Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[Vangelovski]

These thread is requiring second job just to answer in extend the whole ramble here. So I will spare my self the time and take only on the one that will require very little time.

Oh really?

So you claim that the interpretation of the text is wrong because of the tense used in the translation you quote that allows you to manipulate the chronology of the described events.

Well, instead to run to lookinguntojesus.net you should have read the literal translation of the Hebrew text first.

Lets look into the Young's litteral translation that is an extremely literal translation that attempts to preserve the tense and word usage as found in the original Greek and Hebrew writings.

Here are few things to be noted:

1. The account is written in simple present tense as if it is written during the actual event.
2. The account is chronological. Each step is introduced with the conjunction AND.
3. The newer Bible translations are mostly done by Christians who know the problems thus are translated in such way that obvious contradictions are avoided as much as possible.
4. The creation of the "beasts" is introduced with as "And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field" where the word "formeth" as you most probably know is the archaic third-person singular simple present indicative, which blows your hypothesis away.
5. It is safe to conclude that the animals in Genesis 2:19 are created after the humans because the narrative in the original is told in simple present tense and their creation is upended chronologically after the creation of the humans.

So, is there a contradiction with Genesis 1:24-27?

Of course there is because of the same reason, the narrative in the original is told in simple present tense:

where "maketh" is (archaic) Third-person singular form of make, "prepareth" is third-person singular simple present indicative form of prepare and "saith" (1)(used with he, she, or it) Archaic a form of the present tense (indicative mood) of say.



Yes it was, guess who is the hack?


I begin to doubt that you have anything near to critical mind.

Nah if that is something new....

Makedonin, you haven't given us the original hebrew text. You've relied on an English translation. Whereas my post was taken from a professor of Old Testament studies who derived it from the original hebrew. But even in the English translations its obvious that the interpretation you have posted is wrong. But even in the English translations its obvious that the interpretation you have posted is wrong! Besides, I'm not sure who came up with those BS tenses for those words used in Old English but they are absolute rubbish.

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

Before I get into why those are not transitional skulls, other than a whole bunch of fanciful stories and comments on the obvious, what evidence can you provide that those skulls are transitional, i.e., one slowly developed from the other? I can post pictures of 'modern' chimp, ape and human skulls that look exactly the same and with more "graded' differences than those, but that means nothing.

I see that you're still missing the point with regard to radiometric dating and still providing irrelevant responses to the issues at hand, namely:

1. conditions at time zero;
2. contamination;
3. rate of decay.

[Vangelovski]

Look, I posted a picture of a human skelleton next to apes and chimps. An evolutionist would use these as evidence of evolution. Too bad none of them are real skeletons and they are all replica's of creatures that exist today. I know, maybe if the chimp and the orangutam switched places it would be more convincing...


Man-Gorilla-Chimpanzee-Orangutam-Gibbon

[Vangelovski]

I know, how about we draw a picture and then give some of the apes human features and draw them holding something in their hands?

[George S.]

are you trying to make a monkey out of me you left out the bananas.
out of all the animals god made them after it's own kind their particular species.there is such a thing as biodiversity.Man is an animal but of a higher plane than animals.it is formed in the image of god.Man was made to form a relationship.Animals have instincts.They cannot reason.Also if animals are continually evolving how come they stopped evolving.For example sharks,cockroaches,crocodiles.If man is evolving what is he going to evolve into next.A higher form or lower form of life..So god has a plan for man to become like god.If anyone can tell me there is something better than being god i don't know.

[George S.]

Most of the skulls found that try to link man with apes have been found to be fakes.

[Vangelovski]

are you trying to make a monkey out of me you left out the bananas.
out of all the animals god made them after it's own kind their particular species.there is such a thing as biodiversity.Man is an animal but of a higher plane than animals.it is formed in the image of god.Man was made to form a relationship.Animals have instincts.They cannot reason.Also if animals are continually evolving how come they stopped evolving.For example sharks,cockroaches,crocodiles.If man is evolving what is he going to evolve into next.A higher form or lower form of life..So god has a plan for man to become like god.If anyone can tell me there is something better than being god i don't know.

