Bible Rejecter’s Question # 1: Water or earth?
Gen.1:20 says birds were formed out of water but Gen.2:19 says every bird was formed out of earth!
Bible Believer: Genesis 1:20 is speaking about the creation of birds on the 4th day throughout the whole world before Adam was created, while Gen 2:19 is clearly speaking about God’s formation of every kind of bird AGAIN (after the creation was complete (see verse 1) in a specific place called the garden of Eden so Adam could see them all and name them. Both verses describe different times and different situations. Reading the text from right to left and top to bottom would help!
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 2: Death
on eating the apple?
Gen.2:17 “In the day that thou shalt eat thereof
thou shalt surely die” but Gen.5:5 says that Adam lived to be 930 years old,
living many hundreds of years after he ate the apple! The text says nothing
about “dying spiritually”. The Hebrew word used always refers to physical death
and the rest of the Bible shows this quite well e.g., in 2 Sam.12:14 Nathan said
to David “The child also that is born to thee shalt surely die” and in 2
Sam.12:18 the child died physically. This contradiction can only be solved by
rewriting the Bible, something Christians frequently do when confronted with
it’s many problems and contradictions despite the warnings of Rev.22:18-19. (See
contradiction Nos.1 and 91 [contradictions ‘no.8
section VI’ and ‘no.21 section II’ on this page] for more “rewriting the
script”).
Bible-Believer: Brian is always trying to stay at least one step ahead of the Bible Believer. Here, he not only gives the “contradiction”, he also tries to defend against what he knows the answer will be. The solution to the contradiction is two-fold. Firstly God DID mean physical death in Gen 2:17. Adam and Eve were meant to die right there and then when they sinned. However God had mercy on them and killed lambs to cover their sin so they didn’t have to die (Gen 3:21, Rev 13:8). A similar instance takes place in the book of Exodus when God said that He would consume Israel but later had mercy and didn’t carry it through (see our answers to “contradictions” 1 and 2 in Section VI).
Besides all this, Adam and Eve did DIE, spiritually, the moment they sinned. Coming to this conclusion doesn’t involve “rewriting” the Bible as Brian says. It involves STUDYING the Bible. The Bible itself tells us that Adam and Eve died spiritually (Rom 5:14-15). They gained the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:22), which Paul explains to be the point of spiritual death in Rom 7:9 (all the while using the same word as is used for PHYSICAL death). The Bible elsewhere refers to Adam and many others that were physically alive as spiritually DEAD because of their sin (Eph 2:1,5, Col 2:13, Matt 8:22, Luke 11:44,15:24, 2Cor 5:14 and so on, see also John 3:5-7). Brian simply cannot claim that Adam’s spiritual death has no Biblical foundation.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 3: The
“Terrible” curse on the serpent in Eden?
Gen.3:14 "Because thou [the talking snake!] hast
done this, cursed thou art above all cattle and above every beast of the field,
upon thy belly shalt thou go and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life".
But...
How exactly did the snake move prior to the curse if not on its belly? And
snakes don't eat dust. The "curse" on the serpent was of no practical
consequence whatsoever!
Bible-Believer: It’s strange that Brian thinks it unreasonable to imagine that snakes had legs like other reptiles before the curse, when most of his fellow Bible scoffers believe OUR ancestors had gills and lived under water at one time! Secondly it only takes common sense to discern that God is not saying that a snake’s diet will consist of dust! He is referring to the snake being humbled and its face being on the floor (see Isa 49:23 for a similar case), people still use phrases like “eat dust” (and so on) today to imply the same thing. A snake will inevitably swallow dust from time to time against its will. Even if fallible men wrote the Bible, why would they want to claim that snakes actually FEED on dust when they can perceive by simple observation that they don’t? They wouldn’t!
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 4:
Fugitive Cain?
According to Gen.4:12,14 Cain would become a
fugitive and a vagabond constantly subject to assassination attempts (although
his parents Adam and Eve were the only other people on earth at the time!) But
two lines later in Gen.4:16-17 Cain had a wife (his sister!?!), a family, lived
in the same area and built a city! Clearly Gen.4:12 was a false prophecy!
Bible-Believer: The first few chapters of Genesis only give brief summaries of people’s lives and tend to only mention one or two significant events in them (remember, humans lived to be in their 900s at this time – Gen 5:5, 8, 11) see Lamech’s story in Gen 4:18-24 for example. Genesis’ stories about Cain are no different; the events that are described in his life one after the other didn’t necessarily HAPPEN one after another in quick succession or at the same time. Some time had passed between Gen 4:16 and 4:17 (maybe even a few hundred years), in which Cain served his punishment as a vagabond and a fugitive before building a city. He obviously didn’t go to Nod (verse 16) and THEN straightaway know his wife (verse 17) because his wife wasn’t even born yet. He probably initially dwelt in Nod, moved on, dwelt somewhere else, moved on and so on until he married a wife. Plus, it was Cain himself and not God who feared that others would threaten his life. Cain was understandably concerned that, even though Adam and Eve were the only people on earth besides him at that moment in time, they would have more children in the future who’d want to avenge the death of their brother Abel. And yes, Cain did marry his sister. What else could he do? Marry his mother?
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 5:
Everlasting harvests or worldwide famine?
Gen.8:22 "While the earth remains seed time and
harvest...shall not cease ".
But...
Gen 41:54 "The seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had
said: and the dearth was in all lands" and...
Gen 41:56 "The famine was over all the face of the earth ".
Bible Believer: Brian conveniently leaves out half of Gen 8:22 which says that seed time, harvest, cold, heat, summer, winter, day and night all won’t cease, not that one or two of them won’t miss once in a while.
Bible Rejecter’s
Question # 6: Multiple languages before Babel?
Gen 11:1,6 says there was only
one language when the Tower of Babel was being built but Gen.10:5, 20 says there
were numerous tongues (languages) before Babel!
Bible Believer: Wrong again! Neither Gen 10:5 nor 10:20 say there were numerous tongues “before Babel”. The genealogy in Genesis 10 talks about people’s “tongues” because it lists people who lived AFTER the Babel events (of chapter 11) and the creation of multiple languages (compare Gen 10:25-26 with 11:8).
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 7: Jacob
no more?
Gen.35:10 “…thy name shall not be called any more
Jacob; but Israel shall be thy name”
But...
Gen 46:2 “God spoke unto Israel and said Jacob, Jacob”!
