✪ "What causes such contradictions? It is, generally, from not having all the facts. Kenneth Kantzer, one of the founders of Trinity Seminary in Deerfield, Illinois, tells an account of his aunt’s death found in two different newspapers. One newspaper said his aunt was hit by a car while crossing the street and died later that day. Another paper said she was killed when the car in which she was a passenger collided with another vehicle. Both accounts were true. She was hit by a car while crossing the street. Someone put her in his car to take her to the hospital. On the way there was a collision in which she was killed. Not having all the facts can leave us with a misleading feeling that there is a very serious contradiction." Paul Ferguson, Digging Into the Documents and the Attempted Hijacking of Paradise, Ref-0066, Vol. 23 No. 1 (2010), 3:9, p. 8. ". . . remembering B. F. Westcott’s point that “unless all past experience is worthless, the difficulties of the Bible are the most fruitful guides to its divine depths.”" E. Ray Clendenen, forward to Ref-1263, p. x. "If previous ‘intractable’ problems have consistently yielded to patient analysis, the commentator may become more and more confident that new challenges can be met with equal success and less and less willing naïvely to equate superficial divergence with genuine contradiction. And despite two centuries of sceptical onslaught, it is fair to say that all the alleged inconsistencies among the Gospels have received at least plausible resolutions." Ref-1282, pp. 35-36. "Finally, it is remarkable to observe how often the alleged contradictions among the Gospels are cited without a discussion of the many proposed solutions that can fit them together in a very plausible and natural manner. John Wenham devoted an entire book to a harmonization of the accounts and few of his proposals are entirely new. . . . At the same time, the very presence of limited divergence in otherwise parallel narratives can itself testify to their reliability. As N. T. Wright clarifies: The surface inconsistencies between Mark 16:1-8 and its parallels, of which so much is made by those eager to see the accounts as careless fiction, is in fact a strong point in favour of their early character. The later we imagine them being written up, let alone edited, the more likely it would be that inconsistencies would be ironed out. The stories exhibit, as has been said repeatedly over the last hundred years or more, exactly that surface tension which we associate, not with tales artfully told by people eager to sustain a fiction and therefore anxious to make everything look right, but with the hurried, puzzled accounts of those who have seen with their own eyes something which took them horribly by surprise and with which they have not yet fully come to terms." Ref-1282, pp. 140-141 "Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions." Richard L. Mayhue, Editorial: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Ref-0164, Vol. 25 No. 1 Spring 2004, 1-10, p. 8. "Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions." Ref-1382, p. 27.
✪ 2Chr. 22:2 gives the age of Ahaziah at his accession as 42, whereas in 2K. 8:26 the age given is 22. Ref-0075, p. 469 (Attributed to copyist error.) "Ahaziah was 22, not 42 when he became sovereign of Judah. That this is the undeniable case may be seen in the simple fact that Jehoram, Ahaziah's father and predecessor, was 40 years old at the time of his death. . . . For the non Biblicist, the solution is quite simple. The 42 is merely another scribal error where 42 was mistakenly written for 22. . . . A crucial problem with this rationale is that the Hebrew Text does not give numbers. Instead, the words “forty and two years” and “twenty and two years” are written out and the words for “twenty” and “forty” are considerably different. . . . Chronicles recorded an incident and referenced it to the beginning of Asa's dynasty rather than to his actual years of reign. Ahaziah's mother is Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and granddaughter to Omri; hence he is in the direct lineage of both the dynasties of Israel and Judah and moreover is said to be of “the house of Ahab” (2Chr. 22:3-4). . . . Note that the verse in question calls attention to Omri and it may readily be seen that it is exactly the 42nd year (Judaic reckoning) of the dynasty of Israel which he founded in B.C. 929 when he slew Zimri. Thus the sense of Ahaziah's being “a son of 42 years” in his reigning is seen to refer to his being a son of the dynasty of Omri which was in its 42nd year." Ref-0186, pp. 145-146. "But the Holy Ghost will not have him for a son of David's line at all. He is the son of Athaliah, the daughter of Omri and Jezebel. He is no seed of David. He is an imp of the house of Ahab, a son of the house of Omri, and as such a “son of 42 years,” for the dynasty of the house of Omri was exactly 42 years old. That is not the “modern” way of writing history, but it is the way of the Old Testament writers, and the way of the New Testament writers too, and if we want to understand their writings we must put ourselves at their point of view, and not force our meaning into their words. This interpretation is confirmed by St. Matthew, who will have it that Rehoboam begat Abijah, and Abijah begat Asa, and Asa begat Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat begat Jehoram, but Jehoram did not beget Ahaziah—nor Joash—nor Amaziah—but only the fourth in the direct line of descent, “Jehoram begat Uzziah,” his great-great-grandson." Ref-1299, p. 182. "Two scribal errors in the transmission of the [MT] text of 2 Chronicles should be noted. 2 Chr 22:2 says that Ahaziah was 42 years old at the beginning of his reign. If this were so, Ahaziah would have had to have been born before his father. 2 Kgs 8:26 preserves the correct figure: 22 years old. 2 Chr 36:9 says that Jehoiachin was eight years old when placed on the throne by Nebuchadnezzar. The correct figure is 18 years old as preserved in 2 Kgs 24:8, as indicated by the fact that he had wives who were taken with him into captivity (2 Kgs 24:15)." Ref-1307, p. 145
✪ Matthew and Mark mention one, Luke and John mention two. ". . . Luke records that two appeared to the three women at their first approach to the empty tomb. John adds that Mary Magdalene came back to the tomb a second time, after Peter and John had been there. It was then that Mary saw and talked to both angels as they sat by the tomb. Matthew indicates that the same angel caused the earthquake, rolled back the stone door, frightened away the guards, and spoke to the three women at their first approach. A careful comparison of the four accounts shows that two angels were involved, although the miracle-working angel was probably the more prominent of the two. There is no demonstrable discrepancy." Ref-0064, pp. 62-63
✪ "The problem encountered here is how Baasha can be said to come up against Asa in the 36th year of that Judaic King's reign (2Chr. 16:1) when other Scripture declares that Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa's regime (1K. 16:6,8, cp. vs. 23)? . . . the Chronicler is referencing the 36 years from the division of the Monarchy at which time the Judaic dynasty, of which Asa belongs, began under Rehoboam. Hence the Hebrew phrase which includes the “reign” of Asa in II Chronicles 16:1 references the kingdom over which Asa had dominion and is to be understood in the sense of “the kingdom of Asa” (Judah) as distinguished from the northern kingdom, not the number of years he had occupied the throne in actual reign. . . . the above interpretation removes the absurdity of Baasha's having invaded Judah ten years after his death (cp. 1K. 15:33)." Ref-0186, pp. 144-145. "In 2 Chron. 16:1-3 it is stated that “in the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha, king of Israel, came up against Judah.” But the 36th year of Asa would be nine years after the death of Baasha, this being what Lightfoot referred to in speaking of “Baasha fighting nine years after he was dead.” The Hebrew text, however, says, not that it was the 36th year of the reign of Asa, as in our A. V., but that it was the 36th year of the kingdom of Asa. So it is evident that the reckoning here is from the beginning of the separate kingdom of Judah." Ref-1298, p. 48.
