“Is God omnipotent and all-powerful? If so, please explain 1Judges 1 : 19”
Yes, God is omnipotent and all-powerful – side note, omnipotent means all-powerful. There is one concept you have to understand, God helped the nation of Israel through human instrumentality. If you read through the Bible carefully, God gave them strength, but it was up to them if they wanted to have faith and believe that God was with them. Only a few time do you see God explicitly working without using the aid of humans. For example, instead of giving the army of Israel the strength to fight back when Sennachrib had laid seiged during King Hezekiah’s reign, God sent a death angel that killed the entire army. 2 Chronicles 32:21 “And the LORD sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria.” In the case of this verse, the tribe of Judah lost faith and did not belief, even though God had helped them before. Matthew 13:58 says, “And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.”
“Leviticus 11:5-6 claims rabbits and coneys chew cud, they do not.”
Haha…one of the most often question asked regarding whether the Bible is really that true. Dr. Tommy Mitchell has already written an excellent answer to this statement:
“Job 39:13-16 gives a completely false account of ostrich behavior.”
Ummm…no, that is not a completely false statement. Let’s take a look at the verse:
13 ¶ Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?
14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.
16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labour is in vain without fear;
According to verse 13, ostrichs have wings and feathers. Yes, they do.
According to Wikipedia, “The female ostrich lays her fertilised eggs in a single communal nest, a simple pit, 30–60 cm (12–24 in) deep and 3 m (9.8 ft) wide, scraped in the ground by the male.” (Verse 14 does say that the eggs are laid in the earth and “warmeth them in dust.”) One and only one mother will sit on the eggs and help to incubate them.
If you look at pictures of the nest, it isn’t that deep actually. Since only one mother sits on the eggs, the eggs will be left alone when that mother needs to eat, rest, use the toilet, or whatever ostrich mothers do. Perhaps, that is why verse 15 and 16 describes her as such.
“Multiple times in the Bible, the earth is said to be set on “pillars” with the sun moving around it.”
I think you meant the passage in 1 Samuel 2: 8 “He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and he hath set the world upon them.”
If you read it in CONTEXT, you can see that the “pillars of earth” refer to leaders of the world. It is a figure of speech. Another example, would be in Matthew 5:13 “Ye are the salt of the earth:” Reading in context, you will see that this was spoken to the Christians, telling them to be good Christian examples. Now, even a non-Christian wouldn’t stand up and say, “You see, God is calling humans grains of ‘salt.’ ” They know that it is a figure of speech.However, I didn’t see the statement of the sun moving around it. Did I get the question correct?
“The lineage in Luke is completely different from the one in Matthew. Some say that it was this lineage that was Mary’s, however this cannot be since 1) Mary’s father’s name was Joaquim who was a Levite priest; 2) Mary’s mother was the sister of Elisabeth who the bible tells us was a Levite; 3) Eli died childless according to history and Jacob, Joseph’s father married Eli’s wife, who was Joseph’s mother; 4) Solomon wasn’t in the genealogy in Luke but in Matthew.”
Okay, firstly, no – Joaquim was not Mary’s father, that was based on the apocryphal Gospel of James. I assume that you are coming from Anglican, Catholic, or Orthodox view? Her father is Heli. The son used in Luke3:23 carries the meaning of son-in-law.
Secondly, the term used to describe how Mary was related to Elisabeth, was the Greek word “syngenis.” This word means “akin, a relative” and so on…how exactly are they related? Not sure, for all we know, they could have been first cousin or fourth cousins. As commentator Matthew Henry noted: “Though Elisabeth was, on the father’s side, of the daughters of Aaron, yet on the mother’s side she might be of the house of David, for those two families often intermarried, as an earnest of the uniting of the royalty and the priesthood of the Messiah.”
With point one being invalid and point two explained, Luke’s record of the genealogy can really be from Mary’s side.
I have no idea what point three is about, and what it’s supposed to prove.
Fourthly, yes. Solomon wasn’t in the genealogy of Luke because this genealogy was on Mary’s side as explained in points one and two. You may ask, then why isn’t Mary’s name up there? Because, Luke followed the Hebrew tradition of using only guys’ name. Therefore, Joseph (the son-in-law of Heli) took, in way, the place of Mary’s name in this listing. Both Mary and Joseph were from the same ancestry, until you hit the part where they split – Joseph descended from King Solomon (as shown in Matthew) and Mary descended from Nathan (another son of King David).
So, this were the four questions that were asked. Feel free to ask any more. I will try my best to answer them. 🙂