Search

Monday, August 24, 2015

Are Hebrews, James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Jude Authentic? - First Thoughts

Hebrews, James, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John and Jude
This is a continuation of a series of refutations against a list published by a person claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses (but who is not) who attacked the Bible. My Words are in bold. (Also The Self-Harmony of the Bible can be found in the downloads page, a link to which is on the right.)

1)     The book of Hebrews also contains some texts that cannot be considered as part of the authentic word of God. Its writer is unknown. So are the writers of many psalms, and the author of many books and yet in a way the writer is no unknown, for God inspired it.

2)    It quotes Psalm 45:6, 7 in Hebrews 1:8, 9. This Psalm talks of the king marrying foreign women, and according to the Scriptures, that practice is unlawful and a sin. Addressed here: http://bibleselfharmony.blogspot.com/2015/08/is-psalms-authentic-first-thoguhts.html

3)    Hebrews 12:21 says: "Also, the display was so terrifying that Moses said: “I am afraid and trembling."" This statement cannot be authenticated by any part of Genesis. Well maybe if you weren’t looking in the wrong book you’d find Deuteronomy 9:19. Further if it wasn’t in the first five books, would that mean Moses didn’t say it? No.

4)    The book of James can also not be considered authentic. James 3:6 says that the tongue is set aflame by Gehenna. But at Luke 12:5, Jesus used Gehenna to stand for everlasting destruction. This is figurative to show the wickedness that can and has and will be done by the tongue!

5)    James 4:5 says: "Or do you think that for no reason the scripture says: “The spirit that has taken up residence within us keeps enviously longing”?" This supposed quote does not appear in any part of the Scriptures. It is an interpolation. It is a summary of many scripture not a quotation.

6)    1, 2 and 3 John seem to have been written by the same author, who is unknown. Pointless.

7)    1 John 1:8 says: "If we make the statement, “We have no sin,” we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us." However, the same book says in 1 John 3:9: "Everyone who has been born from God does not practice sin, for His seed remains in such one, and he cannot practice sin, for he has been born from God." These two statements are contradictory. In fact, the latter is false, because all imperfect humans sin.-Romans 3:23. See The Self-Harmony of the Bible.

8)   Jude 9 cannot be authenticated by any part of the Scriptures. Jude 14, 15 also contains a text which seems to be a quotation from Genesis, but it cannot be found there. It says: "Yes, the seventh one in line from Adam, E′noch, also prophesied about them when he said: “Look! Jehovah came with his holy myriads to execute judgment against all, and to convict all the ungodly concerning all their ungodly deeds that they did in an ungodly way, and concerning all the shocking things that ungodly sinners spoke against him.”" However, it does not appear in Genesis. Before Genesis was written it was nowhere to be found, so is Genesis wrong? No, for Jehovah inspired it just as he inspired Jude to know what Enoch said while he was under inspiration.



Sunday, August 23, 2015

Are Matthew, Mark and John Authentic? - First Thoughts

Matthew, Mark and John
This is a continuation of a series of refutations against a list published by a person claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses (but who is not) who attacked the Bible. My Words are in bold. (Also The Self-Harmony of the Bible can be found in the downloads page, a link to which is on the right.)

Out of the four Gospel books, (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,) only the book of Luke can be considered authentic. The writers of the books of Matthew, Mark and John are unknown. Luke walked with Paul. (2 Timothy 4:11; Colossians 4:14) Paul was selected by the holy spirit. (Acts 13:12) Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the one who walked with someone who had the holy spirit will produce an accurate and inspired account of Jesus’ life. Demas walked with Paul, yet he defected, so I suspect that you ought deny Luke on that reason. However the gospels are well attested as can be seen almost anywhere.

