo 03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello at the very least there needs to be a link to the disambig page. Perhaps to suit all people a sentance such as, "this article pertains to the word Bible as used by Jewish and Christian religions. For other uses see: (Bible disambig page link)" Hope this suggestion helps. --68.22.19.194 17:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

how many heart words mentioned in the HolyBible

vouta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.54.149 (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Unsigned request

Hello. I like to help on this page from time to time. I don't care for signing in or getting extremely invoved in heated debates. Suddenly I am locked from editing this page. Could that be changed? Thank you. --68.22.19.194 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro reversions to a solid definition

What happened to our definition? Finally There were separated, appropriate, clear definitions for the word Bible, chronologically listed (as per the article) and then an edit war reverts it to a convoluted definition that mixes definitions rather than separate for clarification.. What was wrong with the definition we've had for the past week that we had to revert? --69.244.153.46 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, shouldn't we remove the words "Christian and" from the first paragraph? A Jewish definition is appropriate, as is a Christian definition, in separate places. --69.244.153.46 01:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A/an historical

I noticed that Afaprof01 changed two instances of "a historical" to "an historical". Afaprof01's comment: ("an" historical because the /h/ is nearly always dropped. But not "an history.") As a native English speaker, I had trouble following this reasoning. One would say "a historical" in natural speech, so why would it not be written this way? Can anyone provide an authoritative link to substantiate this change? --Strangerer 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Characterization of research on violence

Moved this material to the talk page. The source given here is a local newspaper account of a scientific paper. The newspaper reaches conclusions which are extremely unlikely to have been reached by any legitimate scientist -- for example, that takers of a written test "responded with increased aggression on a subsequent measurement" and hence that the study measured a correlation between certain bible passages and violence. Whoa here. Any reasonable scientist would never present such a chain of inference. Did these people really behave more aggressively, or did they have higher scores on a test whose scores the researchers believed to correlate with violence? Test-taking is not an aggressive act -- the idea of "aggression on a...measurement" is likely a mistake by the reporter, not anything the researchers (or any self-respecting scientist) would actually say. Similarly, the reporters never discuss the nature of the link, if any, between test scores and violence which caused the researchers to believe there was a relationship between the two. The fact a substantial chain of inference is bypassed and the results are presented as if a direct rather than a very indirect relationship was found. This difficulty, among others suggests that this report of the study isn't reliable. I'm not against reporting this material, but we need a reliable account, and we may need a reference to the scientific article itself to have one. If a reference to the actual scientific paper can be produced, I'd be quite willing to accept this content, since it will be then be possible to verify if Wikipedia is describing the nature and conclusions of the research accurately. Failing that, a major paper like the New York Times would likely be more careful about describing the conclusions involved than a local one, so if there is a reference to coverage by such a paper that might be acceptable as well. Again, the purpose is not to prevent the research from being discussed, it's too ensure the research's actual conclusions are being described reliably and can be verified. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

===Biblical violence and importance of context===

A recent study by four researchers suggests a positive relationship between exposure to scriptural violence, said to be condoned by God, and increased real-life aggression. 205 male and 285 female students at two different universities were shown isolated Old Testament passages containing references to violent acts such as rape, beatings and murder. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/BRDKB07.pdf

Half of the survey group was then shown a passage from the bible without additional context which indicating that God sanctioned violent retribution. That half responded with increased aggression in a subsequent measurement. overall, the study concluded that People who believe that God sanctions violence are more likely than others to behave aggressively themselves. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660199036,00.html

The lead researcher, Brad J. Bushman of Insitute for Social Research in University of Michigan (also researches other effects of violence, such as violence in Video Games), sees the study as reinforcing the need to read scripture with an understanding of its historical context and a desire to hear what God is trying to teach. Otherwise, reading a violent passage in isolation could elicit aggressive tendencies. Such out-of-context reading is not only related to bible; this also related to any violence commited in the name-of-deity (such as religious extremeist), which is commonly conducted when a single violent episode is taken out of its overall context. However, he said that instead of avoiding reading the scriptures (or the violent media altogether), read those that teach moral lessons or that are balanced with descriptions of victims’ suffering or the aggressor’s remorse, which can teach important lessons and have legitimate merit. Furthermore, in his quotations, he believed that overall speaking, a well-rounded religion has actually played a role in curbing violence.

I see that the original article has been found and identified. Give me a courtesy 24 hours and I'll double-check the article and put the material back edited if I think the research hasn't been accurately described. I'd note that in addition to saying more about the nature of the instrument used and why the researchers believe it to correlate with aggression, we'd also need to, for example, clarify that these passages are ones that these researchers characterize as violent -- Wikipedia can't present interpretations of the Bible as fact, and hence can't present as fact that these passages are violent, or that the acts they describe are crimes. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, as I think this is an important piece of research, that showed that when read out of context, bibles, or any scrupture for that matter, can induce violence, but when read properly can be helpful. In any case, i think this can be move to Criticism of the Bible, under ethic section. George Leung 04:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

EDIT Also, the researcher seems to had researched on many violence in media, particularly violence in video game. Thus, on this note, I think his points are valid. as the saying goes, Only Nixon could go to China. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The sources did check out -- this was a published paper. I've added the content back in under a general header of sociological research and with some toning down of the claims inferable from this research. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if true, I don't see how this ridiculousness is appropriate to an encyclopedia article about the Bible. The article should explain and describe the Bible, not report dubious social science study results. john k 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with johnk - this material is pretty marginal, and shouldn't be included. PiCo 06:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be kept, it is definitely relevant, sourced, and notable.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Documentary hypothesis

The article already mention JEPD, perhaps Lostcaeser you want a quote from Wellhausen clarifying that these refer to human authors or groups of authors and not four different divinities? What do you think was the point of higher criticism? --Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Lostcaeser is correct. The sentence "The documentary hypothesis is important in the field of Biblical studies not only because it claims that the Bible was written entirely by people, and not by God" presupposes that the Documentary Hypothesis is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture, and that's simply not the case. The DH is believed by TONS of people who ALSO believe that Scripture is inspired; in fact, that's probably the majority opinion of priests and pastors. Having four human authors doesn't discount inspiration any more than having one human author would.

In addition, while the paragraph in question has some useful stuff in it, overall, it's a mess, and I would excise that first clause, and rewrite the rest. Carlo 13:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To say that people wrote the bible in no way necessarily excludes divine authorship. The doc hypothesis itself aims to replace the theory that Moses wrote the text in question, but that was never seperated from the view that the text is of divine authorship. That's what inspiration means - men were inspired by God to write what God wanted (to put it simply). How does it matter excatly how many people or exactly what process the authorship went through? I just don't see it, sorry. Lostcaesar 13:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot deny the fact that there are many critical scholars who believe the Bible was written entirely by people. Whether or not they were divinely inspired is a theological and not a historical question. You cannot exclude this point of view from the article, that violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Of COURSE many scholars don't believe in divine inspiration, but that doesn't have a thing to do with the DH. The DH is a theory about its human authorship, not divine inspiration. You are producing a paragraph that declares that it IS a statement about divine inspiration. It isn't. Carlo 12:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cfortunato, let us take each other at good faith. I am reverting your revert, and I am telling you that it is my intention to report that according to higher criticisms the authors of the Bible were all human beings, and my intention is to make no theological claims whatsoever. Feel free to reword what I wrote so it satisfies you that it makes no theological claims one way or the other and I will be satisfied. But do not just delete what I wrote especially when I provided reliable verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's get one thing clear: the DH is exactly a hypothesis that the Bible was written by men, not God, and that it was written for human reasons, not divine. In other words, the DH does away with the concept of divine inspiration. 19th century German theologians were inclined to obfuscate this, being creatures of their times; post-Wellhausen scholars do not. If you want to believe that the four (or more) authors of the Torah were inspierd by God to write what He wanted written, then you have to believe some rather peculiar outcomes, such as Yahweh revealing His name for the first time ever to Moses (in Exodus) after multiple characters have shown full awareness that Yahweh is his name (in Genesis) - and not just one first revelation of the name, but two! God appears to be no respecter of the arithmetic that the rest of us need to repect. Other instances of human, rather than Divine, confusion, include the matter of whether Noah took one pair of each animal into the Ark or seven pairs (of the clean animals only, of course - no confusion over two pairs of then unclean); how Isaac got his name (three mutually exclusive versions of that); and just what happened at Meribah (was God stanfding on the rock, or was he not?) The instances go on and on, and can't be reconciled withi9n a framework that accepts multiple authorship while trying to keep the idea of Divine inspiration. (Although they can be sort-of reconciled if you reject the DH entirely). PiCo 13:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot deny the fact that there are many critical scholars who believe the Bible was written entirely by people. Whether or not they were divinely inspired is a theological and not a historical question. You cannot exclude this point of view from the article, that violates NPOV.

If the question is theological and not historical, then these scholars' determinations do not say one way or another about inspiration, by definition. Now about human authorship, all sides, including those of biblical inerrancy and inspiration, hold that humans wrote the bible. The DH replaces Moses with other anonymous people – that's all. It’s a false dichotomy to say that human and divine authorship conflicts.

You have said, in your edits, that this means the Bible was "written by men and not by God"; then, here, you say " my intention is to make no theological claims whatsoever".

Lostcaesar 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It goes further than that. Scholars who work within the documentary hypothesis argue that what these anonymous authors wrote (and the theological claims assumed by or promoted by what they wrote) makes sense in the context of when they wrote - specifically, the political,economic, and social conditions in which they wrote - and not divine authority or revelation. It is true that one can accept some of the claims of Higher Criticism and still believe in divine revelation, but that is only a superficial use of DH - it takes only themost formal aspect of their work and ignores the vast bulk of the content of their work. We still come back to this: there are a number of scholars working within the framework of higher criticism who see divine revelation as irrelevant to their analysis of the Bibleand interpretation of Biblical passages. As I said before, this is a recognized, verifiable view and you cannot exclude it from Wikipedia just because you do not like it. If you think that this view can be more clearly represented, that is FINE. But you cannot just delete the view, that violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein - I am a bit confused. Would you like the article to talk about the theology of inspiration, or not? If you would, and I am not necessarily against that, then why do you think the section on the DH is the best place to do that? But, on the other hand, if you do not want the article to talk about the theology of inspiration, then I cannot see why you would objet to such deletions, considering that it is merely the omission of this matter. What I object to, for the record, is the unequivocal statement that the DH excludes inspiration, since I cannot see why that should be the case. What I would say, if I were to say anything on the matter, is that the DH and critical scholarship in general shows a willingness to examine the human dimension of the authorship of the texts. It may be noted, if you wish, that some critical scholars do not believe in divine inspiration / biblical inerrancy. What I think is untenable, however, is for you, on the one hand, to present a dichotomy between biblical critical methods and theological statements (saying that you will discuss the former and not the latter), but on the other hand to present disbelief in inspiration / inerrancy as a conclusion of biblical criticism. Not only need one not reject inerrancy as an assumption in order to do critical examination of the texts (though some critical scholars do this, whilst some do not), but furthermore rejection of inerrancy is in no way a necessary conclusion of biblical criticism. This latter point sounds more like a commentary on the spiritual journey of individuals (who happen to be scholars). Lostcaesar 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Let's get one thing clear: the DH is exactly a hypothesis that the Bible was written by men, not God, and that it was written for human reasons, not divine. "

It is NOT. That statement is FALSE. And it is falsified by the fact that MOST CLERGY BELIEVE IN THE DH. Clear enough? Call your Roman Catholic Church, and ask the priest if he believes in both the DH and divine inspiration. MOST Christians believe in BOTH. The DH is a theory about how the Torah was compiled - NOT a theory about whether or not God inspired the compilers. The second question isn't a question for scholarship AT ALL. And, logically, IF God could have inspired a SINGLE human author, he could just as well have inspired the Yahwist, Elohist, Priest Deuteronomist AND Redactor.

There are obviously people ON THIS THREAD who believe in both, which proves the paragraph is FALSE, and has no place in this article. Carlo 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth. David Weiss HaLivni spent his life attempting to reconcile the documentary hypothesis with traditional revelation. In his book Revelation Restored, he came up with the proposition that the Torah was originally given to Moses on Mount Sinai, but it subsequently became lost, and had to restored by a redactor who compiled a numbered of disparate versions. He regarded Ezra as this redactor. Under this intermediate version, which basically represents the view of the Union for Traditional Judaism and the more traditional wing of Conservative Judaism, there was a revelation, and the existing Scripture is the best available evidence of that revelation, and different versions no more invalidate its divinity than the need to select and redact different versions of the Oral Law described in the Talmud. The question of the status of the Torah was expressly addressed in a series of opinions on the subject of Homosexuality and Judaism (See Conservative Halakha#Homosexuality). The most small-c conservative view, by Joel Roth, stated that:

That, then, brings us to the following issue: Assuming that the type of biblical scholarship we have all been taught is correct, does that mean that the Torah is, in fact, not Divine and legally infallible? I believe that it does not mean that. [1]

Joel Roth's opinion -- accepted by a majority of Conservative Judaism's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards -- proceeded to specifically cite HaLivni as a person who had managed to successfully reconcile the Divinity and infallibility of the Torah with "the type of biblical scholarship we have all been taught". This is not necessarily my own view, but as one of the official views of Conservative Judaism adapted by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (as well as HaLivni's Union for Traditional Judaism) it is necessarily a notable one.