Bible Believer: There’s no problem here. Though both concepts of the word “name” are intertwined in Gen 35:10, God is not saying that JACOB HIMSELF would never again be known by the title Jacob, but only that Jacob’s “NAME” (or reputation) would never again be called Jacob (trickster) but instead a prince with God (Israel). “Name” of course does not always refer to a literal title, but how people are perceived (see Pro 22:1). A similar situation arises in Exodus 6:3 where God says that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn’t know Him by His “name” Jehovah, which only means they didn’t know Him as “promise keeper” (Jehovah) despite the fact that they actually knew Him by the title “Jehovah” (Gen 22:14). A full reputation change is meant in Gen 35:10 but, although a title change was made here too, it wasn’t to be a full replacement for the title of Jacob (both Jacob and Israel are used in the Bible to refer to Jacob from this point on).
Bible Rejecter’s
Question # 8:
Midinaites or
Ishmeelites?
Gen.37:36 says
that Potiphar bought Joseph from Midianites but Gen. 39:1 says he bought Joseph
from Ishmeelites!
Bible-Believer: Gen 37:36
and 39:1 are speaking of the SAME people. Ishmeelites from the land of Midian
were interchangeably referred to as “Ishmeelites” and “Midianites” (see Gen
37:27-28 and also Judges 8:22-24).
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 9: All
the waters turned to blood?
In Exod.7:19-21 Moses turns ALL the waters of
Egypt both in the rivers and in vessels of wood and stone to blood.
But...
Exod.7:22 says the magicians of Pharaoh did the same thing immediately
afterwards. How could they have turned ALL the water to blood when ALL the water
in the land of Egypt had just been turned to blood by Moses?!? Even if they had
water to work on how did the “magicians” manage this feat?
Bible-Believer: Exodus 7:19-20 says “Take thy rod, and stretch out thine hand upon the waters of Egypt, upon their streams, upon their rivers and upon their ponds, and upon all their pools of water, that they may become blood …and he lifted up the rod and smote the waters THAT WERE IN THE RIVER… and all the waters THAT WERE IN THE RIVER were turned to blood.”
God tells Moses to merely “stretch out his rod” over ALL the waters in Egypt, but as we see he only smote the main river with the rod. Presumably Moses smote the Nile with the rod so that eventually it would lead to the contamination all the waters of Egypt. But the Bible is clear that only ONE RIVER turned to blood. Therefore it left plenty more water for the magicians to work on. Black magicians can do amazing things, by the power of Satan (2Thes 2:9).
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 10: Thou
shalt kill or thou shalt not kill?
Exod.20:13 "Thou shalt not kill".
Exod.23:7 "Keep thee far from afalse matter; and the innocent...slay not".
But.. .
1 Sam.15:3 "Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling ".
Ezek.9:6 "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children and women
". Num.31:17,18 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who
have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves ".
Bible-Believer: The rules of WAR (1Sam 15:3, Num31: 17,18) have always been distinct from the rules of society (shooting an enemy on the battlefield is morally different from shooting your mother during an argument). Also God made laws for man, not for Himself. He can command or do whatever He wants, when He wants, however He wants. That’s what makes Him GOD!
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 11: Back
to Egypt?
Deut.17:16 says the Israelites will never return
to Egypt but Deut.28:68 says the Israelites will return to Egypt. Even if its
just a threat, God is still breaking his word.
Bible Believer: The “ye shall not” of Deut 17:16 is clearly a COMMANDMENT rather than a PROPHECY. It doesn’t say that the Israelites will “never” return to Egypt, anymore than the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 say that the Israelites will never steal, commit adultery, dishonour their parents or covet their neighbour’s goods.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 12: What
about Ai?
Jos.8:28 says that Ai was destroyed by Joshua and
made a heap and desolation “forever”. But according to Ezra 2:28 Ai was
inhabited about 800 years later!
Bible-Believer: Josh 8:28 says that “Joshua BURNT Ai, and MADE it a heap forever,”. Clearly the word “forever” is being used here in the PAST (not future) tense, the author is not predicting the future. The verse doesn’t say anything about the future; it is not saying that Ai was going to stay that way for all eternity. The author’s statement is defined right there in the same verse as merely meaning “a desolation unto this day” (a “continual” desolation up until the time of authorship). If I said something like “Brian was forever finding fault with the Bible” I wouldn’t actually be saying anything about the FUTURE; the sentence doesn’t mean that Brian WILL BE finding fault with the Bible for all eternity. FOREVER making (present tense) a big deal out of the word “forever” because he is FOREVER thinking (present tense) the word can only be applied to the future. See our answer to “contradiction” no.43 in this section.
Bible Rejecter’s
Question # 13: Drive out the Canaanites?
Jos.17:17-18 says that Ephraim
and Manasseh will drive out the Canaanites, but…Judges 1:27-29 shows they did
not. A false prophecy!
Bible Believer: This is a similar case to “contradiction” no.11 above. In Josh 17:17:18 Joshua was not predicting the future but merely encouraging Ephraim and Manasseh, along with envisioning and commanding a plan of action that would solve their problem (Josh 17:16)
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 14: Did
Saul enquire of God?
1 Sam.28:6 says Saul did enquire of God.
But...
1 Chron.10:13-14 says Saul did not enquire of God in the same account.
Bible Believer: Firstly, observe that Saul’s enquiry of the Lord in 1Sam 28:6 (when he got no answer) was BEFORE he went to a medium, where his impending death was made know to him. Importantly it doesn’t mention that Saul ever prayed for forgiveness or sought the LORD again between his encounter with the medium and his death in 1Sam 31:4.
Now we come to 1Chron 10:13-14 which says the following “So Saul died for the transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.” Here we are clearly given a summary of Saul’s misdoings throughout his life in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, transgression against “the word of the LORD” in verse 13 refers to Saul’s disobedience concerning the Amalekites (according to 1Sam 15:23), and his seeking “one that had a familiar spirit” refers to events in 1Sam 28:7-25 so the “And enquired not of the LORD” in verse 14 must refer to what happened AFTER the medium (1Sam 29-31:4) and the fact that Saul didn’t seek God’s intervention between the time he went to the medium and before his death. After all, the “enquired not of the LORD” must apply to some specific time period since it obviously is not saying Saul never prayed throughout his entire life. 1Sam 28:6 says that Saul enquired of God BEFORE the medium, but 1Chron 10:13-14 is saying that Saul didn’t enquire of God in the period between the time he went to the medium and his death.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 15: How
many sins?
2 Sam 24:10 says David sinned in numbering Israel
but 1 Kings 15:5 says David’s only sin was the Uriah affair!
Bible Believer: 1Kings 15:5 doesn’t say that David’s only SIN was the Uriah affair, it says that the only time that David turned aside from what God directly commanded him was in the Uriah affair. God never “commanded” David against numbering Israel.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 16: Can
we drink alcohol?
Prov.20: 1 "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is
raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise ".
Prov 23:29-30 “Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions? Who hath
babbling? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes? They that
tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not on thou upon
the wine when it is red when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth
itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent…”, Rom 14:21 “it is good
neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine”, Hosea 4:11 “Whoredom and wine and new
wine take away the heart” (This verse is interesting because it puts “new wine”
which Christians say refers to unfermented grape juice in the same category as
whoring and “old wine”.)