I don't think we'll be God, rather we should be more like him in the moral sense.

But I'll try and see where evolutionists think banana's fit in the scheme - they do claim all living organisms originated from the same ooze, so we are technically, according to them, related to banana's

[George S.]

We won't be god in the absolute sense but part of the god family(like god in limited ways).
You can't have it both ways either evolutionists are worong or the creation theory is right.
I think proof is there that things didn't just happen whether it's bananas or ither animals to humans the fact is god made them.They cannot possibly have just evolved from nothing.
THe other thing is people are trying to disprove god with their theories.Jesus said heaven & earth may passway but my words shall never pass away.So we can rely on gods words with certainty.So there is a lot of power & wisdom in gods words.Whether one admits it or not god is the everliving god & is everywhere & knows everything.

[TrueMacedonian]

The following is a refutation of Bart Ehrman’s work and specifically the pages posted on here by TM (Post #546).

In the pages provided by TM, Ehrman makes a number of claims. These will be addressed in turn.

Claim #1: Herod’s order to slaughter all children under two is not recorded anywhere else other than in Matthew.

Firstly, Ehrman would have to make the argument that Matthew’s account is not historically reliable, which no one has ever managed to do. Secondly, there are many examples of historical events which have only been recorded by one source, and yet they are accepted as historically reliable, for example, much of what we know about Alexander the Great.

Even so, the shocking nature of the slaughter of the innocents would make one think all historians would have recorded such an event. Even Josephus records atrocities committed by Herod against those he believed had ambitions of attaining his throne. Herod even murdered his two sons fearing they would overthrow him. History shows Herod was a paranoid ruler who was willing to do what was needed to maintain his position. If he had ordered the slaughter of all males under two years of age, it would have been well within his character. However, we must realise that Bethlehem was a small village. If the village only had a few hundred residents, as is ascertained, statistically this would make the number of males under the age of two around 20 – not exactly a big number in the scheme of things and certainly not the largest massacre in history.

But Herod's character and the amount of victims is not proof of this event. Where is the actual evidence that this event occurred? If we can consider the eye witness account of Matthew reliable (and no one has ever been able to demonstrate that it is not), we can accept his version of the events. But if we are looking for extra-Biblical sources, we can consider the following passage:

"When Augustus heard that Herod king of the Jews had ordered all the boys in Syria under the age of two years to be put to death and that the king's son was among those killed, he said, 'I'd rather be Herod's pig than Herod’s son.'" (Macrobius)

Unlike the account mentioned in the book of Matthew, Macrobius mentions the massacre taking place in Syria and combines the event with the murder of Herod's sons. Because Palestine was considered a Syrian province at the time, Macrobius could be referring to the vicinity of Bethlehem.

Claim #2: There is no record of Caesar Augustus ever undertaking a census

This is where the critical thinker should be alerted to the fact that Ehrman is either incompetent or a complete liar. Caesar Augustus in fact authorized three censuses during his reign. How do we know this? The three census’ are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them 9th on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died (http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html).

So why did Bart claim there is no evidence of the census? Is he incompetent, a liar or both?

Claim #3: Matthew and Luke supposedly give different accounts of Jesus’ birth.

Here Bart has provided a superficial analysis of the two nativity accounts – directed largely at the uncritical mind. Let us look at the passages in question:

Luke 2:21-24, 39
And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD"), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.".... So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.

Matthew 2:14-15, 19-23
When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son.".... But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Arise, take the young Child and His mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the young Child’s life are dead." Then he arose, took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea instead of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

Here is a basic rundown of what happened, which becomes clear after a careful reading of the text (as opposed to Bart’s superficial reading, loaded with childhood Santa stories and assumptions).

Jesus was born in a manger (Luke 2:6-7), for there was nowhere else for them to stay. At that time, shepherds were told of the miraculous birth, and made haste to go see the Child (Luke 2:8-17). On the eighth day, Jesus was circumcised (Lk 2:21), and after forty days, he was brought to the Temple (Lk 2:22; Lev 12:1-4). After the sacrifices were completed, they returned to Nazareth (Lk 2:39).

