How to resolve differing interpretations of the Bible Part 1

 

The Text:

2Pe 3:17  Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. (KJV)

2Pe 3:17 So, dearly beloved, since you have been forewarned, you must always be on your guard against being led astray by the errors of lawless men, and so against falling away from your present firmness; (Williams NT)

2Pe 3:17  Dear friends, you already know these things. So be on your guard not to be carried away by the deception of people who have no principles. Then you won’t fall from your firm position. (GW, God’s Word translation)

2Pe 3:17  My dear friends, you have been warned ahead of time! So don’t let the errors of evil people lead you down the wrong path and make you lose your balance. (CEV, Contemporary English Version)

The Challenge:

“and yet you still quote from the Bible, which every Christian denomination interprets differently”

My Response:

Your statement:

“and yet you still quote from the Bible, which every Christian denomination interprets differently”

is a rather broad overstatement and over-generalization. Bible believing Christians are more in agreement than disagreement. Where there is disagreement, following the rules of interpretation I have shared with you will usually establish the correct interpretation of the Bible.

If you think not, please provide a specific example of a text of the Bible upon which Bible believing Christians are known to disagree, and I may be able to furnish you an example of how applying the rules of interpretation work to resolve such differences.

 

Reply to Me with a Helpful List of Verses:

  1. Matthew 16:18 (Roman Catholicism vs. Protestantism): “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Catholics interpret this as Jesus establishing Peter as the first pope, a foundational argument for the papal authority. Protestants typically interpret “this rock” as Peter’s faith or Jesus himself, rejecting the Catholic doctrine of papal succession.
  2. Ephesians 2:8-9 (Lutheranism vs. Catholicism): “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” Lutherans emphasize salvation by faith alone, while Catholics hold that faith must be accompanied by good works.
  3. James 2:24 (Catholicism vs. Protestantism): “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Catholics cite this to support the necessity of faith and works for salvation, contrasting many Protestant views that emphasize salvation by faith alone.
  4. 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 (Catholicism vs. Lutheranism): “This is my body… This cup is the new covenant in my blood…” Catholics believe in transubstantiation, where the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, where Christ is present “in, with, and under” the elements but they do not change their substance.
  5. Acts 2:38 (Pentecostals vs. Baptists): “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Pentecostals emphasize baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, whereas Baptists emphasize baptism as a symbol of professing faith.
  6. 1 Timothy 2:12 (Egalitarian vs. Complementarian denominations): “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” This verse has sparked debates over women’s roles in church leadership, with egalitarian denominations allowing women pastors, while complementarian ones do not.
  7. Romans 9:13-18 (Calvinism vs. Arminianism): “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated…” Calvinists use this passage to support the doctrine of unconditional election and predestination. Arminians argue for conditional election based on God’s foreknowledge of faith.
  8. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Egalitarian vs. Complementarian denominations): “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak…” Similar to 1 Timothy 2:12, this verse affects the interpretation of women’s roles in the church.
  9. Matthew 28:19 (Trinitarian vs. Oneness Pentecostalism): “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Trinitarians use this to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, whereas Oneness Pentecostals advocate for baptism in Jesus’ name only, rejecting traditional Trinitarian formulas.
  10. Revelation 20:1-6 (Premillennialism vs. Amillennialism): Descriptions of a thousand-year reign of Christ are taken literally by Premillennialists, while Amillennialists interpret them symbolically or metaphorically.
  11. Hebrews 6:4-6 (Calvinism vs. Arminianism): “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened… if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance…” Calvinists interpret this as a warning to non-elect, while Arminians see it as a possibility of apostasy.
  12. Acts 10:44-48 (Baptists vs. Pentecostals): “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.” Pentecostals see this as a normative pattern for receiving the Holy Spirit post-conversion, while Baptists view it as unique to the early church.
  13. Titus 3:5 (Catholicism vs. Protestantism): “He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy…” This verse supports the Protestant emphasis on salvation by grace, not by works, contrasting Catholic views.
  14. John 6:53-56 (Catholicism vs. Protestantism): “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you…” Catholics see this as support for the doctrine of the Eucharist; many Protestants interpret it symbolically.
  15. Ephesians 4:11-12 (Charismatics vs. Cessationists): “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers…” Charismatics believe in the ongoing gifts of prophecy and tongues, while Cessationists believe these gifts ceased with the apostolic age.
  16. Romans 5:12-19 (Original Sin – Augustine vs. Pelagius): This passage discusses the doctrine of original sin, which Augustine championed, arguing that all humans inherited sin from Adam. Pelagius denied this, claiming each soul is created pure by God.
  17. Matthew 5:32 (Various denominations on divorce): “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery…” This verse impacts differing views on the permissibility and conditions for divorce.
  18. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Sola Scriptura advocates vs. Tradition-oriented denominations): “All Scripture is God-breathed…” Proponents of Sola Scriptura argue that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority, contrasting with denominations like Catholicism that also hold to sacred tradition.
  19. Luke 14:26 (Literal vs. metaphorical interpretations): “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” The interpretation of “hate” here varies, influencing views on discipleship.
  20. 1 Peter 3:21(Baptismal regeneration – Lutheranism vs. Baptist): “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you…” Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration, the idea that baptism imparts grace and saves, while Baptists view baptism as a symbolic act following salvation.

And Another List of Controversial Verses:

  1. John 20:23 (Catholicism vs. Protestantism): “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” Catholics interpret this as Jesus granting the apostles—and by extension, priests—the authority to forgive sins, supporting the practice of confession. Most Protestants see this as a general call to proclaim forgiveness through the gospel.
  2. 1 Corinthians 7:15 (Views on Divorce and Remarriage): “But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.” This verse is pivotal in discussions about the legitimacy of divorce and remarriage, especially within evangelical circles compared to more conservative denominations.
  3. Romans 13:1-7 (Political Engagement): “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities…” This passage is often debated regarding the extent of Christian submission to government and involvement in political activism, particularly between Anabaptists who advocate for separation from state affairs and other groups that promote civic engagement.
  4. Mark 16:16 (Believer’s Baptism vs. Infant Baptism): “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” This verse is central in the debate over believer’s baptism versus infant baptism. Denominations like Baptists insist on conscious belief before baptism, contrasting with Presbyterians, Catholics, and others who support infant baptism.
  5. Acts 15:28-29 (Dietary Laws): “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals…” This decision from the early Church council in Jerusalem influences discussions on Christian liberty and adherence to Old Testament laws.
  6. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 (Church Discipline): “But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy…” This passage is foundational for practices of church discipline, a topic on which denominations differ, particularly in how and when to exclude a member from fellowship.
  7. Matthew 7:21-23 (Assurance of Salvation): “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven…” This passage is often discussed in the context of true faith versus nominal Christianity, impacting the theological views on assurance of salvation between denominations like Calvinists and Arminians.
  8. 2 Peter 1:20-21 (Interpretation of Scripture): “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.” This is often cited in discussions on the clarity and interpretation of Scripture, affecting views on personal Bible study versus authoritative interpretations by church leaders.
  9. Hebrews 10:25 (Church Attendance): “Not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another…” This verse influences the emphasis different denominations place on the importance of regular church attendance and communal worship.
  10. 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 (Clergy Marriage): “Now the overseer is to be above reproach, the husband of but one wife…” This has been a key verse in discussions about whether clergy (like priests or bishops) can marry, particularly debated between the Roman Catholic Church, which requires celibacy, and Protestant denominations that allow clergy to marry.
  11. Revelation 13:16-17 (End Times Theology): “It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads…” Interpretations of this passage vary widely and influence eschatological views, particularly concerning the nature of the “mark of the beast” and its relevance to contemporary technology or ideologies.
  12. 1 Corinthians 14:22-25 (Speaking in Tongues): “Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers…” This passage is central to Pentecostal and charismatic beliefs about the purpose and practice of speaking in tongues, contrasting with denominations that view this gift as ceased or less emphasized.
  13. Galatians 2:16 (Justification by Faith): “Know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.” This verse underpins much of the Protestant Reformation’s emphasis on justification by faith alone, contrasting with denominational views that emphasize a synergy of faith and works.
  14. Luke 22:19-20 (The Lord’s Supper): “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” Interpretations of this verse affect views on the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper, particularly debates over the real presence, symbolic presence, or memorial view.
  1. Matthew 5:17-20 (The Law and the Gospel): “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” This verse is debated concerning the relationship between the Old Testament law and New Testament grace, affecting views on moral, ceremonial, and civil law observance in Christian life.
  2. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (Inclusion vs. Traditionalism): “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived…” This verse is frequently debated in the context of discussions on LGBTQ+ inclusion within church communities.
  3. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 (Preaching and Teaching): “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” This verse is pivotal in discussions about doctrinal purity versus adapting messages to contemporary culture.
  4. Ephesians 5:22-23 (Marriage and Gender Roles): “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.” This passage is central in debates over gender roles within marriage, influencing differing views between complementarian and egalitarian perspectives.
  5. Acts 4:32-35 (Economic Practices): “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.” This early Christian practice influences discussions on Christian community, stewardship, and socialism versus capitalism.
  6. Matthew 25:31-46 (Social Justice and Salvation): “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” This passage underpins debates on the role of social justice in Christian practice and its relationship to salvation, particularly relevant in discussions about faith’s role in addressing societal issues.

 

My Reply:

Thank you for providing such good lists of Scripture passages upon which there is considerable disagreement about their proper interpretation.

I have provided the information needed to correctly resolve nearly all of the varied interpretations for these verses in either my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, my digital resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury, as well as my Real Bible Study website (use the search feature to access specific passages discussed there).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Study Tools, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions, How to Interpret the Bible Correctly, How to Study the Bible | Tagged | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #854, Matthew 28:18

 

The Nugget:

Mat 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

My Comment:

I placed the following comment in The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury at Matthew 28:18,

All power. Note.—Though this power is said to be given to Christ in his mediatorial capacity, to be mediatorially exercised by him as “Head over all things to the church” [Eph 1:22], it is evident that it could neither be received or exercised by any Being less than God; nor by a creature (if possible), without disparagement of the Creator (De Burgh, p. 133).

The Challenge:

“FUN FACT: Jesus was officially deified 300 years after his death, during the First Council of Nicaea, through a voting process.”

My Rebuttal:

PixelMistakePicasso, your Opening Post or Meme states:

“FUN FACT: Jesus was officially deified 300 years after his death, during the First Council of Nicaea, through a voting process.”

The Deity of Christ is taught in the New Testament and does not depend for its factuality upon the “First Council of Nicaea.”

T76
Divine attributes and prerogatives claimed and exercised by Christ and ascribed to him:

T76-1. Authority supreme. +Col 2:10.

Colossians 2:10
10  And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
King James Version

T76-2. Authority to see his own glory supremely. +Col 1:16. +T209, Pro 16:4. +T346, Heb 9:14.

Colossians 1:16
16  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
King James Version

Proverbs 16:4
4  The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
King James Version

T76-3. Eternity. +*Mic 5:2.

Micah 5:2
2  But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
King James Version

T76-4. Immutability. +Heb 13:8.

Hebrews 13:8
8  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
King James Version

T76-5. Omnipotence. +1Co 1:24. +T218, Rev 19:6.

1 Corinthians 1:24
24  But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
King James Version

Revelation 19:6
6  And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
King James Version

T76-6. Omnipresence. +Mat 18:20. +T220, Pro 15:3.

Matthew 18:20
20  For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
King James Version

Proverbs 15:3
3  The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.
King James Version

T76-7. Omniscience. +Mat 9:4. +T219, *Heb 4:13.

Matthew 9:4
4  And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
King James Version

Hebrews 4:13
13  Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
King James Version

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Study Tools, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #853, Titus 2:13

 

The Nugget:

Tit 2:13  Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

The Challenge:

  1. John 17:3 and Eternal Life:

– Jesus’ prayer identifies the Father as the only true God, positioning himself as the sent one.

8. John 20:28 and Thomas’ Declaration:

– Thomas calling Jesus “My Lord and my God” can be understood as an expression of awe and recognition of divine authority bestowed upon Jesus by God.

  1. Titus 2:13 and the Appearance of Glory:

– This verse speaks to the awaited return of Jesus in glory, seen as a divine act but does not explicitly state Jesus is God.

My Rebuttal:

Very interesting post. Your proffered interpretation of the verses supporting the Deity of Christ is extremely flawed and one-sided, reflecting an Arian and Unitarian bias that fails to face the facts about what these verses teach.

Especially flawed is your understanding and interpretation of John 17:3, John 20:28, and Titus 2:13.

John 17:3 is misinterpreted by all those who fail to properly account for its context and its logic. I have dealt with this text at length on my Real Bible Study site. Place “John 17:3” in the search box to access several articles I have written.

John 20:28 is not a mere exclamation, but an explicit declaration of Who Jesus is, the climax of testimony to the Deity of Christ, the Son of God, that you might believe. Thomas directly calls Jesus “My Lord and my God.”

Titus 2:13, “Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” is an instance of the Figure of Speech Hendiadys, where two words (here, God and Savior) are used, but one thing is meant, involving nouns. Thus God and our Savior Jesus Christ is a reference to one person, not two.

In greater depth, I cite my note as given in my book, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, and my digital expansion of that resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury:

Robertson notes that as early as 1798 Granville Sharp laid down a rule which has not since been successfully discredited, that when two nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participle) of the same case are connected by “and” (kai, in Greek), nouns of personal description (respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill), if the article “the” in any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the second noun always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first named person.