1)     Matthew 27:7-10 says that the Scripture there was written by Jeremiah. However, it was based on Zechariah 11:12, 13. See The Self-Harmony of the Bible

2)    There is an error in Mark 14:29, 30, which says: "But Peter said to him: “Even if all the others are stumbled, I will not be.” At that Jesus said to him: “Truly I say to you that today, yes, on this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you will disown me three times.”" This was said to have been fulfilled in Mark 14:71, 72: "But he started to curse and swear: “I do not know this man of whom you speak!” Immediately a rooster crowed a second time, and Peter recalled what Jesus had said to him: “Before a rooster crows twice, you will disown me three times.” And he broke down and began to weep." However, Luke 22:33, 34 says: "Then he said to him: “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.” But he said: “I tell you, Peter, a rooster will not crow today until you have denied knowing me three times.”" In other words, not that a cock will crow once or twice before Peter denies knowing Jesus, but a cock will not crow at all in all the land until Peter denies Jesus. Any half-rate apologist from centuries ago could explain this, but I do not wish to at this time. I will in a later post (and will update this one in a link), or in The Self-Harmony of the Bible – Part Two.

3)    John 2:18, 19 contains a controversial verse which could not have been said by Jesus who was the Son of God. It says: "Therefore, in response the Jews said to him: “What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?” Jesus replied to them: “Tear down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”" Why? Jesus “rasied” himself up in the same way that the woman with a flow of blood “healed” herself. That is, Jesus provided a basis for his resurrection as the woman’s faith provided a basis for her to be healed. See Of the Trinity.

4)    Another controversial text is John 6:53-56. If you are rash it is, but if you see that Jesus was being figurative then you see that it is not a controversial text.

5)    Also, John 8:15b and John 14:19. When Jesus was impaled, an inscription was written at the top of the stake: ““This is the King of the Jews.”” (Luke 23:38) However, the book of John says this is what was written: "It was written: “Jesus the Naz•a•rene the King of the Jews.." (John 19:19)  Both Statements are truthful, such minor difference were not looked down upon in their culture (or in our own).

6)    The book of John does not agree much with what is in the book of Luke. However, there are also errors in it. Differences in the gospels can be attributed to their culture, their purpose and their audience and their style, for example none are strictly chronological, and John is primarily a teaching gospel.

7)    In Luke 22:17, 18 Jesus says: “Take this and pass it from one to the other among yourselves, for I tell you, from now on, I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” Thus Jesus was no longer going to drink wine. (Psalm 69:21) However, this is what John 19:29, 30 says: "A jar was sitting there full of sour wine. So they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop stalk and held it up to his mouth. When he had received the sour wine, Jesus said: “It has been accomplished!” and bowing his head, he gave up his spirit." The context of Luke shows that Jesus is saying that Jesus would not eat This Passover until it was fulfilled in the Kingdom of God, or This product of the wine (the wine used in the Lord’s evening meal) until he drank it a new in the Kingdom of the Father (that is in a figurative sense). (Matthew 26:29) This is important because Jesus didn’t say that he wouldn’t eat bread or wine (bead being part of the Passover) every again, but that he wouldn’t share this meal, either the Passover or his Evening Meal until later (and even thin in a figurative way). For example if we have a get together, a monthly company lunch, but for some reason the next one won’t be for two months and I say “We won’t have another lunch,” I am not saying that I or any of us won’t eat lunch for two months, but I am saying that we won’t have this special lunch until then. There is no contradiction.

8)   Matthew 8 is in conflict with Luke 8. Matthew 8:28 says: "When he came to the other side into the region of the Gad•a•renes′, two demon-possessed men coming out from among the tombs met him. They were unusually fierce, so nobody had the courage to pass by on that road." However, Luke 8:26, 27 says: "And they put in to shore in the region of the Ger′a•senes, which is on the side opposite Gal′i•lee. As Jesus got out onto land, a demon-possessed man from the city met him. For a considerable time he had not worn clothing, and he was staying, not in a house, but among the tombs.." Therefore, it was not the country of the Gadarenes, but it was the country of the Gerasenes. Also, it was just one man that came to meet Jesus, not two men. Too the first claim I say: There are two common and reasonable explanations. In Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark Albert Barnes writes (on page 91): “Gadara was a city not far from the Lake Gennesareth, one of the ten cities that were called Decapolis. Gergesa [probably a variation of “Gerasa"] was a city about 12 miles to the south-east of Gadara, and about 20 miles to the east of the Jordan. There is no contradiction, therefore, in the evangelists. He came into the region in which the two cities were situated, and one evangelist mentioned one, and the other another. It shows that the writers had not agreed to impose on the world; for if they had, they would have mentioned the same city; and it shows, also, they were familiar with the country. No men would have written in this manner but those who were acquainted with the facts.” Or it could be that the words “Gergesenes” and “Gerasenes” refer to people from Gadara and are different variations of the word “Gadarenes.” And, to briefly counter the claim concerning the number of men, I will say that there were two men, one writer focuses on one, and the other on both. Watchtower Library (and common sense) has more to say, and I will soon.




