NOTES ON I SAMUEL

I Samuel 1:5 lit. “a portion of one pair of nostrils”

I Sam. 1:14 Eli apparently has no spiritual discernment. It was common for worshipers to overeat and 

drink at religious feasts. Most people prayed aloud at the time. Eli should have given his advice to his 

own sons instead.

I Sam. 1:24 The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls have one three-year old bull instead of three 

bulls. This is consistent with the mention of one bull in the next verse and with Genesis 15:9.

I Samuel 2:8   Hannah's prayer is “quoted” in Psalm 113.

I Samuel 3:2-3 Appropriately, Samuel is positioned near the ark to tend the fire during the night while 

Eli is further away and has eyes too dimmed to see properly.

I Samuel 8-9 The Qeiyafa Ostracon found in 2008 and written in proto-Hebrew has been deciphered 

by one scholar and said to come from King Saul's time. It contains the following that are in the biblical 

text: (a) the need for judges who will not oppress the foreigner and those less fortunate, (b) the 

installation of a king, (c) the existence of servants who serve the king, (d) the injunction not to oppress, 

but to serve God, and (e) the designation of a new monarch. (Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 

2012)

I Sam. 9-10 Negative associations at start of Saul's career are hinted at: He is Benjamite from Gibeah, 

the scene of the infamous events of Judges 19; son of Kish ("a man of valor") is the same term used for 

the Benjamites in Judges 20 that were killed; "smallest tribe" hearkens back to the reason they were the 

smallest tribe; he is chosen by stepwise lots--only other occurrence is in Joshua 7:11 where Achan is 

identified as the offender; tribes are summoned to Mizpah where they had earlier mustered to 

exterminate the Benjaminites; Saul's sending dismembered pieces of animals out to tribes is similar to 

Judges 19 story also. (Kenneth Cohen) Also see Judges 19.

I Sam. 9:19-22 The context indicates that bama is a structure that may include an eating chamber, not 

just an altar.

I Samuel 13:14 Several commentators state that "man of his own heart" = "a man of God's own 

choosing" and has nothing to do with David's attributes. Kaiser (Ethics, p. 274-5) says on the basis of 

similar phrases in I Samuel 2:35 that a "man after God's own heart" = "one who does God's will." But 

that applies only in his official duties, not necessarily in his private life. This is quoted in Acts 13:22.

I Sam. 13:19 There had been no adequate translation for pym ("file"?) until a small round weight was 

found with that inscription. Instead of "they had a file for the mattocks," the phrase now reads "the 

charge for sharpening the plowshares and for the mattocks was a pym (a fraction of a shekel)."

I Samuel 14:17 Critical scholars for years doubted that Edom was even a civilized nation at the time of 

David. Recent archeology has shown that they had a sophisticated mining and smelting operation 

during this time.

I Samuel 15:3 see the note to I Samuel 22:19.

I Sam. 15:17 Poor self-esteem is at the root of Saul's problems (E. Jones). This is different from 

David's humility in the presence of God. Saul is inwardly directed while David is outwardly directed.

I Sam. 15:22 One translation reads, “I have listened to the command of the LORD.” “Then what do I 

 hear?”

I Sam 15:30 He still wants to preserve his prestige with the people.

I Sam 15:32 God's will is done but not by the intended party.

I Samuel 16:11 youngest = the runt of the litter

I Samuel 17:1 Neither strong army could attack without crossing a river and charging up a mountain.

I Sam. 17:4 The oldest Philistine inscription found at Gath, scratched in a piece of pottery with a 

needle-like instrument contains two proper names. One is Goliath. It dates to about 100 years after the 

biblical Goliath.

I Sam 17:11 Saul up to now could rely on his greater height and strength. His advantage now fails and 

he doesn't know how to cope with the situation. (Cassidy)

I Sam. 17:32 The Septuagint reads, "Let not the king's heart fail."

I Sam 17:40 Five stones, not just one. Even with faith in God's provision, one should still take normal 

precautions.

I Sam 17:52 See Joshua 15:36.

I Samuel 18:1-9 Jonathan embraces David's future role as king while Saul resists it.

I Sam. 18:10 See Judges 9:23.

I Samuel 19:13 See II Samuel 6:16.

I Samuel 22:19 Similar language to 1 Sam. 15:3 shows Saul's perversion of God's command

I Samuel 24:6-7 The seriousness of his action has been explained in two different ways: (1) A 

cuneiform tablet from Mari (located in present Syria near border of Iraq) states that a professional 

prophet would enclose with his prophecy a lock of his hair and a piece of the hem of his garment as a 

guarantee of the accuracy of his prophecy. (2) Sometimes an impression of the hem of an important 

person in a clay seal would be used as a signature.

 

SYMMETRY IN THE APOCRYPHA

Various forms of literary symmetry are almost the hallmark of the books in the Bible, both OT and NT. It would be enlightening to look for the same type of order and symmetry in other proposed additions to the Jewish and Christian canon. The main problem with this proposed exercise is that if no such marks of “divine”structure are detected, one can still not state with any surety that they do not in fact exist. The next best approach is to canvass the literature for supposed examples of chiasm (mirror-image symmetry) or parallel cycles that have already been identified by others and critique those literary structures. The following random examples, given in rough chronological order, are not by any means exhaustive, but perhaps indicative.

Bel and the Dragon

The Apocrypha consists of OT additions to the Bible accepted by Roman Catholics and some other Christian denominations as part of the Canon to one extent or another. Some of these are not stand-alone books but short additions to existing OT books. Almost without exception, these short additions have the effect of disrupting the symmetry already found in those books. However, some books found in the Apocrypha, such as those to the book of Daniel, also represent complete stories which can be compared with the tales in the first part of Hebrew/Aramaic Daniel. Here is such an example.

Capitalizing on insights of Bruyn and Jordaan, one can construct an overall scheme of sorts that connects the two stories encompassed by the above title:

A. Bel is revered by Babylonians

    B. Daniel says it is not a living god

        C. King is angry and confronts priests

            D. Test proposed

                E. Daniel exposes the deception

                    F. Priests and their families are killed

A'. Dragon is revered by Babylonians

    B'. Daniel says it is not a living god

            D'. Test proposed

                E'. Dragon is destroyed

        C'. Babylonians are angry and confront the king

                    F'. Daniel is given over to them

A. Daniel put into lions' den

    B. Lions not fed

        C. Habakkuk is taken to Babylonian

            D. Daniel praises God

                E. Daniel is fed

        C'. Habakkuk is returned

            D'. King praises God

A'. Daniel is taken out of the lions' den

    B. Lions are fed

The theme of food / eating helps to unite the three stories, and there are a few hints in the text that do the same thing, i.e., three items of food given to each idol (vv. 3 and 27), sheep as food (vv. 3 and 32), and the number seven (vv. 32 and 40). In addition, the first two stories, with their mostly parallel arrangement, end on two open notes: (a) the false idols have been exposed to the king for what they are, but the king has not yet turned to the true God, and (b) Daniel's fate is left in the air. Both of these concerns are alleviated in the third story which, in keeping with its closed chiastic form, resolves these two issues. However, complete symmetry and more verbal parallels are lacking in this addition to the Book of Daniel.

The Book of Tobit

Murai analyzes this apocryphal book as a series of four interlocking chiasms. Only one of these chiasms will be discussed as a typical example of Murai's technique, but similar difficulties beset the other three sections.

A. Departure of Tobiah (4:1-6:1)

    B. Capture of Magic Fish (6:2-9)

        C. Recommendation of Marriage (6:10-18)

    B'. The Marriage (7:1-8:3)

A'. Prayer of Tobiah and Sarah (8:4-9a)

Insurmountable problems with this analysis include the following:

1. The topical summaries of the various units neither accurately capture the gist of each identified section nor provide any hint of the proposed parallelisms shown above.

    a. One would expect that “Departure of Tobiah” would be matched up with his section entitled “Return of Tobiah” (9:1-10:13) but he sees no parallelism between the two.

    b. From the section descriptions, one would expect to pair C and B' together.

2. Murai does provides keys to the more specific verbal parallels he identifies, but most of them are vague similarities or only involve small portions of the sections themselves.

    a. A and A' are identified as parallels strictly by the word “heaven(s)” and the fact that it occurs in a prayer in each case. The latter is not even true since its occurrence in A is part of a pious wish. In addition, this is a very uneven pairing of 43 verses in A with only 5 ½ verses in A'.

    b. B and B' are paired a little better since the magic item obtained in the former section is utilized in the parallel one. However, the pertinent verses in B' only represent the final two of a 21-verse unit.

By contrast, H. Efthimiadis-Keith defines the structure of the book as being broadly chiastic with the first section A (1:1-7:9a) outlining the effect of traumatic events on Tobit; followed by a center section B (7:9b-10:13) in which the positive effect of Tobias' marriage brings about a reversal in Tobit's life as evidenced in the final third of the book (Section A'). However, the approximately ten specific reversals she lists for A' do not line up in any orderly manner with the equal number of traumas in A. Also, her section divisions are in no agreement with those of Murai.

The Prayer of Manasseh

Breck has proposed a 10-part chiasm for this short work based wholly on thematic pairings of verses. There is always an inherent problem with this approach, especially in this case where the entire work centers around only one theme, sin-repentance-forgiveness. As a test of his proposal, a study of repeated language in the prayer was conducted to see if duplications matched up with his section divisions.

The following repeated words/phrases do help to confirm Breck's analysis:

A-A' heaven

B-B' for thou art the Lord / for thou, O Lord, art

    repent

    mercy (also in Section C)

D-D' sin (verb) (also in Section C)

E-E' sin (noun)

    multiply

On the other hand, a larger number of words and phrases are repeated in non-matching sections. They include: wrath, sinner, evil, transgression, beseech thee, save, unworthy, for ever, glory/glorious, and repentance. Breck's own judgment on a possible chiasm in on of the Dead Sea Scrolls applies here as well: “But at best the parallels are thematic rather than verbal and can arguably be explained as simple and random repetition of key ideas.”

The Wisdom of Solomon

The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha notes that although this book was probably written by a single author, “The literary style of the book varies from poetic patches of high lyrical quality to plodding and pedestrian prose.” That same unevenness appears to evidence itself in the literary structure of the book. Sigvartsen finds one major section of the book, 1:1-6:21 which appears to possess a degree of literary symmetry, in contrast to the rest of the book. His analysis appears to be a fairly good representation of the structure of these verses. In addition, one can note that there are even weak verbal markers at the start and conclusion of sections A (“righteousness”), B (“reasoned”), and A' ("O kings / O monarchs").

A. Rulers enjoined to pursue wisdom (1:1-15)

    B. Speech of the ungodly (1:16-2:24)

        1. Introduction (1:16-2:1a)

        2. Speech (2:1b-20)

        3. Conclusion (2:21-24)

        C. Four contrasts (3:1-4:20)

            1. The just vs. the wicked (3:1-12)

            2. Sterile woman/the eunuch vs. generation of the wicked (3:13-19)

            3. Praise of virtue vs. useless fruit of the wicked (4:1-6)

            4. Premature death of the just youth vs. the wicked (4:7-20)

    B'. Speech of the ungodly (5:1-23)

        1. Introduction of judgment scene (5:1-3)

        2. Speech (5:4-13[14])

        3. Conclusion of judgment scene (5:14[15]-23)

A'. Rulers enjoined to pursue wisdom (6:1-21)

    1. Kings exhorted to understand and learn (6:1-8)

    2. Positive motives for learning wisdom (6:9-21)

It is even possible to firm up the symmetry in the above proposal by recasting Section C as a modified chiasm:

1. Premature death of the righteous not understood (3:1-9)

    2. The ungodly will be punished (3:10-13a)

        3. Fruit of the undefiled (3:13b-15)

            4. Fruit of adulterers (3:16-19)

        3'. Fruit of the virtuous (4:1-2)

1'. Premature death of the righteous not understood (4:7-17)

    2'. The ungodly will be punished (4:18-20)

Psalm 151

This is seven-verse psalm is part of the Orthodox canon but not widely accepted elsewhere in Christendom. There are several barriers to ascribing canonical status to this apocryphal work ascribed to David:

1. It disrupts the overall form of the Psalter (see my post "The Psalms: Introduction to the Literary Structure").

2. It only exists in Greek (although it appears to be a compilation of two separate Hebrew psalms found among the Dead Sea scrolls).

3. It is not written in poetic form at all.

In spite of these barriers, Father Breck defends it by detecting an overall chiastic form to the psalm. His assigned pairings of verses are only vaguely thematic in nature: the humility of David vs. the greatness of his victory, David the musician vs. David the warrior, and the Lord's acceptance of David vs. His rejection of David's brothers. And Breck's descriptions of the last contrasting pair do not even do justice to the meanings of those verses. In addition, absolutely the only verbal confirmation within these contrasting verses is the presence of “Lord” in the last pairing.

Keeping in mind that the above examples are about the only ones in the whole Apocrypha even proposed to have symmetry at all, one can easily see that these additions to the Bible do not exhibit the literary excellence seen in either the OT or NT books, whose writings bracket the Apocrypha in time of writing.

 

ANSWERING ATHEISTS: INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE

We will discuss these “errors,” gathered from various sources, by the order in which they appear in the Bible.

A. Genesis 9:3 says that all animals can be eaten while Leviticus outlines a number that can't be eaten. This isn't a contradiction since Genesis 9:3 was the covenant that God made with all mankind while the later commands were strictly for the Jews since they were to be set apart from the rest of mankind. This objection ignores the historical context.

B. There is confusion as to who brought Joseph to Egypt. Was it his brothers, Midianites or Ishmaelites?

1. Concerning Genesis 37:28, this is a complete misunderstanding of this verse, which is only quoted in part by critics. Here is how the whole thing reads, “When some Midianite traders passed by, they drew Joseph up, lifting him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt.” Depending on who “they” refers to in the two places in the text, it can be interpreted as either (a) the Midianite traders took Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites or (b) the brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites (region of origin)/Ishmaelites (traders).

2. And, of course, Genesis 45:4 poses no problem whatsoever. It doesn't say that the brothers brought Joseph to Egypt at all, just that they sold him to those who did bring him there.

3. Actually, in Genesis 45:5, Joseph explains that it was ultimately God who sent him to Egypt.

C. In Exod. 12:12, God appears to acknowledge the existence of other gods.

But that may not be the correct meaning of this verse. As the three commentators below explain, Egypt's so-called gods were shown to be totally powerless to prevent the plagues visited on them by God, demonstrating their basic non-existence.

R. Allen Cole, Exodus: “This may refer to the way in which the plagues affected the Nile and the various animal symbols of the gods of the Egyptians, or it may refer to the defeat of the spiritual powers that stand behind these symbols.”

Bernard Ramm, His Way Out: “Yahweh again showed that He is the living God, and the gods of the Egyptians but dead pieces of stone or wood or precious metal.”

Robert Gordon, International Bible Commentary: “The gods of Egypt were also to be brought into judgment. Their ineffectualness had been demonstrated in the earlier plagues when the natural forces thought to be under their jurisdiction were seen to be in control of a higher power.”

Another approach is expressed this way: “It was only in the course of history that the belief in the superiority of Israel's God over all other gods led to the development of absolute monotheism.” New International Dictionary of OT Theology and Exegesis. One commentator has said that “the OT writers preserve their strong monotheism albeit with a hint of henotheism.” (Twelvetree, NDBT, p. 796)

Many Bible scholars feel that the Jews first believed in henotheism (one God over the other gods) rather than in monotheism, and the fuller truth was only revealed to them after the Babylonian captivity. It is actually pretty easy to demonstrate this progressive revelation of God's nature to the Jews in the Bible: God made a covenant with Abraham, revealed his personal name to Moses, henotheism is probably taught in the Ten Commandments, the prophets taught absolute monotheism, Jesus is revealed as the son of God, and finally at Pentacost the Jews experienced the Holy Spirit.

This whole progression is also demonstrated in the way the Book of Isaiah is put together.

Three-fold Structure of Isaiah

I. Indictment for Past Sins (chs. 1-35)

II. Historical Interlude (chs. 36-39)

III. Future Promise (chs. 40-66)

                A. God the Father (chs. 40-48)

Short Term – Salvation from Babylon

    B. God the Son (chs. 49-57)

Mid Term – The Messiah (suffering servant songs)

    C. God the Holy Spirit (chs. 58-66)

Long Term – Ultimate Salvation (the term Holy Spirit only appears 3 times in the OT, two of which are found in the exact center of IIIC)

As G. L. Bray explains (in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p. 512) concerning monotheism and henotheism, “From a theological point, however, there is little or no difference between the two options. Whatever the Israelites may have thought about the gods of the nations around them, they always regarded their own God as supremely powerful and thus 'real' in a way that the others were not. We may therefore conclude that Israel practiced a de facto monotheism from earliest times, even if this was not fully clarified until the time of the exile or later.”

D. “Perhaps no biblical contradiction is more difficult to comprehend than god's (sic) refusal to frame a consistent policy concerning the punishment of children for the sins of their parents.”

PRO: Exod. 20:5; 2 Sam. 12:13-18; I Kings 13:34, 14:10, 21:25-29; II Kings 5:27

CON: Deut. 24:6; II Kings 14:6; II Chron. 25:4; Jer. 31:29-30; (Ezek. 18:2-4)    (Brian Bolton)

Actually, if you look at each of these passages in their context, God is totally consistent. In the first group of Scriptures, He announces that it is His prerogative to mete out punishment on the family of any Israelite who is disobedient, but in practice God only does so directly in four cases – each of which involves a person in a very responsible position (three kings and Elisha's servant). In the second group of verses, God first makes it clear that the people are never take it on themselves to carry out such punishments, only Himself. The Ezekiel passage is addressed to the exiles who were blaming the sinfulness of their parents for their own plight, and Ezekiel tells them to quit complaining and concentrate on their own sinfulness. And finally, in Jeremiah, God announces that when the New Covenant comes into effect, even He Himself will not punish any children for their parents' offenses. 

E. Does God get tired? Exodus and Jeremiah say yes while Isaiah says no.

Exodus 31:17: God rested on the 7^th day.

    shabath = to stop working

Jeremiah 15:6: God is tired of repenting.

    laah = to make one upset

Isaiah 40:28-31: God doesn't faint or become weary.

    yaga = physically fatigued

                            (Young's Analytical Concordance)

This criticism of the Bible, as many others, is based on the mistaken belief that there is a complete overlap in meaning between English and Hebrew or between English and Greek, which is rarely true. You need to carefully consider what each word meant in the original language and especially not compare completely different original words just because they are occasionally translated by the same English word.

F. Matthew 19:26 says that God can accomplish all things, but He is apparently defeated by some chariots in Judges 1:19.

The first thing to note is that “he” in the Judges passage refers to Judah, not God. Next, the Matthew reference does not guarantee that God will do all things just because He can. Also, even though presence of chariots is given as a reason for the failure of Judah's army, there is obviously more to it considering that God has no trouble whatsoever defeating an army of chariots three chapters later in Judges 4-5. One of the Jewish targums (commentaries) added the explanatory phrase “after they had sinned” to Judges 1:19. The fourth thing to consider is that chapter and verse divisions in our modern Bible were not in the original and didn't get added until the Middle Ages. Therefore they not only are not inspired, but are sometimes quite misleading, as in this case where not only the chapter division but also the verse division is probably in error. So another answer to this so-called contradiction is found by considering the literary structure of the first part of Judges.

Literary Structure of Judges 1:1-2:5

A. God will be with Judah (1:1-2)

    B. Judah-Simeon Alliance (1:3)

        C. Successful Military Campaigns (1:4-16)

    B'. Judah-Simeon Alliance (1:17)

A'. God was with Judah (1:18-19a)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Judah was unsuccessful (after sinning) (1:19b)

    B. Other tribes are partially successful (1:20-36)

A'. Because of her sin, God will not drive out the Canaanites (2:1-5)

                                                        Adapted from Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges

So the first part of verse 19 belongs with the events when God was with Judah while the second part belongs to the later time period after they had sinned.

G. Who Killed Goliath? Was it David or Elhanan (II Samuel 21:19)?

Here we must admit that there may be some problems in transmission of the text. But here are five possible ways to resolve the contradiction:

1. The parallel passage in I Chronicles 20:5 says that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother so “brother” may have dropped out of the Samuel text.

2. Elhanan may have been David's original name. Remember that Solomon had two names, and the fathers' names Jair and Jesse could have been easily confused for one another by a scribe.

3. Elhanan killed Oregim the Bethlemite who was with Goliath. This translation is possible by attaching different vowels to the consonants and looking at the grammar of the sentence in a little different way.

4. The name “Goliath” means “champion” or “strongman” so it may be just a generic designation, not an actual name.

5. This particular Goliath may have been the son of the original one. Archeology has found the name Goliath as a common one recurring over several generations. (Dictionary of the OT Historical Books, p. 356.)

G. “The word-for-word duplication between Isaiah 37 and II Kings 19, written by Jeremiah, has been called the most outrageous error in the Bible.”

Actually, I would label this The Most Outrageous Objection to the Bible for the following reasons.

1. No one knows who wrote the Book of Kings or when it was written.

2. Within I-II Kings are listed several of the earlier sources used to compose it, including The History of the Kings of Israel, The History of the Kings of Judah, The Book of the Deeds of Solomon, prophetic narratives (and these could include the Book of Isaiah) and Temple records. All historians utilize historical sources.

3. I find it hard to understand how this can be considered an error; you can't even accuse the author of Kings of plagiarism since he lists his sources.

4. You might as well complain that large portions of Samuel-Kings are duplicated word-for-word in Chronicles and that duplications appear between the four Gospel accounts. So what? It really just means an additional witness to the events being narrated.

H. Can God be found? Proverbs 8:17 says yes while Proverbs 1:28 says no.

1. These verses refer to Lady Wisdom, not God.

2. The nature of proverbs is to only state the general rule.

3. All of Proverbs 1 concerns those who persistently refuse to listen to Wisdom. This is equivalent to the hardening of hearts that appears elsewhere in the Bible, which happens when people have already hardened their own hearts.

4. By contrast, all of Proverbs 8 concerns those who love Wisdom and always seek it.

I. Do you answer a fool or not (Proverbs 26:4-5)?

I can only imagine what the author of this contradiction would have to say about this quote from Samuel Beckett found in his novel The Unnamable (“I can't go on,. I'll go on.”) Or what about one of the most famous opening line from any book written (“It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.”) Beckett is a Nobel Prize winner in Literature, and Dickens is often considered the best novelist who ever lived. Should you dismiss these as nonsensical contradictions or give the authors the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what they are saying? The problem seems to be that some atheists have never read a serious book written for adults and they don't know what to do when they run into one.

There are two ways to interpret this pair of proverbs. One approach starts with the recognition that proverbs only express the general rule briefly and are not meant to comprehensively cover a subject under all circumstances. According to that understanding, there are times when it is appropriate to answer a fool and other times when it isn't. The second way of understanding these two proverbs relies on the second part of each verse. Don't reply to a fool in the same foolish manner that he uses, but do answer him or he will go away thinking that he is correct and proceed to spread his foolishness elsewhere.

J. Matthew 5:48 says, “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” But in Luke 18:19, Jesus bawls out a man who called him “good teacher” by replying that no one is good but God alone.

The first thing to do is check some word definitions:

Perfect (teleioi) = to bring to an end by completing or perfecting, mature, full-grown. You could say that it means reaching your individual goal or potential.

Good (agathon) = beneficial in its effect, morally honorable.

“The natural man is irretrievably in bondage to the powers of sin and death and has no right to claim the attribute 'good' for himself...But through the redemption which has taken place in Christ, goodness overflows the believer.” (DNNT, 2, 101)

But why did Jesus deny being good? Keep in mind that the questioner in Luke didn't recognize Jesus as divine but merely as a good teacher. Jesus replied to those presumptions by saying that if that's all he is, he shouldn't be called good at all.

Another wrinkle to this question appears if you consider the parallel passage in Matthew 19:17: “Why do you ask me concerning that which is good? There is One who is good.”

“If Jesus is simply Teacher, then he is calculated to know no more and no less than any other teacher as to what actions are deemed “good for” entrance into the life of the age-to-come. If he is Good Teacher (as in Mark and Luke), then Jesus will not allow the questioner to use [the] word or ascription lightly.” (W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew)

As usual, C. S. Lewis has expressed it the best: “You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool; you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

K. The next objection concerns the number of disciples the resurrected Jesus appeared to. Was it 10, 11 or 12?

First of all, the author of this gem is obviously using the general word “disciple” only in the particular sense of the original apostles since the I Corinthian passage states that Jesus also appeared to more than 500 believers (disciples) at one time.

John and Paul use “the Twelve” as the collective designation for the original apostles while Matthew uses the actual numerical count of 11. Just look at John 20:24 where Thomas is called one of the twelve even though Judas was dead at that time and his replacement hadn't yet been chosen; it does not imply that all twelve were on hand...” And then two verses later, Thomas joins them so that all three numbers 10, 11 and 12 are correct. So basically, there is absolutely no contradiction here unless you insist on pedantic, meticulous, mathematical precision instead of trying to discover the original intent. Again, the similarity in approach to the Bible by atheists and fundamentalists is striking.

L. If Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise that day, why did he tell Mary that He hadn't yet ascended to the Father?

The word “Paradise” only appears these few times in the New Testament: “In Luke 23:43, it is no doubt dependent on contemporary Jewish conceptions, and refers to the at present hidden and intermediate abode of the righteous.” ( DNNT)

In II Corinthians 12:2-4, it is equivalent to “the third heaven,” where Adam, for example, was left until the day of judgment. (Apocalypse of Moses 37:5)

In Revelation 2:7, it is one of the blessings promised to believers beginning in this life and continuing after death. ( DNNT, Vol. 2, pp. 760-764)

Details regarding our immediate fate once we die are not spelled out in detail in the Bible, but it appears that Paradise is some sort of waiting place for believers until the Final Judgment happens. Therefore we can't at all state that paradise is the same as God's heavenly throne room, to which Jesus hadn't yet ascended.

M. Is God the only one who is God holy? Revelation 15:4 says yes while Revelation 22:11 says no. The word in Revelation 15:4 is hosios, a rare NT word that usually only appears when quoting from the OT. The word means “utterly without sin and utterly pure.” The word in Revelation 22:11 is hagios, which is seldom used to describe God. It “implies a relationship with God which is expressed...through the fact that believers are led by the Holy Spirit.” In Paul's writings hoi hagioi are the saints, those sanctified. (New International Dictionary of NT Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 228-238.)

By the way, we will see in other posts that this is a common ploy also used by some Christians who twist Scriptures when they rely solely on an English translation, especially KJV, without regard to the original Hebrew or Greek word being translated. The two concepts come together in this passage, “Be ye holy as I am holy.” ( Lev. 11:44; I Peter 1:16) Our holiness (sanctification) is derived from God's unique holiness (otherness).

N. Why are unclean creatures still mentioned in Revelation 18:2 when all animals had been declared clean?

1. Akathartos refers “to the whole realm of uncleanness, ranging from menstruation to moral pollution through wrongdoing.” (DNNT, vol. 3, pp. 102-108)

2. Jesus declared all foods clean (not all animals). (Mark 7:19; I Corinthians 10)

3. Peter received the same message through a vision. (Acts 10-11)

4. But the real message of the vision was symbolic as most other visions and had to do with the relationship of Jews with Gentiles. “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.” (Acts 10:28)

5. The imagery is mainly taken from Isaiah 13:21-22 referring to scavengers such as vultures, jackals and hyenas, which were not only ritually unclean to eat but also considered as rather disgusting creatures. So even if one could eat them, they were still rather foul animals, or foul fowls in the case of vultures.