Know Your Bible

Many people who oppose God recognize if they can discredit or disprove the Bible, Christianity has nothing to stand on and they can go about their business justified. This is why we must be like the Apostles – so familiar with scripture they cannot twist us up and deny that the Word of God is binding on them. Here is an example. How would you disarm this argument?

The thought here is that all these animals and beings are false and mythical and are referred to the Bible but the Kangaroo, the one animal on this list that we know exists is not in the Bible. There are several ways to answer this. Keep in mind that anyone who bring up such an argument raises it to try to avoid the issue that they need to deal with: the Gospel.  The first thing to do is to not skirt the issue but ask are these in creatures in the Hebrew and Greek or just in the English translation – the King James Version? They are in the King James Version and most of these are mistranslations given that 500 years ago the King James translators did not have as good handle of Hebrew as we have today – that is why these creatures are not found in newer and more accurate English translations.
We can prove that by actually looking up where each creature comes in the KJV and then comparing the verse with a newer translation. Therefore if you do not like things like satyrs, cockatrice, or unicorns in your Bible, get a newer translation that better renders Hebrew.

Sea Monster

See Job 7:12, Psalm 74:13,14. Isaiah 27:1, and Ezekiel 32:2 (NIV for these).  Many scholars associate any Biblical mention of Sea Monster with “Leviathan”.  Leviathan often appears in newer English rendered as “crocodiles” and I’m not too sure I agree with that translation choice given that “Leviathan” is a big part of Jewish Extra Biblical texts. Also given that only 5% of the earth’s oceans have been explored, how do we know that there is no Leviathan? The only verse in the KJV that has “sea monster” in it is Lamentations 4:3 but in NIV “sea monster” is rendered as “jackals”.

Leviathan

See Job 41, Psalm 74:14; Psalm 104:26; Isaiah 27:1 See above “Sea Monster”.

Behemoth

See Job 40:15.  “Behemoth” is rendered “hippopotamus” in CEV translation. Like Leviathan, with all the various animal that exist and have existed it is irrationally to conclude that the Bible authors did not know what they were talking about. And yeah, maybe Job is referring to a hippo.

Dragon
Twenty-two verses in the KJV in the Old Testament. In the NIV all references to “dragon” are in Revelations. For example Deuteronomy 32:33 renders “dragons” as “serpent”. And some of the places where dragon is being used it’s not talking about an animal but a metaphor for pharaoh. Sometimes leviathan is called a “dragon”. Some of the references are not referring to a creature but is metaphorical. We do not have much of a way to be sure one way or the other when it comes to books like Revelations. Either way you and I still need Jesus.

Giant

Nineteen verses in the KJV contain the word “Giant”. Newer translations like the NIV use the Hebrew words like “Nephelim” and “Rephaites” instead of translating the words to “Giant(s)” Scholars are split if these were people of superhuman size or not. The Bible does not restrict us to either interpretation. Regardless of where you come down, there is no way it matters when it comes to your own sin and need for Christ.
 

Cockatrice

Four verses in KJV contain the word “cockatrice”. A cockatrice is a mythical creature. All four references in the NIV has it rendered as a snake. This makes sense given Isaiah 14:29:
Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.
How could a creature come from a serpent and not be a snake?  Simple: it has to be a serpent.

Kangaroo

Kangaroos are not in the Bible. It is a good thing Kangaroo are not in the Bible because no one who lived in the Middle East and Egypt during the times the Bible were written in would have seen one. This is actually evidence of the Bible being true.

Satyr

Satyrs are mentioned in the KJV twice in Isaiah. The NIV renders the Hebrew word as “wild goats” in both cases. This is a better translation and fits the context of the verses.

Talking Donkey

Balaam’s donkey spoke to him in Numbers 22:21-33. Verse 28 very specifically says that the Lord opened the donkey’s mouth so that she could speak.  How is this so unbelievable? If you believe that God spoke all of reality in existence, how would this be difficult? It would not. Easy peasy. Nor does the text suggest that this was normative.