Saturday, August 22, 2015

Are Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon Authentic? - First Thoughts

Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon
This is a continuation of a series of refutations against a list published by a person claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses (but who is not) who attacked the Bible. My Words are in bold. (Also The Self-Harmony of the Bible can be found in the downloads page, a link to which is on the right.)

1)      Ecclesiastes was written under the directions of Solomon, evidently, when he was about to die. It was written by Solomon and there is no reason to say it was when he was about to die (which seems to be a subtle attempt to discredit the book since Solomon was an apostate when he died).

2)    Throughout the book, the expression “everything is vanity” can be found. 1 Corinthians 15:58 and 3:8 show that not everything is vanity. The point of Ecclesiastes is to show how, apart from God everything is vanity. Things are enjoyable, but only God’s will and obeying him have lasting value.

3)    Luke 20:27 shows that Ecclesiastes 1:11 is false. How, Luke 20:27 has very little to do with Ecclesiastes 1:11. Furthermore Ecclesiastes 1:11 is not an absolute statement, but one which is true in a general way, for do you remember much about your great-grandparents?

4)    Ecclesiastes 7:3 is also not scientifically correct. I suppose that you think heart is literal as opposed to the figurative heart (that is obviously meant).

5)    Ecclesiastes 10:4 disagrees with 1 Samuel 9:17, 18; and 1 Samuel 23:26. What 1 Samuel 9:17,18 has to do with this, I know not. Also you again fail to note the general (as opposed to absolute) nature of such wisdom lit. (as well as proverbs in general).

6)    Ecclesiastes 10:4 disagrees with 1 Samuel 9:17, 18; and 1 Samuel 23:26. What 1 Samuel 9:17,18 has to do with this, I know not. Also you again fail to note the general (as opposed to absolute) nature of such wisdom lit. (as well as proverbs in general).

7)    Luke 19:44 shows that Ecclesiastes 10:8 is also false. No it doesn’t. Luke is a judgment on Jerusaelm. Ecclesiastes is a general warning about people working and the need to be alert to such dangers, see the context.


8)    Song of Solomon is a book based on eroticism. Eroticism can be expressed healthfully. This book is a far cry from Greek plays and art.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Is Proverbs Authentic? - First Thoughts

Proverbs
This is a continuation of a series of refutations against a list published by a person claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses (but who is not) who attacked the Bible. My Words are in bold. (Also The Self-Harmony of the Bible can be found in the downloads page, a link to which is on the right.)

1)     Section 1, (Proverbs 1-9), contains texts that do not agree with the truth. Proverbs 9:7, 8a say: “The one who corrects a ridiculer invites dishonor, and whoever reproves someone wicked will get hurt. Do not reprove a ridiculer, or he will hate you.” Should the wicked be reproved? This is what Psalm 50:16-21 written by Asaph says: “But God will say to the wicked: “What right do you have to relate my regulations or to speak about my covenant? For you hate discipline, and you keep turning your back on my words …. When you did these things, I remained silent, so you thought that I would be just like you. But now I will reprove you, and I will state my case against you.” Then, the wicked should be reproved. (1 Timothy 5:20) Proverbs 9:8 is a warning that the wicked will hate you for correction. Again, in the spirit of proverbs and the book of Proverb, they are general rules. For while you should reprove a wise person, to do so at every opportunity would be foolish, so too it isn’t always advisable to reprove a ridiculer, for they often resent the corrector. Yet an answer should be given so that they might not think that they are wise.