It seems that HaLivni is simply one of a substantial number of people who accept multiple authors and redaction, but who do not accept certain academic claims about the motives behind these multiple individuals, yet claim to be following the Documentary hypothesis. Are you saying that what they are doing simply isn't the Documentary Hypothesis? Are you saying that their claims that it is are unreliably sourced? --Shirahadasha 18:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: Slrubinstein has rewritten the paragraph, and I have no objection to it as it stands. I made a small change which I think is more accurate (changing "the Entire Bible" to "the Torah"), but it's completely objective and informative now, as far as I'm concerned. Carlo 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Carlo, what most clergy (or rabbis) believe, and what most Christians (or Jews) believe, is irrelevant. These are groups of people who by definition take a God-centred view, and cannot abandon belief in the Bible as being in some sense God's word. Their positions are no doubt sincere, but they are wilfully misunderstanding the DH. Nevertheless, and oddly enough, I can accept the current text. That said, the section isn't complete: it's headed Textual Criticism, but deals almost exclusively with the DH, which is a critique of the Torah alone. Where's the rest of the scholarly critique of the Bible - no mention of the Deuteronomic History, the Court History, the prophets, etc etc etc. The section needs a major revamp. PiCo 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They have all been to seminary, they all have Doctorates or Master's Degrees, and have received an enormous amount of education on the Torah, quite a bit of it from a secular standpoint, including the methods of higher criticism, and have passed a test that makes the Bar Exam look simple. Perhaps it is YOU who misunderstands the DH. Carlo 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's you who don't understand the difference between textual criticism and theology. As for the difficulty of their examinations, it pales into insignificance beside that passed by the highest rank of ayatollah in Iran - but the ayatollahs aren't genuine scholars either. PiCo 04:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Perhaps it might be helpful to focus more on the content of the article. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No one would question that there are people who believe in both the DH and divine inspiration (and I have no objection to including that view). But there are also many people who not only believe in the DH and reject divine inspiration, but who see the DH as a serious threat to religious orthodoxy. That view should also be in the article. And there are many scholars who work within the DH (not Rabbis Weiss halivni and Roth, whoa re very well-resepcted Talmud scholars and I do not dismiss their views which are relevant to this article - but they are not Biblical historians, my point being they do not exemplify the views of biblical historians) and see divine revelation as irrelevant. And this view too muct be represented in the article. [User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | Talk 11:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So you would like to talk about the theology of inspiration, then. Do you think the DH section the right place to do this? Lostcaesar 12:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just meake it clear that these historians interpret the Bible by looking at influences on the authors of the texts, and do not include divine revelation as one of thos influences. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to unbundle the ideas and provide individual claims for separate consideration, along with supporting arguments and evidence. --Shirahadasha 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Want to remind folks that the purpose is not to debate the merits of the various positions, simply to identify notable positions that need to be presented in the article in a neutral way. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are very constructive, Shirahadacha. My only concern is this: that the views of the major propmonents of the DH/Higher Criticism, and the views of Biblical historians not making any theological claims, be expressed in a clear and distinct way. I think it is perfectly reasonable to include sections laying out the views of different religious movements, theologicans, and clergy (do you know Elliot Dorff's book, Conservative Judaism: Our Ancestors to our Descendents or something like that - he has a breif schematization of distinct Jewish responses that may be useful though of course it is neither exhaustive nor detailed). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have 2 problems with the current version of the Dh section of the article. The first is that a couple of paragbrpahs have been dropped - those following the opening sentence abt the encyclical De Spritu Afflatus. Those paragrpahs are important - that encyclical was a major step opening up Catholic scholarship to textual criticism, and it needs to be explained in full. Second, the material on Jewish theological responses to the DH is not, in fact, theological responses to the DH or to modern textual criticism - textual criticism isn't mentioned, just some theological poisitions which seem to have been reached on a priori grounds. This material doesn't belong in this section. (I don't know where it does belong, but not here.) PiCo 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I could write up a little thing on the Catholic position concerning Biblical scholarship if we wish to have such a section. Perhaps we should create a section dedicated to biblical inspiration / inerrance. Lostcaesar 07:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, no paragraphs have been dropped: I just moved the statement about the encyclical to a later section. Second, the theological statements concerning Jewish positions really are responses to the DH (among other things). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WRT this section, it appears to currently imply that some scholars read Hamlet to learn about 7th century Denmark. Perhaps the language here could be tightened? john k 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

4 Maccabbees

I removed it from the list of Eastern Orthodox Apocrypha. I know of no church that uses it, and my NRSV, which gives a pretty detailed rundown of such things, lists no church that uses it, but simply says it appears in an appendix to the LXX. IF anyone can actually show a church using it, add it back. Carlo 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha:An Ecumenical Study Bible simply states that it is included as an appendix in the Greek Bible. jonathon 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Commentaries

One of the major English commentaries is not listed at the bottom under commentaries. Kretzmann's Popular Commentary is used by thousands of Christians world-wide. It has been in use since the '20's and is still popular today amoung moderate to conservative Lutherans. The online link is http://www.kretzmannproject.org . Could someone who has the cred & status to add it to the list please add it? 192.160.64.49 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

How did God give the bible to humans?

Okay, assuming that the bible really was written by God himself, how exactly did humans obtain the Bbble? Did God's arm extend down from the sky and hand the bible to someone? Did it just start appearing in libraries and hotel room drawers one day? Humor aside, this is a serious question. Can anyone provide an explanation to exactly how the Bible came to be in human hands? If this was addressed somewhere in the article, then please forgive me; it's a very long article, and I didn't want to scan it for the answer. However, if this issue is not addressed in the article, then it should be. EvaXephon 10:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Q. Okay, assuming that the bible really was written by God himself,

Ans :- Bible is written by men, God choose the saints to write it. It is inspired by God. So that men can follow what God wants from us.

Q. how exactly did humans obtain the Bbble?

Ans :- Answer Above.

Q. Did God's arm extend down from the sky and hand the bible to someone?

Ans:- No.

Did it just start appearing in libraries and hotel room drawers one day?

Ans :- No.

I think that is all?. If you need more answers you can do here :- http://www.gotquestions.org.

--SkyWalker 11:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the question is addressed somewhere in Wikipedia, but offhand I can't say where. Anyway, the short answer is that there's no single answer. To begin with the Torah (the first five books of the Christian Old Testament, from Genesis to Deuteronomy), the traditional Jewish view was that these were written by Moses shortly before his death. Moses had witnessed much of what is in the Torah (from Exodus to Deuteronomy), and God revealed to him what's written in Genesis (the only book of the five in which Moses is not a major actor). As for the books making up the rest of the Old Testament, the traditional view was that they were largely written by the people whose names are attached to them - Joshua by Joshua, Samuel by Samuel, etc etc - acting under God's inspiration. For the Christian bible the traditional view was that the four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, etc, - were based on eyewitness accounts, while the various letters were ascribed to the various authors whose names are attached to them. All the authors were believed to have been guided by divine inspiration, but not to have taken direct revelation from God (except in the case of the final book) - this is somewhat different from the case of the many of the books of the Hebrew bible, which were traditionally believed to represent direct revelation. So to sum up, the traditional view is not that God wrote the bible, but that it came to man through a mix of revelation and inspiration, involving a variety of human (but divinely guided) authors. PiCo 05:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The answer is simple: He downloaded it. Wahkeenah 06:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Answer to contradictions.

from http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=15

Supposed Contradiction # 1:

Gen. 1:11 has the trees made on day 3 before man; Gen. 2:8 has the trees made on day 6 after man. Gen. 1:20 has birds made out of the water on day 5; Gen. 2:19 has birds made out of the ground (after man) on day 6. Gen. 1:24, 25 has the animals made on day 6 before man; Gen. 2:19 has the animals made on day 6 after man Explanation of supposed contradiction:

Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened. Gen. 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation. Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden. The trees described in Genesis 2:8 are only in the Garden (the rest of the world is already full of trees from day 3). The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day 6 and was only those trees that are "pleasant to the sight and good for food."

The birds created out of the ground on day 6 are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day 5.

Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Gen. 2:19) and select a wife (Gen. 2:20). Adam, not finding a suitable one (God knew he wouldn't), God made Eve (Gen. 2:21-22).

There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail the events in the Garden of Eden on day 6. If ancient man had written the Bible (as some scoffers say), he would never have made it say that the light was made before the sun! Many ancient cultures worshiped the sun as the source of life. God is light. God made the light before He made the sun so we could see that He (not the sun) is the source of life.

Supposed contradiction # 2:

How many chariot horses did Solomon have, 40,000 (I Kings 4:26) or 4,000 (II Chron. 9:25)?

I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." II Chron. 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen;" Explanation of supposed contradiction:

Read the verses carefully and you will see that there is no contradiction. They had chariot teams with ten horses and ten men per chariot in case you got a flat tire! If he had "four thousand stalls for horses and chariots" he would need fourty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots. Many modern versions of the Bible try to "fix" what they thought was a mistake and actually created an error.

Supposed contradiction # 3:

How many men did David kill, 700 (II Sam. 10:18) or 7,000 (I Chron 19:18)?

II Sam. 10:18 "And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians," I Chron. 19:18 "But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots," Explanation of supposed contradiction:

Since they had ten men per chariot both verses are fine.

Supposed contradiction # 4:

How many died in the plague?

Numbers 25:9 "And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand." [24,000] I Cor. 10:8 "Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand." [23,000] Explanation of supposed contradiction:

Obviously 1,000 died the next day! There is no contradiction.

Supposed contradiction # 5:

How much gold did Solomon get from Ophir, 450 talents or 420?

I Kings 9:26-28 "And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon." 2 Chronicles 8:17-18 "Then went Solomon to Eziongeber, and to Eloth, at the sea side in the land of Edom. And Huram sent him by the hands of his servants ships, and servants that had knowledge of the sea; and they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king Solomon." Explanation of supposed contradiction:

This is talking about two different trips! We can see from other verses that obviously many trips to Ophir were made! "For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks." 1 Kings 10:22 "Even three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, to overlay the walls of the houses withal:" 1 Chronicles 29:4

Supposed contradiction # 6:

Isn't "Easter" an error in Acts 12:4? Shouldn't pascha be "passover" like every other version has?

Acts 12:1-4 1Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. The word 'Easter' is the correct word and the KJV is the only version I have seen that gets it right. Read Ex. 12 and Num. 28:16-17 and it will be clear that the Passover came before the days of unleavened bread.

In fact, by translating "pascha" as "passover" in Acts 12:4 modern bibles have inserted an ERROR that displays not only their lack of knowledge of Greek in context, but even more their lack of knowledge of ENGLISH!

You see, the man who INVENTS a particular word is the world's foremost authority on that word. In this case, the word "passover" was INVENTED by William Tyndale. Thus, William Tyndale knew the CORRECT definition of "passover" since he INVENTED the word "passover" in the first place.

Singular to relate, William Tyndale did NOT use the word HE INVENTED - "passover" - in Acts 12:4. Why? Why did William Tyndale not use the word HE INVENTED in Acts 12:4? Because, as Dr. Thomas Holland demonstrated, the days of unleavened bread come AFTER Passover. That's ONE reason Tyndale did not employ the word HE INVENTED in Acts 12:4. The second reason, of course, is because Herod was looking forward to the pagan feast of Ishtar, from which the word "Easter" is derived, and so Tyndale, who INVENTED the word "passover" did NOT use the word "passover" in Acts 12:4 in HIS OWN TRANSLATION.

In summary, had modern translators bothered to learn ENGLISH etymology, they would have discovered that the INVENTOR of the word "passover" declined to use the word HE INVENTED in this verse, because the INVENTOR of the word "passover" did not want to MISTRANSLATE the passage, as modern bibles have done.

An article which appeared in The Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record states: "When Tyndale applied his talents to the translation of the New Testament from Greek into English, he was not satisfied with the use of a completely foreign word, and decided to take into account the fact that the season of the passover was known generally to English people as 'easter' ... Tyndale has ester or easter fourteen times, ester-lambe eleven times, esterfest once, and paschall lambe three times. When he began his translation of the Pentateuch, he was again faced with the problem in Exodus 12:11 and twenty-one other places, and no doubt recognizing the easter in this context would be an anachronism he coined a new word, passover and used it consistently in all twenty-two places. It is, therefore, to Tyndale that our language is indebted for this meaningful and appropriate word." Some points to ponder about Easter:

The Passover was at night on the 14th day of April. The seven days of unleavened bread always followed the Passover. The pagan festival of Astart or Ishtar (Easter) was always held late in April to celebrate the earth regenerating itself after winter. That is why rabbits (Playboy) and eggs, symbols of fertility are used. The feast days are never called the Passover anywhere in scripture. Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread after Passover. Herod wanted to kill him during his own pagan festival of Easter coming up in a few days. KJV is the only version to get it right.