Unicorn

“Unicorn” appears in the KJV nine times. It’s a mistranslation. The NIV uses “OX”
There are a lot of animals and creatures we know that do exist are not mentioned by name in the Bible, this doesn’t change the need of every man, woman, and child for Jesus.  This is how you could redirect such a conversation back to what matters – the Gospel. This is what they have to deal with. We all do. No matter what.

Coincidences in the Bible | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

Dr Mariottini has posted another must-read article. He writes:

Adam Jacobs, in his article “The Scientific Foreknowledge of the Jewish Sages,” published in Algemeiner, reviews the book by Haim Shore, Coincidences in the Bible and in Biblical Hebrew. Shore is a Professor of Engineering at Ben Gurion University, in Israel.

This seems like an interesting article on an interesting book. I think it brings up issues that I have never really seen anyone who thinks the Bible was written by ignorant morons seriously explains the points raised in this book. I think such things are evidence that God revealing information and technology to the Jewish people that was unavailable to their neighbors! Click threw to learn more!

Coincidences in the Bible | Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament

“Him that Pisseth against the Wall” | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr Claude Mariottini is beginning an interesting article regarding a phrase that appears 6 times in the Hebrew Bible: "Him that Pisseth against the Wall." Read part 1 at the following link.

“Him that Pisseth against the Wall” | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

And here is another article on the subject

1 Kings 21:21 … him that pisseth against the wall.

Related articles

• Stop Mistranslating The Hebrew Bible (socyberty.com)
• Studying the Old Testament - the joys and pains (cesarsalad.wordpress.com)
• How do the Apocrypha and Septuagint affect the Bible (wiki.answers.com)

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: A very simple question for Christians. (In What Sense Is God One?)

thegrandverbalizer refuses to accept Christian understanding of Christian doctrine. Instead, he prefers his straw men.

In what sense is God one? (Scriptural references are appreciated).

Let's take a moment and look at the whole passage:

⁴ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.^{[a] 5} Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. - Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (NIV)

1. Deuteronomy 6:4 Or The LORD our God is one LORD; or The LORD is our God, the LORD is one; or The LORD is our God, the LORD alone

⁴Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: ⁵And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. - Deuteronomy 6:4-5 (KJV)

kai tauta ta dikaiwmata kai ta krimata osa eneteilato kuriov toiv uioiv Israhl en th erhmw ecelqontwn autwn ek ghv Aiguptou akoue Israhl kuriov o qeov hmwn kuriov eiv estin

For example if I am part of the tribes of Israel and I hear it said to me 'Hear oh Israel the Lord your God the Lord is One'. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

What would I take away from that message? Would I have to have deep knowledge of theological and philosophy to understand this?

What if I was just a simple shepherd tending to my sheep?

So what does it say? Let us just ask what does the just plain person who was sitting in front of Moses, what did they hear? What did they understand? The Lord our God is one what? The Septuagint is of great help here. Recall Exodus 3:14


And God said (8799) unto Moses, I AM (8799) THAT I AM (8799) : and he said (8799) , Thus shalt thou say (8799) unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent (8804) me unto you.

kai eipen o qeov prov Mwushn egw eimi o wn kai eipen outwv ereiv toiv uioiv Israhl o wn apestalken me prov umav

And now compare John 8:58

  
Jesus said (5627) unto them, Verily, verily, I say (5719) unto you, Before Abraham was (5635) , I am (5748) .

eipen (5627) autoiv Ihsouv, Amhn amhn legw (5719) umin, prin Abraam genesqai (5635) egw eimi. (5748)

Egw eimi? In both Old and New Testament. Jesus is claiming to be the same being who spoke to Moses from the Burning Bush. Would someone from Moses time get that? I don't think so because it wasn't revealed until Jesus did it almost 1500 years later. What the Hebrews at the time of Moses understood was that God is one being. Jesus revealed more light as to who and what God is. Did Jesus reveal more info? Yup.

I and my Father are (5748) one.

egw kai o pathr en esmen. (5748) - John 10:30

Hmmmm. Jesus used the same terminology for "oneness" as in Deuteronomy 6:4. Jesus makes a distinction between His person and the Father's person, but He makes not distinction in God's being or essence.