2)    Proverbs 9 also contains two passages that make a mockery of the truth. Psalm 9:1-6 says: “True wisdom has built its house; it has carved out its seven pillars. It has fully prepared its meat; it has mixed its wine; it has also arranged its table. It has sent out its female servants. To call out from the heights above the city: “Whoever is inexperienced, let him come in here.” She says to the one lacking good sense: “Come, eat my bread and share in drinking the wine that I have mixed. Leave behind your inexperience and live; Walk forward in the way of understanding.” This is said to have been said by 'wisdom.' Then this is what 'the woman of stupidity' said: ““Whoever is inexperienced, let him come in here.” (Proverbs 9:16) The same expression was used by both wisdom and the harlot. Now look, does it not say that God is to be worshipped? And yet Satan says that Satan is to be worshipped? I guess that God by saying the same thing that Satan says is making a mockery of himself! No, but there are two paths, worship Jehovah or Satan, come to wisdom or come to the wicked.

3)     Section two of Proverbs, (10-24), also contains texts that do not agree with the truth. Proverbs 10:3 does not agree with Luke 4:2; Proverbs 10:18b does not agree with Job 1:18, 19; Exodus 32:7-10; and 1 Kings 19:14. Proverbs 12:28 says: “The path of righteousness leads to life; along its pathway there is no death.” This is false, because Job, Samuel, Noah, Abraham and even Jesus died. Proverbs 16:7 says: “When Jehovah is pleased with a man’s ways, He causes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” If Jesus’ enemies were at peace with him, would he have died? NO! Proverbs 22:6 says: “Train a boy in the way he should go; even when he grows old he will not depart from it.” Solomon was trained by David. Jehoash was trained by Jehoiada when he was very young. (2 Chronicles 24:1, 2; 15-22) All these people departed from the training they were given. These are general proverbs, and are not absolute guarantees, and if you note the life meant in Proverbs 12:28 isn’t our duration of life, for we already have that, but it leads to life, the everlasting life that God promises, for those who stay on it there is no death and why? Because while we die we are promised a resurrection and are as good as still living.

4)     Section 4 of Proverbs, (30), also contains texts that do not agree with the inspired Scriptures. Agur himself, the writer of Proverbs 30, says: “I am more ignorant than anyone else, and I lack the understanding a man should have. I have not learned wisdom, and I do not possess the knowledge of the Most Holy One.” (Proverbs 30:2, 3) Proverbs 30:17 is a false text. Proverbs 30:1 contains the phrase: “the weighty message.” The same phrase appears in the last chapter of Proverbs. It is also false. If having a phrase that appeared in “false scripture” means that the other scripture is false then having Jehovah (which appears in “false scripture”) anywhere renders them “false” as well! And Agur, in line with humility and Hebrew exaggeration, spoke, not to deny the wisdom of his message, but to reveal how he prior before learning his message wasn’t wise.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Is Psalms Authentic? - First Thoughts

Psalms
This is a continuation of a series of refutations against a list published by a person claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses (but who is not) who attacked the Bible. My Words are in bold. (Also The Self-Harmony of the Bible can be found in the downloads page, a link to which is on the right.)

Some of the Psalms were also written in the days of Solomon and not all the Psalms were inspired of God.

1)      When Satan tried to tempt Jesus into jumping from the battlement of the temple, he quoted Psalm 91:11, 12 which says:” For he will give his angels a command concerning you, to guard you in all your ways. They will carry you on their hands, so that you may not strike your foot against a stone.” Satan has no delight in the perfect law of Jehovah. Satan, like the author of this list, is simply twisting the scriptures. The Psalm is authentic, but the interpretation or use of the verse that Satan was pressing was false.

2)     Some of the other Psalms such as Psalms 3, 51 and 60 are based on 2 Samuel, which is a false book. This is a faulty assumption leading to a faulty conclusion – also 2 Samuel is not actually a separate book from 1 Samuel (1 Samuel seems to be fine with this commentator so far), for it was only once they were translated into Greek (Which had vowels) was it needed to split the book into two.

3)     Most of these Psalms plainly contain texts that do not agree with the truth. Psalm 34: 19, 20 says: “Many are the hardships of the righteous one, but Jehovah rescues him from them all. He is guarding all his bones; not one of them has been broken.” Jehovah does not always rescue righteous people from hardships. Also, the bones of a righteous person can be broken, as it happened when Stephen was stoned to death. If this man cannot perceive that Jehovah does not promise protection from everything in this life he will not have the blessing of Jehovah in the next duration of life. For it is seen that these are poetic passages, one dealing with Christ. There is no falsehood here, only a lack of understanding concerning the scriptures.