This principle is not claimed, however, for proper names or to the plural number. Thus “the apostle and high priest of our confession” is one person, Jesus (Heb 3:1). John is referred to as “your brother, and companion” in Rev 1:9, a reference to just one person. Such expressions as “the God and Father” (Rom 15:6, 1Co 15:24, 2Co 1:3; 2Co 11:31, Gal 1:4, Eph 5:20, Php 4:20, 1Th 1:3; 1Th 3:11; 1Th 3:13, Rev 1:6) and “the Lord and Father” (Jas 1:27; Jas 3:9) are all used of one person, not two.

So likewise “the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2Pe 2:20; 2Pe 3:2) is a reference to one person. The introduction of the word “our” in 2Pe 1:11; 2Pe 3:18 does not affect the idiom.

Following the same principle for the identical construction in Greek for 2Pe 1:1, “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” is a reference to a single person, not two.

So here at Tit 2:13, the same construction is correctly rendered “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ,” and the reference is to one person, not two.

Attention to this construction thus yields two texts in support of the Deity of Christ that were not evident in some English translations (see Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, “The Greek Article and the Deity of Christ,” pp. 61-68).

When the Greek article occurs before both nouns, two persons are meant, as “let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican,” two separate persons are implied (Mat 18:17, cited by William Hendrickson, Comm. on 1-2 Timothy and Titus, p. 374). Those who deny the validity of this grammatical principle are faced with the problem that if two persons are meant, then Paul is predicting the simultaneous glorious advent of both the Father and the Son at Christ’s second coming. Although the advent of the Father is supportable from other prophecies (%Dan 7:22, **Zec 14:5, *Eph 1:10), the simultaneous advent of the Father and the Son is not usually incorporated into the prophetic system of those who understand this passage to refer to two persons. +Gen 1:26, Neh 1:5; +Neh 8:6; Neh 9:32, +*Isa 9:6; Isa 19:20, Dan 2:45; Dan 9:4, *Luk 9:26, *Joh 1:1; Joh 10:30; +*Joh 20:28, +*Act 20:28, +*Rom 9:5, *Php 2:6, Col 1:15-20; *Col 2:9, 2Th 1:12 g. +*Heb 1:8, **2Pe 1:1 g. **1Jn 5:20.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Study Tools, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Mary had other children after Jesus was born Part 1

 

The Text:

Mar 3:31  There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. (KJV)

Mar 3:31 And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him. (DRB, Douay Rheims Bible)

Mar 3:31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. (ESV, English Standard Version)

The Plot:

Mar 3:20 Then he went home, and the crowd gathered again, so that they could not even eat.
Mar 3:21 And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” (ESV)

The Accusation:

Mar 3:22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” (ESV)

My Comment:

This surely was a dark chapter in the Gospel record. The family of Jesus, his brothers and even his mother, turned against him and did not believe him.

Joh 7:3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.
Joh 7:4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.”
Joh 7:5 For not even his brothers believed in him. (ESV)

This “advice” from his own brothers was misguided and knowingly would have placed Jesus in greater danger (Luke 13:32). The fact that these negative incidents are faithfully recorded in the Gospels is firm evidence of the historicity and authenticity of the New Testament record and represents the eye-witness testimony of those who were there when these things happened. No later anonymous writer would include such details for they reflect negatively on the character of the individuals involved–the family of Jesus, including his mother.

The Question: did Mary have other children after Jesus was born?

The New Testament record is clear that Mary had additional children by her husband Joseph after Jesus was born.

The Evidence (Mark 3:31):

Mark 3:31  There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

These are certainly his literal half-brothers, of which Scripture names four.

Jesus also had at least three half-sisters (Mat 13:56 uses “all,” not “both,” indicating more than two):

Mat 13:56  And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

“Brethren” here mentioned in such close connection with Mary, Christ’s mother, certainly points to their being his natural brothers, not cousins. Sons of another woman would not be following Mary around.

While Jesus is Mary’s firstborn son, this does not indicate she had no other children, for if that were the case, the word would have been monogenes, only begotten son (as in Luk 7:12; Luk 8:42; Luk 9:38), not “firstborn” (protokos, Mat 1:25, Luk 2:7, Rom 8:29, +*Col 1:15 note, Col 1:18, Heb 1:6; Heb 11:28; Heb 12:23, Rev 1:5).

For monogenes, only begotten son:

Luk 7:12  Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

Luk 8:42  For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

Luk 9:38  And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child.

For first born, protokos:

Mat 1:25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Luk 2:7  And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Rom 8:29  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Col 1:15  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:18  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Heb 1:6  And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Heb 11:28  Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

Heb 12:23  To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Rev 1:5  And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

The term firstborn does not imply that there are no others, for Christ is the firstborn from the dead (Rev 1:5) that he may bring many sons into glory (Heb 2:10) by resurrection (1Co 15:20, 21, 22, 23).

Rev 1:5  And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Heb 2:10  For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

1Co 15:20  But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
1Co 15:21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

It was foretold in prophecy that Jesus would have brothers, and his mother would have other children, **Psa 69:8; **Psa 69:9.

Psa 69:8  I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.
Psa 69:9  For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

If his “brethren” were merely cousins, the term sungenes, used of kin, kinsmen, and kinsfolk (Mar 6:4, Luk 1:36; Luk 1:58; Luk 2:44; Luk 14:12; Luk 21:16; Joh 18:26, Act 10:24, Rom 9:3; Rom 16:7; Rom 16:11; Rom 16:21), and cousin (Luk 1:36; Luk 1:58) was available to indicate this, but was not used.

For kin, kinsmen, and kinsfolk:

Mar 6:4  But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

Luk 1:36  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luk 1:58  And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

Luk 2:44  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

Luk 14:12  Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

Luk 21:16  And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

Joh 18:26  One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

Act 10:24  And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

Rom 9:3  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

Rom 16:7  Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Rom 16:11  Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.

Rom 16:21  Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you.

For cousin:

Luk 1:36  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luk 1:58  And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

 

Note that “brethren” is distinguished from “kinsmen” at Luk 14:12 and Luk 21:16. +*Mar 6:3, +*Mat 13:55, Joh 2:12; Joh 7:3; Joh 7:5; Joh 7:10, Act 1:14, 1Co 9:5, 2Co 5:16, Gal 1:19.

Luk 14:12  Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.

Luk 21:16  And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

his mother. The kinsfolk of +Mar 3:21. +Mat 1:16, Act 1:14.

standing without. That they might more easily seize Him (Mar 3:21) [CB].