Cf. D. Block, has a book "How Many Is God: An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4-5," I thought this was a curious title for a book. A bit presumptuous. For example why not title the book 'How Many Beings is God: An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4-5."

After all if the Tri-Theist are going to keep coining new phrases, employing sophistry and clever semantics why presume anything?

Again with the Tri-Theist. We Christians - all of us - whether you accepts the distinction of person in the Godhead or ignore it - we all agree that God is one being. The Muslims are correct on that point. 

Why presume that God's being is 'one'? I really want to know on what basis do Christians say that God's being is one?

Why presume that God's person is :"one" as thegrandverbalizer does? The Bible doesn't. Yet the Qur'an and the Bible agree that God is one in being. 

If words have meaning what do they mean by that? Curious Muslims (and those searching for truth) want to know.

I want to know why thgrandverbalizer thinks that Christians are twisting words. We all instinctively make a distinction between  "being" and "person". No one answers the questions "What are you?" the same as the question "Who are you?" They are different categories and not the same. Here is another important point. I think that the Trinity is important but it's not a litmus test for orthodoxy. I mean there will be countless people in heaven who put their faith in what God revealed to them and not have as much of the big picture as we have today. For example, Neither Abraham, Moses, nor David knew that the Messiah's name would be Jesus, but they knew that God would provide such salvation and they trusted God for that. Neither did they know about God being triune in person. Yet we'd be stupid to think they didn't make it into heaven. 

³⁹ These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, ⁴⁰ since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.- Hebrews 11:39-40

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: A very simple question for Christians. (In What Sense Is God One?)

Septuagint Info


StudyLight.org

Scripture4All - Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament

Related articles

• Humility Like Moses' (delooo.wordpress.com)
• "What Jesus Does" ( Jude 9, HCSB ) by Carley Evans (via Grace Partakers) (thechristiangazette.wordpress.com)
• Assurance, Examination, and Community (apologus.wordpress.com)
• This Weeks Torah Portion - Matot (Tribes) (terri0729.wordpress.com)

Biblical Studies and Technological Tools: Bible Software for Android

I am always on the look out for good software for my Android devices. In looking for good digital lexicons and Hebrew/Greek texts for Android I came across a blog that is dedicated to biblical studies and technological tools. On it, I found a great post about Bible Studies software on Android! I'm familiar and happy with Olive Tree Software on my phone and tablet but it was nice to see what someone else thought about it. As per the recommendation I will also be installing Cadre's version. Sometimes to get all the features we need we have to use multiple apps/programs - nothing new there. Here are a couple of excerpts explaining why I'm making this decision.

OliveTree

http://www.olivetree.com/android/index.php

• Free BibleReader app with assortment of free Bibles: KJV, ASV, HCSB, JPS1917, NET (w/ limited notes)
• Most developed, most resources
• Study Bibles (e.g., ESV, HarperCollins, HCSB, NET w/ full notes: most in $10-30 range)
• Greek and Hebrew Bibles (SBLGNT for free; BHS, LXX, NA27 also available in morphological versions w/ lexicons: $30-75 range)
• Commentaries, dictionaries, devotionals, eBooks, maps, Strong's resources available
• Josephus and Philo (English) are free
• Android development lags behind iPhone/iPod Touch and earlier PalmOS and WinMobile, but they are busy expanding capabilities for Androi
• Many non-English Bibles available
• I have been a long time user of OliveTree, and I appreciate the ability to move my library from one platform to the next. (Palm > Axim > DroidX) I'm using versions I purchased previously like the NRSV and BHS, and the new SBL GNT is also on my DroidX. I have Philo and Josephus there too. The only problem is that I had purchased the Gramcord NT with its morphological analysis and dictionary, but this is not available on Android. They now offer a new morphologically tagged GNT (the Greek New Testament (NA27) with Mounce-Koivisto Morphology and UBS Dictionary), but it's still rather expensive, even with an upgrade path they offer. Given all the work OliveTree has done, their longevity in the business, and the wide collection of resources they offer, this one comes highly recommended.

CadreBible

http://cadrebible.com/index.php

"Over 60 Bibles, Dictionaries, Commentaries and Books available for offline reading"

Free versions include: ASV, KJV, NA26 GNT, Westcott-Hort NA26/UBS3 GNT, Scrivener GNT,

NET (w/ limited notes), Tanach (public domain Hebrew), LXX, Vulgate,

Search, bookmarks, notes, sharing, highlighting, reading plans

Parallel view (translations and/or commentaries; e.g., I have Gen 1:1 on screen showing NET, LXX, Hebrew, Vulgate!)

Can synchronize with Evernote

Non-English Bibles available

I am keeping this one on my DroidX because, as far as I have found, it's the only one to have a free LXX and Hebrew text. What's more, the Parallel view feature is extremely helpful to have Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English versions of a verse all on screen together

Biblical Studies and Technological Tools: Bible Software for Android

FacePalm of the Day #23 - Responding to Edward T. Babinski

Edward T Babinski sent a list of 16 ways to get a wife according to the Bible to John Lofus which he posted on his blog. I responded to this list back on July 31, 2010. Just few hours ago Babinski posted a rebuttal on my blog and on Loftus. I will only respond here and not on Loftus blog because I promised not post there anymore since GearHedEd admitted to being pig and that I should not "cast my pearls before swine." You can read my original response here. What follows is Babinsky's response in black and mine in italics. Babinky's comments get the FacePalm of the Day. It is truly an epic failure. He doesn't really respond to any point I made but instead tries to raise more problems to try to make the Bible look evil and immoral.
 
Marcus, Your responses amount to saying, "These were great laws for their day and age." So you have acknowledged ethical relativism, and that it can be found in the Bible.
No. I have acknowledged no such thing. Rape is wrong. Adultery is wrong. The Fundamental principles of the laws have not changed.
Neither did you consider the woman's point of view. Forced to marry her rapist? Really?

Did you consider how other nations did things. A woman who was raped was considered "damaged" and most men would not marry her. What would would happen to such a woman? She would never be a wife and never have the protection of a husband. The law was meant to protect her and make men take responsibility of not just shaming her but potentially destroying the rest of her life. It was also mandated that the man could never divorce her or abuse her. The alternative for the woman? Destitution. Ostracized. Today woman have options that were not available to ancient woman. In no way does the condone or proscribe raping a woman as good thing.

Forced to marry the men who slaughtered her husband and/or whole family, village?
Again this was to protect the woman from being treated as nothing but property and a slave.She could be integrated into society. And she would be married to only one man not men. And where does Edward get that the woman was forced against her will? The Bible does not say that. Again without being married, a woman in those days could look forward to destitution, starvation, and death.

And in neither case is a wedding ceremony mentioned. It was an exchange of property.
Does it take explicitly stating and describing a marriage ceremony to understand that it was really a marriage and not just people living together and having sex? The Bible never uses the term "marriage" loosely. It's supposed to be a sacred covenant relationship between a man and woman; co-equal - because no where does the Bible say a man is superior to or more important than women.
And if the woman failed to please the soldier who slaughtered her people, she was let go. But if she did please him, only then was he obliged to take care of her.
I wonder if Babinski really ever looked at how the other nations treated prisoners of war at the same time, or even today. They used to kill the women if they weren't pleased with them. This was to protect the women. You couldn't just take a woman, use her for sex, and then toss her out without penalty.
And in fact a Hebrew male could have as many wives as he could feed and clothe. And also keep concubines and female slaves.

No where is such practice condoned in the Bible. Israelite kings  were even commanded to not have multiple wives but they didn't listen.  If it was not God's will for the kings, why would you think it was something that God thinks its a good idea for everyone else? 

The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again."  He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.
When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. - Deuteronomy 17:16-18

As for the Book of Esther, read chapter 2. "Beauty pageant" is a euphemism. The king was raping every virgin in that pageant, including the Jewish virgin, Esther. God was not incensed though. He allowed the raping, so that the king could discover just how "good" Esther was in the sack. . . for the good of her people. Esther was found to be so "good" that the king made her queen, and the Jews got to take revenge on their enemies, killing 75,000 of them according to the story, all because a virginal Jewish girl was raped by a king and was so good in bed. Is the story true? Who knows? God isn't even mentioned once in that book.
I don't think Babinski has even read the book of Esther. Xerxes did not even know or care that Esther was a Jew. The Jews killing 75,000 of their enemies had nothing to do with Esther. It was not even widely known that Esther was Jewish until she revealed it to show the treacherous Holocaust Haman had in mind for her people. The Jews were defending themselves because on a certain day they were all supposed to be slaughtered and Persian kings could not change a law once it was passed so Xerxes gave the Jews the authority to defend themselves. It had nothing to do with Ester being taken against her will. Re-read Esther.  
Ruth of course uncovers Boaz's feet, which is another euphemism for sleeping with him.
Not everyone agrees with that interpretation and even if it's true, Ruth initiated the scene not Boaz. She was in control.  
As for Paul, the most he said about marriage was that it was honorable, and it was "better to marry than to burn." "Better to marry than to burn?" They should SING that kind of praise of marriage at weddings. So all Paul admits is that marriage is "honorable" and "better than burning with lust" constantly. Not a word of actual praise.
Um...how is "honorable" not praise? And how does this advance Babinski's argument? It doesn't.  More failure.
All that Paul praises is the "spiritual marriage" of Christians to their bridegroom, the Lord. Therefore, Paul made clear that he thought celibacy was definitely a superior choice than marriage.
So what? Paul was saying that he recognizes than not everyone can live without being married. He said that nothing was wrong with remaining single or getting married. If the point is that Paul is saying that it's better not be married because you can focus more on God, then that's true. However he never condemned anyone getting married..

If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better. -1 Corinthians 7: 36-38

As for Cain marrying his sister, and in fact all of the children of Adam and Even marrying their brothers and sisters. Nice. More ethical relativism. I guess when they chose who was sleeping in whose beds while still kids, that was quite a serious choice indeed. But of course God being omnipotent could have created a second couple so such a thing need not have occurred. But I guess God just slapped his thigh and said, let 'em all sleep with each other!
I'm always amazed by this. According the theory of evolution, brothers and sister must have had to procreate together to pass on the traits that make us human when we evolved from lower lifeforms right? At one point there would have only been two homo sapiens and I would wager that they were closely related unless you want to argue that a man and a woman independently evolved from lower primates? I don't think so. Close relatives would have had to gotten together in order for things like large brains and opposable thumbs  be propagated to further generations. So what is the problem? Even throwing out evolution and just assuming that it was only Adam and Eve, who else would their children marry when there was no other human beings? Me thinks, Edward Babinski is just trying to introduce an argument that has no merit because he has nothing else. God allowed them to do that until He deemed it no longer needed according to His purpose.  Any biologist can tell you that now its no longer a good idea and very dangerous for the children. This is how we get very bad mutations and sicknesses. Before the flood, this was not the case because of the genetic purity and closeness to the source.

Dr. Mariottini Returns From Vacation

I've been missing Dr. Claude Mariottini's wonderful blog posts. However everyone needs a vacation and he assuredly deserves them. Thankfully, he is back to blogging.  He recently posted three great posts  regarding archaeology and I had not heard this information.

1. An Akkadian Document from Jerusalem

2. Cuneiform Tablet from Hazor

3. Translating Ugarit With A Computer

Ugarit is highly related to Hebrew and software has been written to compare Hebrew and Ugarit and learn more about  translating Ugarit

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Biblical Fonts

Image via Wikipedia

Dr, Mariottini has been kind enough to point out some great Greek and Hebrew fonts. I'm real grateful because I'm sure I'm going to be publishing more Greek and Hebrew words as my study in those languages continue.

Dr. Claude Mariottini - Professor of Old Testament: Biblical Fonts