4)     Psalm 44:22, written by the sons of Korah, was quoted by Paul in Romans 8:36 and it is followed by the words: “To the contrary ….” If someone speaks and follows his statement with ‘to the contrary’ it means whatever follows has an opposite meaning or implication. See this post post -  http://bibleselfharmony.blogspot.com/2015/08/does-romans-835-37-contradict-psalm-4422.html

5)     Psalm 45 was also written by the sons of Korah. This Psalm is about a king, who without doubt is Solomon, marrying foreign women. Deuteronomy 7:3, 4 says: “You must not form any marriage alliances with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then Jehovah’s anger will blaze against you, and he will swiftly annihilate you.”(Nehemiah 13:23-27; Joshua 23:12,13). Psalm 45 is likely (not without a doubt) about Solomon, although some speculate it could be about David (however in the grand scheme of things it is really about Christ). In any case we see that there is no mention of marrying a Pagan wife, no, but rather that daughter of kings would be ladies of honor, attendants to the queen, who is not said to be pagan. Perhaps the maker of this list should beware of the anger of Jehovah.

6)     Some of the Psalms by the sons of Korah were written by Heman and Ethan and Solomon was wiser than them. Heman asked a series of questions which according to Paul are asked by unreasoning people. (Psalm 88:10-12; 1 Corinthians 15:35, 36) The context of Psalm 88 shows extreme distress on the part of the psalmist, for in his mind he was about to die and go to Sheol. In harmony with Psalm 6 and Hezekiah’s prayer he pointed out that in death no one rises up and praises God (by asking a rhetorical question). And therin we find the solution to the “contradiction,” which  is to say “rising” in Psalm 88 has to do with the actual act of rising up and praising God, while “rising” in Paul’s word has to do with the act of raising the dead!

7)     Some of the Psalms, including Psalm 72, were written in David’s name, but from their superscripts, it can be seen that they were not actually written by David but after David's time. One of these is Psalm 60, which is a partial imitation of Psalm 108. Why would it matter of David repeated himself? Is the not the scriptures full of continued reminders? There is nothing in 60 or 108 that shows them not to be Davids. Psalm 72’s superscript is not “by Solomon” but “Concerning Solomon,” it is a prayer of David about his Son! It was of course written by David.”

8)    This is its superscript: "To the director; set to “The Lily of Reminder.” Mik′tam. Of David. For teaching. When he fought with A′ram-na•ha•ra′im and A′ram-Zo′bah, and Jo′ab returned and struck down 12,000 E′dom•ites in the Valley of Salt. However, 1 Chronicles 18:12 says: “Abishai the son of Zeruiah struck down 18,000 E′dom•ites in the Valley of Salt.”" If this commentator understood that David as the highest (human) military official got credit for all things, and yet Joab as chief of the arm could get credit, as could Abishai for his being a high official as well (he who acts through another does the act himself) then he would not be finding fault with these verses. As for the number, see #5.

9)     The authentic Psalms written by David do not bear explanatory superscripts, with the exception of Psalm 18. There are some Psalms which bear the clause: “Praise Jah, you people.” Two of them were quoted by Paul. These are Psalm 116:10 in 2 Corinthians 4:13 and Psalm 117 in Romans 15:11. What proof is there that David didn’t add superscripts? Oh there isn’t? The latter statements seem out of place somehow.

10) Psalm 51 is based on 2 Samuel 11 which is a false imitation of 1 Chronicles. But when Paul under the guidance of the holy spirit quoted Psalm 51:4, he used words which indicate that the quote were the words of man and were false. This is what he wrote: "But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.” Paul was under inspiration – that much I agree with, but as you will note after a second reading, Paul was not using those words to indicate that the words he quotes from were false, but alluding to a well-accepted and authentic Psalm to prove the point! (Does the commentator think that God will not be vindicated? I have already vindicated him.)