✪ Ref-0064, p. 62. "Concerning the seeming discrepancy of exactly where the two blind men were healed, as any visit to Israel will show, there were two different places named Jericho in the first century. There was the Old Testament Jericho, located where it always was and remains; and there was a New Testament Jericho, built by Herod the Great about five miles from the original. At the time of this particular miracle, Yeshua was moving from north to south, heading for Jerusalem. What this means is that the blind men met Him as He was coming out of Old Jericho and going toward New Jericho. Both gospel statements, then, are true, as it is all a matter of whether the writer was referring to Old or New Jericho." Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Questions and Answers, Ref-0067, Fall 2008, p. 8. "Did [Jesus] heal Bartimaeus when coming out of Jericho, as Matthew and Mark say, or when he was going in? . . . archaeology throws light upon the question. We know that Jericho was destroyed several times, that it was rebuilt over and over. There were two Jerichos in Jesus’ day: the Roman Jericho that was built a mile away from the original site, and which is closer to the Roman road that leads up to Jerusalem. Then there is the old Israelite Jericho, the site Joshua marched around. The Roman road goes right between the two. I have traveled that road many times. I have stood on the site of the Roman Jericho and looked out at the mound a mile away toward the Jewish Jericho. It is fascinating, I think that Matthew and Mark, writing to a Jewish audience, made reference to the Jewish Jericho; while Luke, the Gentile, writing to a Roman audience, made reference to the Roman Jericho. But where, then, was blind Bartimaeus? Quite evidently, he was between the two. And Jesus healed him as he was coming out of old (or Jewish) Jericho going into the new (or Roman) Jericho on his way to Jerusalem." James Kennedy, Archaeology and the Bible, Ref-0066, Vol. 24 No. 2 (Spring 2011), 32-37, p. 36. ". . . New Testament Jericho is about one mile from Old Testament Jericho." Scott Stripling, Beneath the Surface, Ref-0066, Vol. 26 No. 2 Spring 2013, p. 29.
✪ Chronology reversed (see Mark 11:12-20)
✪ Possible answers: 1 - Fractional cubits under 1/2 not used so could be 9.65 cubit diameter = 30.32 cubit circumference or about 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around. 2 - Vessel had a wider brim then circumference of main body. Brim to brim measures 10 cubits whereas outside circumference of vertical sides of main body (narrower below) is 30 cubits. 3 - Common word for circumference is qav, but here the spelling is qaveh (added heh). Marginal note indicates variation or possible error -- also regarded as a remez -- a hint of something deeper. Numeric value of qav is 106, numerical value of qaveh is 111. Ratio is 111/106 = 31.41509433962 cubits. Fifteen times more accurate than 22/7 estimate we use for PI. Ref-0016, April 1998, p. 6. "Modern scoffers claim the Bible wrongly teaches the value of Π (the circumference of a circle divided by its diameter) to be ‘3.0’ rather than the correct ‘3.14 . . .’. They are claiming a greater precision than was specified. Ignoring whether the Bronze Sea was a perfect circle, and whether the diameter measurement was for inside or outside, it could be anywhere from 9.5 to 9.6 cubits in diameter (e.g., ‘10’) to give it a circumference of between 29.8 and 30.5 cubits (e.g. ‘30’) using the correct value of Π." Chris Hardy and Robert Carter, The biblical minimum and maximum age of the earth, Ref-0784 28(2) 2014, 89-96, p. 90.
✪ "Judas committed suicide at the end of the first night of Passover, before the first day of Passover, when the morning Passover sacrifice would be offered, of which only the Priesthood would partake. According to Jewish law, if there was a dead body in Jerusalem, then the city was to be considered defiled and the morning sacrifice could not be offered. . . .if the corpse was taken and cast into the Valley of Hinnom. . .then the city is cleansed and the Passover can be offered up; later they can return and bury the body. The priests. . .purchased a field in the Valley of Hinnom -- the same place where Judas had ‘burst asunder’ -- for the purpose of burying strangers. The first person to be buried there was Judas himself. . . . In accordance with the requirements of the law, the field had to be bought posthumously in the name of Judas Iscariot. It is in that sense that Judas ‘obtained a field.’" Ref-0011, p. 154.
✪ Ref-0064, p. 62.
✪ "There are only forty-one names, and this would leave one set with only thirteen. But does Matthew say he has mentioned forty-two names? He does say (Matt. 1:17) that there are three sets of fourteen and divines them for us himself. . . The points of division are David and the captivity; in the one case a man, in the other an event. He counts David in each of the first two sets, although Jechoniah is counted only once. But he does not say ‘from David to Jechoniah,’ but ‘from David to the carrying away unto Babylon,’ and Josiah is the last name he counts before that event. And so the first name after this same event is Jechoniah. Thus Matthew deliberately counts David in two places to give symmetry to the division, which made an easy help to the memory." Ref-0084, p. 259. "This is in turn probably due to the fact that the Hebrew letters for the name David add up to 14." Ref-0232, p. 292. "David is counted twice as he is the connecting link between the patriarchal line and the royal line to Christ Jesus. David is the last Patriarch (Acts 2:29) and the first sovereign King of the Tribe of Judah. . . . Jeconiah (or Coniah, Jehoiachin, Jechoniah, cp. 2K. 25:27; 1Chr. 3:16; Jer. 22:24-30; 29:1-2; 37:1; 52:31) does not belong in the second group where most place him. The first key in Matthew 1:17 is the word until (or to) “the carrying away into Babylon” which limits the second set of fourteen. The second key in the . . . verse is the word from “the carrying away into Babylon”. This “from” sets limits on the third set of fourteen such that when considering the other restricted passages [Mat. 1:11,12] it may be clearly resolved that Jeconiah is to be counted only in the third group (cp. 2K. 24:8-12; 2Chr. 36). Furthermore, . . . Josiah is the last of the sovereign Kings of David's lineage that sat upon his throne. The point that is being made is that God promised David that his throne and kingdom were to have an enduring and everlasting fulfillment and that the throne of David was a sovereign dominion, not a puppet or vassal of any foreign kingdom (2S. 7; Ps. 89). Whereas it is true that some on the list such as Ahaz, Hezekiah and Manasseh did have periods during their reigns in which they endured subjugation and the paying of tribute to various monarchs of the Assyrian Empire, all enjoyed intervals of sovereign autonomous rule. All of Josiah's sons and his grandson, Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11, “Jeconiah and his brethren”) were vassals to either Egypt or Babylon and not sovereign rulers; thus they do not belong in Matthew's second set." Ref-0186, pp. 40-41. However, Jeremiah refers to Zedekiah, although not Jeconiah's son, as the “king who sits on the throne of David” (Jer. 29:16). The point being that even though Zedekiah's rule is that of a vassal king, he was still deemed to be sitting on the throne of David. "From Abraham to David = 14. From David to Jechonias = 14. From Salathiel to Jesus = 14. [Their sum is 42.] Note that from Mat. 1:17 David is counted twice, once with the Patriarchs (cp. Acts 2:29!) and again with the Kings." Ref-0186, p. 44. ". . . Matthew 1:17 states that there are fourteen generations “from David until the carrying away into Babylon.” . . . but some may still insist that as the Books of Kings and Chronicles relate that seventeen monarchs ruled over the Kingdom of Judah from David to Josiah, an inaccuracy of some kind must be admitted. . . . However, it must be pointed out that technically speaking, there were but fourteen actual generations between David and Josiah: 1. David; 2. Solomon; 3. Rehoboam; Abijah (reigned 3 years); 4. Asa; 5. Jehoshaphat; 6. Jehoram; Ahaziah (reigned 1 year); 7. Joash; 8. Amaziah; 9. Uzziah; 10. Jotham; 11. Ahaz; 12. Hezekiah; 13. Manasseh; Amon (reigned 2 years); 14. Josiah. Although there were seventeen kings, as shown in the outline above, there reigned for such short terms that it may not properly be said that the duration of their governing or its omission is that of a “generation”. Moreover, it actually could be misleading to insist that the interval from David to Josiah was that of seventeen generations whereas it is that of seventeen monarchies." Ref-0186, p. 42.