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Apologetics--Christian, Bible Historicity and Validity, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Trinity taught in the Bible Itself

 

 

The Text:

Isa 42:1  Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

My Comment:

The Trinity is seen here, for we have the Father as the speaker; the Son as the Servant, the Messiah; and the Holy Spirit. All three persons of the Trinity are also mentioned together in +*Mat 3:16; +*Mat 3:17; +**Mat 28:19 note; Luk 1:35; Joh 14:16; Joh 14:26; Joh 15:26; *Rom 15:30; *1Co 12:4, 5, 6; 2Co 13:14; Eph 2:18; Eph 4:4, 5, 6; 2Th 2:13, 14; 2Th 3:5; Heb 9:14; 1Pe 1:2; 1Jn 5:7; Jud 1:20, 21; Rev 1:4, 5.

Note carefully that 1 John 5:7, 8 in the received text underlying the King James Version contains an addition to the Greek text not supported by the rest of the extant Greek NT manuscripts. The doctrine of the Trinity does not depend upon the words added to suit the purpose at 1 John 5:7.

1Jn 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jn 5:8  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)

1Jn 5:7  And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

1Jn 5:8  For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. (ASV)

in heaven. The texts read “the Spirit, and the water,” omitting all the words from “in heaven,” to “in earth” (1Jn 5:8) inclusive. The words are not found in any Greek MS. before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text (CB). The fact and doctrine of the Trinity do not depend upon this spurious addition (Robertson, cited by Wuest).

the Father. Note: The genuineness of the latter part of this verse, and the first clause of the next, it is well known has divided the opinions of learned men for nearly four centuries, nor is it yet decided. It is certainly wanting in many of the ancient MSS. and versions; and is not quoted by many of the Fathers: but the number of MSS. collated is but small, only about 400; it exists in some ancient confessions of faith and liturgies; is quoted by numerous Latin Fathers; and appears necessary from the connection in which it stands. It also seems more probable that the Arians should silently omit it in their copies, or that it should be left out by mistake, than that the Trinitarians should forge and insert it; for the latter would only gain one argument for a doctrine which is abundantly taught in other Scriptures; but if it was admitted as the word of God, all the ingenuity and diligence of opponents could scarcely avoid the inference naturally deducible from it. Older scholarship (including Nolan whom I have cited at Act 20:28 note), and other controversial writers on these verses who supported their genuineness include: Dr. Mill, T. Smith, Kettner, David Martin, Calamy, Calmet, Sloss, Travis, Hey, Butler, Middleton, Nolan, Hales, Alber, Bishop Burgess, John Jones, Cardinal Wiseman; the following assert their spuriousness: Simon, Emlyn, Sir Isaac Newton, Benson, Porson, Marsh, Griesbach, A. Clarke, Jowett, Turton, Orme, Scholz, and Horne (as given in Lange, p. 168, commenting “Our limits do not allow us to give the titles of the books in this controversy, which is a library in itself”). Contemporary scholarship, however, fails to support this reading in any form, suggesting it was added to a late Greek manuscript made for the purpose to influence Erasmus to include it in his Greek text, for Erasmus had promised he would include the text if even one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it.

The Challenge:

“the doctrine of the Trinity was a later development within Christian theology and not a teaching directly attributed to Jesus himself in the Bible.”

My Response:

From the Opening Post:

“In conclusion, a thorough examination of historical, biblical, and theological evidence suggests that the doctrine of the Trinity was a later development within Christian theology and not a teaching directly attributed to Jesus himself in the Bible.”

That was hardly a thorough examination even of the Biblical evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Biblical evidence is absolutely conclusive that God exists in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who each share many of the same attributes of God. Since each of these three Persons share the same incommunicable attributes of God, “they belong to God exclusively, and cannot be communicated, delegated, or given to a created being. These include eternity (3), omniscience (6), omnipresence (7), sovereignty (30), immutability (31), and immensity (32). Since only God can possess the incommunicable attributes, yet Scripture ascribes them to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit, all three persons must be God. There is no other explanation which properly agrees with all the statements of Scripture.” Cited from my note at Matthew 28:19 in my book, The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, and in my digital expansion of that resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury:

(3) everlasting: **+Rom 16:26, +Rev 22:13, Heb 9:14.

The Father is everlasting:

Rom 16:26  But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

The Son is everlasting:

Rev 22:12  And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Rev 22:13  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

The Spirit is everlasting:

Heb 9:14  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

(6) omniscient: +Heb 4:13, +Joh 21:17, 1Co 2:10-11.

God the Father is omniscient:

Heb 4:13  Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

The Son is omniscient:

Joh 21:17  He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

The Spirit is omniscient:

1Co 2:10  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1Co 2:11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

(7) omnipresent: Jer 23:24, Eph 1:23, Psa 139:7.

The Father is omnipresent:

Jer 23:24  Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

The Son is omnipresent:

Eph 1:23  Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Mat 18:20  For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

in the midst. God the Son is omnipresent. Note,—This is an assertion of the Saviour’s omnipresence, and therefore his divinity (De Burgh).

The Spirit is omnipresent:

Psa 139:7  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

(30) sovereign: +*Eph 1:11, Mat 8:27, 1Co 12:11.

The Father is sovereign:

Eph 1:11  In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The Son is sovereign:

Mat 8:27  But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!

The Spirit is sovereign:

1Co 12:11  But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

(31) immutable: +*Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8, Mat 12:32,

The Father is immutable:

Mal 3:6  For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

The Son is immutable:

Heb 13:8  Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

The Spirit is immutable:

Mat 12:32  And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

(32) immensity: Jer 23:24 note. Joh 3:13, Psa 139:7,

God the Father possesses the attribute of immensity:

Jer 23:24  Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

Do not I fill. “The Immensity of God is his essence as related to space. The Divine essence is not measurable, because not included in the limits of space. God’s immensity is spiritual, having no extension of substance. By virtue of God’s immensity, he is Omnipresent” (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 1, pp. 339, 340).

The Son possesses the attribute of immensity:

Joh 3:13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

The Spirit possesses the attribute of immensity:

Psa 139:7  Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

For each of the sets of three references given above, the first reference is to the Father, the second is to the Son, the third is to the Holy Spirit.

Searching the Scriptures for yourself using the notes and cross references provided in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge or The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury will enable you to see the Bible evidence for yourself far better than any study based upon so-called artificial intelligence!

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Doctrinal Discussions | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Bible Text has not been Corrupted

 

The Texts:

Psalm 119:89  LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. (KJV)

Psalm 119:89  O LORD, your word is established in heaven forever. (GW, God’s Word translation)

Isaiah 40:8  The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. (KJV)

Isaiah 40:8  Grass dries up, and flowers wither, but the word of our God will last forever. (GW)

The Challenge:

PixelMistakePicasso You state that:

“If you actually read the entire Bible, you will see that the Bible was corrupted, which is why it often contains contradictions. However, the central message from Jesus that he is not God is still present.”

My Response:

I am by profession a reading specialist. I was made a reading specialist because by teaching all my classes in a large high school, Southeastern High School, in Detroit, Michigan, USA, I enabled my students to improve their reading comprehension.