But.. .
Jer.25:27 "Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; drink
ye and be drunken, and spue and fall and rise no more ".
Prov.31:6-7 "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto
those that be of heavy heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember
his misery no more ". Finally if wine is so evil why did Jesus create litres of
the stuff (John 2:7-9)? Was it “new wine”? Then look up Hosea 4:11! Christians
constantly go on about the evils of alcohol and addiction but what they’re not
saying is that people who seek such solace in the bottom of a bottle when life
becomes unbearable are actually following a Biblical principle (Prov 31:6-7)!!
Bible-Believer: In normal everyday living we should not drink alcohol, Proverbs 20:1 and 23:29-30 confirm this as Brian has explained above. Hosea 4:11 (the “interesting” one) is yet ANOTHER verse taken out of context and needs some background. Hosea was called by God to prophesy against Israel who in his days had forsaken the true God and began worshipping Baal instead. God refers to this as spiritual “whoredom” and “adultery” throughout the book of Hosea. Hosea 4:11 does not forbid the drinking of new wine (unfermented grape juice, see Isa 65:8), it merely says it takes away the heart. New wine is put into the same category as whoredom (idolatry) and wine (drunkenness) because they were all part of Baalite worship ceremonies, along with corn. Hos 2:8 says “For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal.” (God wouldn’t have “given” them new wine if it was totally forbidden). Also, Amos 2:8 says “And they lay themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge by every altar, and they drink the wine of the condemned in the house of their god”. Hosea 4:11 is telling Israelites that these ceremonies (including drinking new wine) are taking away their heart (see verses 12 and 13) but new wine was taking away the heart only in a very specific situation. It was never forbidden, and to make it even plainer God speaks favourably of new wine throughout the entire Bible and (outside of the context of these ceremonies) the rest of the book of Hosea! In Hos 2:15 God says He personally will “give” Israel vineyards and NEW WINE (verse 22) again AFTER her “love affair” with Baal had been forgotten about. Jesus turning the water into new wine in John 2 does not in any way contradict this passage therefore.
As for the verses that supposedly say “we” can drink alcohol, Jer 25:27 is another verse that has been conveniently shortened by Brian AND taken out of context. Brian makes it look like God is telling everybody to commit suicide by alcohol. If one reads the whole chapter they would discover that God is not referring to literal alcohol but the metaphorical cup of His wrath (see verse 15, 28, 29 etc.).
As for the Scripture in Proverbs 31:6-7, every historian knows that the medicine for dealing with external infections, extreme mental problems, and pains in death in Old Testament times was alcohol. For most of history, there were no painkillers or disinfectants, so God told people to use alcohol as a MEDICINE, not as an entertaining drug (the book of Proverbs already tells us this elsewhere as Brian himself mentions above). Today we have much better medicines, but it was not wrong to use alcohol then. God's prohibition was against anyone using alcoholic drink for pleasure. Besides, the NEW Testament prohibits a Christian from EVER being drunk because of the need to be watchful for the second coming of Christ (Luk 21:34, Eph 5:18,Gal 5:21). See related articles on Wine and Strong Drink
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 17: Can
we call people fools?
Matt.5:22 "Whoever shall say thou fool shall be in
danger of Hell fire".
But...
In Matt.23:17 and Luke 11 :40 Jesus calls peoples fools and in 1 Cor. 15:36 Paul
does the same thing. Shouldn't Jesus and Paul go to Hell too or is this a case
of "do as I say, not as I do"?
Bible Believer: Matt 5:22 doesn’t say that we can’t call “people” fools. As anyone will see by reading the WHOLE of Matt 5:22 (not just the snippet that Brian has given above) Jesus is talking about how His disciples are to speak to their “brothers” (meaning their fellow believers-see Matt 5:47, 18:15-17, 20:24, 23:8 etc.). Neither Jesus nor Paul ever said, “thou fool” to a believer. And even if Paul or any other Christian did say it they wouldn’t go to hell because only the disciples of Jesus before the crucifixion were in any danger of hellfire (Acts 13:39, Rom 5:9).
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 18: Who
was John the Baptist?
In Matt.11:14 Jesus said that John the Baptist was
the renewed Elijah. In Matt 17:12 referring to John He said “Elias is come
already” and in Mark 9:13 he said of John “Elias is indeed come”.
But, in John 1:21 John the Baptist said that he was definitely NOT Elijah. One
should not lose sight of the fact that the prophecy in Ma1.4:5 says "1 will send
Elijah ", it doesn't say "I will send someone like Elijah" or "in the spirit and
power of Elijah" it says "I will send Elijah ", Since Jesus admitted in Mark
13:32 that he did not know everything it begs the question, who was lying: Jesus
or John the Baptist? Also concerning John, what "all things" did he restore as
Jesus promised he would? (Matthew 17:11-13) The answer of course is absolutely
nothing!
Bible-Believer: John wasn’t the real Elijah. God prophesied in the Old Testament that there would be a messenger sent before the coming of the Messiah to prepare Israel to receive Him (Mal 3:1) and in Mal 4:5 God says He will send Elijah before the coming of the Messiah. When Jesus came, Israel was supposed to accept Him as king and this would’ve been the beginning of the 1000-year reign of Christ over the world. In Matthew 11:14 Jesus says of John, “IF YE WILL RECEIVE IT this is Elias which was for to come.” He is saying here that if the Jews accepted John as a prophet, repented and accepted Jesus as their King then the purpose of Elijah’s second appearance would’ve been served in John.
However since Israel didn’t receive John the purpose of Elijah’s second appearance was not served, and since they didn’t receive Jesus, there will be a second coming of Jesus when Israel will accept Him. It is at this SECOND coming that His forerunner had been appointed to be the real Elijah (Matt 17:11, Rev 11), Malachi 4:5 speaks only of the second coming literally. By the name “Elias” in Matt 17:12 and Mark 9:13 Jesus is referring merely to the forerunner of the Messiah who was doing Elijah’s work (John), he was not referring to the literal Elijah and this is seen PLAINLY if one cares to compare Matt 17:11 with 17:12 and Mar 9:13 with Mar 9:12 which show that Jesus is speaking of TWO different individuals and is not saying that John was literally Elijah. In Matthew 17:11 Jesus is referring to the LITERAL Elijah as the “restorer of all things” not John, note that Jesus says he “SHALL first come” (John the Baptist had come already and been beheaded since Matt 14).
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 19:
Three days and nights?
In Matt.12:40 Jesus said he would be buried 3 days
and 3 nights.
But...