✪ Gaza of the OT was destroyed by one of the sons of the Maccabees, Alexander Jannai, in 93 B.C. and was still a ruin in Philip's day. A new city also named Gaza was rebuilt by Gabinius in 57 BC, but was not built over the old ruins. Acts 8:26 refers to the original location of the old city which was a desert. Ref-0100, Tape 9:A.
✪ "Sennacherib of Assyria forced king Hezekiah of Judah to pay tribute (2 Kings 18:13-16), inscriptions of Sennacherib tell us that Hezekiah paid him, among other things, 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver. The Bible says Hezekiah paid him 30 talents of gold and 300 talents of silver. A contradiction? Yes, until it was discovered that 3O0 talents (by weight) of Palestinian silver equaled 800 talents (by weight) of Assyrian silver. Contradiction? NO. The Bible wasn’t in error at all. (See M. Unger’s Archaeology and the OT, p. 268.]" Bob Boyd, Belshazzar, Babylon's Last Ruling Monarch: Daniel 5, Ref-0066, Volume 2 Number 4 Autumn 1989, 123:124, pp. 123-124.
✪ "In 2S. 10:18, for example, the figure of forty thousand is given for Syrian calvary, whereas the Chronicles parallel lists the forty thousand as infantrymen -- the latter being more credible." Ref-0064, p. 60. (Attributed to copyist error.)
✪ Ref-0064, p. 74.
✪ "The problem arises because Jehoahaz is said to (1) succeed his father Jehu on the throne in the twenty-third year of Joash, King of Judah (2K. 13:1), and (2) reign seventeen years; yet Jehoash is said to have begun reigning in the thirty-seventh year of King Joash of Judah, continuing for sixteen years (2K. 13:10). The enigma is compounded by the fact that Joash is said to have ruled over the southern kingdom forty years, being followed by his son Amaziah in the second year of Jehoash of Israel (2K. 12:1, cp. 2K. 14:1). However contradictory all of this appears, when the triangulation formula is applied and the data diagrammed, the problem is quickly resolved. . . . Jehoahaz installed Jehoash as his viceroy (pro-rex) during the thirty-seventh year of Joash. After a term of nearly 3 years of so functioning, Jehoahaz died leaving the throne to Jehoash who continued sixteen years as sole-rex. The distinction betwen the positions of viceroy and co-rex is significant in that that a viceroy does not possess the broader authority and powers of a co-regent. A further distinction which naturally follows is that years served in the capacity as co-regent are included along with the years served in the capacity of sole-rex in reckoning the total term of reign whereas the years passed as merely a viceroy (pro-rex) are not." Ref-0186, pp. 147-148.
✪ ". . . 2Chr. 36:9 . . . gives the age of Jehoiachin at his accession as eight, whereas in 2K. 24:8 the age given is eighteen." Ref-0064, p. 60. (Attributed to copyist error.) "Jehoiachin was eighteen years of age at his accession and the beginning of his captivity in Babylon (2K. 24:8, cf. 2 Chr. 36:9 where his age is given as eight in most Hebrew manuscripts)." Ref-0839, p. 189. "In fact, three feasible . . . answers are offered . . . the first is that Jehoiachin was actually eighteen years old upon his ascension (2K. 24:8) whereas the II Chronicles 36:9 passage, which literally translates that he was “a son of eight years”, is referencing the fact that his dynasty or kingdom had been under Nebuchadnezzar as its suzerain since the fourth year of his father, Jehoiakim (B.C. 605, Jer. 25:1, cp. 2K. 24:1). From that year until Jehoiachin succeeded his father on the throne, an eight year span had elapsed during which he was a vassal crown prince. Thus, upon his accession, the beginning of his reign could be rightly referenced to the time in which Nebuchadnezzar placed the Babylonian yoke upon him and his kingdom, thereby he was “a son of eight years” under Nebuchadnezzar's dominion. . . . A second alternative explanation . . . is that . . . Jehoiakim named or anointed his son to succeed him at an early age (Judaic reckoning) in an attempt to secure the throne through his lineage by way of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah). This would have been done in order to deny the throne to his weak and ineffective younger brother, Zedekiah. The third solution offered, and that preferred by the author in light of that which follows, is that Josiah must have anointed Jehoiachin, his grandson, to succeed him just prior to his encounter with Pharaoh Neco. . . . Realizing that his sons were wicked, godly Josiah must have hoped that his grandson Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) though only eight years old at the time, would turn out better. . . . It is the contention of this writer that Josiah did adopt and name as his legal successor young Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) just prior to departing for his fatal encounter with Neco at Megiddo. Moreover, this scenario enjoys Scriptural corroboration . . . [Mat. 1:11] . . . Verse eleven asserts that Josiah begat Jeconiah . . . though he was not his son. Although in a larger Biblical sense, it is permissible to speak of “begetting” descendants beyond the generation of one's own offspring, the context of this “begetting” would have occurred at the time of adoption. The truth of this is clearly seen in that which follows: “and his brothers”. Now this is indeed very strange, for the allusion is clearly to Josiah's sons and as such, are Jehoiachin's uncles and father -- unless -- unless he had been adopted. Then and only then could it be said that Josiah's sons are Jehoiachin's brothers! Lest there remain any reservations, consider . . . [2Chr. 36:10] . . . Again, how can Zedekiah be Jehoiachin's brother? Only by his being adopted to full sonship. . . . Furthermore, we know that Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) was actually eighteen and not eight when installed to reign as we are informed by the writer of Kings that after reigning only 3 months and 10 days, he and his wives were carried away to Babylon (2K. 24:15)." Ref-0186, pp. 201-203.
