The Bible – Is It True? (Q&A)

“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:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/02/14/contradictions-do-rabbits-chew-the-cud

“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,[40] 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. 🙂

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “The Bible – Is It True? (Q&A)

  1. It is clear to me you are not at all interested in the type of in depth interaction and discussion I was seeking. I won’t waste your time any more, but if you have any honest questions regarding Atheism or critical thought in general, feel free to let me know.

    If you’re curious, I’m not engaging on these “answers” because it is clear you are responding out of your faith, and not facts. We would be thinking and speaking on two different wavelengths. I would encourage you to research your intended audience, if you are in fact attempting to “convert” the non-Christian.

  2. Hmmm…I definitely did use facts to answer you questions. It does not take faith to point out what ostriches do when nesting or facts to answer the rabbit question or to answer your question by explaining using figure of speech. All this don’t take faith.

  3. So you say that God’s failure to “drive out the inhabitants of the valley” was Judah’s fault because they lacked faith? Is that your justification and interpretation of the battle, or are there facts to back up your conclusion? There is nothing in Judges chapter 1 that sustains your interpretation, so it’s false.

    In verse 20 the Lord expelled the three sons of Anak. In verse 22 the LORD was with them. However, they didn’t drive out the Canaanites that were in Bethshean, nor Taanach nor Dor nor Kitron nor Nahalol nor Accho, nor the inhabitants of Zidon, nor of Ahlab, nor of Achzib, nor of Helbah, nor of Aphik, nor of Rehob nor the Asherites. (verses 20-32)

    It seems that the LORD couldn’t drive out a lot of those “bad guys” even though the LORD was with them.

    • Yes, that is what I mean. There may no previous facts in Judges 1 that may support in verse 19. However, like I said, it was up to the nation of Israel whether they wanted to trust in God. Just read the Bible, Israel has faith, they win. They don’t have faith, they lose.
      Hey, hey, read it carefully, it says “Neither did Manasseh drive out…” “Neither did Ephraim drive out…” “Neither did Zebulon…” Why did they not drive those people out? It seems the nation of Israel was more interested in the tributaries that this people contributed. It’s not the Lord that couldn’t, it’s the Israelites that wouldn’t.

      • So even though the “LORD” would have driven those bad guys out, Judah preferred to make money off of them than get rid of them. It’s not a case of lack of faith then, it is just plain greed and evil. And these are the people that wrote the bible and were loved by the “LORD”. Right.

  4. 1) Since Eli died childless, there is no way that Mary could have been his daughter — this is church history according to Christianity’s greatest historian Eusebius who also was the one commissioned to select the books that would comprise the New Testament. He received the information from direct descendants of the family of Jesus. (Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiae, 1:7:11, 1:7:13-14)

  5. 2) For the genealogy in Luke to be the Messiah’s it would have to include Solomon, which it does not — but the one in Matthew does. (1Chron 28:4-8)

  6. Royal kingship always came through the father, never the mother. So his messianic lineage had to come through the genealogy in Matthew, especially since the Messiah had to descend from Solomon’s line.

  7. Elisabeth, Mary’s aunt, was a Levite: “There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.” (Luke 1:5) What’s more, priests could not marry outside the tribe of Levi.

  8. Mary’s mother was a Levite and whether her father was Joaquim or not, it was not Eli since he died childless, according to Eusebius. What’s more, church history tells us that Eli’s widow was Joseph’s birth mother. Brothers and sisters did not marry. If Joaquim the priest were not the father of Mary, as we are told from catholic tradition, then there is no evidence at all who her father was. But it couldn’t possibly have been Eli.

  9. “Matthan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiae, 1:7:11, 1:7:13-14)

  10. Doug, you are already coming from the angle that the genealogies are wrong. That the one in Luke really is describing Joseph. However, is Eli Heli? Are they one and the same person?
    About the lineage, in Jeremiah 22:30, God curses this man named Coniah and says that his descendants will never sit on a throne. Joseph was a descendant of this man. So, Jesus could not biologically be a son of Joseph.
    However, like I said, Mary and Joseph had David as her common ancestor, but, from then on, the genealogy split. So, Jesus really did descend out of David’s bowels – in a way, because Mary did give birth to Him and she was descended from David. And, he can legitimately sit on the throne, because he is not blood related to Joseph.
    If you notice, God made this promises to King David, so, no, Luke does not have to include Solomon. And regarding Mary’s parents – that’s the thing, you are going according to catholic traditions. I am not a catholic and I do not agree with their doctrines.
    Like I said, the word used was “syngenis” which does not give a clear term for how they were related. It just means that they were related.
    No, Levites were allowed to marry out of their tribes. Google “were Levites allowed to marry other tribes.”

    • I’m not saying that the genealogies are wrong (although they may be). However, as already stated, Eli (or Heli — the same person) died childless. Therefore, he could not be Mary’s father. In fact, Eli’s widow was Joseph’s mother.

      If you don’t agree with catholic traditions then that’s fine. But the greatest church historian Eusebius tells us that “Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.” (Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiae, 1:7:11, 1:7:13-14)

      Therefore Mary could in no way be a descendant of David. Joseph was not the son-in-law of Eli, he was the son by law — from a levirite marriage.

  11. Whichever genealogy you choose: the one in Matthew or the one in Luke, you still come out with the same thing: Joseph had to be the biological father of Jesus in order for him to be the Messiah, since Joseph was the son of both Jacob and Eli. Mary was not of either lineage. The bible clearly says “… Joseph, which was the son of Heli”. (Like 3:23)

    • Sigh…do you not read what I wrote? On what proof do you have that shows without a single doubt that Eli and Heli are one and the same?
      And, NO Joseph was not and can not be the biological father of Jesus because of the curse, and the Messianic prophecy that he would be born of a virgin. However, Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, as shown in Luke’s genealogy that Mary was descended from David.

  12. If you read Eusebius’ it is obvious that the two are one in the same person — without a single doubt — this is proof enough. Mary could not have been the daughter of Eli (or Heli) since he died childless. Even Luke clearly states that Joseph was the son of Heli (by law). Also there is NO messianic prophecy (outside a false one) that Jesus would be born of a virgin.

  13. Here’s the proof: “Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both.”

  14. Eusebius was known as the father of church history and a bishop favored by Constantine. He was also one of the main characters that made recommendations of which books were to be included in the biblical canon. It makes sense that Eusebius, being an Arian (as was Constantine), would include the true story of Joseph’s family in church history.

    Had the stories of the virgin birth been in the gospels at that time, Eusebius would never have recommended that Matthew and Luke be included in the biblical canon. He knew that Joseph was the son of Heli’s widow and that Heli died childless. This means that the stories of the virgin birth could have only been added in after that — in the 4th century! The story of the virgin birth is a forgery.

  15. (Remember, whether or not you agree with the doctrines of the Catholic church, it is from them the Baptists get their church history and the bible)

  16. If Joseph can’t be the biological father of Jesus and since Mary is not the daughter of Heli, then Jesus can’t be the Messiah. What’s more, since the virgin birth is a forgery, Jesus can’t be God. Take out everything related to Jesus being God and you will have something much closer to what the gospels originally were. Is the bible true? Not in the form we have today.

  17. Here’s the prophecy on the virgin birth: Isaiah 7:14 KJV
    “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

    You’re saying that it’s “obviously” clear from what was written. But, you have no proof, because you are fixed in your assumption that Luke’s genealogy is for Joseph – which it is not. Which, also means, that talking further on this point is pointless. Even if Heli and Eli are the same name, could they be different people? Duh…I mean, Joseph’s name is repeated more than once in Luke 3’s genealogy, but it is obvious they are different people, but with the same name.

    No, we did not get our “history” from Catholics, if you read through history, they were the ones persecuting Baptist, and anyone who didn’t comply with their beliefs and laws. They were the ones burning Tyndale, persecuting Wycliffe, torturing countless others who were trying to get the Bible – which they and others had translated into the layman’s language, instead of the Latin – to other people. The Bible most commonly used would be the KJV which was commissioned by king James the I, who was raised a Protestant.

  18. That is not even a prophecy. It was for a sign to the king; it wasn’t considered a future prophecy; it turns out that the child was Isaiah’s son; the young woman was not a virgin. in fact, the word translated for virgin was a mistranslation, it should have been young maiden. What’s more this is not considered messianic prophecy (except by Christians). The sign was about 2 countries that the king was worried about — years before the birth of Jesus.

  19. Luke’s genealogy IS for Joseph, at least in the sense that he was Eli’s (or Heli) son by law — through a levirite marriage. Joseph’s mother was Eli’s widow. Eli and Heli are actually the same person. Eli is a transliteration of Heli.

  20. I’m talking about church history going back to the 4th cenetury, way before Tyndale and Wycliffe and King James. I may be wrong in saying they were called catholics that far back — but at least the Roman Orthodox Church. Some of those weird doctrines were developed long after that time.

  21. Arianism was extremely popular during the first 3 centuries. Constantine himself was an Arian as was Eusebius who was highly favored by Constantine. Eusebius was the father of church history and was also one of the main persons to create the canon. If the story of the virgin birth had been in Matthew and Luke at that time, he would never have recommended that they be included in the canon. Arians did NOT believe in the virgin birth. Therefore, the story of the virgin birth was inserted in the 4th century. It was a forgery.

    • Doug, I am wasting my time talking to you. What you want is to convince me is that the virgin birth is not real, and that Jesus isn’t the Messiah. The only life vest that you have, is that little paragraph Eusebius wrote. Which is not strong enough and proves little. You say that they were the ones that composed the Bible that we had today. Wrong. Eusebius and others wrote/gathered those books for the CATHOLIC church. KJV came from Antioch. Christians already had the Bible long before Eusebius was born. John wrote the last book, Revelation a little before 100 A.D. And the churches had all the letters the various apostles wrote, including the Gospels. Therefore, the virgin birth would be already have been added inside, and fulfilled what Isaiah prophesied. Eusebius was born in 260/265 A.D. Another thing, Eusebius was a follower of Origen, whom Baptist do not look favorably on.

  22. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Thank you for the polite exchange of ideas you so graciously provided grounds for on your web site. I see you have studied much more than the vast majority of Christians that one encounters along the way. Have a nice week end.

      • I was brought up a baptist, my father was a baptist minister for a time. I was a missionary for many years in latin countries. I decided to read and study the bible for myself and discovered too many untruths, inconsistencies, contradictions and outright forgeries in it. Today I would classify myself as an ex-christian, though I still believe in God. Thank you again.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s