My classes improved so much that Southeastern High School was found to be the most improved high school in reading out of the then 22 high schools in Detroit at that time. The authorities did an investigation to try to learn how and why that happened and traced the results directly to the students in my American History classes.

To raise my students’ reading comprehension, I wrote a reading program called The Language Enrichment Program which is now available worldwide on Amazon under that title under my name. It works for readers of all ages, about age eight and above, from third grade to graduate school, for English language learners, for gifted and talented students, for students who are below grade level in reading comprehension. It helps all users to improve their inference skills.

I mention this as part of my background to let you know that I am here to help, not hinder, all readers to understand what they read, including understanding how to read the Bible more accurately.

I explained to some of you that the text of the Bible in its original languages has not been corrupted. I mentioned to you that the original Hebrew manuscripts and Greek manuscripts show very, very little difference among them when comparing the oldest to the latest extant copies.

For example, the oldest known complete Hebrew text for the book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls differs little from printed Hebrew texts in modern printed Hebrew Bibles of today. What differences there are to be found are given in the printed critical texts of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible (LXX) and the Greek New Testament. What differences there are are very minor.

I have studied this subject in great depth since 1955 and have the personal print library to prove it. I also have a six-volume critical text of Shakespeare which shows the manuscript variations for Shakespeare’s plays and poetry. The text of the Greek New Testament is more certain than the text of Shakespeare in my judgment. There are more handwritten ancient manuscripts for the text of the Greek New Testament than there are for the much later text of Shakespeare. The sheer abundance of textual evidence for the New Testament accounts for the greater number of variations which have been found. Among those many variations, very few are significant enough to have any bearing upon translations into modern languages like English.

This being true, I trust that you will learn from what I have presented to you as fact, not mere opinion. Having learned the truth about the actual condition of the original language Bible texts, that you will retract your mistaken claims and not repeat them. Should it happen that you refuse to cease from promulgating falsehoods, you shall have proven yourself untruthful, which would unfortunately place you in a very bad position in the light of eternity according to the text of Revelation 21:8. I would wish that upon no one!

Revelation 21:8  But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Apologetics--Christian, Bible Historicity and Validity, Education Issues, The Language Enrichment Program | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

My Answer to Ten Unprofitable Bible Critics

The Challenge:

It is hard to study the Bible when Bible scholars keep questioning the authenticity of the Bible and provide evidence of mistakes.

Ten Negative Critics:

  1. Bart D. Ehrman

– Findings: Ehrman has written extensively on the textual inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies within the New Testament. In his book *Misquoting7 Jesus*, he details how scribes altered the texts, either intentionally or accidentally, which has led to significant variations in the manuscripts.

  1. John Dominic Crossan

– Findings: A co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, Crossan argues that many of the gospel accounts are not historical records but rather theological constructs. He suggests that the resurrection stories and many miracle accounts were later additions to enhance the divine image of Jesus.

  1. Richard Carrier

– Findings: Carrier is a proponent of the Christ myth theory, arguing that Jesus of Nazareth is a mythical figure rather than a historical person. He points out numerous historical and textual inconsistencies within the gospels and other New Testament writings.

  1. Gerd Lüdemann

– Findings: Critiques the historical reliability of the New Testament, particularly the resurrection narratives. He argues that many of the events described are theological constructions rather than historical events.

  1. Robert M. Price

– Findings: Another advocate of the Christ myth theory, Price argues that much of the New Testament is mythological rather than historical. He highlights numerous parallels between Christian texts and earlier mythological stories, suggesting that early Christians borrowed heavily from surrounding cultures.

  1. Thomas Paine

– Findings: In his work “The Age of Reason”, Paine critiques the Bible from a deist perspective, arguing that it contains numerous contradictions and immoral teachings. He questions the authenticity of many of the biblical books and highlights inconsistencies in the narrative.

  1. Julius Wellhausen

– Findings: Wellhausen is known for his documentary hypothesis, which suggests that the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) is a compilation of documents from different sources rather than a single, cohesive work. He identifies inconsistencies and duplications that support this theory.

  1. Karen Armstrong

– Findings: Armstrong explores the historical context of biblical texts, arguing that many stories in the Old Testament are not historical accounts but rather mythological narratives that reflect the beliefs and experiences of ancient Israelite society.

  1. Hector Avalos

– Findings: Avalos critiques the Bible from a secular humanist perspective, arguing that it is a human creation full of errors, contradictions, and outdated moral teachings. He examines the historical and cultural contexts in which the texts were written to highlight their human origins.

  1. Thomas L. Thompson

– Findings: Thompson, a proponent of the Copenhagen School of biblical criticism, argues that much of the Old Testament is mythological rather than historical. He suggests that many of the stories, such as the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan, are literary creations rather than historical events.

 

MY ANSWER:

PixelMistakePicasso Why bother with the negative views of unbelieving and/or apostate Bible scholars?

That is not the way to study any literature. I have several volumes in my personal library which argue that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare. I certainly do not go first to them to learn how to understand Shakespeare!

Neither should you give any credence to the opinions of any of the scholars you mention in your Opening Post before you have become absolutely familiar with the content of the Bible itself by taking the steps I previously described for you:

Read three chapters of the Gospel of John each day of the week so that you read the Gospel of John’s 21 chapters weekly for two months. This reading should enable you to become so completely familiar that you can literally think your way through the Gospel of John chapter by chapter “with your eyes closed.”

Next, read the New Testament through three times or more by reading it long enough each day (for a total of at least 20 minutes). This does not mean 20 minutes at one sitting. My suggestion is that the cumulative total for the day add up to 20 minutes or more. Read the New Testament often enough each week (at least four days a week) on a continuing basis to experience the benefits such reading will bring.

Continue, beyond that, to read the rest of the Bible (the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures) three times or more until you are very familiar with its content, especially its narrative and wisdom literature and historical portions.

I have found it helpful to study the Bible topically by studying the topics of special interest to me by using such resources as Nave’s Topical Bible or one of its several modern equivalents and the Thompson Chain Reference Bible.

To dig still deeper, I have found it helpful to consult the cross references found in standard editions of what are called Reference Bibles and far more completely in the original Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and now in The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury.

As for the so-called Bible scholars you have named in the Opening Post:

(1) Bart Ehrman. When he is writing for the academic and scholarly audience about the field of his expertise (textual criticism, not historical or literary criticism) he is sometimes helpful and more level-headed. When writing for a general audience he may be sensational but he is sensationally wrong.

(2) John Dominic Crossan. Pay no attention to the so-called “Jesus Seminar.” They are proceeding upon wrong principles to start with. They may be out to make a name for themselves but their alleged “findings” are nonsense.

(3) Richard Carrier. Anyone who thinks our Lord Jesus Christ is a “myth,” in whatever sense this word is taken, is making a fool of him or herself. The historicity of the life of Christ is proven fact, as is the historicity of the 27 primary source first century documents now compiled in the New Testament.

