Did God Make Day and Night Before He Made The Sun?

Here is Shane's next problem: My Response is in red.


Here is another descrepency.

Genesis 1:3, "God said let there be light, and there was light. God saw that the light was good. Then He seperated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness night".

So as of the first day of creation week, we have day and night. The scripture even verifies this by saying afterward-"And evening and morning came, marking the first day"!

Yet, we have in Genesis 1:16, "God made two great lights-the larger one (sun) to govern the day, and the smaller one (moon) to govern the night".

So we have here, God creating day and night on the first day of creation week....but God does not make the sun until the fourth day of creation week?

How was it that day and night existed before the sun was even created.....?

We now know in this modern age, that day and night are reconciled with the sun....the sun is our only source of light.

We now know in this modern age, that the moon is not a light....the moon only reflects the sun's light thats it!

It seems pretty obvious that the author of Genesis was not a divinly inspired person.

More likely, the author did not relize the immense size of the sun thousands and thousands of miles away, and did not realize it was the sun itself which gives us our only source of light.

More likely the author did not realize the moon was not a light in and of itself, the moon only reflects the suns light!

It is easy to see why the author would not realize these things. If we never developed the sciences and understandings we have today, we would probably think the same things based on our limited observations.

The first thing I need to say is that I am not an young earth creationist. I think evidence points to the the earth being more than 6000 years old...a lot more. That being said I think that the fact that evening and morning are discussed before the sun is visible tells us that "day:" or ("yom" in Hebrew) must mean something different than a 24 hour day because without the sun how would you know if its evening or morning. Add to that I think that most people look at the Genesis account being told from the point of view of some one standing in orbit and viewing what is happening on earth. However this is not the reference point from which the events are described, It  says that God hovered above the waters. A lot of detail is skipped between verse 1 and that point, but let's start at that point. If someone had been above the waters what would they have seen? Sciences says they would see the earth cloaked with a think layer of gas blotting out the sun. and the stars and the moon. From the standpoint of verse 4, the moon, sun and stars were just made visible at that point just like we know from science that happened.  I agree that the author did not how far away the sun was or the star or that the moon was reflecting sun light. So? Shane, is it your contention that the author was saying the sun was not millions of miles away or that the moon did not reflect sunlight?  I think not. It is describing what a person would have seen had they been on earth at that time (floating in the air with God above the waters  before land was created). It's not trying to give us every single detail or explanation. Does this conflict with science? No. Do all Christians agree with me? No. But although this is a controversy is doesn't show the Bible errant and it's not a salvation issue. Interesting? Yes. I think that this is what science is: Figuring out how God did it.

Who was the Twelfth Disciple?

Here is Shane's next question:

Here's another question, who was the twelfth disciple?

According to 10:2-4
-Mark 3:16-19
The twelfth disciple was Thaddaeus.

According to Luke 6:14-16
The twelfth was Judas (son of James).

According to John 21:2
The twelfth was Nathaniel.

The other eleven were, Peter, Andrew, Philip, James, Bartholomew, John, Thomas, James, Matthew, Simon, Judas Iscariot.

Shane, are you really sure? Let's compare the lists:

Matt 10:2-4
Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot,

Mark 3:16-19
Peter,  James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot

Friom Luke 6:14-16
Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot

From John 21:2
Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. (at least 7 men)

Matthew and Luke agree with number of people and the names used. Luke is different, and I will deal with Luke in a moment. John 21:2 cannot be compared to the other passages because it is not attempting to name the 12. It lists only 7 people not 12. Therefore no way could John be trying to name the twelve...and Jesus had more more disciples than just those twelve. Besides this is after Judas Iscariot....um... moved on to where he belongs.

As for Luke's differences. Thaddaeus was also known as “Judas, son of James” (Luke 6:16) and Lebbaeus (Matthew 10:3 KJV). Simon the Zealot was also known as Simon the Canaanite (Mark 3:18 KJV). (http://www.gotquestions.org/twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html)

Recall that in the first century many Jews went by a Jewish name and a Gentile name. Like Paul's Jewish name was Saul. Mark's Jewish name was John.  Judas is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Judah. Thaddaeus is a Greek from of an Aramaic name. One way to refer to him would Judas (or Jude) Thaddaeus. Matthew and Mark used his last name, Luke used his First name. There is no conflict here.