Since he died and was buried sometime on Friday afternoon (the day before the
Sabbath, Mark 15:42) and rose some time Saturday night or Sunday morning (the
day after the Sabbath, the first day of the week, Mark 16:1-2), then he couldn't
have been buried for 3 days and 3 nights. That's barely a day and a half. It’s
not even part of 3 days and three nights. How do you fit 3 days and 3
nights into a day and a half? Jesus failed to fulfil his very own prophecy!
Bible Believer: The prophecy didn’t fail. Brian makes the mistake of thinking that the “Sabbath” of Mark 15:42 is referring to the weekly Jewish Sabbath that was kept on the last day of the week (every Saturday). And so it follows that Brian thinks Jesus was crucified on a Friday (the eve of the Sabbath).
However the word “Sabbath” in Mark 15:32 is not referring to the weekly Saturday Sabbath, it is actually referring to the Passover Sabbath (compare Mark 15:42 with John 19:14 and 31). Jesus was killed on the eve of the Passover feast, known as a “high” SABBATH (John 19:14,31) not on a Friday before the ordinary Sabbath.
The Passover feast fell on different days every year. The sequence of events laid out in the gospels plus the fact that Jesus needed to be in the tomb for three whole days and three whole nights brings us to the conclusion that this year the Passover was celebrated on a Thursday. Jesus was crucified on the eve of the Passover; therefore it was on a Wednesday. Three days and three nights would have passed before He rose on Saturday after 6pm. Remember the Jews’ day lasted from 6pm to the next 6pm so Jesus rose at the beginning of Sunday.
The Sabbath mentioned in Mark 16:1-2 is indeed referring to the weekly regular Jewish Sabbath as we also see if we compare John 19:31,42 and 20:1. It is true that Christ’s death is traditionally remembered on Good Friday, but as we have seen this is not a Biblical viewpoint.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 20: Take
up the sword or not?
Matt.26:52 "ALL that take up the sword shall
perish with the sword".
But...
Matt10:34 "I came not to send peace but a sword"
Luke 22:36 "He that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one".
Rom.l3:4 Paul says of ones ruler that "he beareth not the sword in vain: for he
is the
minister of God". How can he be a minister of God given what Jesus said about
those who take up the sword?
Bible-Believer:
There is clearly no contradiction here. In Matt 26:52
Peter struck the servant for merely coming to arrest Jesus. ‘Taking up the
sword’ is a lot different to carrying a sword or “buying one” for self-defence.
Just like having a baseball bat at your bedside in case an intruder comes in, is
a lot different to going around bashing people’s brains out just because you
don’t like what they’re doing! Otherwise Peter would not have even have a sword
with him, or Jesus would have told him to “throw your sword away”, rather than
“Put up again thy sword into his place”.
Also Brian takes Matt 10:34 completely out of context. When Jesus says “sword”
here it simply means division and it is explained in verses 35 and 36. It’s
nothing to do with literal swords!
Romans 13:4 contradicts nothing either, a ruler needs to defend the innocent and
therefore must “bear” the sword.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 21: Will
God forgive all sins?
Mark 3:28 "All sins shall be forgiven unto the
sons of men ".
But.. .
Exod.23:7 "I will not justify the wicked".
Mark.3:29 "He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness
".
Bible Believer: This
is really ridiculous. Brian quotes Jesus as saying that all sins shall be
forgiven, then he says that Jesus contradicts Himself by saying “He that shall
blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness”. What Brian doesn’t
realise is that both these statements of Jesus are from the same sentence (see
the verses in question) and they have a “but” in between them!
In Exodus 23:7 when God says He would not justify the wicked, He means He will
not defend the wicked or fight their cause (see Pro 17:15).
Bible Rejecter’s response: Acts 13:39 “all that believe are justified from all things” but…. Mark 3 :29 “He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath NEVER forgiveness”. So there ARE unforgivable sins against God despite what Acts 13:39 contends. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is not refusing to repent as some Christians dishonestly allege; the Bible tell us in the very next line that warned against it because “they said he hath an unclean spirit”. The refusing to repent line is just another case of people rewriting the Bible to suit themselves. In addition, given the doctrine of the Trinity, isn’t blasphemy against the Father or Son also blasphemy against the Holy Ghost since the three “persons” are the one God?
Bible Believer: The events in Acts 13 happen after Jesus has left the earth and therefore the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost could not be committed at this time. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was declaring that Jesus’ miracles were by a devil while He was trying to prove His legitimacy as Messiah to Israel. It doesn’t mean refusing to repent. Secondly, clearly blasphemy against the Father or Son ISN’T blasphemy against the Holy Ghost because Jesus says so right in the same conversation in Luk12:10. Jesus obviously sees blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, Son and Father as distinct. This is not an issue.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 22:
Signs or no signs?
Mark 8:12, Luke 11 :29 and Matt. 12:39 say no sign
would be given to that generation. But...
John 20:30, Acts 2:22 and Mark 16:20 show that Jesus and his followers performed
many signs, miracles and wonders for that generation.
Bible Believer: How could anyone (whether believer or unbeliever) imagine the gospel writers making a blooper like this! Mark 8:12, Luke 11:29 and Matt 12:39 all record the same incident, the Pharisees ask Jesus for a “sign from heaven” to prove that He was the Messiah to which Jesus answered that no sign would be given to that generation except His resurrection (Matt 12:40). Jesus is not saying He won’t do any miracles and this is clear from the fact that He does many miracles! He meant that no SIGN FROM HEAVEN would be given by God, from which the ENTIRE (generation) nation of Israel would be able to see and know Jesus was the Messiah. He didn’t mean that He wouldn’t heal a leper or walk on water. The only sign Jesus did show to that Jewish generation (as a whole) was his resurrection.
Bible Rejecter’s
Question # 23: Can we judge?
Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and ye
shall not be judged” but…John 7:24 says “Judge not according to appearance, but
judge righteous judgement” and 1 Cor.2:15 says “He that is spiritual judgeth all
things”!
Bible Believer: Notice that Luke 6:37 does not say we “CANNOT” judge! The rest of the verse and verse 38 make it blatantly obvious that “judge not” is not a commandment, Jesus is merely telling the Jews about actions and their consequences. When someone says, “play with fire and you’ll get burned” they’re not commanding you to “play with fire”, when Jesus says, “judge not and ye shall not be judged,” He’s not commanding people to “judge not”. The passage is warning that we will be judged for what we judged others for. If we are found guilty of doing the same thing we will be punished. However if, (when we are judged) we are found innocent of doing the same thing that we judged someone else for, our judgment is righteous and acceptable and hence we “measure” (see 6:38) up to our own standard. Thus we CAN judge (1Cor 2:15) and nowhere does it actually tell us that we CAN’T.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 24:
Shouldn't the Second Coming have happened already?
Luke 21 :32 "This generation shall not pass till
ALL BE FULFILLED ".