11)  Then, there are some Psalms which might appear to contain no errors but are actually false. One of these is Psalm 94. Psalm 94:11 was quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:20. 1 Corinthians 3:19, 20 say: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.”” Verse 19 is from Job 5:13 and it was spoken by Eliphaz the Temanite, who was one of Job’s ‘bad’ friends. When Jehovah appeared to Job and his friends, this is what the Scriptures say: “.After Jehovah had spoken these words to Job, Jehovah said to El′i•phaz the Te′man•ite: “My anger burns against you and your two companions, for you have not spoken the truth about me as my servant Job has. Now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job, and offer up a burnt sacrifice for yourselves. And my servant Job will pray for you. I will surely accept his request not to deal with you according to your foolishness, for you have not spoken the truth about me as my servant Job has.”” Therefore both the words from Job 5:13 and Psalm 94:11 can be considered the wisdom of this world. Not everything Job’s companions said was wrong (they called him the almighty, so I suppose that they are wrong, or so I would if I were you). Further there is nothing in Psalm 94 that is wrong, human fleshly thought is worthless. But I perceive the logic here, Psalm 94 by itself appears fine, but since a “bad” companion of Job’s who didn’t say everything right about God said something similar than it must be wrong, yet as I said they didn’t teach everything wrong about Jehovah!

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Is 2 Samuel Authentic? - First Thoughts

2 Samuel
The following is a list of supposed contradictions found in 2 Samuel which are said to mean it is not authentic. My words are in the bold.

2 Samuel appears to have been written by Solomon when his wives misled him into idolatry. There is no reasonable (let alone provable) basis for such a statement.

One of these books is 2 Samuel. In fact, 2 Samuel is an apostate’s imitation of 1 Chronicles. The following are some of the forgeries that appear in 2 Samuel:

1)      1 Samuel 31:1-6 shows that during Saul’s final battle with the Philistines, he told his armor bearer to kill him with his Saul’s own “sword.” The armor bearer, out of fear, did not kill him. However, Saul killed himself with his own sword. When the armor bearer saw that Saul was dead, he became afraid and he too killed himself. However, 2 Samuel 1:1-10 says that Saul was killed by an Amalekite, after Saul, who the Amalekite said was leaning on a spear, told him to kill him. 1 Chronicles 10:1-7 also confirms the fact that Saul killed himself when his armor bearer refused to do so. Addressed in The Self-Harmony of the Bible.

2)     1Chronicles 3:1 says that the second son of David was “Daniel”, but 2 Samuel 3:3 says it was “Chileab”. 2 Samuel 4:4 says that Jonathan’s son was “Mephibosheth”, but 1 Chronicles 8:34; 9:40 says that Jonathan’s son was “Meribbaal”. Many people had two names (Jacob/Israel, Joshua/Hoshea, Solomon/Jedediah), so it is not surprising for these two to have two names each.

3)     Nothing in 2 Samuel 11-18 appears in 1 Chronicles Nothing in 2 Samuel 19-21:14 appears in 1 Chronicles. Nothing in 2 Samuel 9 appears in 1 Chronicles. Michal’s words at 2 Samuel 6:20-23 do not appear in 1 Chronicles.

4)      That means nothing and in fact Chroicles (first and second) covers more material than both Samuels do, so it is not surprise for somethings to be left out.

5)     2 Samuel contradicts itself because 2 Samuel 14:27 says that Absalom had three sons and one daughter, but 2 Samuel 18:18 says Absalom had no son. They very well could have died. Considering how many of David’s relatives died it would not be surprising.

6)     2 Samuel 21:21 has “Shimei,” but 1 Chronicles 20:7 has “Shimea.” See “Scribal Errors” in The Self-Harmony of the Bible. (But come on, one letter?)