Supposed contradiction # 7:

Did David pay 600 shekels in gold or 50 shekels in silver for the land?

2 Samuel 24:24 "And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver." 1 Chronicles 21:25 "So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight." There is no contradiction. 50 shekels of silver was paltry (reference Exodus 21:32) to pay for a site that was later to become the temple mount. However, it might be an appropriate figure to pay for a yoke of oxen. I Chronicles seems to indicate that the initial discussion was about the property. Ornan then offered David the oxen too. David paid 600 shekels in gold for the land and 50 shekels in silver for the oxen.

If this is the best that Zathras can do, he should go pick up a hundred year old book on higher criticism. At least those arguments against inspiration had some depth. This is too easy!

Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. So what? God is light and He will be the light of heaven long after the sun is gone (Revelation 21:23). Obviously He could have created a stream of light before He made the sun. Dr. Russell Humphrey's has suggested an intriguing explanation of the light God initiated on the first day. It is detailed in his theory of White Hole cosmology 01.

Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. Genesis 2:8-9 does not describe the creation of trees but the creation of the garden of Eden for Adam to live in. In it God planted many trees, among them the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.

Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created. Genesis 2:19 does not describe the creation of birds (which came out of the seas). Rather, God made one more of each kind of creature from the ground directly before Adam, so that he could name them. It was a second creative act, this one later in the day and only in the garden, that familiarized Adam with all of the kinds of animals he was to rule over.

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created. See above.

Genesis 1:28 God encourages reproduction. Leviticus 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth, which, in effect, makes childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that for a son.) Baloney. Can't Zathras distinguish between being ceremonially unclean and sinning? I make my son wash his hands after playing in the sandbox. Does that make him disobedient to play there? A woman with an issue of blood was also said to be unclean, just a couple of chapters later. Does that make her sinful?

Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation. Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. (Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.) God was pleased to give man a free will. He is not pleased when man uses that to rebel.

Genesis 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses. Exodus 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian Bondage, during the life of Moses. Moses wrote (actually collected 10 eye witness accounts and edited) Genesis and used the name for God that was revealed to him.

Genesis 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit. Genesis 5:5 Adam lived 930 years. There is physical death (the separation of the soul from the body) and spiritual death (the separation of the soul from God). In a physical sense, Adam BEGAN to die that day. In a spiritual sense, which God consistently uses thereafter (see Ephesians 2:1 and John 8:51) Adam died immediately; that is, his sin separated him from his Creator the instant he ate the fruit.

Genesis 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil. Hebrews 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil. Your interpretation of Genesis 2 is totally screwed up. Their sin was disobedience (doing evil) not wanting to know something.

Genesis 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's. 2Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike. God DOES treat all alike. Those that offer improper sacrifices (like Cain) are rejected. If Abel had offered a bloodless sacrifice, he would have been rejected too.

Genesis 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is. Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24-25, Hebrews 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view. God gave Cain a chance to come clean. I ASK my boy if he took a cookie that I watched him snitch for the same reason.

Genesis 4:15, Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 34:8 God is a vengeful god. Exodus 15:3, Isaiah 42:13, Hebrews 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire. Exodus 20:5, 34:14, Deuteronomy 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god. Leviticus 26:7-8, Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 10:40, Judges 14:19, Ezekiel 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing. Numbers 25:3-4, Deuteronomy 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, Psalms 7:11, 78:49, Jeremiah 4:8, 17:4, 32:30-31, Zephaniah 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce. 2Samuel 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it." Ezekiel 6:12, Nahum 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and rocks are thrown down by him." 2Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1John 4:8, 16 God is love. Galatians 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. God hates sin and evil and God loves goodness. So what is the problem? His holiness means He must execute a just penalty for sin. God's love provides a means of forgiveness in Christ for all who will avail themselves. There is no contradiction here.

Genesis 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord. Jeremiah 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth. God took on a form to speak with Cain (much like Moses at the burning bush or Abraham at his tent). Cain walked away from his encounter with God.

Genesis 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood. Genesis 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood. Numbers 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood. Some of Adam's descendants were giants. Some of Noah's descendants were giants. Some giants have lived in recent history. So what?

Genesis 6:6. Exodus 32:14, Numbers 14:20, 1Samuel 15:35, 2Samuel 24:16 God does change his mind. Numbers 23:19-20, Isaiah 15:29, James 1:17 God does not change his mind. God never changes. His actions towards us change as WE change (much as the sun changes when I put on my shades).

Genesis 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's Ark. Genesis 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark. Zathras really stretches this time. If seven of *some* are taken, than two of *each* kind ARE taken. There is no contradiction. A contradiction would require that two of some kind NOT be taken!

Genesis 7:1 Noah was righteous. Job 1:1,8, Job 2:3 Job was righteous. Luke 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous. James 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective). 1John 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians). Romans 3:10, 3:23, 1John 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous. This is at least a reasonable objection...oft-refuted, but reasonable. God is totally, completely spotlessly righteous. He alone is perfectly holy. When men are described as "righteous," it is always in a comparative way (ie Job 2:3 "there is none like him on the earth"). Men can only become guiltless before the bar of the Almighty by being pardoned through the blood of Christ.

Genesis 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark. Genesis 7:13 They enter the Ark (again?). Come on! It is reiterating the event with a specific dating scheme in Noah's life.

Genesis 11:7-9 God sows discord. Proverbs 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord. God did not sow discord (contention). He confused the languages. BTW, there are a lot of things that God does that He forbids man to do. So what? That is only reasonable.

Genesis 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world. 1Corinthians 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion. This is taken out of context. God is not the author of confusion IN THE CHURCH.

Genesis 11:12 Arpachshad [Arphaxad] was the father of Shelah. Luke 3:35-36 Cainan was the father of Shelah. Arpachshad was the grandfather of Shelah. Cainan was left out of Genesis. It is also possible that it was purposefully left out of this genealogy. While this would appear unusual, there are a few kings left out in Matthew 1:8. It also appears that in the Jewish tradition, the designation "son" was somewhat flexible. There are multiple instances in the scripture where a grandson is called a son or a son in law is called a son.

Genesis 11:16 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born. Genesis 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time). Genesis 12:4, Acts 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years. This is a decent point since it appears contradictory on the surface. However, Terah could have STARTED bearing at age 70 (following the pattern of the genealogy in which the childless years are mentioned first) and Abram could have been born last when Terah was 130. This is not unreasonable since Abram himself bore children later than that. (Genesis 17:17 indicates he was ten years older than Sarah. Genesis 23:1 says Sarah died at 127. Genesis 25:1-2 tells us that Abraham was still bearing children with his subsequent wife several years later.) Furthermore, Abraham's brother got married, had Lot, and died ALL before Abram got married. So Abram's brother, Haran, would have been MUCH older.

Genesis 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, Exodus 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, Numbers 12:7-8,14:14, Job 42:5, Amos 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen. Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1John 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him. The amazing thing is that these verses resolve your confusion themselves! No one has seen God in all his glory. In Exodus, God hid Moses from seeing his face. Isaiah, John, and others saw a vision of God. God takes on a form (like a burning bush to Moses or a whirlwind to Job) before conversing with man.

Genesis 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel. Genesis 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.

Genesis 10 is a genealogy that covers centuries. It includes the period before Babel when there was one language (described in chapter 11) and continues well after Babel detailing the divisions of languages that resulted from Babel.

Genesis 16:15, 21:1-3, Galatians 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Hebrews 11:17 Abraham had only one son. The passage in Hebrews is being chopping off midthought to create a contradiction. "He that received the promise offered up his only begotten son of whom it was said..." God had promised Isaac. Abraham got Ishmael outside of God's will.

Genesis 17:1, 35:11, 1Chronicles 29:11-12, Luke 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible with (or for) God. Judges 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because the latter had iron chariots. What is this supposed to mean?

Comments from Jonathan Sampson:

Let's look at the verse inwhich the Scoffer claims the contradiction sits: Judges 1:19 (kjv) And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. This is an observation that I made in reading this page. Notice the Word of God states "the LORD was with Judah," not "the LORD was fighting along side Judah against the inhabitants of the valley." While reading this page, I've seen that this particular Scoffer often takes things out of context and omits valuable information in his/her postings. This seems to be another case. I did not find in my Bible that the LORD was fighting along side Judah, but instead that the LORD was with Judah. All through scripture it is made clear that trials, tribulation, persecution and other things strengthen our relationship with God. We learn to depend on Him. God never promised that life would be easy, to my knowledge, He only promised he would never leave us. And He never has. I have experienced many trials in my life. I've "won some and lost some," but the LORD has never left me. He's with me through thick and thin (Hebrews 13:5), victory and defeat. I am sure this is the case with Judah as well. NO CONTRADICTION! Genesis 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting. Galatians 6:15 It is of no consequence. You are comparing the longevity of a covenant with its potency (apples and oranges). Circumcision is an everlasting covenant. But it is of no value in taking away sin. It never saved anybody.

Genesis 17:8 God promises Abraham the land of Canaan as an "everlasting possession." Genesis 25:8, Acts 7:2-5, Hebrews 11:13 Abraham died with the promise unfulfilled. Abraham was in possession of plenty of Canaan when he died. But you miss the point of the verse. The promised was to be fulfilled in Abraham AND his seed. One of the most amazingly fulfilled prophecies is the rebirth of the nation of Israel in their ancestral homeland.

Genesis 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive God's blessings. Leviticus 20:17, Deuteronomy 27:20-23 Incest is wrong. So what? Good people can do wrong things. Besides, the laws you cite were not given till long after Abraham had died. Ex post facto laws.

Genesis 18:20-21 God decides to "go down" to see what is going on. Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24-25, Hebrews 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view. God went down to check out Sodom to give Abraham a chance to intercede for it, and to demonstrate the wickedness of the Sodomites; not because he was unable to check it out from heaven.

Genesis 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and give birth to his offspring. 2Peter 2:7 Lot was "just" and "righteous." Remember whenever "righteous" is used of man, it is comparative. Good people are not always perfect. If your ONLY flaw was getting drunk for a couple of nights, I would say that you were pretty righteous too.

Genesis 22:1-12, Deuteronomy 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses. Judges 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt). 1Corinthians 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations. James 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one. Note Hebrews 11:17. A better translation of the Greek "peirazo" is "tried" (or proved, tested). God examines us much like a master teacher...to demonstrate our faith (or lack thereof) and to mature us. James uses it in this sense earlier in the chapter (James 1:2-3). There is a very different Greek used in verse 13. "Peirasmos" means "a solicitation to do evil." It is based on our lusts or on Satanic seductions.

Genesis 27:28 "May God give you ... an abundance of grain and new wine." Deuteronomy 7:13 If they follow his commandments, God will bless the fruit of their wine. Psalms 104:5 God gives us wine to gladden the heart. Jeremiah 13:12 "... every bottle shall be filled with wine." John 2:1-11 According to the author of John, Jesus' first miracle was turning water to wine. Romans 14:21 It is good to refrain from drinking wine. Once again you create a contradiction by screwing up the sentence. The point is not that there is anything wrong with eating certain meats or drinking wine. The problem is doing things needlessly that offend a Christian brother.

Genesis 35:10 God says Jacob is to be called Jacob no longer; henceforth his name is Israel. Genesis 46:2 At a later time, God himself uses the name Jacob. The Oriental tradition of changing names was to signify a watershed in someone's life. It was an official change. The point is NOT that God forbids everybody from calling him Jacob (in fact he is called Jacob just 4 verses later); rather the idea is that he would no longer be KNOWN as "deceiver" (Jacob) but as "God's fighter" (Israel).

Genesis 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz. Genesis 36:15-16 Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz. 1Chronicles 1:35-36 Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek. Take the time to read the passage carefully and you might just answer your own question. Genesis 36:12 adds Amalek (born by a concubine) to the list started in verse 11. You just plain miss Gatam and Amalek in Genesis 36:16. Later in the passage (perhaps adopted as a son) Timnah is added as a duke (Genesis 36:40). Therefore Genesis 36 matches Chronicles perfectly.

Genesis 49:2-28 The fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, and Benjamin. Revelation 7:4-8 (Leaves out the tribe of Dan, but adds Manasseh.) This is not a contradiction. It is a change. Some have postulated this change was because of the idolatry that was started in Dan, which eventually caused Israel to be judged and to go into bondage.