(4) Gerd Lüdemann. Anyone who thinks the historical record contained in the New Testament of the resurrection accounts are merely “theological constructions” rather than records of actual historical events shows their utter lack of understanding of the nature and purpose of the Gospel records. They are thinking anachronistically–applying the standards of historical writing employed by scholars today by imposing them upon the writings of the First Century. Rather, readers must read “very old books” sympathetically and approach them on their own terms.

(6) Thomas Paine. Benjamin Franklin once criticized Paine for having written his Age of Reason. Franklin told Paine he was spitting into the wind and the wind would drive his spit back on to his face. Paine has been thoroughly answered by a number of authors. Deism has been resoundingly and irrefutably answered by Charles Leslie in his work titled “A Short and Easy Method with the Deists.” I have presented Leslie’s argument in modern English in detail on my Real Bible Study site. Just enter “Leslie” in the search box to access my article.

(7) Julius Wellhausen. The “Documentary Hypothesis” is nonsense. I have recently spent considerable time studying this unfruitful theory. No two exponents of the theory agree with one another. To suggest that just because the names of God within the text are used by different writers is nonsense. For a scholarly refutation of Wellhausen and his followers study carefully the writings of Oswald T. Allis, including his titles The Five Books of Moses as well as The Old Testament: Its Claims and Critics.

(8) Karen Armstrong. I believe Karen Armstrong’s claims are overblown. I prefer the expertise in these matters represented by John D. Currid, as in his book Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament.

9. Hector Avalos. I am not familiar with Avalos. I can say that such views need to be contrasted with two titles which certainly demolish his views. Vishal Mangalowadi, The Book that Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization and Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World.

10. Thomas L. Thompson. Anyone who questions the historicity of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan must be living on another planet. I just lately purchased and read two books by Steven Collins titled Let My People Go! Using Historical Synchronisms to Identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus and Discovering the City of Sodom: The Fascinating True Account of the Discovery of the Old Testament’s Most Infamous City. The work of Charles Leslie I previously mentioned likewise supplies irrefutable proof of the historicity of the Exodus event recorded in the Bible.

Link to my summary of Leslie’s unanswerable argument:

Daily Bible Nugget #600, 2 Peter 1:16

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Historicity and Validity, Bible Study Tools, How to Study the Bible | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #852, Genesis 2:17

 

The Nugget:

Genesis 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The Challenge:

Adam lived for hundreds of years after eating the fruit. This means Genesis 2:17 is wrong!

My Answer:

I have furnished in my Bible study resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury, the following note on Genesis 2:17 which should answer your question directly:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

surely. Materialists in theology (like the ancient Arians and their modern day counterpart the Jehovah’s Witnesses, among others) misconstrue Gen 2:17, where God threatened death for eating of the forbidden tree. They take the “death” threatened to be physical death. This interpretation is flawed because:

(1) Adam and Eve did not physically die immediately on the very day that they ate from the forbidden tree;

(2) That they did immediately die spiritually is most evident because they:

(a) became conscious of shame and nakedness;

(b) feared meeting Jehovah in the garden, whose presence they once welcomed and enjoyed.

(c) attempted to hide from Jehovah, all indicating a change in spiritual status and relationship;

(3) This relationship was not restored until God:

(a) made specific provision for them when He clothed them with animal skins (representing the need for blood sacrifice in the atonement) which in type reflect the later animal sacrifices under the Mosaic law which prefigured the priestly-sacrificial atonement of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; and

(b) promised a coming Redeemer (Gen 3:15);

(4) in Gen 3:15 God presented to Adam and Eve the first promise of the Divine Redeemer who would ultimately atone for their sins, making their salvation possible;

(5) if one traces the term “death” through the pages of Scripture it becomes clear that it is used in at least two senses: physical death (which is NOT in view here in Gen 2:17) and spiritual death, which is undoubtedly the meaning to be given here, as proven by the context and such usage found in Eph 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 1Ti 5:6; +**1Pe 4:6; 1Jn 5:16, and numerous other passages, including texts in the Hebrew Scriptures (Eze 18:4 note, *Eze 18:21 note);

(6) Scripture shows the threatened death was not physical, but spiritual, though assuredly physical death was also a consequence (Rom 5:12), but not immediately.

(7) These mistaken interpreters fail to take into account the presence of figures of speech used here by God for emphasis: the emphasis requires that they die in the very day that the disobedience occurs. The figure emphasizes that as soon as they violated God’s commandment, they immediately would suffer the penalty. Some assert that since Adam died before he was 1000 years old, the threat was fulfilled. But there is nothing in the context of Genesis to suggest any such connection of unrelated texts.

 

Levi Akamigbo responded:

HalleluJAH

Abundant Blessings, Sir Jerome Smith.

PixelMistakePicasso replied:

Jerome Smith try to let the Bible speak for itself without personal interpretation and opinion to make the verse work for what you believe. Then you will see the truth. What you are doing now is that you have already set your mind on what the outcome should be, then you try to justify the verse with anything, including figures of speech.

My Reply:

PixelMistakePicasso It seems to me that it is you who fail to let the Bible speak for itself. I am not giving you personal opinion to make the verse work for what I believe.

If you disagree with me about a point of interpretation, present your case! Address the evidence! Discuss one point at a time.

By your comment, it appears that you have an objection to my references to Figures of Speech in the Bible.

That shows me that you would be helped by learning more about how figures of speech are used in the Bible. They are most often used for emphasis.

My resources, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge and The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury contain the most complete guide to the figures of speech in the Bible available in English.

Figures of Speech are crucial to the correct understanding of Genesis 2:17.

I did not provide you all the information about the Figures of Speech in Genesis 2:17 in my comment above, so here is that additional information:

17. of the tree. ver. 9. Ge 3:1-3, 11, 17, 19. Ac 5:30. 10:39. 1 P 2:24. Re 2:7. 22:2.

good and evil. Dt 6:4. Ro 3:20.

in the day. Ezk *33:12. ƒ171T2A. Figure of speech Synecdoche; or, Transfer B652: the exchange of one idea for another associated idea. Here, Of the Part, when a part is put for the whole: “in the day” is put for an indefinite time. A noun with the preposition followed by the verb in the infinitive, as here, becomes an adverb of time, and means simply “when,” or “after then,” or “after that.” For other instances of this figure see Ge 2:4. Le 13:14. 14:57. Dt 21:16. 2 S 21:12. *1 K 2:37, 42. 2 K 20:1. Ps 18:18. Is 11:16. Je 11:4, 7. 31:32. 34:13. Ezek 20:5, 6. 36:33. 38:18.