7)     1 Chronicles 20:4 shows that “Sibbecai struck down Sippai,” but 2 Samuel 21:18 says that it was “Saph.” See #5

8)    1 Chronicles 20:5 has “Jair,” but 2 Samuel 21:19 has “Jaareoregim.” 1 Chronicles 20:5 says that “Lahmi” was struck down, but 2 Samuel 21:19 has “Goliath.” See Insight  on the Scriptures Vol 1, page 1239 “Jaare-oregim”

9)     Chronicles 11:11 says that Jashobeam was “brandishing his spear over 300 slain at one time,” but 2 Samuel 23:8 has “800.” 2 Samuel 23:11 says the field was “full of lentils,” but 1 Chronicles 11:13 says that the field was “full of barley.” Possibly referring to different occuances, or due to scribal error (numbers or names are the most common). If the latter see #5

10) The list of the mighty men of David at 1 Chronicles 11:26-47 disagrees with that at 2 Samuel 23:24-39. 2 Samuel 23:25 has “Shammah the Harorite,” but 1 Chronicles 11:27 has “Shammoth the Harorite.” 2 Samuel 23:26 has “Helez the Paltite,” but 1 Chronicles 11:27 has “Helez the Pelonite.” 2 Samuel 23:27 has “Mebunai the Hushathite,” but 1 Chronicles 11:29 has “Sibbecai the Hushathite,” 2 Samuel 23:28 has “Zalmon the Ahohite,” but 1 Chronicles 11:29 has “Ilai the Ahohite.” 2 Samuel 23:29 has “Heleb,” 1 Chronicles 11:30 has “Heled.” 2 Samuel 23:30 has “Hiddai,” but 1 Chronicles has “Hurai.” 2 Samuel 23:31 has “Abi-albon,” but 1 Chronicles has “Abiel.” 2 Samuel 23:31 has “the Barhumite,” but 1 Chronicles 11:33 has “the Baharumite.” 2 Samuel 23:32 has “the sons of Jashen,” but 1 Chronicles 11:34 has “the sons of Hashem.” 2 Samuel 23:33 has “Ahiam the son of Sharar,” but 1 Chronicles 11:35 has “Ahiam the son of Sacar.” 1 Chronicles 11:35, 36 has “Eliphal the son of Ur, Hepher the Mecherathite,” but 2 Samuel 23:34 has “Eliphelet the son of Ahasbai the son of the Maacathite.” 1 Chronicles 21:15 shows that Jehovah’s angel was standing by “the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite”, but 2 Samuel 24:16 says he was standing by “the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.” See #5

11)  2 Samuel 5:6-8 makes no sense. (Compare it with 1 Chronicles 11:4-6.) 2 Samuel 5:6-8 does make sense. The inhabitants of the city were taunting David and told him that even the blind and lame (who couldn’t fight) would stop him. Both are harmonious.

12) 2 Samuel 5:16 has “Eliada,” instead of “Beeliada” at 1 Chronicles 14:17. 2 Samuel 5:25 has “from Geba to Gezer,” but 1 Chronicles 14:16 has “from Gibeon to Gezer.” 2 Samuel 6:6 has “the threshing floor of Nacon,” but 1 Chronicles 13:9 has “the threshing floor of Chidon.” 2 Samuel 8:9 has “Toi,” but 1 Chronicles 18:9 has “Tou.” 1 Chronicles 18:10 has “Hadoram”, but 2 Samuel 8:10 has “Joram”. 2 Samuel 8:17 says “Seraiah” was the secretary, but 1 Chronicles 18:16 says “Shavsha” was the secretary. 1 Chronicles 18:17 says that the sons of David were at the king’s side, but 2 Samuel 8:18 says they became priests. 1 Chronicles 19:16 says that the chief of the army of Hadadezer was “Shophach,” but 2 Samuel 10:18 says it was “Shobach.” See #5

13) 2 Samuel 8:4 says that David captured “1,700 horsemen and 20,000 men on foot,” but 1 Chronicles 18:4 says that he captured “1,000 chariots, 7,000 horsemen and 20,000 men on foot.” See #5

14) 1 Chronicles 18:1 shows that David took “Gath,” but 2 Samuel 8:1 says that he took “Methegammah.” Some render Metheg-ammah something like ‘mother city’ which could very well describe Gath, a chief city among the philistines.

15)  1 Chronicles 14:2 [sic] shows that David and his men did not take the idols of the Philistines away as 2 Samuel 5:21 says. It says that they burnt them. 2 Samuel 5:21 showed that his men took it away, 1 Chronicles 14:12 showed that when David gave the order they were burned. Obviously they had to be taken by his men to be gathered before David could have them burned!

16) 1 Chronicles says that after Joab counted the Israelites, he reported to David that the men of Israel amounted to 1,100,000 men drawing sword, and the men of Judah amounted to 470,000 men drawing sword. But 2 Samuel 24:9 says that the men of Israel amounted to 800,000 men drawing sword, and the men of Judah amounted to 500,000 men drawing sword. See The Watchtower of July 15th 1992, pg. 3, “Does the Bible Contradict Itself”

17)  1 Chronicles 21:11, 12 says that after David conducted the illegal counting, Jehovah asked him to choose one of the following calamities: whether for 3 years there will be famine in the land, or whether for 3 months the sword of their enemies will overtake them or whether for 3 days there will be an angel of Jehovah bringing ruin in all the land. But 2 Samuel 24:12, 13 has the following options: 7 years of famine, 3 years [sic] of their enemies pursuing them and 3 days of Jehovah’s angel bringing calamity. Each account says that one option was three months (not years) of being defeated by their foes. Likely there was a scribal error, so see #5

18) 2 Samuel 24:24 says that David paid just 50 silver shekels for the Ornan’s threshing floor, but 1 Chronicles 21:25 says that he paid 600 gold shekels for the field. See Insight on the Scriptures pg. 146, “Araunah”

Does Romans 8:35-37 Contradict Psalm 44:22?

Does Paul Deny the Scriptures
Who will separate us from the love of the Christ? Will tribulation or distress or persecution or hunger or nakedness or danger or sword?  Just as it is written [at Psalm 44:22]: “For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we have been accounted as sheep for slaughtering.”On the contrary, in all these things we are coming off completely victorious through the one who loved us.” – Romans 8:35-37

To the uniformed (or malicious) it is said that Paul denies the authenticity of the 44th psalm by his words “on the contrary.” However the truth is in the context. Paul presents one option that tribulation or distress or persecution etc. would separate us from Christ. He then alludes to the scripture that describes the real world experiences that he and his companions have gone through.
This latter statement is an important point, for if Paul wished to deny the 44th Psalm he would also be denying the irrefutable suffering of many Christians. This is something he never does, so what is it that he is doing?
He was saying, “We know what we are going through, the scriptures tell about it. But are we separated from the love of Christ because of such of things? No, but we are in fact coming off victorious despite these things! For our victory is that “anyone who puts faith in Jesus, though he may die, will be raised again.”

Therefore Paul affirms the authenticity of the psalm and expands on it to show that we are not separated from the love of Christ even though we are “sheep before the slaughter.”

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Does Stephen's Speech Contradict the Rest of the Bible?

The Accusation
Skeptics allege that in his speech (Acts 7) Stephen misremembered the Hebrew Scriptures. Such as where God said he would deport Israel (Stephen says Babylon, the Hebrew Scriptures says "beyond Damascus"), or the issue of how many people went down to Egypt, or the issue concerning Abraham's tomb. What can be said in his defense.

The Cultural Setting
It wouldn't be fair to say that the ancient Semitic culture was lazy about details, but it would be fair to say that in some cases they weren't to picky. For example, to them and to Stephen, it didn't mater that Stephen said that "beyond Babylon" instead of "beyond Damascus," because the point being made was the same, they were punished for worshiping other gods. Now, to our minds what he said was inaccurate, but to them the approximate was good enough. Further there is another point to consider.

This was Stephen's Speech!
The Bible writer, Luke, was simply recording what was being said. If he had changed what Stephen said then it could be said that he was not accurately reporting what happened. Of course because Luke recorded Stephen's speech didn't mean he considered it literally accurate.And keep in mind that Stephen was going off memory, if he had access to the Bible as we do today (with easy to find verses) he likely wouldn't have made those mistakes.

And to those who say that the holy spirit should have given him the correct details, they fail to take into consideration that there was no need to because of the culture that Stephen lived in, so it is perfectly fine that the holy spirit gave him what to say. Further Jesus didn't literally imply (in his saying "do not worry on what to say, for what to say will be given to you then by the spirit") that the holy spirit would tell us word for word what we'd say, no, but it would guide us in what to speak.

Conclusion
There is no contradiction in Stephen's speech and the rest of the Bible.