Matt.16:28 "Verily 1 say unto you, there be some standing here which shall not
taste of death till they SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN HIS KINGDOM".
Mark 13:29-30 "When ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is
nigh, even at the very doors. Verily I say unto you, that THIS GENERATION SHALL
NOT PASS till all these things be done". Matt 24:34 “This generation shall not
pass till all be fulfilled”. But… These things were said over 2000 years ago and
that generation and that people are long since passed and dead! Remember that
Jesus said these things when asked the question “What shall be the sign of thy
coming and of the END of the world” (Matt 24:3)! Clearly Jesus was mistaken. His
followers were also mistaken about the “imminent” end of the world: Heb 1:1-2
“God…hath in these last days…”, Heb 10:37 “For yet a little while and he shall
come, and not tarry” and 1Thess 4:15-17 “…the Lord himself shall descend from
Heaven. Then WE which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them
in the clouds”. Paul clearly thought that the Second Coming would occur in his
lifetime and every Christian since has thought the same thing.
But...
These things were said 2,000 years ago. Clearly Jesus was mistaken.
Bible Believer: Firstly, to clear things up with Luke 21:32, Mark 13:29-30 and Matt 24:34. Our Bible Rejecter includes all three verses to try and make it seem as though Jesus said “this generation shall not pass till all be fulfilled” three times when He only said it ONCE, and all three gospels above are recording that ONE time He said it. Jesus didn’t just say this out of nowhere He said it at the end of a description of signs that would take place just before His second coming (see Luke 21:25-27, Mark 13:24-26 and Matt 24:29-31). The “this generation” of the above verses doesn’t refer to the first century; it refers to the “generation” that sees the signs preceding His second coming, see Luke 21:31, Mark 13:29 and Matt 24:33. Before His “this generation” statement (the previous sentence) Jesus said, “When ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors” and THIS generation (the generation in existence when the signs in the sky take place) will not pass without ALL the signs predicted by Jesus having already taken place and everything written about Jesus’ coming is fulfilled. Why would Jesus even bother telling His disciples that He was going to return during the first century when He was just about to tell them that He doesn’t even know Himself what century He is going to return in? (See Mark 13:32).
And, in Matt 16:28 Jesus is not making any predictions about WHEN His second coming would take place here either. What Jesus meant by this statement is shown in the verses following 16:28. After Jesus said that some would “see” His coming He took Peter, James and John up to the Mount of Olives (where He’ll stand at His coming-Zech 14:4) and manifested His glory (just like His second coming-Matt 25:41) and shone like the sun (like His coming in Mal 4:2). It was a vision (17:9) of His coming. Peter, James and John SAW Jesus’ 2nd coming 1000s of years before it happened, the same way the Bible says that Isaiah “SAW” Jesus’ sufferings (John 12:39-41) even though Isaiah died 700 years before Jesus was even born. The fact that Jesus was speaking of the transfiguration vision and not His literal second coming in Matt 16:28 is made abundantly clear in 2Peter 1:16-18 where Peter describes seeing the transfiguration of Matt 17:1-9 as seeing Jesus’ “power and COMING”.
Bible
Rejecter’s Response: His followers were also
mistaken about the “imminent” end of the world: Heb 1:1-2 “God…hath in these
last days…”, Heb 10:37 “For yet a little while and he shall come, and not tarry”
and 1Thess 4:15-17 “…the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven. Then WE which
are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds”. Paul
clearly thought that the Second Coming would occur in his lifetime and every
Christian since has thought the same thing.
Bible Believer: Jesus did indeed come and speak to the “Hebrews” in the last days (Heb1:1-2). Jesus came on the 483rd year of an appointed 490 years for everything to be fulfilled (Dan 9), the first century was the appointed time for the END (Dan 9:24, Matt 22) but since the Jews rejected Christ, God postponed the final seven years until the Gentiles got their full chance to accept Christ (Rom 11:25). See our answer to contradiction Part E), no.4 in Section VII.
The other point to make is that since the apostles are not just writing to first century Christians but actually writing scripture for Christians throughout EVERY age until Christ’s coming it makes sense that they would say that Christ’s coming is imminent rather than “far off”, for then Christians would not be readying themselves for Christ’s coming as He commanded them to do on several occasions, “be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh”. Christ has tarried but whenever a “little while” comes (or if it has come already) He will not tarry anymore. The Bible is not inaccurate when it describes Christ’s coming as at hand. In fact it already anticipated people like Brian who’d say “shouldn’t the second coming have happened already?” The Lord is always waiting to return (imminent) but keeping back as far as He will, to allow people a chance to repent (see 2Pet 3:4).
Lastly when Paul says “we” in 1Thess 4:15-17 He means Christians, the fact that He doesn’t know if HE will be alive or not for Christ’s coming and is NOT saying whether or which, is made plain in the words “which are alive and remain” (meaning “alive” at Jesus’ coming) after the “we”. Paul accepts that he’s not going to see Christ’s coming in 2Tim 4:6.
Bible Rejecter’s
Question # 25: Was Jesus in Hell or in paradise after his death?
Luke 23:43 says he was in
paradise
But...
Acts 2:31 says he was in Hell.
Bible Believer: Jesus was in both paradise AND hell after His death. Eph 4:8-10 tells us that Jesus went into “the lower parts of the earth” (where are both hell and paradise – see Isa 14:15 and Luke 16:22-31).
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 26: How
many have ascended to heaven?
John 3:13 “No man hath ascended up into Heaven but
he that came down from Heaven, even the son of Man” (but at that point even he
had not ascended yet!) yet 2 Kings 2:11 says “Elijah went up by a whirlwind into
Heaven” and Gen.5:24 “Enoch walked with God; and he was not; for God took him”.
Bible-Believer: Firstly Jesus (as God) ascended to heaven and descended to earth many times throughout the Old Testament. There are three ways in which the term “heaven” is used in Scripture. It may refer to God’s abode (Matt 23:22), which is called “the third heaven” by Paul (2Cor 12:2). However it can also refer to the sky where the birds fly (Lam 4:19), and outer space where the sun and moon were made (Gen 1:1,16-17). When 2Kings 2:11 says that Elijah was caught up by a whirlwind into “heaven” it refers to (as it usually does in the Old Testament) the sky, where Elijah disappeared from Elisha’s view (verse 12). See Judges 20:40 for the same wording and exactly the same meaning. Nobody under the Old Testament dispensation went to the third heaven (Luke 16:19-31) except for Enoch. And in Gen 5 Enoch did not ascend to heaven, rather he was “translated” (Heb 11:5).
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 27: Is
Jesus true?
John 5:31 "If 1 bear witness of myself, my witness
is NOT true ",
But...
John 8:14 "Though I bear record of myself yet my record IS true".
Bible-Believer: This is yet another example of Brian taking things out of context to CREATE a contradiction. If Jesus bore witness to Himself ALONE, His witness isn’t true, this is what He’s saying in John 5:31. In John 8:14 Jesus is saying His witness of Himself is true ONLY because the Father witnesses of Him also and so He is NOT ALONE (explained in verse 16, if Brian bothered to reading on before straightaway assuming there’s a contradiction).
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 28: Is there truth in Satan?
John 8:44 says there is NO truth in Satan but Gen.3:4-7, 22 shows he did tell the truth at least once!
Bible-Believer: Well, clearly then “there is no truth in Satan” means something different to “Satan never once told the truth”. Similar wording is used in Hos 4:1 where God says that there is “no truth” in the land, undoubtedly the phrase doesn’t really mean that nobody in the land ever once uttered a true statement in their entire lives.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 29: When
did Jesus ascend to Heaven?
Acts 1:3 says 40 days after the Resurrection but
Luke 24 says on the day of the Resurrection.
Bible-Believer: The book of Acts and Luke are two parts to the same story, written by the same author (compare Luke 1:3, 24:51-53 and Acts 1:1-2). In Acts chapter 1 Luke is describing the same events as Luke 24:50-53 in more detail. In verse 3 Luke clearly says that there were forty days between the resurrection and the time Jesus led the disciples to Bethany and His ascension, thus explaining to Theophilus that forty days past somewhere between Luke 24:46 and Luke 24:50. Luke’s gospel tends to sometimes put statements that Jesus made at different times and places together in one passage as though He spoke them all right there and then simultaneously. Compare Luke 17:20-24 with Matt 24:3,26-27 to see an example of this. That’s the situation in Luke 24. The events of verses 50-51 didn’t take place on the day of the resurrection.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 30: Who
bought “The Field of Blood”?
Acts 1:18 says Judas bought the field with the
thirty pieces of silver.
But..
Matt.27:5,7 says he returned the money to the priests and they bought the field.
Bible Believer: Acts 1:18 doesn’t say that Judas bought the field. The “this man” in this verse is not referring to Judas but, carrying on from speaking about “them that took Jesus”, (see verse 16), Peter is speaking about the priest who made the purchase of the field of blood in Matt 27:7. If Peter were still referring to Judas in verse 18 he would have continued using the term “he” for Judas as he used in the previous sentence, not say “now this man”. Peter uses the term “this man” here in the same way we’d use the term to speak about ‘A’ man we didn’t know too much about, “there was this man in London who planted a nail bomb”, “Once, this man in Paris climbed the Arc de Triumph” and so on. See also Matt 8:9 where it is used in exactly the same way, “this man” is the same as saying “a man” or just “some guy”.
Supporting the conclusion that “this
man” is a chief priest is the fact that the gospels say nothing about Judas
falling and bursting open (which is what happened to “this man”). Supporting the
conclusion further is Peter’s reference to Psalm 69:25 in verse 20. One look at
Psalm 69:22-27 suggests that this chapter is prophesying Jesus’ persecution by
the PRIESTS before His death rather than Judas.
Bible
Rejecter’s Question # 31: Receiving the Holy Ghost twice?
Acts 2:4 says that the
apostles received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost but John 20:22 says the apostles
had received the Holy Ghost already. This means the Holy Ghost must have left
them i.e., they were saved but lost their salvation, contradicting the
“Once-Saved-Always-Saved” verses such as John 10:27-28.
Bible Believer: In Acts 2:4 the apostles didn’t RECEIVE the Holy Ghost they were “FILLED with the Holy Ghost”. The filling of the Holy Ghost takes place after a person has already received Him (see Acts 4:8, 4:31, 7:55, 13:9, 13:52 and Eph 5:18). The apostles received the Holy Ghost for the first and only time in John 20:22.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 32: Did
any good thing life in Paul?
Rom.7:18 "For I know that in me (that is, in my
flesh) dwelleth NO GOOD THING". But. ..
Gal.2:20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I; but CHRIST
LIVETH IN ME".
Is Paul saying Christ is no good thing?
Bible-Believer: The verse Brian gives, answers his question! I wonder why Paul writes “(that is IN MY FLESH) dwelleth no good thing”? Christ lives in the SPIRIT of the believer.
Bible Rejecter’s Response: Rom.7:18 "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing" but………1 Cor 6:10 says “Your body [flesh] is the temple of the Holy Ghost”. It looks like Paul is calling the Holy Ghost no good thing! That’s blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in which case Paul committed the Unforgivable Sin (Mark 3:29) and is in Hell!
Bible Believer: Brian is really stretching it this time. The “[flesh]” in 1Cor 6:10 above, is Brian’s own insertion of course and is not in the real verse. When Paul says “flesh” in Rom 7:18 he is referring only to PHYSICAL substances. There was nothing PHYSICALLY (within his physical makeup) good in Paul (Rom 7:18), the Holy Ghost/Christ is SEPARATE from the physical body despite dwelling in the body (1Cor 6:10). This is hardly a difficult concept to understand!
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 33: Run
or not?
1 Cor.9:24 "So run that ye may obtain ".
But...
Rom.9:16 "So then it is not of him that willeth, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNNETH, but of
God that sheweth mercy".
Bible Believer: This is the worst yet! In 1Cor 9:24 (if Brian read the whole verse) Paul is using the metaphor of a race which represents doing God’s will, he encourage believers to participate (“run”) so that they will be rewarded at the finish. Therefore there is no contradiction. And even if Rom 9:6 was speaking in the same context (which it obviously isn’t) it doesn’t say not to run.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 34: Long
hair or a hair cut?
1 Cor. 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach
you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him ".
But.. .
Long hair is associated with holiness throughout the Old Testament in verses
such as Judges 13:5 and 1 Sam. 1: 11. Num.6:5 says "He shall be HOLY and shall
let the LOCKS OF HAIR OF HIS HEAD GROW".
Bible Believer: All three verses after the “But…” above deal only with Nazarites. Nazarites were men who had taken a vow of abstaining from cutting their hair (among other vows) to identify them as keeping a promise to God. It was an UNUSUAL lifestyle; their long hair was distinctive because men weren’t supposed to have long hair. For men who were not Nazarites, it was a shame to wear their hair long, yet again there’s no discrepancy.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 35: Seen
of the Twelve?
1 Cor.15:4-5 says that after Jesus rose from the
dead he was seen by the twelve apostles but since Judas died before the
Resurrection (Mat.27:5) and Matthias was elected after the Ascension (Acts 1:26)
there were only eleven apostles at the time!
Bible-Believer: The term “THE TWELVE” in the New Testament refers to the original twelve apostles after Judas’ death (before Paul was converted-Acts 9), it is comprised of the eleven plus Matthias, see Acts 1:26 and then 6:2. Since Paul is writing 1Cor 15:5 long AFTER Matthias’ became the twelfth apostle, He refers to Jesus’ appearance to the eleven (with Matthias present-Acts 1:21-22) as an appearance to “the twelve” in light of Matthias’ election. Paul is counting Matthias as an apostle when speaking of his life before he became one, just as one might say “the APOSTLE Peter was a fisherman before he met Jesus”; giving Peter the title of “apostle” when speaking about his life before he ever became one.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 36: Was
Paul the chiefest or the “leastest”?
1 Cor.15:9 "For I am the least of the apostles,
that am not meet to be called an apostle ".
But...
2 Cor.11:5 "For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles ".
Paul couldn’t make up his mind!
Bible Believer:
In 1Corinthians 15:9 Paul is saying he is the least
of the apostles because he “persecuted the church” (see the verse in question).
He is speaking about being the worst of the apostles “in terms of his past
record of sins”.
However in 2Corinthians 11:5 Paul is speaking about what he knows, he is not a
whit behind the chiefest apostles “in terms of his knowledge about Christ"
(verse 6). He knows as much as they. This simply cannot be considered a
contradiction! Paul was the least of the apostles morally but was among chiefest
of the apostles when it came to knowledge.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 37: Who
bears your burdens?
Ga1.6:2 says we should bear each others burdens to fulfil the law of Christ.
But...
Ga1.6:5 says everyone shall bear his own burden.
Bible-Believer: Oh please! Brian is getting desperate. Notice the “contradicting” verses are within three lines of each other! Paul is saying believers should bear one another’s burdens but ALSO bear their own. We are not talking literal burdens here, but spiritual burdens, which a person can both give another to bear and bear it themselves at the same time.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 38:
Was Paul a trickster?
1 Thess.2:3 "For our exhortation was not of
deceit, nor of uncleanness, NOR IN GUILE ".
But.. .
2 Cor.12:16 "But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I
caught you with GUILE",
Bible-Believer: Paul is writing to the Thessalonians (with whom he wasn’t crafty) in 1Thessalonians 2:3 and he is writing to the Corinthians (with whom he was crafty) in 2Corinthians 12:16. Finding a contradiction here is completely irrational.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 39:
Is all scripture inspired?
2 Tim.3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration
of God" but.……..1 Cor 7:25 “I have no commandment of the Lord…I give my
judgment”, 2 Cor. 11:17 "That which I speak, I speak it NOT AFTER THE LORD ", 1
Cor.7:12 "But the rest speak I NOT THE LORD".
So ALL scripture is not given by inspiration of God after all!
Bible Believer: Never does Paul say that what he’s writing is not INSPIRED. If Brian read a few verses along in 1Cor 7:25 he would have read Paul’s explanation of the statement about “giving his judgment”. 7:40 reads “she is happier if she so abide, after MY JUDGMENT: and I think also that I have the SPIRIT OF GOD.” Paul says that “his judgment” is valid (without being told anything in a vision) only because he is writing by the Holy Spirit. And the one that makes men’s writings INSPIRED is of course The HOLY SPIRIT (1Pet 1:21). The Holy Spirit moved Paul into writing what he wrote.
2Cor 11:17 is taken completely out of context and has nothing do with inspired or uninspired anything; Paul is saying he’s not speaking according to the Lord’s standards (“not after the Lord”), because in context he was purposely acting AS IF he was a fool in order to teach the Corinthians something (see verses 16-19,23 and 30). In 1Cor 7:12 Brian creates the contradiction himself by omitting a word, 1Cor 7:12 says “But TO the rest speak I not the Lord.” Not “the rest speak I not the Lord” as Brian has printed it (see above). Paul is not saying here that his words are not inspired, he is saying that the Lord spoke to the married during his earthly ministry (compare 1Cor 7:10-11 with Matt 5:32) but he (Paul) has been given the job to speak “TO” the un-married (verse 12) whom the Lord didn’t talk “TO” about marriage issues during His earthly ministry.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 40: How
many sons had Abraham?
Heb. 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when he was tried,
offered up Isaac...offered up HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON".
But...
Gen.16:16 and 21:5 show that Abraham had TWO sons, Isaac and Ishmael, and
Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac.
Bible-Believer: When God told Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael out of his home (Gen 21:10-12), He, from then on regarded Isaac as Abraham’s ONLY son (Gen 22:2,12,16), thus the author of Hebrews is correct.
Bible Rejecter’s
Question # 41:
Does God tempt?
James 1:13 "God cannot be
tempted with evil. neither tempteth he any man ".
But.. .
Gen.22:1 "God did tempt Abraham ".
Which is it? If God never tempts man to sin then why is he entreated to "lead us
not into temptation" in Matt.6:13
Bible Believer: Though the same WORD (the word “tempt”) is used in James 1:13 and Gen 22:1 the verses are not speaking of the same CONCEPTS. In the Bible their two “temptations”. Brian quotes a verse from James ch1, which actually teaches about the contrast between the two different “temptations”. One is a trial or a test (James 1:1-12); the other is a desire to sin (1:13-16) called the “temptation with evil”. The “temptation” of James 1:1-12 is the same temptation as Gen 22:1 (see Heb 11:17) but the “temptation” spoken of in verses 13-16 is not the same concept. The play on words that James uses when he switches concepts in verse 13 usually puzzles casual readers (like Brian) into thinking that both “temptations” are actually identical and verses 1-16 are all referring to exactly the same thing.
However with a little study and humility it is clear that the two are very different. The “temptation” of James 1:1-12 is a trial in one’s life (1:12, see also 1Pet 1:6-7). This temptation cannot be avoided (1:12), it comes from an external source (1:2), and it brings forth more faith (1:3), patience (1:4), perfection (1:4) and ultimately a crown of LIFE (1:12). Meanwhile the “temptation” of verses 13-15 is a desire to sin and backslide and not a trial. This temptation must be avoided (1:16), it comes from within the person (1:14) through lust (1:14), and brings forth sin (1:15), and ultimately DEATH (1:15). They obviously are not the same. So, as Abraham’s “temptation” is not the same temptation that James says God is not involved in, there is no contradiction. God does tempt people but does not tempt them “with evil” (James 1:13). He is behind the “temptation” spoken of in Gen 22:1 and James 1:1-12 but not the “temptation” spoken of in James 1:13. Regarding Matthew 6:13, asking God to keep us away from temptation doesn’t suggest that temptation comes from Him, surely God could be asked to keep us from (“lead us not into”) something He doesn’t cause.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 42:
Is Satan bound in Hell or
free on earth?
2 Peter 2:4 says bound in Hell until judgement.
But.. .
1 Peter 5:8 and Job 1:7 say he is walking freely on the earth.
Bible Believer: 2Peter 2:4 says, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement;” God delivered the angels of Genesis 6 into chains of darkness, they are bound in hell until the day of Judgement, SATAN is not.
Bible Rejecter’s
Question # 43:
Will the earth last
forever?
2 Peter 3:10 "The elements shall melt with a
fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up",
Heb.l: 10-11 "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the
earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands, they will perish, but thou
remainest", Matt.24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away",
But...
Eccles.l:4 "The earth abideth forever", Psalm 93:1 “The world is stablished,
that it should not be removed forever”
Psalms 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be
removed forever ", Eph 3:21 “…world without end” Says one thing and means
another again? Do you notice how the Bible is retranslated every time
there is a problem? If forever doesn’t mean forever then perhaps Hell and the
Land Covenant with Israel aren’t “forever” either. Maybe they’re also a “less
than forever” kind of forever? Or is it just the “forevers” that Christians want
changed that are going to be changed?
Bible-Believer: This world will not last “forever”. Notice Ecclesiastes 1:4 doesn’t say the earth will be around forever, it’s in the present tense and says the earth “abideth” (continues to abide or is abiding at the moment) forever. In the Bible, “forever” can refer to the present and even to the past and can mean “always so far” or “perpetually”. This is shown in many Biblical passages. Amos 1:11 says “Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear PERPETUALLY, and he KEPT his wrath FOREVER: Is God saying here that the Edomite people stayed/will be angry for billions of years, even ALL ETERNITY? No, since this would make no sense at all.
Other examples of the word forever meaning just “perpetually” are Job 41:4, Lev.25:45-46, Deut.15:17 and Jonah 2:6 which says that Jonah WAS (past tense) at the bottom of the mountains and the earth’s bars WERE (past tense) about him “FOREVER”. See also the example in “contradiction” no.12 this section
The book of Psalms also affirms that the earth will pass away (Psalm 102:25-26) just like the New Testament and therefore the “forever” in chapters 93 and 104 mean only “continually” or for a long time, and as well as this, removing and perishing are completely different concepts. The Eph 3:21 phrase “world without end” has nothing to do with the earth ending or not ending, it is a Biblical oath implying “for all eternity”. If he read it in context, Brian would have realized the phrase has nothing to do with the actual earth, which Isa 45:17 also shows, “But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.”
Any honest reader will see that we have not “retranslated the Bible” but have proven our case using the Bible itself to discern the meaning of its own terms, comparing Scripture with Scripture. Plus, we still use forever to mean “a long time” today, when we use phrases like “Brian is forever making a big deal out of the word “forever” because he is forever thinking the word can only mean for all eternity.” And obviously there’ll come a time when the land of Israel won’t be here anymore (Rev 21:1) so that covenant is not eternal so to speak, but the Bible never hints that Hell will end, and along with saying Hell is forever the Bible specifically says IT IS eternal (Mark 3:29, Heb 6:2, Jude 1:7) and its fire will never be quenched (Matt 9:44).
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 44: Was
Jesus a sinner?
1 John 3:5 says of Jesus; “And in him is no sin”,
But.. ..
I John 3:4 says sin is the transgression of the law and if that's the case then
Jesus was a sinner. He ignored the dietary laws in Mat 15:1 and Mark 7:15. He
broke the washing of hands rule in Luke 11:37-38. He ignored the rules on
fasting in Mark 2:18-20 and the Sabbath laws in John 5:8-11, Luke 13:10-16 and
Luke 6:1-4, The swine of Luke 8:33 were not his to destroy, Jesus said himself
in Matt.5:19 that whosoever broke one of the very least of the commandments
would be called least in the kingdom of heaven. James 2:10 says that anyone who
breaks one commandment has broken them all; Jesus, like the rest of us broke all
the commandments. Most telling of all is Matt.15:1-3.When Jesus and the Apostles
are accused of being sinners Jesus replies "Why do you ALSO", He admitted it!
Bible-Believer: Jesus never transgressed the law. Keep in mind “the law” was the moral law given by God to Moses, and is contained in the second, third, fourth, and fifth book of the Old Testament. In Matthew 15 Jesus does absolutely nothing! His DISCIPLES ate without washing their hands. His disciples here are never even accused of transgressing the law but transgressing a manmade “tradition”. Nowhere in the law does it say a Jew must wash his hands before eating. So Jesus transgressed nothing in Luke 11:37 either except for a Jewish tradition. In Mark 7:15 Jesus again does absolutely nothing! He speaks about what defiles a man spiritually (see verses 18-23).
There are absolutely no rules on fasting in the Old Testament law; the word “fasting” is not even contained in the Pentateuch. There are no Sabbath laws that say a man can’t carry a bed (John 5:8-11), heal (Luke 13:11-15) or eat corn on the last day of the week. The Pharisees had made their own Sabbath “traditions” equal to God’s rules (“teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”-Matt 15:9) and this is why they accused Jesus and His disciples. The swine of Luke 8:33 were destroyed by devils not Jesus and in Matt 15:1-3 the Pharisees are accusing His “disciples” not Jesus (see the passage) therefore Jesus is not admitting that He transgressed anything by saying “Why do ye also transgress”.
Bible Rejecter’s Question # 45:
Can/do Christians sin?
1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin; his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin because he is born of
God",
1 John 3:6 "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not. whosoever sinneth hath not
seen him neither known him",
1 John 5:18 "Whosoever is born of God sinneth not",
1 John 3:8 "He that commiteth sin is of the Devil",
But:
1 John 1:8 "If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is
not in us",
The unavoidable conclusion is that since all Christians continue to sin, not one
of them is in fact born of God, not one of them abides in God, they have never
known God and they are in fact of the Devil! According to the Bible Christians
either don't sin or they don't exist.
Bible-Believer: Let’s just assume for the moment that the Bible isn’t infallible; it’s just like any old man-made book. Even so, what would be the chances that a Christian elder would blatantly contradict himself on a simple issue of whether Christians sin or not (yes or no answer) in a writing of roughly 105 lines? Even to an unbeliever this has to be considered a bogus contradiction. Common sense is enough to know that no man with a brain to think could make such a blatant contradiction as Brian supposes here, not to mention a leading mastermind in one of the biggest hoaxes of human history (as unbelievers would have to see John!). If I say that I keep the 10 commandments because I’m a Christian that doesn’t mean I have never broken any in the past or I will never break any again. John exhorts believers not to sin (1John 2:1) by saying that sinners are “of the devil” and people who don’t sin (who keep God’s commandments) are “of God”. It’s like someone saying to a man wearing pink “only women wear pink” in order to make him stop wearing pink. Would they be LITERALLY calling him a woman? Or would they be LITERALLY saying that no men at all, anywhere wear pink? No! Just like John is not literally calling Christians that sin children of the devil, or ruling out that Christians do sin sometimes (he already made it clear that they do in 1:8-10, 2:1, see also 5:16).