Why would you, Shane,  think that this is conflict?

Update: I did a little more digging. The Greek word for "brother" (aldophus)  is not in the text of Luke 6:16. I saw a translation that says Judas was a relative of James. When I examine the text the word translated "son of" in Luke 6:16 is 'IakoBou (sp) which means in the context of the verse mean "of James". The word is used in verse 15 where it says that  apostle James is the "son of Alphaeus". Why change the meaning of the word in verse 16? It shouldn't..

How Many Donkeys Did Jesus Ride

In Shane's latest lame attempt to point out a contradiction in the Bible he offers the following:

Marcus.

I guess its time to move on.

Here is another biblical issue.

There is a huge mistake regarding Jesus triumphal entry.

According to Mark, Luke, and John, Jesus entered the city riding on A donkey.

According to Matthew, Jesus is said to be riding on two donkey's? (Matthew 21:1-7).

Matthew mentions two animals in three of the verses so it cannot be explained away as a translation error. Matthew even has Jesus riding both animals at the same time.

This is because Matthew obviously must have misunderstood (Zechariah 9:9) which says "mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey".
Anyone who is familiar with OT Hebrew would know that the word translated "and" in this passage does not mean another animal, but instead its used in the sense of "even" a colt!

"Even" is given for emphasis here!
Matthew was evidently not aware of this.

This is but one example I am prepared to offer here that shows Matthew's gospel is full of fulfilled prophecies working the way Matthew wanted them to. And that Matthew in his zeal to prove Jesus was the Messiah, searched the OT for passages that could be construed as prophecy and modified events Jesus life to fulfill them!!!!

 Here is the most succinct answer I have seen.

(Category: misread the text & misunderstood the historical context)
The accusation is that the Gospels contradict about how many donkeys Jesus rode into Jerusalem on. This accusation is based on not reading the text of Matthew properly and ignoring his full point about this event.
It first should be noted that all four Gospel writers refer to this event, the missing reference above being John 12:14-15. Mark, Luke and John are all in agreement that Jesus sat on the colt. Logic shows that there is no "contradiction" as Jesus cannot ride on two animals at once! So, why does Matthew mention two animals? The reason is clear.
Even by looking at Matthew in isolation, we can see from the text that Jesus did not ride on two animals, but only on the colt. For in the two verses preceding the quote in point (b) above by Shabbir, we read Matthew quoting two prophecies from the Old Testament (Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9) together. Matthew says:
"Say to the Daughter of Zion, 'See, your king comes to you, gently and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey'."
Matthew 21:5
By saying "a donkey" and then "on a colt, the foal of a donkey" Zechariah is using classic Hebrew sentence structure and poetic language known as "parallelism", simply repeating the same thing again in another way, as a parallel statement. This is very common in the Bible (i.e. Psalm 119:105 mentions, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path," yet says the same thing twice in succession). It is clear that there is only one animal referred to. Therefore Matthew clearly says Jesus rode only on a colt, in agreement with the other three Gospel writers.
So why does Matthew say that the colt and its mother were brought along in verse seven? The reason is simple. Matthew, who was an eyewitness (where as Mark and Luke were quite possibly not) emphasizes the immaturity of the colt, too young to be separated from its mother. As the colt had never been ridden the probability was that it was still dependent on its mother. It would have made the entry to Jerusalem easier if the mother donkey were led along down the road, as the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had never before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a roadway.
Here again we see that there is no contradiction between the synoptic accounts, but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who viewed the event while it was happening.
This is just one of many of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. He fulfilled ones that were in his control as well as ones which he could not manipulate, such as the time and place of his birth (Daniel 9:24-26, Micah 5:1-2, Matthew 2:1-6), and his resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:24-32) to name but two.
Some Muslims believe that in the Taurat there is reference to the prophecy which the Qur'an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and 61:6 concerning Muhammad. However, these Muslims yet have to come up with one, while Jesus is predicted time and time again.