Genesis 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite. Acts 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of Hamor. The sepulchre was a cave. (Note Genesis 23:6-9 where the original story is told.) Machpelah is the region that became Shechem. Again from the original story, we see that Abraham bought it from the sons of Hamor, specifically from Ephron who lived among them and had the field with the sepulchre. When Jacob returned to his ancestral homeland (Genesis 33:17-19) he found that children of Hamor had conquered and inhabited the region. He repurchased the field from Shechem's dad, Hamor.

Exodus 3:1 Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses. Numbers 10:29, Judges 4:11 (KJV) Hobab was the father-in-law of Moses. Many OT figures had two names. This was particularly common in the ancient traditions when one was leaving one clan to join another nation (Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, etc.). Jethro was a Midianite. Likely he was given a Hebrew name when he joined the Israelites.

Exodus 3:20-22, Deuteronomy 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to despoil the Egyptians, to plunder their enemies. Exodus 20:15, 17, Leviticus 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbor. First, the rules of warfare are, and have always been distinct from the rules in society (shooting down an enemy plane is morally different from shooting my wife amidst an argument). Secondly, God made these laws for man, not for himself. He can take (or command to be taken) whatever He wants, anytime He wants. He is God.

[since this same objection is repeated below ad nauseum, I will only say "dittos" from now on]

Exodus 4:11 God decides who will be dumb, deaf, blind, etc. 2Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1John 4:8, 16 God is a god of love. Sickness, disease, suffering, and death are a result of sin and man's rebellion against God. God in justice judged the world. God in love provides a means of salvation so that we can live in bliss with Him. Perhaps YOU do not think that this is "loving" enough for you. But you are not a HOLY God who has been offended by sin.

Exodus 9:3-6 God destroys all the cattle (including horses) belonging to the Egyptians. Exodus 9:9-11 The people and the cattle are afflicted with boils. Exodus 12:12, 29 All the first-born of the cattle of the Egyptians are destroyed. Exodus 14:9 After having all their cattle destroyed, then afflicted with boils, and then their first-born cattle destroyed, the Egyptians pursue Moses on horseback. You first premise is wrong. The murrain was on the cattle and the horses (Exodus 9:3). No doubt many of them died. However, verse six states that all the cattle died. It does not include the horses, asses, camels etc.

Exodus 12:13 The Israelites have to mark their houses with blood in order for God to see which houses they occupy and "pass over" them. Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24-25, Hebrews 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from God. God does not say He needed the blood to SEE WHICH house was occupied by Israelites. He promised that WHEN He saw the blood, he would pass by that house (including, no doubt, some believing Egyptians).

Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as more than 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of about 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt. 1Kings 20:15 All the Israelites, including children, number only 7000 at a later time. This is height of absurdity. First of all, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms at the time of I Kings 20. Secondly, the context is that king Ahab was besieged in Samaria (capital of the northern kingdom), and therefore could only count everybody in the city. Thirdly, he was counting ALL the children of Israel available for battle (verse 14).

Exodus 15:3, 17:16, Numbers 25:4, 32:14, Isaiah 42:13 God is a man of war--he is fierce and angry. Romans 15:33, 2Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1John 4:8, 16 God is a god of love and peace. God is characterized by both. So was Ronald Reagan. So what?

Exodus 20:1-17 God gave the law directly to Moses (without using an intermediary). Galatians 3:19 The law was ordained through angels by a mediator (an intermediary). Just because Exodus 20 does not mention angels does not mean they played no role. Nowhere does it say he did not use an intermediary. (Note that the ten commandments in stone were said to be literally etched by God's finger.)

Exodus 20:4 God prohibits the making of any graven images whatsoever. Exodus 25:18 God enjoins the making of two graven images. Yet again you stop mid-sentence, wrest it out of context, and manufacture a contradiction. Read before and after in Exodus 20. God was not forbidding someone from whittling or doing sculpture work! He is talking about making up a god, then engraving it, and then worshipping it.

Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, Isaiah 14:21-22 Children are to suffer for their parent's sins. Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:19-20 Children are not to suffer for their parent's sins. You are confusing at least three different concepts. When a NATION had become so corrupt that God was going to completely wipe it out (Isaiah 14) obviously all, young and old, would suffer this judgment. Under the law of Moses, God (not society) would punish a HOUSEHOLD to the third and fourth generation for the parent's sins. Perhaps this was a result of the way households were structured and the collective way decisions were carried out. Ezekiel 18:1-3 indicates that the SOCIETAL RULE was to be changed so that children would not die for the parent's sin. This is not a contradiction. It is an attempt to change something that should not have been going on in Israeli society (Deuteronomy 24:16).

Exodus 20:8-11, 31:15-17, 35:1-3 No work is to be done on the Sabbath, not even lighting a fire. The commandment is permanent, and death is required for infractions. Mark 2:27-28 Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (after his disciples were criticized for breaking the Sabbath). Romans 14:5, Colossians 2:14-16 Paul says the Sabbath commandment was temporary, and to decide for yourself regarding its observance. The disciples did not do work. They violated the Pharisees guidelines. Christ fulfilled the law, and the ceremonial portions stopped being in effect at his death. This is the change Paul references in Galatians 3:24-25. It is not a contradiction.

Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, Matthew 15:4, 19:19, Mark 7:10, 10:19, Luke 18:20 Honor your father and your mother is one of the ten commandments. It is reinforced by Jesus. Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 12:51-53, 14:26 Jesus says that he has come to divide families; that a man's foes will be those of his own household; that you must hate your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and even your own life to be a disciple. Matthew 23:9 Jesus says to call no man on earth your father. You can still honor someone that you hate. So there is no contradiction even if one ignorantly believes Christ is saying we are to dislike our parents. However, the English word hate poorly captures the comparative nature of what Christ said. When considered next to our love for God, our love for our parents (and even ourselves) should dim to nothing in comparison.

Exodus 20:14 God prohibits adultery. Hosea 1:2 God instructs Hosea to "take a wife of harlotry." Hosea did not commit adultery (his wife had, but not him). Where is the contradiction?

Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 A life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc. Matthew 5:38-44, Luke 6:27-29 Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies. Please! How can Christ be more clear? He plainly is changing the law to initiate the age of grace in which we now live. READ the whole passage.

Exodus 34:6, Deuteronomy 7:9-10, Titus 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie. Numbers 14:30 God breaks his promise. God made a promise to bring the nation of Israel into Canaan. He took them up to the edge and (with a couple of exceptions) they rebelled and decided not to go in. Therefore God fulfilled his promise in the next generation. God never promised that EVERY individual that left Egypt would get to Canaan. Many died for various reasons in the wilderness. Even Moses did not make it in.

Exodus 34:6, Deuteronomy 7:9-10, Titus 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie. 1Kings 22:21-23 God condones a spirit of deception. God PERMITS evil spirits and evil men to do much harm. That does not mean he is untruthful or condones their actions.

Exodus 34:6, Deuteronomy 7:9-10, Titus 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie. 2Thessalonians 2:11-12 God deludes people, making them believe what is false, so as to be able to condemn them. (Note: some versions use the word persuade here. The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.) Since when have you become concerned about context? God's patience is long, but it has limits. After several miracles in which Pharoah hardened his heart, God hardened Pharoah's heart so that he COULD not repent (Exodus 10:1-2). The context clearly indicates that these people had ample opportunity to repent; yet they had chosen the lie of Satan (vs 9) over the truth of God (vs 10 and vs 12). Therefore, in vs 11 God gives them over to a life of delusion. This is not God lying to them or deceiving them. It is God permanently sealing the fate that THEY decided upon.

Exodus 34:6-7, Joshua 24:19, 1Chronicles 16:34 God is faithful, holy and good. Isaiah 45:6-7, Lamentations 3:8, Amos 3:6 God is responsible for evil. There are two senses in which evil is used in the KJV. One involves a moral failure on the part of someone. The other is a misfortune that befalls someone. God causes the second to happen, but not the first. Some have argued that God did wrong to even create the potential of evil. However, it is not possible to make light shine without there being darkness. Similarly, it is not possible for God to have created "good" without the potential for "evil." To do otherwise would have been to create an amoral robotic machinery with no will.

Exodus 34:6-7, Hebrews 9:27 God remembers sin, even when it has been forgiven. Jeremiah 31:34 God does not remember sin when it has been forgiven. You once again confuse multiple issues. God judges sin. As Exodus 34 states, the consequences do not stop just because the sin is forgiven (see also II Samuel 12:13-14). God knows everything and never forgets as way we do. Yet, once sins are forgiven, He chooses to never again bring it up to be used against the sinner.

The second issue is the difference between the way sin was treated under the law. It was never wiped out and required annual sacrifices as a memorial of this limitation. Sin was merely covered temporarily by the sacrifice of blood, awaiting the coming perfect sacrifice that would wash away all sin. Jeremiah speaks prophetically of this time. (Read the beginning of the chapter.) It was fulfilled in Christ. This difference is highlighted as Hebrews 10:3 is contrasted with Hebrews 10:17.

Leviticus 3:17 God himself prohibits forever the eating of blood and fat. Matthew 15:11, Colossians 2:20-22 Jesus and Paul say that such rules don't matter?they are only human injunctions. Neither Jesus or Paul discuss eating fat or blood. Christ was making the point that you do not get sinful inside by eating with dirty hands. Sin starts in the mind and works out. Paul was combating legalists and Judaizers that delighted in an ascetic lifestyle, adding a lot of unnecessary man-made laws as a means of being more righteous.

Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39 Love your neighbor [as much as] yourself. 1Corinthians 10:24 Put your neighbor ahead of yourself. One is a heart attitude (love) and the other is the practical follow through of it (self-sacrifice). Both go hand-in-hand.

Leviticus 21:10 The chief priest is not to rend his clothes. Matthew 26:65, Mark 14:63 He does so during the trial of Jesus. Bad chief priest! So what? (He did far worse than that in seeking to kill Christ.)

Leviticus 25:37, Psalms 15:1, 5 It is wrong to lend money at interest. Matthew 25:27, Luke 19:23-27 It is wrong to lend money without interest. In the ceremonial law instituted in the economy of Israel, God made interest on loans illegal. In telling the parable of this austere lord, Christ never indicates whether charging interest is right or wrong. However, the era of the ceremonial law ended (and with it the prohibition on charging interest) after Christ.

Numbers 11:33 God inflicts sickness. Job 2:7 Satan inflicts sickness. So what?

Comments from Jonathan Sampson:

Let's look at the two verses more carefully: Numbers 11:33 (kjv) And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.

Job 2:7 (kjv) So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. This "contradiction" is a clear and precise example of how desperate Scoffers are to make the Word of God look like anything less than Divinely-inspired material. Any rational person would clearly understand that both of these passages are relating to specific instances by both entities. God has indeed smote some people throughout history, and Satan has also smote some people. It's important to state that neither of the two passages claim that ALL SICKNESS is from God, nor does it state that ALL SICKNESS is from Satan. NO CONTRADICTION! Numbers 15:24-28 Sacrifices can, in at least some case, take away sin. Hebrews 10:11 They never take away sin. See above. In the OT, forgiven sins were merely *covered* by a blood sacrifice in anticipation of being taken away when Christ died.

Numbers 25:9 24,000 died in the plague. 1Corinthians 10:8 23,000 died in the plague. Read the passages! 23,000 died in ONE DAY. 24,000 died in the entire plague. So 1,000 died later, no contradiction.

Numbers 30:2 God enjoins the making of vows (oaths). Matthew 5:33-37 Jesus forbids doing so, saying that they arise from evil (or the Devil). Once again, Christ fulfilled and changed the OT law. He is very clear that He is making a change. There is no contradiction.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 A false prophet is one whose words do not come true. Death is required. Ezekiel 14:9 A prophet who is deceived, is deceived by God himself. Death is still required. You misunderstand Ezekiel 14 just like you did II Thessalonians 2:11. Regardless, there is no contradiction here. A contradiction would require God letting him off.

Deuteronomy 23:1 A castrate may not enter the assembly of the Lord. Isaiah 56:4-5 Some castrates will receive special rewards. So what? A guy with a machine gun is not allowed into the White House. Some guys with machine guns got purple hearts from the president.

Deuteronomy 23:1 A castrate may not enter the assembly of the Lord. Matthew 19:12 Men are encouraged to consider making themselves castrates for the sake of the Kingdom of God. You mischaracterize Matthew 19. But regardless, there is no contradiction.

Deuteronomy 24:1-5 A man can divorce his wife simply because she displeases him and both he and his wife can remarry. Mark 10:2-12 Divorce is wrong, and to remarry is to commit adultery. Christ changed the law and was very clear that He was initiating a change. A change is not a contradiction.

Deuteronomy 30:11-20 It is possible to keep the law. Romans 3:20-23 It is not possible to keep the law. Deuteronomy makes the point that the law is clear and plain so that we can understand and no excuse not to keep it. It never says a man will be able to go through his whole life perfectly and never break a single commandment. Paul's point is that no man has done that. Indeed, that is why sacrifices are an integral part of the law.