FS121I2, Figure of speech Metonymy of the Subject F/S 570, when the subject (the thing or action) is put for that which is connected with it. Here, of verb, where the action is put for the declaration concerning it. The meaning is not that he would die that very day, but that he would be sentenced to die “in that day.” For other instances of this figure see Gen 27:37; Gen 30:13; Gen 34:12; Gen 35:12; Gen 41:13, Exo 13:2; Exo 20:7, Lev 13:3, Deut 9:1, 2Sa 7:22, Isa 6:10; Isa 8:13, Jer 1:5; Jer 1:10; Jer 4:10; Jer 38:23, Eze 13:19; Eze 13:22; Eze 20:25-26, Hos 6:5, Mat 6:13; Mat 13:14; Mat 16:19, Mar 4:12, Luk 7:29; Luk 7:35; Luk 8:10; Luk 10:29; Luk 16:15, Joh 12:40; *Joh 20:23, Act 10:15; Act 28:26, 27, Rom 7:9; Rom 11:8, 2Co 3:6, Gal 3:23, Jas 2:21-22; Jas 2:24, 25.

thou shalt surely die. Heb. dying thou shalt die. FS147B. Figure of speech Polyptoton, +Gen 2:16. Here again Eve in Gen 3:3 alters the Word of God by saying “Lest ye die”! Thus she changes a certainty into a contingency. Not only does she thus diminish from and alter the Word of God but she adds to it the words “neither shall ye touch it,” which the Lord God had not spoken!

Gen 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

thou mayest freely eat. Heb. eating thou shalt eat. Gen 2:9, Gen 3:1, 2, *1Ti 4:4; *1Ti 6:17. FS147B. Figure of speech Polyptoton F/S 272: verb with infinitive or participle, involving the repetition of the same part of speech in different inflections for emphasis. May be used in strong and emphatic affirmation, or in strong negation. Here it is used in strong affirmation or exhortation. The conjugated verb is strengthened and emphasized by the infinitive preceding it. This infinitive Eve omitted in Gen 3:2, and thus “diminished” from the word of God. For other instances of this figure see *Gen 2:17; Gen 3:16; Gen 28:22; Gen 37:33, Exo 3:16; Exo 19:12-13, Jos 24:10, 2Ki 3:23, Job 27:22 mg. Psa 40:1; Psa 118:18, *Isa 6:9, Jer 22:10; Jer 23:17; Jer 51:58, Dan 11:13, Zec 8:21, Mat 13:13, 14, Mar 4:12, Luk 8:10, Joh 12:40, Act 7:34; Act 28:26, 27, Rom 11:8; Rom 12:15, Heb 6:14.

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible 'Contradictions' Answered, Bible Study Tools, Daily Bible Nuggets, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions, How to Interpret the Bible Correctly, How to Study the Bible | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Paul versus James in Acts

5-6-24 Paul versus James in Acts

The Text:

Act 21:21  And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

The Challenge:

Tell me, When James and Paul was having confrontation at Jerusalem (Acts 21 ) WHY Paul did not tell James that Jesus met him(Paul) and chosen him to preach the abandonment of Law of Moses and circumcision????

 

My Reply:

It seems to me I may have explained Acts 15 and 21 before.

Act 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

Therefore, Luke and Paul were very graciously welcomed in Jerusalem.

Act 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

Paul, Luke, and those who accompanied Paul were known to and welcomed by the church elders of the Jerusalem church.

Act 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

Paul gave testimony to how God was working through his ministry among the Gentiles.

Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Here is where the trouble starts. Though James is the leader at the Jerusalem church, he was not as knowledgeable of the principles of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ as he ought to have been.

James thought that it was a good thing that thousands of Jews believed, “and they are all zealous of the law.”

The fact is that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law (the only person to have ever done so perfectly), and because of Who Jesus is (the very Son of God, John 3:16), was qualified to make atonement for the sins of all mankind (2 Corinthians 5:15. 1 John 2:1, 2. 2 Peter 3:9), confirmed by the FACT that Jesus rose bodily from the dead on the third day, as He himself repeatedly predicted.

The evidence as given in the New Testament, therefore, confirms that James had not yet come to realize the extent of the benefits wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ through His Priestly-Sacrificial Atonement (1 Peter 2:24).

James and the elders of the church at Jerusalem were surely acquainted with the facts and circumstances of Paul’s conversion to belief in Christ.

 

Reply to me:

you need more improvement on biblical exegesis

Please read ALL and feel free to cross examine me

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/vkSVmus1X1arUfUt/?mibextid=cR73hX

 

My Response:

Abe San I visited the page that you linked to just now. I noted that it begins with a reference to Acts 21:21,

“Lets start On Acts 21:21
JAMES asks Paul the hard questions!
With a raised eyebrow, James looks at Paul and says:
And they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to “FORSAKE” Moses, saying that they ought NOT to “CIRCUMCISE” their children, NEITHER to walk after the “CUSTOMS.” ACTS 21:21”

As for the proper exegesis of this text, here is what I have placed at Acts 21:21 in my digital Bible study resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury:

Acts 21:21
informed. or, instructed. It implies oral communication and instruction. The circumcision party had been growing in numbers, influence, and bigotry since the council of Jerusalem, and had assiduously maligned and opposed St. Paul not only in Jerusalem but also in Galatia, Achaia, and elsewhere. They seem to have had their appointed emissaries and instructors (Walker). Act 21:24; Act 21:28, Act 18:25, +Luk 1:4 g.

that thou teachest. Act 21:28, Act 6:13, 14; Act 16:3; Act 28:17, Rom 14:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1Co 9:19, 21, Gal 4:12; *Gal 5:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; Gal 6:12, 13, 14, 15.

all Jews which. This, of course, was not the case. The apostle had only claimed full liberty for Gentile Christians (Walker). Joh 7:35, Jas 1:1.

to forsake. or, apostasy from. Gr. apostasia (S# G646, only here and 2Th 2:3; compare aphistēmi, S# G868, +Luk 2:37 and 1Ti 4:1 note). An undesigned coincidence here demonstrates the conformity between the argument of Paul’s epistle to the Romans and this history of Paul in Acts. Here in the history he is charged with having taught the Jews to forsake Moses. This is a very natural inference from Paul’s teaching in Romans, that justification is by faith alone, and not by the works of the law. His object in the Epistle was to put Gentiles on an exact parity with Jews. The effect (here in Acts) is entirely consistent with the cause (in the Epistle); but the consistency is indirect and obviously undesigned (see listing of related notes at Act 12:12). 2Th 2:3 g, note (the falling away).

Moses. FS121A6, +Luk 16:29. +Act 3:22; *Act 6:11; *Act 15:1; *Act 15:21, Mat 8:4.

saying. or, bidding. Act 21:28, 2Jn 1:10, 11.

ought not to circumcise. His action in the case of Timothy (Acts 16:3) was sufficient in itself to rebut such a charge, but party spirit and rumour always misrepresent and pervert facts, wilfully or unconsciously (Walker). Act 15:19, 20, 21; %**Act 16:3, Rom 2:28, 29, 1Co 7:18, 19, Gal 5:11.

to walk. Act 21:24, Mar 7:5, Gal 2:14, Heb 13:9.

customs. +Act 6:14; Act 26:3, *Mar 7:5, 1Co 11:16.