✪ "Another commonly reported contradiction in the Biblical text is that concerning the synchronization involving the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah (Azariah) of Judah as compared to that of Jeroboam (II) of Israel. This perception arises as a result of Amaziah's being credited with a 29 year rule (2K. 14:1-2) followed by the statement that Jeroboam (II) began his 41 year reign in Amaziah's 15th (2K. 14:23). So far so good, for this precisely fits with the 16th and final year of Jehoash, Jeroboam's father and immediate predecessor. The triangle closes with the testimony that Amaziah of Judah lived 15 years after the death of Jehoash, son of Jehoahaz of Israel (2K. 14:17). As the base is that of 29 years and the two arms of 15 each totals 30, these seemingly antagonistic results simply reveal that a non-accession relationship existed between the regimes of Jehoash and his son Jeroboam (II). . . . however . . . Scripture . . . goes on to add that Uzziah (Azariah) began to reign over the southern kingdom at age sixteen in the 27th year of Jeroboam (II) and continued in his post for fifty-two years (2Ki. 15:1-2). . . . The first and very probably the correct answer is that which has been offered many times in the past . . . Namely, that upon Jehoash's going to face the Syrians in a war in which he overthrew Ben-hadad (III) in three pitched battles and recovered out of his hands the cities which his father (Jehoahaz) had lost to Hazael (Ben-hadad's father), he placed Jeroboam (II) as viceroy (pro-rex) over the government." Two further possible explanations follow. Ref-0186, pp. 148-149.
✪ ". . . 1Chr. 11:11 . . . states that in a single engagement the Hebrew champion Jashobeam slew three hundred of the foe; 2S. 23:8 makes the figure eight hundred." Ref-0064, pp. 60-61
✪ "In 2S. 10:18 we read that in his defeat of a Syrian commander named Shobak, David slew seven hundred men of their chariotry. But in the parallel account in 1Chr. 19:18, he slew the men of seven thousand chariots. Here we have a discrepancy in the Masoretic Text that involves what amounts to a decimal point. . . there is nothing to prove that this discrepancy existed in the original manuscripts of Samuel and Chronicles. Errors of this kind are found in various passages of the old Testament, most probably because of the difficulty of making out numerals when copying from worn-out or smudged Vorlage (the earlier manuscript that the scribe reproduces)." Ref-0064, p. 60. (Attributed to copyist error.)
✪ only 23,000 of the 24,000 fell IN ONE DAY
✪ In Acts 22:9, ‘hear’ is in the accusative case meaning ‘to hear with understanding.’ In Acts 9:7, ‘hearing’ is in the genitive case meaning ‘to hear a sound, but without understanding.’ Ref-0100, Tape 9:B. "As for the alleged contradiction where Paul's companions “heard” (Acts 9:4) and did not “hear” (Acts 22:9) what the voice from heaven said, two things need to be noted: First, the exact forms of the word “hear” (akouo) are not used in both case. First, Vanhoozer (229) notes that Acts 9:4 says akouein (in the accusative) which means hear a sound of a voice. In the other text (Acts 22:9) akouontes (in the genitive) can mean understand the voice (as the NIV translates it). So understood, there is no real contradiction. Paul's companions heard the sound of the voice but did not understand what it said." Normal L. Geisler, A Review of "Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy", Ref-0164, Vol. 25 No. 1 Spring 2004, 65-96, p. 82.
✪ "In comparing . . . the Scriptures relating to the reigns of Pekah and Hoshea of Israel with those of Ahaz and Hezekiah of the kingdom of Judah, an interregnum or period of time in which no king occupied the throne of Israel for a space of about nine years is demanded by the data. . . . Scripture refers to Ahaz not only as the King of Judah, but also as bearing the title “King of Israel” (2Chr. 28:19, cp vv. 26-27). Hence it would appear that upon the death of Pekah, the Assyrian vassal Ahaz, having the heart and religious demeanor of the kings of Israel (2K. 16:1-4, 9-18), was viewed as then being “king” of Israel as well. . . . In any case, that Ahaz bore that appellation is confirmed by a comparison of the following Scriptures: [2K. 16:19-20; 2Chr. 28:26-27]." Ref-0186, pp. 186-187. "We now reach one of the most interesting, and, at the same time, one of the most illuminating puzzles of the Chronology of this period. We read in 2 Kings 15:30, that Hoshea slew Pekah in the 20th year of Jotham, which is the year after the 20th of Pekah. Now Jotham only reigned 16 years altogether, and if Jotham’s year 20 is the date intended, we should call this Ahaz's year 4. But in the Text it is called the 20th year of Jotham. Why is this? The history supplies a reason in the character of the wicked King Ahaz. . . . As Dr. John Lightfoot quaintly observes, “The Holy Ghost chooseth rather to reckon by holy Jotham in his grave, than by wicked Ahaz alive," and instead of the 4th year of Ahaz we get the 20th year of Jotham. Pekah was slain by Hoshea in the 20th year of Jotham, i.e. in the 4th year of Ahaz, i.e. in the year after the 20th year of Pekah. So then he was dethroned in his 20th year, and slain the year after the 20th, and last year of his reign." Ref-1299, p. 186.
✪ Ref-0064, p. 63.
✪ "Not many years ago this statement would have been received either with ridicule or indignation. The evangelist’s mention of Cyrenius appeared to be a hopeless anachronism; as, according to undoubted history, the period of his governorship and the date of his “taxing” were nine or ten years later than the nativity. Gloated over by Strauss and others of his tribe, and dismissed by writers unnumbered either as an enigma or an error, the passage has in recent years been vindicated and explained by the labours of Dr. Zumpt of Berlin. By a strange chance there is a break in the history of this period, for the seven or eight years beginning B.C. 4. The list of the governors of Syria, therefore, fails us, and for the same interval P. Sulpicius Quirinus, the Cyrenius of the Greeks, disappears from history. But by a series of separate investigations and arguments, all of them independent of Scripture, Dr. Zumpt has established that Quirinus was twice governor of the province, and that his first term of office dated from the latter part of B.C. 4, when he succeeded Quinctilius Varus." Ref-0762, p. 91. "However, unlike most English versions of Luke 2:2, [the passage] does not state that Quirinius was governor. The verb ἡγμονεύω denotes exercising of authority in a governing capacity, but does not necessarily denote holding the office of governor." Ref-1307, p. 239
✪ Ref-0064, p. 63.
✪ Ref-0064, p. 71.
✪ ". . . Numbers 20:218 and 33:38 tell us that Moses’ brother, Aaron, died on Mt. Hor, whereas Deuteronomy 10:6 says it happened at Moserah. . . Once one accepts, via. . . clear examples, that the Bible does refer to places by a multiplicity of names then we may return to the Mt. Hor/Moserah ‘puzzle,’ cited above as a seeming contradiction, and dismiss it as yet another example of a place with more than one name." Ref-0066, Vol. 13 No. 4, Spring 200, 115.
✪ ". . . in 1K. 4:26 Solomon is said to have built forty thousand stalls for his war-horses, but in 2Chr. 9:25 the figure is four thousand." Ref-0064, p. 60. Ref-0075, p. 469. (Attributed to copyist error involving Hebrew numeric values.)
✪ Ref-0064, p. 73. "Stephen's speech in Acts 7 is based throughout on the Septuagint, but his statement in verse 4 that Abraham left Harran for Canaan ‘after his father died’ is supported neither by the Septuagint wording (as we have received it) nor by the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible; it is however, consistent with the Samaritan text, which gives Terah's age at death as 145, not 205 (Gen. 11:32). [The Masoretic text (MT) is the traditional Jewish text of the Hebrew Bible. If, as Mt and LXX agree, Abraham was born when his father was 70 (Gen. 11:26) and left Harran for Canaan when he himself was 75 (Gen. 12:4), then Terah had still 60 years to live. In James Ussher's chronology the statement of Acts 7:4 is reconciled with the MT evidence by the supposition that Terah was 70 when his oldest son was born but was 130 when Abraham was born.]" Ref-0073, p. 54. "The chronological data of Gen. 11:26, 32; 12:4 would suggest that Terah's death took place sixty years after Abraham's departure from Harran. J. Ussher and other chronologers of an earlier day harmonized the present statement of Stephen with the evidence of Genesis by the improbably expedient of supposing that Terah was seventy years old when his oldest son (Haran) was born, and that Abraham was not born until Terah was 130. That Abraham did not leave Harran until his father was dead is asserted also by Philo (On the Migration of Abraham 177), and is implied by the Samaritan Pentateuch, which in Gen. 11:32 gives Terah's age at death as 145, not 205 (MT, LXX). It would follow that Abraham, who left Harran at the age of 75 (Gen. 12;4), did so as soon [as] his father had died. It would be unwarranted to see here evidence of Samaritan influence on Stephen's speech: apart from its recognizably sectarian variants, the Samaritan Pentateuch is basically a popular Palestinian text. Possibly Stephen (or Luke) and Philo relied on a Greek version (no longer extant) which agreed with the Samaritan reading of Gen. 11:32." Ref-0653, pp. 134-135 n. 21. "Others fall into this error due to the fact that Genesis 11:26 says that Terah was 70 years old when he began to beget sons. The verse places Abraham (Abram) first in the list of Terah's three sons, hence they assume without further consideration Abraham to be the firstborn. . . . Albeit Abraham's name is given first, . . . Comparing Genesis 11:32 and 12:4, it may be seen that Abraham was 75 when Terah died at age 205. From this, the fact is firmly established that Terah was 130 years old (205 - 75 = 130) when Abraham was born. This means that although Terah was 70 when he had his first son, that son could not have been Abraham; it had to have been either Nahor or Haran. Moreover, that was one of the main reasons why God had to remove Abraham from Ur. As long as he remained there, he would never become the head of the family clan for by the law of primogeniture, the firstborn son would have so been. Why was Abraham listed first? Because he was the son who received the blessing and the birth right. . . . When speaking of Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japheth, Shem's name is always mentioned first because he received the birthright and the blessing (Gen. 9:26; Luke 3:36), hence we find the Messiah coming through his lineage. However, Genesis 9:24-25 speaks of Ham as being the youngest son, Gen. 10:21 unmistakably says Japheth was the elder, leaving Shem as the middle son." Ref-0186, pp. 25-26.
✪ "Sir Robert Anderson in regard to 1K. 6:1 finds the discrepancy of 480 years as opposed to 573 years, which was the actual length of time for the period from the departure from Egypt to the building of the temple, is solved by subtracting 93 years during which Israel was cast off as a nation -- five different periods of time( Jdg. 3:8,14; 4:2-3; 6:1; 13:1)." Ref-0081, p. 229.
✪ "Uzziah had come to the throne of Judah following 29 years under the government of Amaziah, his father, in the 15th year of the reign of Jeroboam (II) (2K. 14:1-2; cp. 2K. 14:23 and 2K. 14:17 . . . ). Jeroboam (II) . . . [held] governmental authority 41 years which would have ended in the 26th year of Uzziah (2K. 14:23-29). The problem arises when the Scriptures continue by saying that Zechariah reigned six months over Israel and was assassinated during the 38th year of Uzziah. This seems to require an interregnum of about eleven and one-half years. . . . Author the author is not certain whether or not the answer originated with Dolen, that analyst has offered the following interesting and attractive solution [Dolen, The Chronology Papers, op. cit., p. 13]: ‘Zachariah reigned 6 months and then was killed . . . in the last 6 months of Azariah's [Uzziah] 38th year . . . This 6 months was the first 6 months of his would be 12th year [of reign]. . . . Note: the total years of Zachariah's reign is not mentioned in the Bible.’ (author's brackets). . . . Significantly, an imperceptible clue was uncovered which gives credibility to Dolen's assertion that Zachariah actually ascended the throne of Israel immediately following Jeroboam's death and maintained that position for 12 years unto the 38th year of Uzziah (Azariah), King of Judah. The clue is that the verses describing the time of enthronement of all of the kings mentioned in the proximity of Zachariah's brief account include the single word “began” as in “began to reign” but not so with Zachariah (2K. 12:1; 13:1,10; 14:1 cp. 2Chr. 25:1; 2K. 14:23; 15:1; 15:7, cp. verse 32; 2K. 15:13,17,23,27; 16:1; 17:1; 18:1 etc.)! . . . As can be seen, in stark contrast to all of the other monarchs listed in the above cited Scriptures there is no “began” associated with any of the verses concerning Zachariah's reign. Thus the justified conclusion may be reached that II Kings 15:8 is not speaking of the total length of his regime but rather is merely giving the data for establishing the termination of both his personal reign and that of the Jehuic dynasty (2K. 10:30), which had its prophetic duration fulfilled in Zachariah (2K. 15:12)." Ref-0186, pp. 149-150.
✪ See dinosaurs - living tissue. "Stone carvings adorning the temples of Angkor, reclaimed from the jungles of modern-day Cambodia, depict aspects of everyday life along with Hindu and Buddhist mythology. They are 800 years old. One of the glyphs appears to show what even most children today would readily identify as Stegosaurus, a dinosaur that evolutionary paleontologists say became extinct millions of years ago -- supposedly long before man walked on this planet. So how to explain the stegosaur glyph? There were no paleontology textbooks 800 years ago to show the ancient carvers what a reconstructed stegosaur fossil would have looked like. Clearly, the evolutionary history is wrong. Instead, dinosaurs once lived alongside man, just as the Bible says (Gen. 1:24-28, 6:19-20, 8:15-19; Job 40:15-19)." David Catchpoole, Angkor saw a stegosaur?, Ref-0028, Vol. 29 No. 4, September-November 2007, p. 56.
✪ "The moa research team measured the half-life of DNA to be 521 years under average local temperatures. After this time, only half of the amount of DNA present when the animal died should remain. And after another 521 years, only half of that remains, and so on until none is left. At this rate, DNA molecules in bone break down after only 10,000 years into tiny chemical segments too short for modern technology to sequence. And this result assumes preservation factors that optimize biochemical longevity." Brian Thomas, DNA in Dinosaur Bones?, Institute for Creation Research, [http://www.icr.org/article/7160/] accessed 20120104. "A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens. All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years, right in the ‘ballpark’ predicted by creationists. But if dinosaurs really were millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them." Carl Wieland, Radiocarbon in dino bones: International conference result censored, Creation Ministries International, Published: 22 January 2013 (GMT+10) [http://creation.com/c14-dinos] accessed 20130201. "A recent paper on DNA stability estimates that, even when preserved in bone, DNA would have completely disintegrated in 22,000 years at 25°C, 131,000 years at 15°C, 882,000 years at 5°C; and 6.83 million years at –5°C." Jonathan Sarfati, The Origin of Life, Ref-1370, loc. 2354.
✪ "So Dreadnoughtus schrani seems a fitting name for a newly found dinosaur (found in Southern Patagonia, Argentina) that would surely have inspired dread in any creature near it. (Dreadnoughtus is the genus name; schrani is the species, after Adam Schran, Founder/CEO of software company Ascentive, who financially supported the research.) The most complete fossilized sauropod dinosaur skeleton yet discovered belonged to an immense creature estimated to be around 25 metres (85 feet) long, to weigh 60 tonnes (65 tons), and as tall as a two-storey building just at the shoulder. And it was apparently not even fully mature at the time of death, as shown by the incomplete fusion of shoulder bones and young-looking bone-growing cells." Calvin Smith, Dreadnoughtus! Colossal evidence of Creation and the Flood, Creation Ministries International, [http://creation.com/dreadnoughtustitanosaurian-dinosaur-buried-fast] accessed 20140920.
✪ "[Lady Hamilton,] the Countess of Huntingdon was a great church-planting ally of George Whitefield during the Evangelical Revival of the Eighteenth Century. She used to say that she had been “saved by an M”. In other words, Paul does not say that not any were noble. Just not many. " [http://www.church.org.uk/e07dec97.htm] "Queen Victoria once said she was “saved by an ‘M’” after hearing a sermon preached on 1Cor. 1:26." [http://www.last7years.org/handfuls/current.htm] "Queen Elizabeth said she was “saved by an ‘M.’”" [http://www.valuefirst.net/SundaySchool/Bible%20Discovery%20Session%2033,%20Church%20Epistles.ppt]
✪ "The Spirit’s true work can be distinguished from that which is false because we know that he always (1) causes a greater esteem for Christ (2) operates against the interest of Satan’s kingdom ‘which lies in encouraging and establishing sin’ (3) promotes greater regard for the truth and the divinity of the Holy Scriptures (4) brings men to the light of truth (5) excites love to God and man, making the attributes of God, manifested in Christ, ‘delightful objects of contemplation’." Ref-1302, p. 234
✪ ". . . discernment is a quality for which the dullest of men are keen to claim credit." Ref-0745, p. 1.
✪ Questionable: Acts 19:1 (?);
✪ "The claim of the Gospel itself is that it was written by an eyewitness. In the last chapter we read of a resurrection appearance of Jesus by the sea of Galilee, at which seven disciples were present, including one who is called ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’. A note at the end of the chapter tells us: ‘This is the disciple who testifies of these things and who wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true’ (John 21:24). It is not quite clear who are the ‘we’ who thus add their testimony to the evangelist's veractiy; they were probably the group of friends and disciples associated with him where were responsible for the editing and publication of his Gospel. This ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ is mentioned also as one of the company at the Last Supper (John 13:23), as being present at the crucifixion (John 19:26), and as an eyewitness, in Peter's company, of the empty tomb on the resurrection morning (John 20:2ff.). Do these passages give us a clue to his identity? According to Mark 14:17, when our Lord arrived at the upper room for the Last Supper, He was accompanied by the twelve apostles, who reclined at the table with Him, and there is no suggestion in the Synoptic Gospels that anyone else was present with Him on that occasion. We conclude therefore, that the ‘beloved disciple’ was one of the twelve. Now, of the twelve, there were three who were on occasion admitted to more intimate fellowship with the Master -- Peter, James, and John. It was these three, for example, whom he took to keep watch with Him during His vigil in Gethsemane after the Last Supper (Mark 14:33). We should naturally expect that the beloved disciple would be one of the number. He was not Peter, from whom he is emphatically distinguished in John 13:24, 20:2, and 21:20. There remain the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, who were included in the seven of chapter 21. But James was martyred not later than A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and therefore there is little likelihood that the saying should go abroad about him which went abroad about the beloved disciple, that he would not die. So we are left with John. Now it is noteworthy that John is not mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel (nor yet is his brother James). It has also been pointed out that while the other evangelists refer to John the Baptist as John the Baptist, the fourth evangelist refers to him simply as John. An author will take care to distinguish two characters in his narrative who bear the same name; he will not be so careful to distinguish one of his characters from himself. The fourth evangelist himself distinguishes Judas Iscariot from Judas ‘not Iscariot’ (John 14:22). It is significant, therefore, that he does not distinguish John the Baptist from John the apostle, of whom he must have know, though he does not mention him by name." Ref-0239, pp. 44-46.
✪ "Jesus wants me to follow him and be like him. Have I heard such a commandment in the Torah? Of course I have: ‘You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy.’ I am called upon by the Torah to try to be like God: holy." Ref-0137, p. 100.
✪ "Contrary to the current trend, this work has no chapter on discourse analysis (DA). The rationale for this lacuna is fourfold: (1) DA is still in its infant stages of development, in which the methods, terminology, and results tend to be unstable and overly subjective." Ref-0358, p. 1.
✪ See disobedient - believers.
✪ "Some object here to the apparent absurdity of saying God is the author of sin, if nothing is done without his will; nay, if he himself works it! This calumny is easily answered, as the method of God’s action differs materially from that of men. For when any man sins, God works in his own manner, which is very different indeed from that of man, since he exercises his own judgment, and thus is said to blind and to harden. As God therefore commands both the reprobate and the evil one, he permits them to indulge in all kinds of licentiousness, and in doing so, executes his own judgments. But he who sins is deservedly guilty, and cannot implicate God as a companion of his wickedness. And why so? Because God has nothing in common with him in reference to sinfulness. Hence we see how these things which we may deem contrary to one another, are mutually accordant, since God by his own will governs all events in the world, and yet is not the author of sin." Ref-0696, Dan. 4:35.
✪ Greek oikonomia (g3622) "[By dispensation] [w]e don't mean a way of salvation. We simply mean a distinguishable rule of life or economy. The Stewardship; the economy, the household management; the way God runs His affairs, has changed. The way He deals with people, the way He carries out His sovereign plan has changed. The plan hasn't altered, but the way He works it out, the people He uses and the way it's done, those things have changed, and that's what we mean by a dispensation, (i.e. a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose)." Robert Lightner, Progressive Dispensationalism, Ref-0055, Vol. 4 No. 11, March 2000, 49-50. "The various forms of the word dispensation appear in the New Testament twenty times. The verb oikonomeo is used once in Luke 16:2, where it is translated ‘to be a steward.’ The noun oikonomos appears ten times(Luke 12:42; 16:1,3,8; Rom. 16:23; 1Cor. 4:1,2; Gal. 4:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 4:10) and is usually translated ‘steward’ or ‘manager’ (but ‘treasurer’ in Rom. 16:23). The noun oikonomia is used nine times (Luke 16:2,3,4; 1Cor. 9:17; Eph. 1:10; 3:2,9; Col. 1:25; 1Ti. 1:4). In these instances it is translated variously (‘stewardship,’ ‘dispensation,’ ‘administration,’ ‘job,’ ‘commission’)." Ref-0056, p. 25. "A concise definition of dispensation is this: A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose.", Ref-0056, p. 28. ". . . oikonomia, from which the English word economy is derived. . . is a combination of two words -- oikos, which means house, and nemo, which means to dispense, manage, or hold sway." Ref-0072, p. 29. "As an example of carelessness by dispensationalists, I would point to the use of oikonomia in Eph 3:2 to establish a rationale for dispensations. Often the dispensationalist says, on the basis of all its uses in the NT, that this word refers to responsibility as a steward, management of a household, a specified time, etc., and then maps all of this onto the concept of ‘dispensation.’ Not only does this involve illegitimate totality transfer, but I suspect that in context the word refers only to Paul's responsibility, not a plan of the ages. I hope we stop using this argument. It involves poor exegesis and poor lexicography." Karleen, Paul S. Understanding Covenant Theologians. Grace Seminary. Grace Theological Journal Volume 10, Vol. 10, Page 125, Grace Seminary, 1989; 2002. "To quote the Century Dictionary bearing on the theological import of the word: "(a) The method or scheme by which God has at different times developed his purpose, and revealed himself to man; or the body of privileges bestowed, and duties and responsibilities enjoined, in connection with that scheme or method of revelation: as the Old or Jewish dispensation; the New Gospel dispensation. (b) A period marked by a particular development of the divine purpose and revelation: as the patriarchal dispensation (lasting from Adam to Moses); the Mosaic dispensation (from Moses to Christ); the Christian dispensation."" Ref-1518, p. 11. "the definition advanced by the late Dr. C.I. Scofield (Scofield Reference Bible, p. 5), namely, "A dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God," is hardly entitled to the criticism which is aimed against it." Ref-1518, p. 12. "My understanding is that a dispensation is a noticeable era when God administers and deals with His creation in a unique way." Ref-1520, p. 70. "Since the Bible does not offer specific criteria for understanding a dispensation, we should be flexible in offering and evaluating dispensations." Ref-1520, p. 70.
✪ Notice that the Church Age is not a disconnected intercalation like half-time at some football game, rather is a continuation of the Age of Promise -- initiated by the Abrahamic Covenant. Instead, it is the Law which is an intercalation.
✪ "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity." Ref-1518, p. 103.
✪ In Matthew 28:19-20, the disciples are told to carry forward the teaching they've received from Jesus (in the gospels) into the Church age.
✪ "It teaches that Christ is already reigning in heaven on the throne of David, thus merging the Church with the present phase of the already, inaugurated Davidic Covenent and Kingdom. This is based on a complementary hermeneutic that allows the New Testament to introduce changes and additions to the Old Testament revelation. The overall purpose of God is Christological, holistic redemption being the focus and goal of history [instead of the glorificatin of God]." Ref-0056, p. 164. "Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).”" Ref-1520, p. 20. ". . . key theologians of progressive dispensationalism include Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy." Ref-1520, p. 21.
✪ "The two-peoples-of-God distinction has been associated with dispensationalism since its beginnings in 1830. As recently as 1988 Craig Blaising, a progressive dispensationalist, observed that ‘among contemporary dispensationalists a general consensus exists that a distinction between Israel and the church is the essential distinguishing factor of dispensationalism.’ Now in the preface of the book Progressive Dispensationalism Blaising notes that progressive dispensationalists have abandoned the two-peoples doctrine." Ref-0189, p. 136.
✪ "For the sake of accuracy, honesty, and understanding, ‘progressive dispensationalists’ should no longer claim to be dispensation. Traditional dispensationalists would likely concur. Do most dispensational laymen realize that the ‘dispensationalism’ now taught in their seminaries is not the dispensationalism they know? . . .if someone is going to teach nondispensationalism in a dispensational seminary, students and donors should at least be aware of the fact. It is not enough to redefine the essential doctrines [the distinction between Israel and the church] out of a system and call the resulting opposite teaching ‘progressive. Progressive dispensationalism is not dispensationalism." Ref-0189, p. 137.
✪ "Israel was “scattered” to be a perpetual warning to the Gentile Churches of God. The Jews are God's beacon or pillar of salt to all Christendom and a silent standing lesson which all who profess to know God ought never to forget. They proclaim to all Christians God's hatred of spiritual pride and self-righteousness, God's high displeasure with those who exalt the traditions of men and depart from the Word, God's hatred of formality and ceremonialism. If any man desires to know how much God hates these things, he has only to look at the present condition of the Jews. For eighteen hundred years God has held them up before the eyes of the world, and written His abhorrence of their sins in letters which he who runs may read." J. C. Ryle, "Coming Events and Present Duties, and Prophecy" (1867) cited by Richard L. Mayhue, "Editorial", Ref-0164, Vol. 19 No. 1, Spring 2008, 1:14, pp. 5-6. "It is my contention that on Israel--on its existence and survival--hangs the very existence and survival of the Jewish people. Or, to put the thesis in the negative, that the end of Israel means the end of the Jewish people. They survived destruction and exile at the hands of Babylonian in 586 B.C. They survived destruction and exile at the hands of Rome in A.D. 70, and finally in A.D. 135. They cannot survive another destruction and exile. The Third Commonwealth--modern Israel, born just 50 years ago--is the last." Ref-1414, p. 260. "For two millennia, the Jewish people survived by means of dispersion and isolation. Following the first exile in 586 B.C. and the second exile in A.D. 70 and A.D. 135, Jews spread first throughout Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Basin, then to northern and eastern Europe and eventually west to the New World, with communities in practically every corner of the earth, even unto India and China. Throughout this time, the Jewish people survived the immense pressures of persecution, massacre and forced conversion not just by faith and courage but by geographic dispersion. Decimated here, they would survive there. The thousands of Jewish villages and towns spread across the face of Europe, the Islamic world and the New World provided a kind of demographic insurance. . . . This dispersion made for weakness and vulnerability for individual Jewish communities. Paradoxically, however, it made for endurance and strength for the Jewish people as a whole. No tyrant could amass enough power to threaten Jewish survival everywhere. Until Hitler." Ref-1414, p. 270. "More than 1 million of Israel's 9.4 million residents have roots in the former Soviet Union." -- Moscow’s Ex-Chief Rabbi Warns of ‘Dark Clouds’ for Russian Jews, [https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jews-russia-ukraine-invasion/2022/07/28/id/1080767/].
✪ "The word diaspora, which occurs three times in the New Testament [John 7:35; Jas. 1:1; 1Pe. 1:1],is derived from two Greek words: speiro, to scatter, with a prefix dia, through, the two together meaning scattered abroad. Moses had predicted that if they abandoned the law, they would be scattered [Lev. 26:33-37; Deu. 4:27-28; 28:64-68], and this was fulfilled when the Israelites went into Assyrian captivity in B.C. 722, and the Jews into Babylonian captivity in B.C. 586." Ref-0069, p. 49. "We must remember that at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, more than half of all the Jews of the world were not living in Judea. Many were established in Babylonia, in other parts of the Middle East, and in various communities of the Roman Empire." Ref-0153, p. 95.
✪ "Some diversion is doubtless lawful; but for Christians to spend so much of their time, so many long evenings, in no other conversation than that which tends to divert and amuse, if nothing worse, is a sinful way of spending time, and tends to poverty of soul at least, if not to outward poverty; . . ." Ref-1289, pp. 25-26.
✪ Questionable: Eze. 8:17 (?);
✪ "Divinity is commonly defined, the doctrine of living to God; and by some who seem to be more accurate, the doctrine of living to God by Christ. It comprehends all christian doctrines as they are in Jesus, and all christian rules directing us in living to God by Christ." Ref-1289, p. 12.
✪ "Some other sciences, such as astronomy, natural philosophy, and geography, may be very excellent in their kind. But the knowledge of this divine science is infinitely more useful and important than that of all other sciences whatever." Ref-1289, p. 16. "The truths of divinity are of superlative excellency, and are worthy that all should make a business of endeavoring to grow in the knowledge of them. They are as much above those things which are treated of in other sciences, as heaven is above the earth." Ref-1289, p. 18.
✪ "There were to main Jewish schools of thought concering the basis for divorce. Shammei and his disciples took it to mean some grave offense like adultery. Hillel and his followers held that a man could divorce his wife for no more serious misdemeanor then ‘letting his food burn.’" Ref-0143, pp. 102-103. "One of [James Montgomery Boice's] more noteworthy discussions is the one on divorce. . . He concludes that the exception clause (Mat. 19:9) concerns the discovery on the wedding night that the woman is not a virgin." Ref-0055, August 2002, p. 265. "The modern dating system does not train young people to form a relationship. It trains them to form a series of relationships, and further trains them to harden themselves to the break-up of all but the current one. At the very least, this system is as much a preparation for divorce as it is for marriage. Whenever the other person starts to wear a little thin, you just slip out the back, Jack." Ref-1352, pp. 10-11. "Philip of Hesse, a young landgrave who would became a key figure in the Reformation, asked Luther about his startling statement in The Babylonian Captivity that a woman whose husband was impotent could take another. Luther declined to discuss the matter. He was suffering from indigestion and needed time to prepare for his appearance." Ref-1522, p. 453. "Luther in 1539 made one of his most serious missteps. Landgrave Philip of Hesse—syphilitic, trapped in a loveless marriage, and conscience-ridden over his many affairs—became taken with a seventeen-year-old Saxon noblewoman and wanted to marry her. As a Lutheran, he had no recourse to the Catholic expedient of an annulment, and because his wife had been faithful to him, divorce was not an option. He solicited Luther’s and Melanchthon’s opinion. Influenced by the example of the Old Testament patriarchs, who practiced polygamy, they advised him to secretly marry the young woman." Ref-1522, p. 763.
✪ "Papa As in a dream, you move through my thoughts; you come and blink before my eyes. I hear your final rustle, although you’ve vanished from me. Although they robbed me of you and left me orphaned, here. In my heart I’ve shed for you oceans of tears. And still you stand before my eyes, with your pale face. Where I go and where I stay, I hear your voice." Ref-1371, loc. 67. "From the fall of 1939 on, when I was nearly seven, I went to school. After the start of the war I had no more governess, and so my father picked me up from school every day and took me home. One day he came to pick me up and was sad and gloomy, which was not like him at all. I put my hand in his, and we walked side by side in silence for a long time. Suddenly he stood still, bent down to me, looked me in the eye, and said, “Susinka, I’m not going into the house with you. I’ll take you only to the door. From now on I won’t be living with you anymore. Soon you’ll be moving to another house. Another man will be living with you. Please, never call him ‘Papa.’ ” Tears ran from his eyes. It was the only time I saw my father cry. And thus I learned that my parents had been divorced." Ref-1371, loc. 119.
✪ "Christ's words on divorce have to do with Pharisaical interpretations regarding Deuteronomy 24:1, which allowed a man to divorce his wife because of here commission of the “indecent thing.” The Hillel school interpreted the “indecent thing” quite liberally even allowing a man to divorce his wife if she burned his food. The Shammai School interpreted “indecent “thing” more strictly as pertaining to adultery. Christ's point was that if a man divorced His wife for an inappropriate reason, his actions forced her to remarry. This remarriage makes her along with the man that she married adulterers. Appropriate reasons for the initial divorce include death (Rom. 7:1-3; 1Cor. 7:39), abandonment (1Cor 7:15,39), and adultery (Mat. 5:32; 19:9)." Andy Woods, "The Purpose of Matthew's Gospel, Part II", Ref-0785, Volume 11 Number 34 December 2007, 5:42, pp. 14-n23.
✪ Questionable: 2S. 20:3 (?);