After Jesus had been born (notice, Matthew doesn't specify how long after), the wise men came to Jerusalem following a star which they had seen in the East (Mt 2:1-2). Herod was curious about the time of the star's appearing (Mt 2:7). The wise men were sent to Bethlehem, which was the birthplace of the Child. It is assumed by many that they found Jesus there, but the text does not indicate such. We again read of the star, that it directed them to where He was. One should not think they needed the star to guide them on the five mile walk from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Taking into account what Luke reveals about the brief time Joseph and Mary spent in Bethlehem, the star most probably guided the wise men to Nazareth, where Jesus was found in a house (Mt 2:11). Recall, while in Bethlehem, they were not at a house, but rather at an inn, and even in the barn of the inn.

Having worshipped Jesus, the wise men departed, but were instructed not to return to Herod (Mt 2:12). Likewise, Joseph was instructed to flee to Egypt with Mary and the Child, for Herod would seek His life (Mt 2:13). Herod, realizing he had been deceived by the wise men, decreed that all male children, age 2 and under in Bethlehem and its districts should be put to death (Mt 2:16). Herod used the timing of the star spoken of by the wise men to determine the age of the Child. It was possible that He was up to two years of age at the time of this decree. Furthermore, Herod understood that the Child was perhaps not in Bethlehem any longer, extending the scope of the decree to include regions around Bethlehem also.

Having left Nazareth (not Bethlehem), Joseph, Mary and Jesus remained in Egypt until word came from an angel of the Lord that Herod was dead (Mt 2:19-20). It appears that Joseph had originally thought they might settle in Judea, but knowing that Archelaus, Herod's son was reigning, and receiving a warning in a dream, he turned aside and returned to Nazareth, in Galilee. Thus, Jesus would be known as a Nazarene, for Nazareth would be His home town (Mt 2:23).

Forty days after His birth, Luke says Jesus was taken home to Nazareth. Perhaps as much as two years after His birth, Joseph was commanded to flee with the Child to Egypt. When the common errors that have been assumed by many are maintained (ie. that the shepherds and wise men were all at the manger scene on the night Jesus was born; that the wise men found Jesus in Bethlehem; etc.), then there appears to be contradiction. However, the two accounts provide different information about different parts of Jesus' infancy. When understood correctly, the accounts agree and compliment one another.

There is no contradiction.

Claim #4: Different Roman governors in the two accounts

Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was undertaking military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31), with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Varus was famous for the later fiasco at the Teutoburger forest in Germany (9 ad) and at his appointment as Governor of Syria in 7 BC was largely 'untested'. The census was due in 8-7 BC, and Augustus could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius to assist in this volatile project. Herod I had recently lost favour with the emperor and was incompetently unable to complete the census – a process which always enraged the Jews! This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data.

Also, it is worth noting that we have an inscription that describes a soldier who was 'legate of Syria' TWICE during this timeframe. There are two main interpretations of this: one is that it refers to Q. Varus (placing Quirinius as a procurator during the birth of Christ), and the other that it refers to Quirinius himself.

The first option is defended by Ernest Martin in CKC:90:

" A Latin inscription found in 1764 about one-half mile south of the ancient villa of Quintilius Varus (at Tivoli, 20 miles east of Rome) states that the subject of the inscription had twice been governor of Syria. This can only refer to Quintilius Varus, who was Syrian governor at two different times. Numismatic evidence shows he ruled Syria from 6 to 4 B.C., and other historical evidence indicates that Varus was again governor from 2 B.C. to A.D. I. Between his two governorships was Sentius Saturninus, whose tenure lasted from 4 to 2 B.C. Significantly, Tertullian (third century) said the imperial records showed that censuses were conducted in Judea during the time of Sentius Saturninus. (Against Marcion 4:7). Tertullian also placed the birth of Jesus in 3 or 2 B.C. This is precisely when Saturninus would have been governor according to my new interpretation. That the Gospel of Luke says Quirinius was governor of Syria when the census was taken is resolved by Justin Martyr's statement (second century) that Quirinius was only a procurator (not governor) of the province (Apology 1:34). In other words, he was simply an assistant to Saturninus, who was the actual governor as Tertullian stated."

The second option is favored by William Ramsey (NBD, s.v. "Quirinius"):

"The possibility that Quirinius may have been governor of Syria on an earlier occasion (*Chronology of the NT) has found confirmation in the eyes of a number of scholars (especially W. M. Ramsay) from the testimony of the Lapis Tiburtinus (CIL, 14. 3613). This inscription, recording the career of a distinguished Roman officer, is unfortunately mutilated, so that the officer’s name is missing, but from the details that survive he could very well be Quirinius. It contains a statement that when he became imperial legate of Syria he entered upon that office ‘for the second time’ (Lat. iterum). The question is: did he become imperial legate of Syria for the second time, or did he simply receive an imperial legateship for the second time, having governed another province in that capacity on the earlier occasion?...The wording is ambiguous. Ramsay held that he was appointed an additional legate of Syria between 10 and 7 bc, for the purpose of conducting the Homanadensian war, while the civil administration of the province was in the hands of other governors, including Sentius Saturninus (8-6 bc), under whom, according to Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4. 19), the census of Lk. 2:1ff. was held.

Under either of these scenarios, SOMEONE served twice, and under either of these scenarios, Quirinius could EASILY have been responsible for the census.

And curiously enough, even if that were NOT the case somehow, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicates that Luke 2.1 should be translated 'BEFORE the census of Quirinius' instead of the customary 'FIRST census of Quirinius' – see Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, T&T Clark: 1966, pp. 23,24 and Syntax, p. 32. This would 'solve the problem' without even requiring two terms of office for Quirinius.

Further, the term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--pilate, festus, felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.]

Is Bart capable of doing at least some background research? Even a google search would suffice!

Claim #5: Two different genealogies

Luke provides us with a line from Adam to David, a section of the genealogy which is not found in Matthew. But from David forward to Jesus there are disagreements almost all the way along. Needless to say, these disagreements were once made much of by those who held a low opinion of the integrity of Scripture. But in due time these very disagreements led to a search for some means of reconciliation, and this search proved fruitful because it brought to light a further truth which might otherwise have escaped notice entirely. Now that the truth is recognized, there seem to be many incidental confirmations of it from other parts of Scripture; but these confirmations were not recognized as such until the truth they confirmed had itself been rediscovered.

This discovery is that Luke's genealogy traces the line of Mary, not of Joseph. Thus, at the very beginning of Luke's record - a record which sets the names in the reverse order from that given in Matthew - we meet with the first "contradiction": namely, that Joseph was the son of Heli, whereas Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob. Although some of the early church fathers perceived that this was Mary's pedigree, they did not apparently make the discovery that in the Talmud, Jewish tradition held that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Beth-Heli). Early Christian writers held that Mary was the daughter of Joiakim and Anna. But the name Joiakim is interchangeable with Eliakim, as II Chronicles 36:4 shows, and Eli or Heli is an abridgment of Eliakim. It is thus quite possible that the early Christian tradition is in perfect harmony with that of the Jewish people themselves whose knowledge would be based on temple records. This is undoubtedly the basis of the early assurance that Jesus was, in the flesh, of the seed of David. In the annunciation (Luke 1:32), the promised Savior is called at once "Son of God" and "Son of David": Son of God by virtue of His conception by the Holy Spirit, and Son of David by virtue of His birth through Mary.

This should therefore be compared with Romans 1:3,4, in which we are told that He who was God's Son was "born of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with Power.. . " Later on, in His confrontation with the Jewish authorities, Jesus answered a question which had probably arisen from the fact that, while they recognized the validity of His lineal claim to being David's son through Mary, they would not recognize His further claim to being the Son of God. He pointed to them from Psalm 110:1 that while the Messiah was indeed to be David's son, David nevertheless called Him "Lord." They had no answer to this. The Lord's argument could only have real force if the people to whom it was addressed recognized His claim as the son of Mary who was a daughter of David.
Why, then, is Mary's name not included in Luke's genealogy? Undoubtedly, to establish a legal pedigree it is necessary to set down the name of the head of the household - in this case, of course, Joseph. At the same time, according to the Jewish way of thinking -and indeed, according to the common practice of many other societies - the man who married could claim his wife's father as his own. We ourselves recognize this right, only we make the distinction of saying "father-in-law"--rather than "father." There are a number of examples in Scripture where this principle is followed.

In I Chronicles 2:31 we have an illustration of this practice of naming another as the father. In this instance it will be observed that son succeeded "son" until we come to Ahlai, whom we know had a daughter but not a son. Meanwhile Ahlai had an Egyptian servant named Jarha and, as was not altogether unusual at that time, he gave his daughter to him as a wife. But from then on the children are still credited to him as his descendants - that is, members of his own line through his daughter - and therefore listed as his sons and grandsons. Thus the children of his daughter are listed as his children rather than the children of his daughter's husband, and they in their turn would look back to him as their ultimate father. Of necessity, Jarha would therefore be accounted as Sheshan's son.

The manner in which Joseph's name is introduced in Luke's genealogy is also exceptional. Whereas each man in the line is said to have been, simply, "of" his father, Jesus is said to have been the son "nominally" of Joseph - such is the Greek which the Authorized Version renders "as was supposed." The verbal root of this qualifying term is nomidzo, which has the sense of legal standing or standing established by custom: it is cognate with the root which gave rise to the English form "nominal." Thus it was clearly recognized that Jesus was the son of Joseph legally, but not necessarily by natural generation. This claim is accepted without question in John 6:42, "whose mother and father we know."

Although Mary in her own right could claim descent from David through Heli her father, the temple record could not enter her name in the line but must enter the name of her husband, the adopting father of her child. So when Luke copied out this record, he quite properly omitted Mary's name and substituted that of Joseph.

We have, therefore, a genealogy from David to Mary preserved, presumably, in the family of Heli and perhaps actually in their possession - for as we have already noted previously; long after the temple was destroyed with all its records, there still existed families who claimed descent from David and claimed it, significantly, in the female line. On this account the names in Luke's Gospel from David forward do not coincide (except at one point) with the names in Matthew's Gospel. David had three sons of note - namely, Solomon, Absolon, and Nathan - and it is in the line of Nathan that Mary's claim is established.

In Luke 3:28 we have "Melchi"; in Luke 3:27 his son is given as "Neri"; and his son, in turn, is given as Salathiel followed by Zorobabel and then Rhesa. At this point we have some apparent connections with the genealogy in Matthew's Gospel, for in Matthew 1:12 we have Jechonias whose son was Salathiel followed by Zorobabel. When we turn to the Old Testament to find out what this uniting of the two families signifies, we find ourselves with insufficient information to provide an unequivocal answer - but just enough to allow a reconstruction which, in the light of what we have already observed of the way in which relationships are acknowledged, has a fair degree of probability about it. The Jechonias of Matthew 1:12 was, as we have seen, the king who terminated the Judean royal line when these unfortunate people went into captivity. Although he is stated to have been still a child, he survived long enough in captivity to reach a marriageable age; he evidently was later accorded kingly status - a not unusual circumstance in those days - for the girl he married is called (in Jeremiah 29:2) "his queen." Scripture has taken care to provide us with very concrete information to this effect (II Kings 25:27-30) as though God foresaw that one day this information would be important.

Now, to bring the two genealogies at this point into harmony, it is only necessary to assume that Neri of Luke 3:27 also went into captivity and there raised both sons and daughters, and that one of these daughters became the wife and queen of Jechonias. This is a most reasonable assumption really, because, if Neri was known to be of the royal line through Nathan (and Nehemiah 7:5 shows that at least some genealogies had been saved in spite of the conquest of Judah), then who would be more proper as the wife of the still-acknowledged king than a daughter of the royal line? Of this marriage, Jechonias had a son (among others) whose name was Salathiel (I Chron. 3:17) and besides Salathiel he had also a second son named Pedaiah. In I Chronicles 3:19 Pedaiah had a son named Zerubbabel (the "Zorobabel" of the New Testament). Thus Salathiel was, in fact, properly called the son of Jechonias but also the son of Neri through the latter's daughter. The two lines from David through Solomon and through Nathan meet in Salathiel by this device. Salathiel's brother, Pedaiah, though not mentioned in either of the New Testament genealogies, appears to have exercised the right of the Levirate upon the early death of his brother Salathiel, and to have taken his wife, by whom he raised up to Salathiel's line a son named Zorobabel.

In Zorobabel we again meet with an example of a man's children being traced through their mother's father. Zorobabel had both sons and daughters, but the male seed for some unknown reason came to an end, thus fulfilling the prophecy made in Jeremiah 22:30 that no man of Jechonias' seed "should sit on the throne of David." We are, however, given his daughter's name in I Chronicles 3:19 as "Shelomith." We have only to make one further assumption, namely, that this girl married the Rhesa of Luke 3:17 and had of this union two sons - Abiud of Matthew 1:13 and Joanna of Luke 3:17 - and the rest makes perfectly good sense and the two genealogies are reconciled, the one with the other.

By this means - always bearing in mind the manner of stating relationships which was allowable - we can see how, according to Matthew, Jechonias had a son Salathiel and Salathiel had a son (via his brother Pedaiah) Zorobabel, and Zorobabel a son (actually a grandchild through his daughter Shelomith) named Abiud, and thence down to Joseph: and at the same time, according to Luke, how Neri could have a son Salathiel (actually his grandson), who had a son Zorobabel (again, in fact a grandson), who had a son Rhesa (actually his son-in-law, as Joseph was Heli's son-in-law), and Rhesa a son, Joanna by his wife Shelomith who was a daughter of Zorobabel, and thence down to Heli.


This sounds terribly complicated, but the included full genealogical table gives both lines, will show that all the requirements of all that we know, both from the Old and the New Testament, seem to be satisfied.

The fundamental departure found in Luke's Gospel, is that in this genealogy we are not presented at the top of the page with the oldest antecedent followed by father, sons, grandsons, and so on, but rather with the latest in the line, who is then by a simple device traced backwards - whereas all other genealogies trace forward. Why was this order adopted?

There is a second departure, namely, that whereas Matthew and John both commence their history by establishing the pedigree, Luke covers briefly but effectively a period of some thirty years in the life of the Lord before saying who He is in terms of His antecedents.


It is not until this time - when Jesus, being now about thirty years of age, has been identified by John as the "Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world" and singularly considered by God in heaven as His beloved Son in whom He is well pleased - that Luke sets forth His lineage, showing in effect that though the circumstances of Jesus' birth were such as to set Him apart from all other men, yet He was nevertheless truly representative of man in Adam.

The genealogy of Matthew reads forward from Abraham to Jesus, identifying Him as the Child of Promise. Promises are always of the future, and Matthew wished above all to establish from the very first that Jesus was the Christ, the fulfillment of this promise. He wanted to show the grounds upon which Jesus established His title as the Messiah, and his Gospel thereafter presents His credentials as the Son of David.

Luke, on the other hand, wished to show the potential of man, the model which God had in mind from which all other men derive whatever of manhood they happen to have. Hence he begins with Jesus and appropriately gives Him alone, above all others, the title "Son of Man," and then he traces Him back to Adam, in whose place He stood.

Thus Matthew begins with Abraham and leads us forward to the Lord, whom he identifies by His title, "the Christ" (Matt. 1:17); whereas Luke begins with the Lord, whom he identifies by His name, "Jesus" (Luke 3:23), and leads us back to Adam and so to God.

Granted, this one was a little more complicated, but for a New Testament “scholar”, Bart should be able to work it out.

Claim #6: Contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

Bart claims there is a contradiction in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

This was just another lame attempt by a HACK!

Conclusions

Bart made some other lame attempts to sow doubt in the uncritical mind, but then talked himself out of it admitting that they weren't really contradictions, hence I did not address any of that nonsense...but I do wonder why he bothered writing it - maybe to fill some space in his book?

He also mentions something about the sun, the moon and the stars...if anyone really cares about what Bart has to say after reading this, then maybe I'll point them to where I've already addressed those matters in a previous thread.

This is indeed an interesting post Tom. I enjoyed it very much. I would like a chance to refute some of these claims in the next few days. Enjoy the weekend.

[George S.]

i think if one sat down &wrote the differences that set man &animals apart one would be astonished at the outcome.Man is more intelligent than animals where as animals have instinct.
Man designs,plans & wills things.
Animals cannot reason or plan or design things like man,
Man iwas made to stand upright to look at the stars & admire god's handiwork.
Animals do not have the same destiny as man.Animals are there to serve man.When animals die that's the end of them.Animals do not have a soul like mans.hebrew (nephesh).Man soul will become one with god by the shedding of love from god in our hearts.Man's destiny is to live forever,guided with the holy spirit in the right attitude of living.Literally god will be living in them.We don't fathom the fantastic future in the nextlife that we have if we have faith & acceptance of jesus christ,
i think those that want to argue & doubt the word of god really want their own way & that's explained to us in the bible the way to a man is death & destruction.People are just assuming & putting their own interpretation & not gods word on it.

[TrueMacedonian]

i think if one sat down &wrote the differences that set man &animals apart one would be astonished at the outcome.Man is more intelligent than animals where as animals have instinct.
Man designs,plans & wills things.
Animals cannot reason or plan or design things like man,
Man iwas made to stand upright to look at the stars & admire god's handiwork.
Animals do not have the same destiny as man.Animals are there to serve man.When animals die that's the end of them.Animals do not have a soul like mans.hebrew (nephesh).Man soul will become one with god by the shedding of love from god in our hearts.Man's destiny is to live forever,guided with the holy spirit in the right attitude of living.Literally god will be living in them.We don't fathom the fantastic future in the nextlife that we have if we have faith & acceptance of jesus christ,
i think those that want to argue & doubt the word of god really want their own way & that's explained to us in the bible the way to a man is death & destruction.People are just assuming & putting their own interpretation & not gods word on it.

George I want to ask you a favor. I want you to read all the ressurection stories from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Read them and tell us the differences in the accounts and see why it's so easy to doubt "gods words". (if you want to read further how Judas died is also up in the air)

[George S.]

TM i reckon you could bust a few myths from the bible yourself.It's been many years since i last read the bible.I'll have look & see what i come up with.

[George S.]

Thanks for the feedback TM

[George S.]

And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. Matthew 27:5
Judas Iscariot committed suicide. He hung himself, presumably from a tree, in a potter’s field. It was subsequently bought by the chief priests with the very money Judas had originally received for betraying Jesus. The field was then used as a burial place for strangers and known as the Field of Blood.
…and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. Acts 1:18
It would appear that some time after death his body fell and ruptured. It is possible that the branch or object holding him broke or that he fell when those who discovered him attempted to take down his body. Although his hanging is not mentioned in Acts, the reference to falling coincides with the record in Matthew. Is it possible that he was dead a while before falling, which might explain his body bursting asunder?
Lessons from the life of Judas Iscariot…
We watch on as Judas, the disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, makes his mistakes and we can only learn from them. He betrayed his friend (Luke 22:48) — we should be loyal to the Lord Jesus Christ and each other. He was greedy for money, stole and didn’t care for the poor (John 12:6) — we should be content and help those in need. He was sorry for what he had done but did not turn to God or Christ for forgiveness (Matthew 27:4) — we should seek their mercy whenever we do wrong.
TM there's some of the answer to your question.(are you converted yet??)Or have i made you angry???

[George S.]

Regarding when the animals were made it is clear:The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them. (Gen 2:18-19; NIV)
Then there is no contradiction—the animals were created before humans, and God brought each of them to Adam to be named.