Acts 16:3

Acts 16:3. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (English Standard Version)

Act 16:3  Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. (King James Version)

And for the proper exegesis of this text, here is what I have placed at Acts 16:3 in my digital Bible study resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury:

Acts 16:3
would. Act 15:37; Act 15:40; Act 19:22, Php 2:22.

and took. Act 15:20, 21, Gen 17:23, 1Co 7:19; *1Co 9:20; *1Co 9:21, *Gal 2:3; *Gal 2:8; %*Gal 5:1, 2, 3; %*Gal 5:6; Gal 6:15.

and circumcised. On the principle of expediency (1Co 6:12). Paul had resisted the proposed circumcision of Titus (Gal 2:3, 4, 5) because the rite was then claimed as essential to salvation (Act 15:1). Now, however, as the bearer of the conciliar letter of Gentile liberty (Act 16:4), he carried clear evidence that such a tenet had been officially repudiated, and he could afford to circumcise Timothy without danger of being misunderstood. In order to prevent needless friction with Jewish communities along his line of travel, he deemed it expedient, especially since Timothy was half-a-Jew by birth, to remove any unnecessary ground of offence (1Co 9:20), now that no vital principle was involved in his action. Apparently, the Judaizing teachers tried to make capital out of his action at a later date and to accuse him, though most unfairly, of inconsistency (Gal 1:8, 9, 10; Gal 5:11). We may fairly place Timothy’s ordination also here (1Ti 4:14, 2Ti 1:6, 7) [Walker].

because of the Jews. Act 21:21, 1Co 2:15; **1Co 9:19, 20, 21, 22, %**Gal 5:2; Gal 5:11.

they knew. Gr. oida, Joh 8:55 note.

his father. Act 16:1.

was. or, was by race. Gr. huparchō. Not the verb “to be,” but meaning subsists or exists. Luk 9:48 g. Php 2:6 (being). Php 3:20 (is).

a Greek. Act 16:1, Act 17:4.

 

Reply to me:

dont try to teach me of your TSK or Faulty exegesis… What you are doing is merely copy pasting,

Read the article and explanation, refute it… I am waiting

 

My response:

You can’t have it both ways. When I wrote my explanation above of a portion of Acts 21 verse by verse, you accused me of faulty exegesis.

When I then provided you my exegesis of Acts 21:21 with Acts 16:3 as given in my resource, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury, you accused me of “copy and pasting.”

Get real and respond to the evidence instead of evading it.

 

You state above:

“dont try to teach me of your TSK or Faulty exegesis… What you are doing is merely copy pasting,”

Your comment is just rude nonsense because as you well know I am the person who wrote the resource I am citing, The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury. I personally typed every word of my resource. I own the copyright. It is a standard scholarly Bible study reference work. In my scholarly work I of course cite scholarly resources when they clarify the meaning of the verse.

At the time I wrote The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury (2016), I was not focused upon the mistaken Bible interpretations often posted by followers of Islam. I was focused upon errors of interpretation and doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who had previously held a four-year Bible study in my home.

But I am surprised at the applicability of the notes I furnished when it comes to answering mistaken interpretations posted by Muslims who often utterly misunderstand what the Bible teaches.

I suggest that you actually go back and carefully read what I posted regarding the correct understanding of Acts 21:21. My notes most certainly refute your position.

As time permits, I will answer more of your referenced article shortly.

 

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Study Tools, Doctrinal Discussions, False Religions, How to Interpret the Bible Correctly, How to Study the Bible | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Daily Bible Nugget #851, John 20:31

 

The Nugget:

Joh 20:31  But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Questions:

We are talking about God. Why did God make it so complicated to know Him? You have to jump from one Gospel to another, which was written many years apart by different authors. Why wasn’t everything written in the first Gospel? You also need to use Bibles from different versions. I don’t think this is the correct way to explain God.

My Answer:

PixelMistakePicasso You ask:

“Why did God make it so complicated to know Him? You have to jump from one Gospel to another, which was written many years apart by different authors. Why wasn’t everything written in the first Gospel? You also need to use Bibles from different versions. I don’t think this is the correct way to explain God.”

Thank you for asking such good questions this time!

My answer:

Let me explain the answer to this question again for you.

The Gospel of John was written with the explicit purpose to make the way of salvation plain to everyone who will read it:

John 20:30  And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
John 20:31  But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Consider very carefully: if you refuse to read and reread the Gospel of John until you know its text so well that you can literally think it through chapter by chapter, and if you refuse to believe what the Gospel of John teaches, you will never “have life through his name” until you do.

I suggest by my long experience that if you begin by reading the Gospel of John, you can read it through once a week by reading three chapters a day, since it has 21 chapters. Do this for a month or two, and you will reach the level of knowing the text that I have described.

I further suggest that you read the Bible, starting with John and then the rest of the New Testament first, then the rest of the Bible, by reading the Bible long enough each day (for a total of at least 20 minutes) and often enough each week (for a total of at least four days a week) on a continuing basis to benefit from the results such reading will bring. Remember, I have done this myself since August of 1953, and it changed my life for the better as a result. I continue to this day to read and study the Bible.

As for using different English versions and English translations when explaining what the Bible teaches, I have seen you do the same, if my memory is correct. I use several different translations and versions quite often because some translations or versions are clearer on some points than others.

As I have explained to you and all before, the Bible is not written topically. To learn all that the Bible teaches about any given subject or Bible doctrine or point of Bible prophecy, it is necessary to read all that the Bible has to say about that particular subject or theme.

To find out where else a subject is spoken of in the Bible, you could start with using a Bible concordance. This would be a good start, but often a subject is expressed in different words than the words you may have chosen to look up in a resource like Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance to the Bible.

You could use a resource like Nave’s Topical Bible or the Thompson Chain Reference Bible. These excellent resources will get you further, but you still would likely miss important information because even these extensive resources are limited in the number of topics they have chosen to cover.

Therefore, to find the rest of what the Bible says about the subject of your interest it is necessary to consult as complete a source of Bible cross references as you can find to use. The most complete cross reference Bible study resources include The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Nelson’s Cross Reference Guide to the Bible (which is no longer in print), and The Ultimate Cross Reference Treasury.

Set your prejudices against the text of the Bible aside and read it sympathetically, seeking to understand its message on its terms, not yours. Let the Holy Spirit enlighten your mind and heart as you read the New Testament to let Him enable you to understand it. I followed this procedure that I now recommend to you. It changed my life. It will change yours if you are open to its truth.

If you have further questions, I would consider it a privilege to help you with the answers.

 

Posted in Apologetics Issues--Other Faiths, Bible Promises, Bible Study Tools, Daily Bible Nuggets, How to Study the Bible | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment