HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

THE MADCAP ENCYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLE DIFFICULTIES

Gleason W Archer’s Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties is one of the books at the forefront of religious systems that allege that there is no error in the Bible for it is the word of God.

The logic of the book is very off.

However, pages 21,25 are right to observe that if you want to trust Jesus you have to believe in Adam and Eve as historical beings and accept the historicity of the flood story in Genesis and the manna in the desert and the episode where Jonah was swallowed by a fish and lived to tell the tale. Jesus taught that these people and events were pure history. Jesus could not have been a true prophet when he could not be right about the past for prophets are supposed to be able to accurately foretell future events which is harder than psychically gazing into the past for the past existed and the future does not exist yet. There is no reason to think that Jesus might have known the real facts for nobody did in those days.
 
The unfair thing about the Encyclopedia is that it ignores Bible stories like the prophet Elisha and the bears which cast God in a very bad light. This reflects the Christian tendency to hope that nobody notices that they are being selective in what they deal with and then they have the nerve to lie saying the Bible is entirely wholesome.
 
Page 153 says that God was right to kill children in the Bible with the intention of punishing their parents. It even dares to say that if the children had lived they would have been as bad as their parents and so God was right to get rid of them. And we are told that only God knows the potential of each soul. This is putting the God you can’t see before the children you can see and that is callous and many Atheists find it disgusting.

Page 160 states that when Joshua built an altar in disobedience to Deuteronomy 12 which specified that only the altar in the tabernacle was to be used he did right for Exodus 20 says that God said that wherever the people are God will come to them and bless them. Archer is lying through his teeth. The Exodus verse does not support what Joshua did. And Joshua claimed to have had God’s blessing on his altar and Joshua was a prophet so he must have been a false prophet. Moses falls with Joshua for he was the one who made him prophet and leader. False prophets make false prophets.
 
God enticed Samson to wed Delilah (Judges 14:4) despite the fact that God regarded this marriage as immoral for she was of a pagan persuasion (page 166). Archer says that God did not approve of the marriage but made Samson attracted to her so that he would marry her and God could take advantage of the sin. This is highly immoral. And Catholics say that Judges only means that God used Satan to fulfil his plan but since nobody believed in the Devil then when Judges says it was God it was God.

Religion teaches that we cannot understand God and our description of him and his ways is more like a parable than a description for we don’t understand what we are saying. The Hebrews had no concept of the this idea that language about God was univocal or symbolic or just to express roughly an idea that was so far beyond anybody’s understanding that it only needed to be said avoid saying nothing at all. Catholics say that they call God love but they do not know what this means so calling him love is univocal language. Yet this later philosophical idea is used as an excuse to cover up the blunders in such verses as 1 Samuel 15:11 which has God saying he is sorry he ever made Saul king of Israel though it could not have been meant univocally. Archer tries something different (page 174). He says God did say he regretted it but then contradicts himself and says it does not mean he did not know beforehand what Saul would turn out like! The way the word for regret fits into the context shows that he cannot pretend it means something different from regret.

Page 181 says that the true account of Saul’s death is in 1 Samuel 31 and the account that contradicts it is in 2 Samuel 1 and that the latter can contradict it for it is only an inspired record of what an Amalekite man who may not have been reliable reported about Saul’s death. But would the man’s testimony be in the book if it were not accepted? This encyclopaedia speculates that it might not be even though that is what books that pretend to be history like 2 Samuel or are history need – history is an interpretation and evaluation of testimony.

Several times the Encyclopaedia “solves” contradictions by blaming the errors of copyists – errors for which there is no evidence. See page 169, which admits that 50,000 in Bethshemesh in 1 Samuel 6:19 is too many and blames this on a copyist’s mistake. But what right has anybody to say the Bible is infallible in all it says when these contradictions could have been in the originals?

Page 184. This says that when 2 Samuel 14:27 says Absalom was a father of three sons and one daughter and 2 Samuel 18:18 says he had none there is no conflict for the children probably died in infancy though the Bible does not tell us if they did die. But one would expect the book to tell us that for writers avoid seeming contradictions like that. It is unlikely that four royal children could die young. Absalom died in a manner similar to that described in Psalm 22 though Archer wants to pretend that this psalm described the death of Jesus before it happened for a God who knows the future wrote it.

Page 205. Elisha is defended against the accusation that he lied to the army of Syria and misled them when they were looking for him in 2 Kings 6. Elisha told the army that he would lead them to Elisha thus meaning that he was not Elisha and that Elisha was not in the area though he was yet Archer pretends that he was not lying but telling the truth for he never said he was not Elisha and he was right to tell them they would not find Elisha in the city for they were all outside the city. But Elisha said more than just that Elisha was not in the city but that they were on the wrong track meaning he was nowhere near the city though he was. Also, when the army were that easily misled and by one man the story is doubtful. No army would be that dumb. No army would have expected Elisha to stay in any town when they were coming for they were numerous and he would have had time to get away. The army would have used spies to apprehend him so there was no need for them threatening any towns. Elisha asked God to disguise him so that he could talk to the men instead of asking God to let him escape and making the men receive a message based on understanding that Elisha was somewhere else. Thus Elisha did wrong for he wanted the stage set for his lies to be told. Even if it were not lies but just using the truth to make the guys mislead themselves he still did wrong for the Church says that this is wrong except in cases of extreme necessity.  Elisha should have just left by the back of the town.

Page 242. Here, on the basis of Psalm 5:5 and 11:5 the view that God loves sinners but hates their sins is rejected. Good King Jehoshaphat was condemned by the Lord through a prophet for being kind to sinful King Ahab though what help he gave was entirely harmless (2 Chronicles 19:2). We are told that God hates sinners as sinners but loves them only in the sense that he tries to change them. Really it means he does not love them but just wants to change them so that he will love them. We all wish our enemies could make us happy by changing. We hate them because we want to change them. This is disturbing stuff and implies that Christians should only love one another in the real sense and disparage everyone else. The Bible must teach this when Gleason W Archer believes it for if anybody would know it would be him.

Page 271. Though it cannot be proved that the bits in Isaiah which name King Cyrus allegedly before he became king and before he was even born and got involved in Israel’s affairs were really written before the events it is claimed that he was indeed named and foreseen. That is credulity.

Page 293. The fact that Daniel predicts things that show it has a knowledge of what happened during the 160’s BC meaning that was when it was written or edited for the final time is rejected for Daniel prophesied some things accurately after that time and things that did not happen for centuries after Christ. But the prophecies that fit the period of composition are more detailed than the future ones which have been variously interpreted and can even be fitted to predicting the coming of the papacy as antichrist.

Page 275. This says that if Jeremiah had ever prophesied wrongly he would not have got into the Jewish Canon of scripture. This is used to argue that his dubious prediction of an unlikely invasion of Egypt by Babylon must have been fulfilled. But lots of books with errors are considered canonical all over the world. Look at the blunders of the Book of Mormon for instance.

Page 404 makes out that when Paul altered Psalm 68:18 for his Ephesians letter it was not dishonesty for it was an interpretative translation. Archer would not say that if it were not the Bible. The psalm gave no proof that it was messianic and Paul altered to make it refer to Jesus and Archer says this was not dishonest! If Paul had said that it was only his version I would not care but he did not.

Can’t you see that the solutions the Christians offer could be used to resolve any contradiction in any scripture and then they turn around and maintain that the lack of contradiction in the Bible means it has to be God’s word?

 

PRIZE QUOTES FROM THE BOOK

 

Evangelicals do not try to prove that the Bible has no mistakes so that they can be sure the Bible is the Word of God. One might prove that a newspaper article is free from all mistakes, but that would not prove that the newspaper article is the Word of God. Christians hold the Bible to be the Word of God (and inerrant) because they are convinced that Jesus, the Lord of the church, believed it and taught His disciples to believe it. And ultimately their conviction of its truth rests on the witness of the Holy Spirit. Likewise evangelicals do not hold that inerrant inspiration eliminates the human element in the production of the Bible. True, evangelicals have stressed the divine authorship of Scripture because this is most frequently denied and it is this that gives Scripture its unique importance. But informed evangelicals have always insisted on a truly human authorship of Scripture. Even those who were willing to use the word dictation (as did Calvin and the Tridentine Council of the Roman Catholic church) always made very clear that they were not referring to the model of a boss dictating to a stenographer. Rather, they meant to stress the divine (as well as human) responsibility for the words of Scripture.

 

Comment: I agree that without God being the chooser of the words of scripture as much as man is the idea of a divine and infallible Bible is not sustainable.  Verbal inspiration is the correct Christian position.

Another account in Scripture that is often considered scientifically and historically untenable is that of Noah’s ark and the great Flood found in Genesis 6–8. But Jesus in His Olivet Discourse clearly affirmed that “as in those days that were before the Flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know it until the flood came and took them all away, so shall the coming [parousia] of the Son of Man be.”Here again Jesus is predicting that a future historical event will take place as an antitype to an event recorded in the Old Testament. He must therefore have regarded the Flood as literal history, just as it was recorded in Genesis. The Exodus account of the feeding of the two-million-plus Israelites by the miracle of manna for forty years in the Sinai desert is rejected by some self-styled Evangelicals as legendary. But Jesus Himself accepted it as completely historical when He said, “Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died”(John 6:49). Then in the following verse He presented Himself to the multitude as the antitype, as the true and living Bread sent down from the Father in heaven. It is safe to say that in no recorded utterance of Jesus Himself, or any of His inspired apostles, is there the slightest suggestion that inaccuracy in matters of history or science ever occurs in the Old Testament. To the scientific or rationalistic skepticism of the Sadducees, Jesus cited the precise wording of Exodus 3:6, where Moses is addressed by God from the burning bush (the bush that burned miraculously without being consumed) in the following terms: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”(Matt. 22:32). From the present tense implied by the Hebrew verbless clause, our Lord drew the deduction that God would not have described Himself as the God of mere lifeless corpses moldering in the grave but only of living, enduring personalities enjoying fellowship with Him in glory. Therefore the Old Testament taught the resurrection of the dead. So far as the historicity of Adam and Eve is concerned, Christ implied the validity of the account in Genesis 2:24, where it is said of Adam and Eve: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”(Matt. 19:5). In the preceding verse He referred to Genesis 1:27, which states that God specially created mankind as male and female—at the beginning of human history. Regardless of modern scientific theory, the Lord Jesus believed that Adam and Eve were literal, historical personalities. Similar confirmation is found in the Epistles of Paul (who

Likewise, in John 7:19, Jesus said, “Did not Moses give you the Law? And yet none of you does the Law.”

 

Comment: This is clear that Jesus took a literal interpretation of the Bible and advocated it.  Most Christians who condemn literal interpretations are just heretics or liars.

 

My note on the flood:  “Unfortunately, the latest results show no direct evidence for the flood; however, this does not mean there is no evidence for the flood.” (Rana, F., with H. Ross. 2015. Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity. 2nd edition. Covina, CA: Reasons to Believe Press.)  This is a statement from Bible believers.



We must distinguish between evolution as a philosophy and evolution as a descriptive mechanism for the development of species from the more primitive to the “higher” or more complex stages in the course of geological history.

 

Comment: It does not follow that philosophical and descriptive evolution through different are separable.  They are not.  If life is about warfare as evolution says then that is both a description and a philosophy.





The verb translated “borrow” is šā’al, which is the common word for “ask, ask for, request, inquire of.” (F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament [Oxford: Clarendon, 1968], p. 981, cite three instances for the meaning “borrow”

 

Comment: The context is how the Israelites took the Egyptians property.  As that was stealing the Christians resort to far fetched excuses for it.  The idea of a nation being allowed to borrow all that property is insane.

When Jesus said to the multitude that challenged Him to work some miracle, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19), they grievously erred when they interpreted His remarks literally. John 2:21 goes on to explain that Jesus did not mean this prediction literally but spiritually: “But He was speaking about the temple of His body. Therefore when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this, and they believed the Scripture.”

 

Comment: He did mean it literally  For him his body was a temple.  If he did not mean it literally then he was a fake prophet giving out predictions that could mean anything.

The rite of circumcision (i.e., the surgical removal of the prepuce) was intended as a sign and a seal of the covenant relationship between God and the believer. Even as a wedding ring is a sign and seal of the total and exclusive commitment of the bride and the groom to each other so long as they both shall live, so the sacramental removal of this portion of the male organ was a blood-sealed testimonial that the believer had turned his life over to the Lord, with the commitment to live for Him and in dependence on His grace for the rest of his earthly life. As a seal the act of circumcision amounted to a stamp of ownership on the Old Testament; it testified that he belonged not to the world, Satan, or self, but to the Lord Yahweh who had provided for his redemption.

 

Comment: New Testament doctrine is that circumcision is nothing unless treated as prayer.   It says it is no good for all who get circumcised break God's law and make the circumcision mean nothing. 


In the New Testament itself, the calling of a soldier is considered an honorable one, if carried on in a responsible and lawful fashion (Matt. 8:5; Luke 3:14; Acts 10:1–6,34–35). Paul even uses the analogy of faithful service in the army as a model for Christian commitment (2 Tim. 2:4), without the slightest suggestion of reproach for military service.

Comment: We need to know that for the allegation that Christianity is pacifist or that Christ was is very rife despite being utter nonsense.


Liberal scholars invariably point to the Jeremiah passage as proving that the sacrificial regulations of the Mosaic Code were unknown in the seventh century B.C. as having any sanction from God or from Moses himself. This deduction is totally without foundation, however. Jeremiah 7:22–23 refers quite clearly to what God said to Moses and the Israelites in Exodus 19:5: “Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples… and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” [NASB]). Apart from the Passover ordinance in Exodus 12, which had nothing to do with offerings on an altar, no sacrificial requirements were made by God to the Israelites until chapter 20, when the Ten Commandments were promulgated and the first reference to a sacrificial altar appeared in v.24. It should be carefully observed that the whole thrust of Jeremiah 7 is to the effect that for sacrificial worship to be acceptable to God, worshipers must come to the altar with yielded and believing hearts, with a sincere purpose to do God’s will.

 

Comment: We still don't have any evidence that Jeremiah had the Torah as we have it today.  It is still possible that he contradicted it.

It should be noted that when the Hebrew verb yāšab (“sit enthroned”) is used of a king, it implies a certain degree of permanence rather than so short a time as ninety days. As Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachin was not permitted to sit on the throne and carry on the career of the Davidic dynasty. On the contrary, he was removed; and no son or descendant of his was ever permitted to reign as king thereafter on the throne of David. Zerubbabel may have been descended from Jehoiachin through Shealtiel

 

Comment: Archer is playing lets pretend.  The text rules out this man or his line being king and so it rules out Jesus his descendant. 

If these words of Christ are reliably reported—as of course they are—we can only conclude that Christ personally believed that the historic personage Daniel was the author of the book that contained this eschatological phrase. Moreover Christ made it plain that the fulfillment of the prediction concerning this “abomination of desolation” yet lay in the future. It was not fulfilled by what happened back in 168 B.C., even though a type of this abomination may have been erected by Antiochus in the Jerusalem temple.

 

Comment: Jesus did think Daniel wrote it but he erred in interpreting Daniel.  Daniel meant 168 BC.

We close this discussion with the episode that first ushers Darius onto the stage in Daniel’s narrative. Daniel 5 relates the dramatic episode of the divine handwriting on the wall of Belshazzar’s banquet hall. The third term in that fateful inscription is PERES, which Daniel himself (in v.28) interprets as “PERES—your kingdom has been divided [perîCsa, from the same p-r-s root as PERES] and given over to the Medes and Persians [Pārās]”(NASB). This double word-play on the root p-r-s makes it absolutely certain that the author of this book believed that kingdom number one (the Chaldean Empire) passed directly and immediately into the control of the Persians, allied with the Medes, as kingdom number two. This leaves no room for the critics’ theory of an earlier and separate Median Empire as being intended by the author of Daniel. That author must therefore have believed that kingdom number two was Persian (i.e., Medo-Persian), that kingdom number three (of Dan. 2) was the Macedonian-Greek-Syrian Empire, and that kingdom number four would overthrow and replace the Greek Empire. The only power that ever did that was the Roman Empire. Therefore, successful predictive prophecy cannot be eliminated from Daniel even by a Maccabean date hypothesis!

 

Comment: Hardly amazing for some empire had to overthrow it sometime!  It does not mean Daniel knew of Rome.

Does Matthew 22:39 teach a godly love of self? Matthew 22:39 contains Christ’s quotation of Leviticus 19:18: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself (NASB). Some have inferred from this that Jesus taught a godly love of self, for one cannot very well love his neighbor unless he also loves himself. There may be a measure of truth in this, but it involves a somewhat different understanding of the word “love” than what is normally used. Certainly the second great commandment involves a proper regard, acceptance, and respect for oneself; but it seems to be quite misleading—if not altogether dangerous—to speak of the Bible as teaching self-love. Interestingly enough, there is only one passage in Scripture that speaks of self-love explicitly, and that is 2 Timothy 3:1–3: “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self [philautoi], lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving”(NASB). It is interesting to see the categories of character weakness and sinful perversion in which this philautoi appears. And it should be carefully noted that “lovers of self”are grouped with the “unloving”(astorgoi —lacking the natural affection toward one’s own flesh and blood), “haters of good,”and “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.”There can be no question but what the term “self-lovers”is presented here as a serious character weakness, a trait of sin.

 

Comment: Excellent!  Today's self love movement is just idolatrous sin in the eyes of Jesus. 

 

How could Zechariah son of Berechiah be the last of the martyrs? And wasn’t he really the son of Jehoiada? In Matthew 23:34–35, Jesus says to the scribes and Pharisees who are plotting His death, “Therefore behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify,…that upon you may fall all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.”It is generally supposed that Jesus was actually referring to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, who was stoned to death in the court of the temple at the order of King Joash, because Zechariah had the temerity to rebuke the government and the citizenry for their cultivation of idolatry. This is recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20–22. But once this apparent error concerning the name of the martyr’s father has been explained away as a textual error, then it is observed that Zechariah ben Jehoiada, who died 800 B.C., was by no means the last of the Old Testament martyrs; hence he makes a poor balance to Abel, who certainly was the first.

 

Comment: The error was more likely made by Jesus than the text.  There is no evidence for a text error and why did nobody try to fix it?  Calling somebody a martyr for God is a doctrinal thing so if Jesus got that wrong then he erred in theology.  He was a false prophet.

In connection with the parable of the pounds (or minas), Christ pronounced this judgment on those who had rebelled against their king (Luke 19:27): “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here, and slay them in my presence” (NASB). This sounds very much like an endorsement of capital punishment. Again, in Luke 20:14–16, as He concluded the parable of the wicked husbandmen (or tenants), our Lord said: “But when the tenants saw him [the son of the landlord], they talked the matter over. ‘This is the heir,’ they said, ‘Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” Thus it is very clear that neither Christ nor His apostles intended to abrogate the God-given responsibility of the government (under Old Testament law) to protect its citizens and enforce justice by capital punishment.

“If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die” (Acts 25:11, NASB).

Numbers 35:31,33: “You shall not take ransom [i.e., allow mere monetary damages] for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death…. So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it” (NASB).

Jesus also upheld the right of kings to resort to warfare if the circumstances warrant it, for this is certainly implied in Luke 14:31: “What king, going to make war against another king, does not first sit down and take counsel as to whether he is able with ten thousand troops to meet in battle with one who comes against him with twenty thousand?”No pacifist could use such an illustration as this without appearing to condone warfare as a legitimate measure for a head of state. But even more clearly is this implied by what Jesus said to Pilate in John 18:36: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews.”

 

Comment: Jesus continued the bloodletting attitudes of the Old Testament God.

The earthquake could hardly have been very extensive; the women seemed to be unaware of its occurrence, whether it happened before they left Jerusalem or while they were walking toward their destination. There is no evidence that it damaged anything in the city itself. But it was sufficient to break the seal placed over the circular stone at the time of interment and roll the stone itself away from its settled position in the downward slanting groove along which it rolled.

 

Comment: So we have a natural explanation for why Jesus tomb was found open.

The Bible says of Jesus' burial cloth that it was lying in a very unusual position. Instead of being spread out in a long, jumbled strip, it was still all wrapped together in one spot (entetyligmenon eis hena topon). Moreover, the soudarion (“long kerchief”) that had been wound around the head of Jesus was not unwound and tossed on the shroud but was still wrapped together and lying right above it (vv.6–7). In other words, no one had removed the graveclothes from the corpse in the usual way; it was as if the body had simply passed right out of the headcloth and shroud and left them empty!

 

Comment: Rubbish.  The texts only say that they were tidy.  If the body dissolved into thin air that does not fit the Turin Shroud which seems to picture a Jesus who floated in the middle of the cloth anti-gravity style and then fixed the image.  The tomb was not supervised all the time when it was open so anybody could have tidied up the cloths.  A thief might leave the cloths in case they would help identify the body if he was found with it.

From Peter’s scanty attire (John 21:7), we gather that it was a hot summer night;

Comment: Jesus appeared after his resurrection to Peter who was not wearing much. If Jesus died in hot weather and was stolen from the tomb he would have been devoured by maggots in no time thus serving the purpose of those who wanted to believe he rose from the dead.

Mark 8:11–13 reads: “And the Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. And sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, ‘Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.’ And leaving them, He again embarked and went away to the other side” (NASB).

 

Comment: Jesus is annoyed that they want a sign and says that no sign will be granted in those days.  To me in the light of how Mark ends without any resurrection of Jesus appearances Jesus is saying that no sign of the resurrection will take place and thus if people say he rose they say that through faith.


Luke 11:23 reads (with Christ speaking): “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.”Luke 9:50, however, quotes Jesus as saying, “Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us.”  The latter dictum seems much more charitable and kindly than the former. The difficulty is greatly alleviated by the fact that virtually all the Greek manuscripts that are older than the eighth century A.D. do not read “against us …for us”(kath’hēmōn…hyper hēmōn) but rather “against you …for you”(kath’hymōn…hyper hymōn). In other words, prior to that, all available evidence is for the reading “you.”(The reason for this confusion is that by the eighth century these two Greek words of such different meaning were pronounced exactly the same—ēmōn—and are so pronounced by modern Greeks even to this day. There is a considerable difference between Christ Himself and His disciples, and there is therefore no contradiction whatever between the two statements.

Comment: This contradicts the encyclopedia's insistence that no copyist error affects doctrine.  Compare, " he that is not against us is for us" with the alleged emended version, "he that is not against you is for you".  One says you are for Jesus by not being against him while the other says it a case of you being for the disciples by not being against them.


Context is how a woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus to see if he would let the men stone her to death as God commanded in the Bible:

 

Leviticus 20:10 states: “If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, … the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (NASB). Deuteronomy 22:24 indicates that both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman herself. Thus this entire process in John 8 was legally defective because the woman’s accusers had not brought forward her male partner-in-sin. Without him there could be no valid action taken against her.

Luke 12:14: “Who has appointed Me a judge over you?”), this attempt to remand the case to Him was an obvious farce, devoid of legal justification, and intended only to embarrass the Teacher from Nazareth whom they hoped to discredit. Third, by their own admission, not even the Sanhedrin had the right under the Roman government to execute the death penalty. While they had authority to impose a sentence, capital punishment could not be carried out except under the authorization of the Roman governor. Thus we read in John 18:31: “Pilate therefore said to them, Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.’ The Jews said to him, ‘We are not permitted to put any one to death’”

He had ruled that the witness who was “without sin” had the responsibility of casting the first stone at the guilty woman, it was essential for at least one of them to have a completely clean conscience before God’s law. But not one of them could honestly claim to be free from sin before the Lord, and all the accusers suddenly found themselves accused and guilty. Hence they took their leave

As we study Jesus’ response to this challenge, we must clearly observe that He neither covered over the guilt of the accused (as if adultery was not, after all, really heinous enough to require the death penalty—in that modern-minded, enlightened first century A.D.); nor did He suggest that death by stoning was no longer the proper way to deal with this offense. He plainly implied that the woman was guilty enough to die, and that the legal mode of execution was by stoning. The point He raised was that the accusers of the woman were themselves guilty under the law, and that they were hardly competent to carry out the sentence. Certainly they had all become guilty of an attempted lynching, completely contrary to the law of the Roman government to which they were all subject. Hence the whole process was voided by their incompetence and illegality.

 

Comment: Context is how a woman caught in adultery was brought to Jesus to see if he would let the men stone her to death as God commanded in the Bible.  If Jesus said they may kill her that got him in trouble with the Roman rulers for they banned Jewish ritual murder.  If he said yes then he was contradicting the law of God and saying God was wrong.  So Jesus had to avoid doing either.  Archer does a good analysis. Good to know that the episode is gives no justification for accepting the Christian lie that Jesus had done away with the murderous laws of God demanding that such women be stoned to death without pity.

Does 1 Corinthians 7 refer to divorce at all? Apparently not. The Matthew passages speak of remarriage after the original couple has broken up (under the law of Moses, the guilty party in such a case was to be executed by stoning, along with the paramour; cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:24). But 1 Corinthians 7 makes no reference to a second marriage on the part of the innocent partner. On the contrary, it says quite specifically in v.11: “But if she [the separated wife who is a Christian] ...

 

Comment: The 1 Corinthians 7 is about the right of pagans to end a marriage by mutual consent if one of them becomes Christian.  It refers to separation not divorce.  Notably Matthew is so strict about marriage that it would rather see a man or woman free to remarry upon the execution of their spouse.  It prefers murder to divorce.

 

God is good, devoid of all evil or deceit. Is He that way because some outside force has so conditioned Him that He could not be anything but good? Or is God good because He chooses to be good and wills to reject evil? One may raise a real question as to whether there could be any moral yardstick outside of God by which His goodness could be measured or evaluated. But surely God’s will is unfettered and undetermined by any outside authority or power.

 

Comment: In principle, it does not matter how God gets his authority to lay down morality as long as he has it.  This argument is obsessed with stopping  at God.  That is its downfall.  It is as silly as saying the dinner you need to keep yourself alive gets its value from being a dinner.  It does not.  Its source is important for what if the meat is not meat but some kind of synthetic material that will not nourish?



In Galatians 3:16 Paul referred to the promises made to Abraham in Genesis 13:15 (after he had returned from his sojourn in Egypt) and in Genesis 22:18 (after he had returned from Mount Moriah and the near sacrifice of his son Isaac: “And in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice” NASB). If Isaac was about twelve at the time of the near sacrifice...

 

Comment: The New Testament is clear that God rewarded Abraham for being willing to kill Isaac.  It is total rubbish that the New Testament is softer and more liberal than the Old.  This link with Abraham is a core teaching of the New Testament and Christianity which marks them as unworthy of respect and credence.

Revelation 16:8–10 we read of the true reaction of fallen man toward divine punishment: The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God ...they refused to repent or glorify him. The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done (NIV).

 

Comment: The idea is that God punishes you in Hell and instead of admitting its your due you rebel and get more engrained in evil and sin.  Revelation may not be describing an afterlife Hell here but it remains true that it is indeed Hell it is on about.

In view of all this explicit evidence from the text itself as to Petrine authorship, we are forced to conclude that the author of this epistle made such a definite claim to being the apostle Peter himself that it would have been grossly fraudulent and deceptive on his part if the epistle were not authentically Petrine. If it was not really by him, it should not be used or respected by the church at all; and it is unwarranted hypocrisy to use it for preaching purposes, for it should be removed from the New Testament altogether as a sheer imposture. It would be hard to conceive of any valid revelation of divine truth as emanating from such a dishonest pen.

 

Comment: Well said.  The liberals who try to justify what they think is an imposture being in the Bible would make your blood boil.

 

As for the 144,000 who appear in Revelation 14:1–5, the identity in number suggests (though it does not necessarily prove) an identity in constituency. In other words, it looks as if these represent the raptured church

 

Comment: The rapture is an unbiblical fantasy.  The text if referring to raptured people is referring to Jews! 
  
CONCLUSION

All attempts to prove that the Bible is the word of God fail because the Bible contradicts itself and attempts to hide this are stupid, irresponsible and are fabricated.