Joshua 11:20 God shows no mercy to some. Luke 6:36, James 5:11 God is merciful. To the contrary, God had mercy on the Amorites for many years (Genesis 15:16) till their iniquities reached a point that God determined to wipe them out (Joshua 11).

Judges 4:21 Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him. Judges 5:25-27 Sisera was standing. It does not say that he was standing when she killed him. It only says that after she hit him in the head (v25) he bowed, fell down, tried to rise again and fell again. Sounds like death throes to me.

Joshua 10:38-40 Joshua himself captured Debir. Judges 1:11-15 It was Othniel, who thereby obtained the hand of Caleb's daughter, Achsah. Does Zathras even try to understand the passage? Are these mistakes purposefully misunderstood or just massive incompetence? Joshua made a pass through the land with his whole army, wiping out all of the strongholds and destroying their cities. However, some of the cities were rebuilt by the inhabitants and needed to be reconquered. This second conquest of a weakened Debir could be performed by a small band led by Othniel. Judges starts off by saying that this event occurred AFTER Joshua died. The parallel passage is Joshua 15:16, not Joshua 10:38-40. READ the scriptures!

1Samuel 8:2-22 Samuel informs God as to what he has heard from others. Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24-25, Hebrews 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees and hears everything. So what? God delights to hear from us just like I delight to have my little boy come running up to me, exclaiming about something that I already know.

1Samuel 9:15-17 The Lord tells Samuel that Saul has been chosen to lead the Israelites and will save them from the Philistines. 1Samuel 15:35 The Lord is sorry that he has chosen Saul. 1Samuel 31:4-7 Saul commits suicide and the Israelites are overrun by the Philistines. First of all, God does not say Saul will save them from the Philistines; only that he was chosen to do the job. I Samuel 14:47-48 and subsequent chapters indicate that for a considerable time he was successful in performing this role. Ultimately, however, he fails to obey God and falls himself to the Philistines. Is this supposed to be God's fault?

1Samuel 15:7-8, 20 The Amalekites are utterly destroyed. 1Samuel 27:8-9 They are utterly destroyed (again?). 1Samuel 30:1, 17-18 They raid Ziklag and David smites them (again?). Firstly, I Samuel 15:9 indicates they were selective about their destruction, in disobedience to God's command. Secondly, when a nation is "utterly destroyed" it does not mean that EVERY person of that nationality (some of whom might not have even been in the area at the time) was killed. Undoubtedly there were some few who escaped or were traveling elsewhere that over the years returned and rebuilt their tribal homeland. In the first campaign they occupy a large kingdom of many cities. In the second instance they are individual cities that are weak enough to be conquered by David's outlaw band.

1Samuel 16:10-11, 17:12 Jesse had seven sons plus David, or eight total. 1Chronicles 2:13-15 He had seven total. These were times of ongoing warfare and Jesse's sons were right in the middle of it. Is it any surprise that he lost one by the time the genealogies were recorded in Chronicles?

1Samuel 16:19-23 Saul knew David well before the latter's encounter with Goliath. 1Samuel 17:55-58 Saul did not know David at the time of his encounter with Goliath and had to ask about David's identity. Saul saw David before the battle (I Samuel 17:38). Verses 55-58 do not say Saul did not know David. It says Saul asked WHOSE SON David was. Likely he had forgotten Jesse?s name (even though he had sent a couple of messages to Jesse in the earlier passage).

1Samuel 17:50 David killed Goliath with a slingshot. 1Samuel 17:51 David killed Goliath (again?) with a sword. Any Sunday School kid could straighten you out on this one. Goliath fell face down and David had to make sure he was dead by cutting off his head. It is called "finishing him off."

Comments from Jonathan Sampson:

David was doing as he said in 17:46. Simply doing as he had promised Goliath. 1Samuel 17:46 (kjv) David speaking to Goliath: This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. 1Samuel 17:50 David killed Goliath. 2Samuel 21:19 Elhanan killed Goliath. (Note: Some translations insert the words "the brother of" before Elhanan. These are an addition to the earliest manuscripts in an apparent attempt to rectify this inconsistency.) [Good reason to stick with the KJV!] Since when have you become concerned about the original manuscripts? Clearly the giant of II Samuel 21:19 is a different person since the timeframes are totally different and since the second is called "the Gittite." Perhaps these four were sons of Goliath (seems to be implied in vs 22) and one of them was named after his dad.

1Samuel 21:1-6 Ahimalech was high priest when David ate the bread. Mark 2:26 Abiathar was high priest at the time. Abiathar was the high priest. His dad, Ahimelech, is not called the high priest in I Samuel 21. At that time, he is merely described as a priest. (He may have been the ex-high priest in an arrangement like Caiphas and Annas at the time of Christ.)

1Samuel 28:6 Saul inquired of the Lord, but received no answer. 1Chronicles 10:13-14 Saul died for not inquiring of the Lord. Saul is a perfect illustration of Proverbs 1:24-26. The I Chronicles passage says Saul died for several things, including a pattern of not inquiring of the Lord. He did not change his ways until it was too late and God's judgment was already at the door.

1Samuel 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword. 2Samuel 2:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite. 2Samuel 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa. 1Chronicles 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God. God directed the death of Saul, as we detailed above. God used the Philistines to carry out his judgment. There is no contradiction to say "Saul was slain by the Philistines" since he committed suicide just as they were closing in to wipe him out. I believe you erred in one of your reference. Perhaps you meant II Samuel 1:2-10? Here the Amalekite lied through his teeth in hopes of a reward.

2Samuel 6:23 Michal was childless. 2Samuel 21:8 (KJV) She had five sons. Poor KJV translation. It was Michal's sister.

Comments from Jonathan Sampson:

I disagree on the claim that this is a poor translation by the KJV. There is no contradiction here. Michal and Merab (Michal's older sister) were both a part in this, obviously. Merab (the wife of Adriel according to I Samuel 18:19) more than likely had the children with Adriel, and Michal (who was in love with David according to I Samuel 18:20, and later married David according to I Samuel 18:27) "brought up" (IISamuel 21:8) the boys just as the KJV says. My aunt brought up my younger sister, although she was born by my birth mother. 2Samuel 24:1 The Lord inspired David to take the census. 1Chronicles 21:1 Satan inspired the census. Again, poor KJV translation in II Samuel 24:1. God permitted it, but Satan inspired it.

2Samuel 24:9 The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000. 1Chronicles 21:5 The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000. It could be that there were a few different numbers floating around wonder since I Chronicles 21:6 indicates that Joab purposely did a sloppy job and miscounted whole tribes since he found the king's command abominable. But the discrepancy can be resolved if we consider what was included and excluded in each count. Note that the 800,000 of Israel probably did not include the standing army of 288,000 described in I Chronicles 27:1-15 or the 12,000 specifically attached to the capital (II Chronicles 1:14). Conversely, the 470,000 count likely did not include the 30,000 in Judah's standing army (II Samuel 6:1).

2Samuel 24:10-17 David sinned in taking the census. 1Kings 15:5 David's only sin (ever) was in regard to another matter. I Kings 15:5 does not say David sinned only once. It says he deliberately broke God's command (likely referencing the ten commandments) only that one time.

2Samuel 24:24 David paid 50 shekels of silver for the purchase of a property. 1Chronicles 21:22-25 He paid 600 shekels of gold. On the surface this certainly appears to be contradictory. However, consider that 50 shekels of silver was paltry (reference Exodus 21:32) to pay for a site that was later to become the temple mount. However, it might be an appropriate figure to pay for a yoke of oxen. I Chronicles seems to indicate that the initial discussion was about the property. Ornan then offered David the oxen too. II Samuel 24:24 says he bought the property and the oxen for 50 shekels of silver. Perhaps it would be best rendered: David bought the property; and he also bought the oxen for an additional 50 shekels of silver.

1Kings 3:12 God made Solomon the wisest man that ever lived, yet .... 1Kings 11:1-13 Solomon loved many foreign women (against God's explicit prohibition) who turned him to other gods (for which he deserved death). Having wisdom and deciding to use it to make the proper decision are two totally different things. It is like having money and knowing how to invest it well. One of the perennial themes of tragic drama is the character who knows better and makes the fatal mistake anyway.

1Kings 3:12, 4:29, 10:23-24, 2Chronicles 9:22-23 God made Solomon the wisest king and the wisest man that ever lived. There never has been nor will be another like him. Matthew 12:42, Luke 11:31 Jesus says: "... now one greater than Solomon is here." Firstly, you are contrasting "wisdom" and "greatness" (apples and oranges). Secondly, there never was another man as wise as Solomon. Christ was God in the flesh and cannot be considered a mere man.

1Kings 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses). 2Chronicles 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses). Once again you fail to simply read scripture. Like anything else, this number changed over time. The passage in Kings takes place before the temple is built while the passage in Chronicles takes place many years later. The parallel passage to II Chronicles 9:25 is I Kings 10:26.

Comments from Dr. Hovind:

Many scoffers have cited I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" and II Chron. 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" as a contradiction. There is no contradiction. He had 40,000 stalls for horses yet only 4,000 stalls for the chariots. They had 10 men and 10 horses per chariot in case they got a "flat tire." See II Sam 10:18 "And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians," and I Chron. 119:18 "But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots," to show the same point. The men of 700 chariots would be 7000 men. 1Kings 5:16 Solomon had 3,300 supervisors. 2Chronicles 2:2 He had 3,600 supervisors. The passage in I Kings specifically excludes the "chief officers" of which there were likely 300.

1Kings 7:15-22 The two pillars were 18 cubits high. 2Chronicles 3:15-17 They were 35 cubits high. This would seem to be a pretty blatant mistake to make (getting the measurement wrong by twice). Let's consider the wording carefully. The I Kings passage says that "he cast two pillars of brass, of 18 cubits high APIECE..." The book of Kings further indicates at the time of the destruction of the temple (II Kings 25:16) that "the height of ONE pillar was 18 cubits..." the identical language is found in Jeremiah 52:20-21. II Chronicles uses slightly different language: "he made before the house TWO pillars of thirty and five cubits high..." Perhaps the author added them together to come up with a combined height. Since they were molten, formed from clay casts in the ground, perhaps they originally were formed and measured end to end (I Kings 7:46).

1Kings 7:26 Solomon's "molten sea" held 2000 "baths" (1 bath = about 8 gallons). 2Chronicles 4:5 It held 3000 "baths." Both are correct. It "received and held" up to 3000 baths (Chronicles). Kings says it "contained" 2000 baths. Apparently they did not make a practice of filling it to the top, perhaps keeping it convenient for the washing.

1Kings 8:12, 2Chronicles 6:1, Psalms 18:11 God dwells in thick darkness. 1Timothy 6:16 God dwells in unapproachable light. I dwell in New Hampshire AND in the United States AND in the world. Some of these places are more or less bright. God dwells in heaven in unapproachable light. Between the third heaven and earth is both a boundary of complete darkness so that no man would ever be able to see through it and the darkness of outer space. A good illustration of how God dwells in intense light within a protective sphere of darkness is Exodus 19:21, Exodus 20:21 and Exodus 24:15-18.

1Kings 8:13, Acts 7:47 Solomon, whom God made the wisest man ever, built his temple as an abode for God. Acts 7:48-49 God does not dwell in temples built by men. But God did visit the temple in a special way. In the end, the temple was more a place for man to go to commune with God than a house in which God could live on this earth. However, if I knew that God would similarly visit a house that I built, I would happily spend the rest of my life building it for Him.

1Kings 9:28 420 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir. 2Chronicles 8:18 450 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir. There were MANY trips to Ophir to get gold. I Chronicles 29:4 indicates that 3,000 talents of gold from Ophir were stored up just to prepare for the temple construction!

1Kings 15:14 Asa did not remove the high places. 2Chronicles 14:2-3 He did remove them. The Chronicles passage describes his cleansing of the cities in Judah (see vs 5). In chapter 15 he proceeds to cleanse Benjamin and portions of Ephraim of its idolatrous high places as well (15:8). However, the chapter ends like the passage in I Kings. Verse 17 indicates that he did not cleanse the remainder of the land. Perhaps he even permitted some to reappear in Judah by the end of his reign. (They went up and down quite regularly in those days.)

1Kings 16:6-8 Baasha died in the 26th year of King Asa's reign. 2Chronicles 16:1 Baasha built a city in the 36th year of King Asa's reign. In Jewish tradition there was no provision for a queen. Here, the queen-mother, Maachah, takes on an important role when her son Abijam dies after reigning only 3 years. She adopts one of his sons Asa (I Kings 15:10) apparently as a figure-head and actually reigns herself for the first 10 years (see II Chronicles 14:2). After this period, Asa wins a great battle, is encouraged by the prophet in chapter 15, and takes over. He cleans the idols out of Judah AND Benjamin (as noted above) and removes the idolatrous Maachah as queen (I Kings 15:13 and II Chronicles 15:16). Likely this ten-year reign of the Queen mother alongside Asa is the reason for the ten-year discrepancy in dating the Baasha event by how long Asa had ruled.

1Kings 16:23 Omri became king in the thirty-first year of Asa's reign and he reigned for a total of twelve years. 1Kings 16:28-29 Omri died, and his son Ahab became king in the thirty- eighth year of Asa's reign. (Note: Thirty-one through thirty-eight equals a reign of seven or eight years.) Here we have a complex plot. Elah had become the rightful king. But one of his generals, Zimri, conspired and killed him. Zimri, the traitor, begins to reign in the twenty-seventh year of Asa. He rules for only seven days (I Kings 16:15) before being overthrown by Omri, the other general. Omri immediately begins to reign but faces a rival king, Tibni (vs 21), who is supported by fully half of the population of Israel. Over the years, Omri prevails. When his rival dies, he becomes undisputed king over all Israel in vs 23. However, his total reign was from Asa's twenty-seventh year to Asa's thirty-eighth year, or roughly twelve years.

1Kings 22:23, 2Chronicles 18:22, 2Thesalonians 2:11 God himself causes a lying spirit. Proverbs 12:22 God abhors lying lips and delights in honesty. This identical objection has already been answered above.

1Kings 22:42-43 Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places. 2Chronicles 17:5-6 He did remove them. The Chronicles passage states that he took them out of JUDAH. No doubt he cleaned out the region around the capitol. II Chronicles 20:33 confirms the Kings passage that he never swept the whole land clean. Perhaps he also permitted some to crop back up by the end of his reign. (They appear to come and go a lot during this time.)

2Kings 2:11 Elijah went up to heaven. John 3:13 Only the Son of Man (Jesus) has ever ascended to heaven. 2Corinthians 12:2-4 An unnamed man, known to Paul, went up to heaven and came back. Hebrews 11:5 Enoch was translated to heaven. Your problem is with this interpretation of John. Christ is not saying that nobody had died and gone to heaven. That would be preposterous. Look at the context (vs. 11). Christ is chiding Nicodemus for doubting. If he did not believe Christ on earthly matters, which could be seen and verified; how then could he believe heavenly things where no man is able to go up and verify? Those that have seen heaven in the Scriptures have seen a vision (or have been brought there in spirit alone). They did not decide to up and see God. No man in the flesh can see God and live (I John 4:12), while obviously plenty have died and seen God. Incidentally, the event in II Corinthians had not yet transpired when John was written.

2Kings 4:32-37 A dead child is raised (well before the time of Jesus). Matthew 9:18-25, JN 11:38-44 Two dead persons are raised (by Jesus himself). Acts 26:23 Jesus was the first to rise from the dead. There are plenty of others that were raised which you do not cite (including by Paul himself). There is a fundamental difference, however. They all died again. Paul is talking about the resurrection to life (having a NEW body). See I Corinthians 15:20-23. Christ is the first with each who believe to follow.

2Kings 8:25-26 Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign. 2Chronicles 22:1 He was 42 when he began his reign. II Chronicles 21:20 says that Ahaziah's dad began to reign at age thirty-two. He reigned for eight years and then died (at age forty). Obviously his son could not have been forty-two at that time! This could be a copying error such that forty-two was substituted for twenty-two in the original. However, it is also possible that there were a couple of kings that reigned in quick succession here (since Ahaziah only reigned one year). Supporting this idea is the confusion of names that appear for the king at this time (Jehoahaz in II Chronicles 21:17 and Azariah in 22:6). Moreover, Matthew 1:8 completely skips this part of the genealogy, further confusing the issue. It also appears that Azariah was a VERY common name. Note in II Chronicles 21:2 that Ahaziah had two uncles named Azariah! Perhaps one of them reigned briefly. The age difference would certainly fit. Note also below.

2Kings 9:27 Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah fled to Meggido and died there. 2Chronicles 22:9 Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and put to death. It is very possible that we are dealing with two different individuals. In support of this, II Kings describes how Jehu, after shooting Ahaziah, goes to Samaria and kills numerous other members of the royal family (II Kings 10:12-14). Furthermore, the Ahaziah that is killed in II Chronicles 22:9 is said to be the son of Jehosophat (rather than grandson), and in II Chronicles 21:2 we note that Jehosophat did have two sons named Azariah. Note also above.

2Kings 16:5 The King of Syria and the son of the King of Israel did not conquer Ahaz. 2Chronicles 28:5-6 They did conquer Ahaz. It was not a black and white victory. The II Kings passage says that the Syrian/Israeli confederacy besieged Jerusalem (into which Ahaz had retreated) but did not overcome it. However, they did according to vs 6 take over large portions of Judah. The II Chronicles passage details the defeat and ransacking of the region around Jerusalem. The end of this chapter makes it clear that they did not capture Jerusalem or kill Ahaz (since the treasures were left intact).

2Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) was eighteen years old when he began to reign. 2CH 36:9 He was eight. (Note: This discrepancy has been "corrected" in some versions.) It is true that this is a discrepancy in our Hebrew texts. Some have suggested that he reigned jointly with his father for ten years (but there is no evidence in the scripture for such an explanation). Hebrew numbers were one of the biggest challenges for scribes that copied the texts through the centuries. Hebrews used letters in the place of numerals. The letters from Koph to Tau express hundreds up to four hundred. Five certain Hebrew letters written in a different form, carry hundreds up to nine hundred, while thousands are expressed by two dots over the proper unit letter (for example the letter Teht, used alone, stands for 9; with two dots it stands for nine thousand). Error in transcription of Hebrew numbers thus becomes easy, preservation of numerical accuracy extremely difficult.

2Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) reigned three months. 2Chronicles 36:9 He reigned three months and ten days. This is truly pathetic! If you complain that the Kings passage is incorrect because the Chronicles passage is more precise, than you could never be satisfied. For example, I am sure that it was not an exact ten days either. Probably it was three months, ten days, and some number of minutes.

2Kings 24:17 Jehoiachin (Jehoaikim) was succeeded by his uncle. 2Chronicles 36:10 He was succeeded by his brother. Jehoiachin was son of Jehoiakim. Therefore he was brother to Jehoiakim and uncle to Jehoiachin. Since the passage in II Chronicles 36:10 only briefly mentions Jehoiachin, it is easy to think that they are the same person. Indeed, it is talking about Jehoiakim when it mentions him as brother to Zedekiah. It is completely clear in I Chronicles 3:15 and Jeremiah 37:1.

2Chronicles 3:11-13 The lineage is: Joram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham. Matthew 1:8-9 It is: Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, etc. I can not find your lineage reference in II Chronicles 3:11-13. II Chronicles does place Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah between Joram and Jotham. Perhaps it was a copying error, of which we have identified a few. It does not materially impact anything in the doctrine of the Faith. (None of them do.) It is also possible that it was purposefully left out of this genealogy. While this would appear unusual, comparing Genesis 11:12 with Luke 3:35-36 indicates that Cainan was left out. It also appears that in the Jewish tradition, the designation "son" was somewhat flexible. There are multiple instances in the scripture where a grandson is called a son or a son in law is called a son.

2Chronicles 3:19 Pedaiah was the father of Zerubbabel. Ezra 3:2 Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel. II Chronicles 3:19 does not exist. Likely you are dealing with different individuals. For starters, check the timeframes.

2Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 There is no injustice or partiality with the Lord. Romans 9:15-18 God has mercy on (and hardens the hearts of) whom he pleases. This identical objection has been answered above.

Ezra 2:3-64 (Gives the whole congregation as 42,360 while the actual sum of the numbers is about 30,000.) I notice that you did not cite verse two which clearly specifies that the passage was only listing the men. Note also 2:22-23 seems to list "men" synonymously. No doubt the difference is because women were counted as part of the "whole congregation." While that would mean twice as many men as women, one would expect that the act of rebuilding the homeland would attract a number of single young men. Indeed, Ezra 9 describes a massive confrontation because the Jewish young men took themselves Gentile women of the land in violation of God's law.

Job 2:3-6, 21:7-13, 2Timothy 3:12 The godly are persecuted and chastised but the wicked grow old, wealthy, and powerful, unchastised by God. Psalms 55:23, 92:12-14, Proverbs 10:2-3, 27-31, 12:2, 21 The lives of the wicked are cut short. The righteous flourish and obtain favor from the Lord. This paradox was the topic of Asaph in Psalm 73. Finally he understands by the end of the chapter that there are two acts to the play of life. In act one, the first statement may well be the Christian's experience. At other times, Christians may not be persecuted, but God always chastises them if they disobey. The ungodly may well prosper for a time. During the second act, Christians are always triumphant. The ungodly are always judged. A wise man once said, "Life as it is on this earth is all the hell a believer will experience, and it is all the heaven an unbeliever will experience."

Psalms 10:1 God cannot be found in time of need. He is "far off." Psalms 145:18 God is near to all who call upon him in truth. The Psalmist here does not make a statement. He cries out in a rhetorical question because God does not seem to be answering him. It is an experience that many can relate to. Sometimes it seems that God does not hear us. By vs 17 he had assurance that God had heard his prayer. Luke 18:7 says that God does hear, though at times he "tarries" to test our mettle.

Psalms 22:1-2 God sometimes forsakes his children. He does not answer. Psalms 46:1 God is a refuge, a strength, a very present help. Same as above.

Psalms 30:5, Jeremiah 3:12, Micah 7:18 God's anger does not last forever. Jeremiah 17:4, Matthew 25:46 It does last forever. (He has provided for eternal punishment.) The difference here is not God, it is the object of His anger. He is angry with His children when they disobey, but willing to forgive them when they repent. He is eternally angry at those who rebel against Him and scorn His mercy.

Psalms 58:10-11 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees vengeance. Proverbs 24:16-18 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls or stumbles. These are two different sets of circumstances. In the first passage it is wicked people. Christians rejoice to see a serial murderer get caught and bear his just punishment. The second case is an adversary or competitor who falls into misfortune. We are not to gloat.

Psalms 78:69, Ecclesiastes 1:4, 3:14 The earth was established forever. Psalms 102:25-26, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, Hebrews 1:10-11, 2Peter 3:10 The earth will someday perish. The Hebrew word used both in Psalm 78 and the Ecclesiastes passages is "olam." It can mean "forever" (infinite) or "ongoing" (comparatively perpetual). Obviously the second meaning is intended in these passages. To see other usages of this word in a comparative sense, see Job 41:4 and Psalm 119:98.

Proverbs 3:13, 4:7, 19:8, James 1:5 Happy is the man who finds wisdom. Get wisdom. Luke 2:40, 52 Jesus was filled with wisdom and found favor with God. 1Corinthians 1:19-25, 3:18-20 Wisdom is foolishness. This is an amazingly blatant attempt to mischaracterize the passages in Corinthians. Both are clearly speaking of the world's wisdom, as opposed to God's wisdom. Look at I Corinthians 4:10. Psalm 111:10 says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. How much fear of the Lord is in the wisdom of the world?

Proverbs 12:2, Romans 8:28 A good man obtains favor from the Lord. Timothy 3:12, Hebrews 12:6 The godly will be persecuted. You are comparing the disfavor of men (persecution) with the favor of God (apples and oranges).

Proverbs 14:8 The wisdom of a prudent man is to discern his way. Matthew 6:25-34 Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you. "Take no thought." in Matthew can be better translated, "Do not worry." It is not God's desire that we stop making plans

Proverbs 14:15-18 The simple believe everything and acquire folly; the prudent look where they are going and are crowned with knowledge. Matthew 18:3, Luke 18:17 You must believe as little children do. 1Corinthians 1:20, 27 God has made the wisdom of the world foolish so as to shame the wise. Proverbs 16:4 God made the wicked for the "day of evil." Matthew 11:25, Mark 4:11-12 God and Jesus hide some things from some people. John 6:65 No one can come to Jesus unless it is granted by God. Romans 8:28-30 Some are predestined to be called to God, believe in Jesus, and be justified. Romans 9:15-18 God has mercy on, and hardens the hearts of, whom he pleases. 2Thessalonians 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked so as to be able to condemn them. 1Timothy 2:3-4, 2Peter 3:9 [Yet] God wants all to be saved. This takes the cake for being the biggest hodge podge of unrelated assertions. What is the supposed contradiction here? It seems that most of these points are made elsewhere, so I will endeavor to answer them where the "discrepancy" is clear, rather than trying to guess what is intended here.

Proverbs 8:13, 16:6 It is the fear of God that keeps men from evil. 1John 4:18 There is no fear in love. Perfect love drives out fear. 1John 5:2, 2John 1:6 Those who love God keep his commandments. The Christian's relationship with God is a complex one. There is an element of godly fear (reverence, respect, and great concern about offense) along with love. But it is not the fear that is discussed in I John 4:18 (a foreboding, tormenting fear of the future). There is also a maturing aspect that is involved in the relationship. As a little boy, I feared my dad's discipline if I disobeyed and played in the street. As our relationship matures and I came to understand the reasons for my dad's rules, I kept them out of love and respect.

Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool. To do so makes you foolish too. Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool. If you don't, he will think himself wise. Don't get into a prolonged argument with a fool, lest you stoop to his level and OTHERS see you as foolish too; but don't let him off without a retort either, lest HE get conceited and think you are unable to respond.

This is a tough balancing act and I frequently come back to these verses for wisdom when I am engaged in a debate that fits the bill.

Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God proves true. Jeremiah 8:8 The scribes falsify the word of God. Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9, 2Thessalonians 2:11-12 God himself deceives people. (Note: Some versions translate deceive as "persuade." The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.) It does not appear that your Jeremiah 8:8 reference is correct. There is no falsifying the word. God says the law was in vain and His preservation of it was to no avail since the people were hearing but disregarding His commandments.

The fact that some scribes might twist, distort, or misinterpret the scriptures has nothing whatsoever to do with their being true. The silly notion of God deceiving people was dealt with above.

Isaiah 3:13 God stands to judge. Joel 3:12 He sits to judge. It would seem that God does both, depending on what He chooses at the time.

Isaiah 44:24 God created heaven and earth alone. John 1:1-3 Jesus took part in creation. Jesus is God.

Isaiah 53:9 Usually taken to be a prophecy re: Jesus, mentions burial with others. Matthew 27:58-60, Mark 15:45-46, Luke 23:52-53, John 19:38-42 Jesus was buried by himself. My grandfather is buried in a crowded cemetery. Is he buried by himself or with others? Both. Similarly Christ was alone in the tomb but was buried with the rich (wealthy gardens and sepulchers).

Jeremiah 12:13 Some sow wheat but reap thorns. Micah 6:15 Some sow but won't reap anything. Matthew 25:26, Luke 19:22 Some reap without sowing. 2Corinthians 9:6, Galatians 6:7 A man reaps what he sows. "Sowing and reaping" can describe a literal planting and harvesting of grains or it can be an agricultural metaphor, applied in various ways under different circumstances to make a point. Jeremiah and Micah both use it in the first sense, describing how Israel had come to a place of judgment for sin (as predicted in Deuteronomy 28). Matthew and Luke both describe a ruthless lord who was wealthy and living off the efforts of others. II Corinthians 9:6 uses the phrase as a metaphor in the area of charitable giving; Galatians 6:7 uses it as a metaphor in the area of good deeds; and I Corinthians 3:6 uses it as a metaphor in the area of missions. The fact that different people in differing circumstances reap different results for their investment into different areas is no contradiction.

Jeremiah 32:18 God shows love to thousands, but brings punishment for the sins of their fathers to many children. 2Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1John 4:8, 16 God is a god of love. This same argument is answered above.

Jeremiah 34:4-5 Zedekiah was to die in peace. Jeremiah 52:10-11 Instead, Zedekaih's sons are slain before his eyes, his eyes are then put out, he is bound in fetters, taken to Babylon and left in prison to die. The promise is not that he would live a wonderful life. It was that he would die in peace rather than in war by the sword. Note the context of the passage in Jeremiah 34.

Ezekiel 20:25-26 The law was not good. The sacrifice of children was for the purpose of horrifying the people so that they would know that God is Lord. Romans 7:12, 1Timothy 1:8 The law is good. The verse in Ezekiel is being terribly misinterpreted. Just a few verses down (vs 31) God reiterates his wrath at giving the firstborn to the fire. When God says he "gave them" in this passage, it is used in the same sense as Psalm 81:12 and Romans 1:24. God stopped trying to change them and gave them over to their wickedness.

Ezekiel 26:15-21 God says that Tyre will be destroyed and will never be found again. (Nebudchanezzar failed to capture or destroy Tyre. It is still inhabited.) It utterly astounds me that Zathrus should have the gall to cite this passage as evidence against the Bible's accuracy since Ezekiel's message against Tyre is one of the most dramatic evidences we have of fulfilled prophecy!

Nebuchanezzar failed to totally subdue Tyre because the inhabitants of this seacoast city all abandoned Tyre proper to escape to a large island fortress off the coast. Nevertheless, Nebuchanezzar's siege and looting of the seacoast city was praised and actually rewarded by God (Ezekiel 29:18-20). His destruction of mainland portion of Tyre certainly fulfills verses 7-11 which apply to him.

However, verse 3 stipulates that multiple nations would be involved in the ultimate destruction of Tyre. Some have said that there is no marvel in seeing such prophecy of a city's demise come true since every ancient capitol fell prey at one time or another. The significance of Biblical prophecy is that its proclamations are VERY specific and differ by the city. Notice the specificity:

Vs 3 multiple nations involved. Vs 4 walls and towers were to be broken Vs 4 dirt was to be scraped off the area revealing the underlying rock All the debris of the city was to be dumped in the water Vs 14 It would be a place of fishermen spreading their nets. The site would never be rebuilt. The dramatic fulfillment of the prophesied judgment was not completed in Nebuchanezzar since the inhabitants outlasted Nebuchanezzar on their Alcatraz-like island. When Alexander the Great came through conquering the city of Tyre, the citizens tried the same trick...evacuating for the island fortress. Alexander took a cue from the failure of Nebuchanezzar. He took ALL of the debris from the city of Tyre (literally scraping it bare), built a causeway out to the island, and proceeded to destroy Tyre. The modern city called Tyre was NOT constructed on this ancient site. In fact the ancient plot is largely barren rock (somewhat inland from the modern construction), and has quite literally been used by local fishermen to lay out their nets!

Daniel 5:1 (Gives the title of "king" to Belshazzar although Belshazzar was actually the "viceroy.") Big deal. Maybe in Chaldean or Hebrew these two were the same word. Maybe he was referred to as king when he was acting ruler, in his dad's absence.

Daniel 5:2 (Says that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar, but actually, Nebonidus was the father of Belshazzar.) (Note: Some versions attempt to correct this error by making the verse say that Nebuchadnezzar was the grandfather of Belshazzar.) It appears that in the Jewish tradition, the designation "son" was somewhat flexible. There are multiple instances in the scripture where a grandson is called a son or a son in law is called a son. There are also many instances when ALL of the descendants are collectively called "sons" (ie Genesis 23:3-5).

Zechariah 11:12-13 Mentions "thirty pieces" and could possibly be thought to be connected with the Potter's Field prophesy referred to in Matthew. Matthew 27:9 Jeremiah is given as the source of the prophesy regarding the purchase of the Potter's Field. (Note: There is no such prophesy in Jeremiah.) It does appear to reference the quote in Ezekiel. Possibly the three books (Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel) were bound together at that time and called "Jeremy" much as the books the Pentateuch were bound together and called the Book of Moses.

Matthew 1:6-7 The lineage of Jesus is traced through David's son, Solomon. Luke 3:23-31 It is traced through David's son, Nathan. (Note: Some apologists assert that Luke traces the lineage through Mary. That this is untrue is obvious from the context since Luke and Matthew both clearly state that Joseph was Jesus' father.) It clearly states nothing of the sort. Luke 1:27 and 34-35 go to great pains to make clear that Joseph was NOT Jesus' biological father. He was Jesus' earthly adopted father. That is why Luke 3:23 adds the all-important phrase "as was supposed." This genealogy traces the biological ancestry through Mary

Matthew 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father. Luke 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father. Heli was Mary's dad. He was Joseph's FATHER-in-law.

Matthew 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus. Luke 3:23-38 There were forty-three There are, as was noted above, several generations left out of Matthew's genealogy. However, since Luke's genealogy traces a separate lineage, there is no need to have the identical number of generations.

Matthew 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus. Luke 1:26-31 It occurred before conception. The angel appeared to Mary before conception and to Joseph afterwards.

Matthew 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph. Luke 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary. The angel came to both in turn.

Matthew 1:20-23, Luke 1:26-33 An angel announces to Joseph and/or Mary that the child (Jesus) will be "great," the "son of the Most High," etc., and .... Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11 The baptism of Jesus is accompanied by the most extraordinary happenings, yet.... Mark 3:21 Jesus' own relatives (or friends) attempt to constrain him, thinking that he might be out of his mind, and.... Mark 6:4-6 Jesus says that a prophet is without honor in his own house (which certainly should not have been the case considering the Annunciation and the Baptism). It is unclear if any of Christ's family was present at the baptism. It is also unclear which members of the Lord's family thought he was out of his mind (or exactly why). However, history is replete with examples of great figures being scorned by their own family. Some may have been skeptical of His miracles, embarrassed by His claims, or jealous of the crowds that followed Him. Regardless of the reason, there is no contradiction here.

Matthew 1:23 He will be called Emmanuel (or Immanuel). Matthew 1:25 Instead, he was called Jesus. He had a great many names. One of them was the Son of God. Immanuel means "God with us."

Matthew 2:13-16 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, (where they stay until after Herod's death) in order to avoid the murder of their firstborn by Herod. Herod slaughters all male infants two years old and under. (Note: John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, though under two is somehow spared without fleeing to Egypt.) Luke 2:22-40 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remain in the area of Jerusalem for the Presentation (about forty days) and then return to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There is no slaughter of the infants. The reason that there are four gospels is that they complement each other. Each one fills in events and perspectives that are not detailed in the others. The fact that Luke picks up the story some time after the birth and does not record the slaughter of the innocents or flight to Egypt is not a contradiction. In all likelihood, John the Baptist was not killed because he was not in the region of Bethlehem at the time.

Matthew 2:23 "And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene.'" (This prophecy is not found in the OT and while Jesus is often referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth", he is seldom referred to as "Jesus the Nazarene.") Possibly it references Isaiah 11:1, which uses the word "branch" (Hebrew "Netzer") out of David. The Greek in Matthew 2:23 is "Nazoraios."

Matthew 3:11-14, John 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the Messiah) either prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The very purpose of John's baptism was to reveal Jesus to Israel. Matthew 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the Messiah. Neither the passage in Matthew 3 or John 1 indicate that John was decided on the fact that Christ was the Messiah (as opposed to a great prophet). Even if he had realized it, the incident in Matthew occurred while John was in jail. Possibly some rumors or misinformation had reached him concerning Jesus' preaching and he sent some disciples to find out whether Jesus was indeed claiming to be the Christ or had said something to the contrary.

Matthew 3:12, 13:42 Hell is a furnace of fire (and must therefore be light). Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 Hell is an "outer darkness" (and therefore dark). God can make a fire without light. God can also blind the inhabitants so that they are in complete darkness.

Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending. John 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending. Both did.

Matthew 3:17 The heavenly voice addressed the crowd: "This is my beloved Son." Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22 The voice addressed Jesus: "You are my beloved Son...." What if the voice said, "Behold my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Who was addressed? Obviously both. This nit-picking is meaningless to the story or the understanding of the point made.

Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13 Immediately following his Baptism, Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness resisting temptation by the Devil. John 2:1-11 Three days after the Baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. This passage in John never mentions the baptism!

Matthew 4:5-8 The Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, then to the mountain top. Luke 4:5-9 First to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle of the temple. Luke does not use chronological language to describe this event; but merely states: Satan did this, and this, and this.

Matthew 4:18-20, Mark 1:16-18 (One story about choosing Peter as a disciple.) Luke 5:2-11 (A different story.) John 1:35-42 (Still another story.) These are different events. For some time, the disciples did not stay with Christ full time. Peter met Christ initially and went back to fishing. Again he followed Christ for a few days and went back to his work. Later he abandoned the family business and followed the Lord full time.

Matthew 5:1 - 7:29 Jesus delivers his most noteworthy sermon while on the mount. Luke 6:17-49 Jesus delivers his most noteworthy sermon while on the plain. (Note: No such sermons are mentioned in either Mark or John and Paul seems totally unfamiliar with either the sermon on the mount or the sermon on the plain.) Jesus was an itinerant preacher who no doubt gave this message many times as He traveled about. Paul was not a Christian at the time Jesus preached. Later, however, he specifically reference Christ's message and then draws a distinction where he augments it (I Corinthians 7:12).

Matthew 5:16 Good works should be seen. Matthew 6:1-4 They should be kept secret. Again, you confuse two separate issues. In Matthew 5, Christ encourages his followers to live a good life so that their works will draw people's attention to God. However, Christians are not to blow a trumpet before themselves to draw attention to their benevolence (Matthew 6). One passage deals with making sure you do good deeds, another deals with HOW you do the good deeds.

Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17 Jesus underscores the permanence of the law. Leviticus 10:8 - 11:47, Deuteronomy 14:3-21 The law distinguishes between clean and unclean foods. Mark 7:14-15, Mark 7:18-19 Jesus says that there is no such distinction. Titus 4:1-4 All foods are clean according to Paul There are two aspects to the law: ceremonial and moral. The ceremony ceased upon Christ's completed sacrifice. The moral code still applies to point people to their need for a Savior (Galatians 3:24-25).

Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17 Jesus did not come to abolish the law. Ephesians 2:13-15, Hebrews 7:18-19 Jesus did abolish the law. See above.

Matthew 5:22 Anyone who calls another a fool is liable to Hell. Matthew 7:26 Jesus says that anyone who hears his words and does not do them is a fool. (Note: The translation now prevalent, "like a foolish man," in MT 7:26 is a dishonest attempt to alleviate the obvious inconsistency here in that the oldest Greek manuscripts use the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and "like a foolish man" in MT 7:26.) Matthew 23:17-19 Jesus twice calls the Pharisees blind fools. Matthew 25:2, 3, 8 Jesus likens the maidens who took no oil to fools. (Note: Again, this is the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.) 1Corinthians 1:23, 3:18, 4:10 Paul uses fool with regard to Christians becoming fools for Christ. (Note: Again, this is the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.) dittos (Paul does not call anyone, "Thou fool!") Matthew 5:22 Anger by itself is a sin. Ephesians 4:26 Anger is not necessarily a sin You completely misquote Matthew 5:22. It says, "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." Certainly anger without proper justification is a sin.

Matthew 5:22 Anger by itself is a sin. Matthew 11:22-24, Luke 10:13-15 Jesus curses the inhabitants of several cities who are not sufficiently impressed with his mighty works. Matthew 21:19, Mark 11:12-14 Jesus curses a fig tree when it fails to bear fruit out of season. Mark 3:5 Jesus looks around "angrily." See Above.

Matthew 5:32 Divorce, except on the grounds of unchastity, is wrong. Mark 10:11-12 Divorce on any grounds is wrong. Matthew uses the famous "exception clause" as a justification for divorce but does not legitimize remarriage. Mark 10:11-12 DOES NOT say "divorce on any grounds is wrong." It condemns the act of remarriage as adultery (as does Luke 16:18).

Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:44 Jesus says: "Do not resist evil. Love your enemies." Matthew 6:15, 12:34, 16:3, 22:18, 23:13-15, 17, 19, 27, 29, 33, Mark 7:6, Luke 11:40, 44, 12:56 Jesus repeatedly hurls epithets at his opponents. Dittos (Note that Christ never resisted authorities and, while angry at sin and false teaching, always acted in love.)

Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:44 Do not resist evil. Love your enemies. Luke 19:27 God is likened to one who destroys his enemies. Dittos.

Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:44 Do not resist evil. Love your enemies. John 1:9-11 Shun anyone who does not hold the proper doctrine. Matthew 5:43-44, Matthew 22:39 Love your enemies. Love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 10:5 Go nowhere among the Gentiles nor enter a Samaritan town. This is inordinate stretching to try and concoct a contradiction. Christ desire that his disciples FIRST call on Jews (see Acts 1:8). The apostles message in II John 9-11 (not John 1:9-11) is certainly not motivated by hate. While a Christian must oppose anyone that is fighting against Christianity, one can still be loving.

Matthew 5:45, 7:21 God resides in heaven. Mark 13:32 The angels reside in heaven Acts 7:55, Hebrews 12:2 Jesus is at the right hand of God, in heaven. 1Peter 1:3-4 Believers will inherit eternal life in heaven. Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33 Heaven will pass away. When it does, God will replace it with a new heaven and a new earth and live there (Revelation 21:1).

Matthew 6:13 God might lead us into temptation and it is better avoided. James 1:2-3 Temptation is joy. It is not wrong for Christians to pray to be delivered from trials. However, if God brings them our way, we are to maintain a joyful disposition.

Matthew 6:13 Jesus' prayer implies that God might lead us into temptation. James 1:13 God tempts no one. This same objection is answered above.

Matthew 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-31 Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you. Titus 5:8 A man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. (Note: Providing for a family certainly involves taking "thought for tomorrow.") "Take no thought." in Matthew can be better translated, "Do not worry. It is not God's desire that we stop making plans!

Matthew 7:1-2 Do not judge. Matthew 7:15-20 Instructions for judging a false prophet. The second passage does not even use the word "judge." Again, we have a balance in scripture. Christians are not to pass judgment of their own accord (since we all are sinners before God). However, we ARE to declare God's judgment. We ARE to be discerning of false doctrine that would destroy the Faith and harm people (John 7:24) and apply God's Word to them. This is not judging people. Rather, it is making people aware of the judgment God has already rendered in His Word.

Matthew 7:7-8, Luke 11:9-10 Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find. Luke 13:24 Many will try to enter the Kingdom but will be unable. The first passages are directed to believers with regard to having your prayers answered. The scripture in Luke 13 describes those that come to the judgment (note vs 25) and want to change their mind. See also Matthew 7:21 and 25:40-46.

Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13 Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:39 Those God calls to himself will be saved. See above.

Matthew 7:21, Luke 10:36-37, Romans 2:6, 13, James 2:24 We are justified by works, not by faith. John 3:16, Romans 3:20-26, Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:16 We are justified by faith, not by works. The passages in Matthew say that those who do what God wants will get into heaven. Doing what God wants requires, first and foremost that one has faith in God (Hebrews 11:6). The citation in Luke has nothing to do with justification. Romans, likewise, does not refer to justification, but to the degree of judgment or reward (after the eternal destiny has already been decided).

We have in James an oft-misunderstood passage. It is actually a simple concept. Romans views justification from God's perspective (Romans 4:9). James views it from man's perspective. Men can not see a person's heart like God can. The only way we can evaluate if a man is justified is by the works that result. Someone put it well: "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone." Works demonstrate saving faith (James 2:18). James? argument was against those that gave a mere intellectual assent of Christianity (just like the demons in vs 19) without ever coming to a life-changing decision.

Matthew 8:5-12 The centurion himself approaches Jesus to ask to heal his servant. Luke 7:2-10 The centurion sends elders to do the asking. Matthew does seem to imply that the centurion comes in person. However, the language does not preclude him from speaking through an emissary. Indeed that is what happened in Acts 10:30-33 with the centurion Cornelius (and the language is similar). This type of phrasing was customary at that time. It is not unlike a spokesperson today speaking for a head of state.

Matthew 8:16, Luke 4:40 Jesus healed all that were sick. Mark 1:32-34 Jesus healed many (but not all) It says He healed many with various diseases and cast out many demons. While it does not say that He healed all, it certainly does not preclude it.

Matthew 8:28-33 Two demoniacs are healed in the Gadarene swine incident. Mark 5:2-16, Luke 8:26-36 One demoniac is healed in this incident. If there were two demoniacs (Matthew), then Mark and Luke are correct in saying there was one. They would only be a contradiction if they said ONLY one was healed. The demonic had multiple personalities (Note in vs 9 "We are many!") which may have confused the situation.

Matthew 9:18 The ruler's daughter was already dead when Jesus raised her. Luke 8:42 She was dying, but not dead. You characterize NEITHER passage correctly. In Matthew, they thought she was dead, but Jesus declared she was merely in a coma (vs 24); in Luke, they also informed Him that she had died before he gets there (vs 49) and Christ informs them she is only in a coma (vs 52). There is no contradiction.

Matthew 10:1-8 Jesus gives his disciples the power to exorcise and heal... Matthew 17:14-16 (Yet) the disciples are unable to do so. This is a ridiculous mischaracterization. The disciples do a great deal of healing and perform exorcism throughout the gospels and Acts. To claim that they were unable to do so because of this one instance of failure on their part is like saying Michael Jordan was unable to play basketball because he missed a key shot and lost a game.

Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16-19 The twelve apostles (disciples) were: Simon (Peter), Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, John his brother, Philip, Bartholemew, Thomas, Matthew the tax collector, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus (Labbaeus), Simon, and Judas Iscariot. Luke 6:13-16 The above except that Thaddaeus (Labbaeus) is excluded, and Judas the son of James is added (and Judas Iscariot remains). Acts 1:13, 26 Same as Matthew and Mark except that, like LK Thaddaeus (Labbaeus) is excluded, Judas the son of James is included, and Mathias is chosen by the others to replace Judas Iscariot Both Matthew and Luke were written by a disciple. It is hard to believe that either of them would forget the name or would misname one of the twelve who lived, ate slept, and suffered together! Even if these books were merely casual diaries and not holy scripture, one could not imagine such a blatant mistake being among the various errors that could crop up. It is far more likely that this is the same individual. Many of the disciples had multiple names. Perhaps he had three: Thaddaeus, Labbaeus, and Judas. The order in which the names are given (next to James) in each account would also seem to indicate this.

Matthew 10:2, 5-6 Peter was to be an apostle to the Jews and not go near the Gentiles. Acts 15:7 He was an apostle to the Gentiles. He was to go first to the Jews and later to the Gentiles (Acts 1:8).

Matthew 10:10 Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves. Mark 6:8-9 Take sandals (shoes) and staves. These are two different mission excursions in which Christ was traininghis disciples for their future ministry. For a clearer example ofhow these unique requirements only applied to a specific mission trip, see Luke 22:35-36.

Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:49-53 Jesus has come to bring a sword, fire, anddivision--not peace. John 16:33 Jesus says: "In me you have peace." He brought both, depending on the individual's response to Christ. The passage in John 16 was addressed to the disciples who believed on Him.

Matthew 10:22, 24:13, Mark 13:13 He that endures to the end will be saved. Mark 16:16 He that believes and is baptized will be saved. John 3:5 Only he that is born of water and Spirit will be saved. Acts 16:31 He that believes on the Lord Jesus will be saved. Acts 2:21 He that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. Romans 10:9 He who confesses with his mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved. 1John 4:7 He who loves is born of God (and presumably will be saved.) Where is the supposed contradiction? I could see that there wouldbe one if Romans 10 said that one must confess and believe, rather thancalling on the name of the Lord. Instead, that passage in verse13 mentions calling on the name of the Lord, indicating it issynonymous with confessing and believing. Furthermore, any personthat does believe and call on God, will be born of the Spirit(simultaneous with being saved) and will endure to the end. Theonly passage that is slightly different from the others is I John, since it is not talking about what is required for salvation. Itis discussing evidence of salvation (after-the-fact).

Matthew 10:28, Luke 12:4 Jesus says not to fear men. (Fear God only.) Matthew 12:15-16, John 7:1-10, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54 Jesus hid, escaped,went secretly, etc. Was Christ motivated by fear or a desire to avoid a physical confrontation before the appropriate time? John 7:6 and Matthew 26:18 indicates that Jesus was very concerned about the timing of His sacrifice. When that time came, He predicted His betrayal anddeath, offered no resistance to his arrest and gave no defense toPilate?certainly not the actions of a fearful man.

Matthew 11:7-15, 17:12-13 Jesus says that John the Baptist was a prophet, and more. John 1:21 John himself says that he is not a prophet, nor is he Elijah. John does not say that he was not A prophet. Rather he denies that he is THAT prophet which they were referencing.

Matthew 11:25, Mark 4:11-12 Jesus thanks God for hiding some things fromthe wise while revealing them to "babes." He says that he uses parables so that the meaning of some of his teachings will remain hidden to atleast some persons, and specifically so that they will not turn and be forgiven. Mark 4:22 Jesus says that all things should be made known. Christ does not declare that all things SHOULD be made known, but thatall things would eventually BE made known. Indeed, after his death and ascension, the specifics of his life were made known to all who would listen, being preached throughout many countries in theancient world.

Matthew 12:30 Jesus says that those who are not with him are against him. Mark 9:40 Jesus says that those who are not against him are for him. (Note: This puts those who are indifferent or undecided in the "for him" category in the first instance and in the "against him" category in the second instance.) There is no in-between; it is black and white; you are a child of God or a child of the devil; bound for heaven or bound for hell. If you consider yourself indifferent or undecided towards the perfect Son of God who died for you, then you are against Him. You can change from one camp to the other, but you cannot hide in-between the two.

Matthew 12:39, Mark 8:12, Luke 11:29 Jesus says that he will give no "sign." John 3:2, 20:30, Acts 2:22 Jesus proceeds to give many such "signs." The context of these passages makes the answer clear if it were read. Note in Mark 8:11 that the Pharisees were wrongly motivated. Christ does not perform a miracle on a whim to satisfy his enemies. His statement in Matthew 12:39 is that wicked people would only get one sign?His resurrection. He did many miracles to help people in need and to validate His message before those who were sincere.

Matthew 13:34, Mark 4:34 Jesus addresses the crowds only in parables, so that they would not fully understand. He explains the meaning only to his disciples. John 1:1 - 21:25 (Throughout the book of John, unlike the other Gospels, Jesus addresses the crowds in a very straightforward manner. He does not employ parables.) The book of John does not contain all the public sermons that are in the other gospels. However, there are still some parables (John 10:6).

see soap boxSlrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)