 This is from 101 Cleared-up contradictions in the Bible see number 36.  If you have a problem with me using someone else' answer, what about how you quoted directly from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html (Section F). That is fine, but next time could you give a link. Next!

Did Paul's Companions Share His Experience on the Road to Damascus?

In his latest attempt to show contradictions in the Bible, Shane appeals to an old one:

Here is another biblical issue.

Acts 9:7- "They stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one".

Acts 22:9 (regarding the same story) "they saw the light but did not hear the voice".


Both descriptions contradict each other. According to one the men with Saul saw no one but heard the voice. According to the other they did hear the voice.

Shane further tries to shore up his contention by providing the further argument:

Here's a piece of information.

The NIV version and the NAS version try to remove the contradiction in Acts 22:9 by translating the phrase as "did not understand the voice". But the Greek word "akouo" is translated 373 times in the NT as "hear", "hears", or "heard" and only in Acts 22:9 is it translated as "understood".

I nfact, the word "understood" is occurs 52 times in the NT, but only in Acts 22:9 is it translated from the Greek word "akouo".

I appreciate Shane carefully checking out the text. I think he has put his finger on the point of the contention: In the context of Acts 22:9 does "akouo" mean "understand" or "hear" in the same way as "hear" in Acts 9:7. "Akouo" is in both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Does this mean that "hear" means the audible experience of sound waves bouncing off the ear drum and sending information to be interpreted by the brain? Or does it mean to harken or responding to what is heard? Again context matters.

If you follow both accounts they are parallel and follow the same flow. We are told what Jesus tells Paul before we are told what his companions reaction was.In addition in the context of the Greek text the difficulty is that in greek Akouo at times mean to hear and in other instances to understand. So which is it? Which one makes more sense. We have a single author in Acts. Why would he give an account in Chapter 9 conflicting with what he says Paul says in the 22nd chapter. Luke is not a moron or an idiot...he is careful in everything he writes and much of it can be corroborated with other evidence and none can rebut it. Therefore, I certainly think that understand is a correct translation of Act 9:22. We use "hear" even in English to mean "understand". How often do I feel like telling Shane, "You are not hearing me!" Would anyone think that I'm saying that he does not know I'm communicating with him in my writing? No they would understand I am saying that he does not understand.

One might wonder if I'm just blowing smoke by suggesting that the King James Version has missed the thought being expressed in these verses? Um....no.

In fact, the man known affectionately among theologians as the “dean of Greek scholars,” A.T. Robertson, wrote in regard to the difference in cases:

In 22:9 Paul says that the men “beheld the light” (to men phos etheasanto), but evidently did not discern the person. Paul also says there, “but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi). Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the “light” and “no one”) a distinction between the “sound” (original sense of phone as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouo is used either with the accusative (the extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phone. They heard a sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9) [1930, pp. 117-118, parenthetical items in orig.].

Consider also the words of Greek expert Ray Summers:

Some verbs take their object in a case other than the accusative. There is a variety of usage at this point. Akouo may take its object in the genitive or the accusative. Usually akouo with the genitive means “to hear without understanding.” This probably explains the difficulty involved in Acts 9:7 and 22:9. The incident is the experience of Paul in seeing the light and hearing the voice on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:7 states that Paul’s companions heard the voice (akouo with the genitive); Acts 22:9 says they did not hear the voice (akouo with the accusative). Thus both constructions say the same thing; the companions of Paul did not understand what the voice said to Paul; to them it was unintelligible sound (1950, p. 51).

Numerous other Greek scholars have expressed the same viewpoint (see, for example: Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, pp. 31-33; Blackwelder, 1958, p. 139; Kittel, 1993, p. 216; Thayer; 1979, pp. 22-23; Vincent, 1975, p. 571; and Vine, 1985, p. 296). The word “hear” in Acts 22:9 can be used to indicate that it was a sound—not a voice—that the men heard on the road to Damascus. Source: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/533

What I'm saying is that there is no contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Again you have to wrestle the text out of context and then read the problem into the text.

Some more links that will help to Akouo the text.

All passages that contain "akouo" in Acts.
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon - Akouo

Commenting On "This Generation" - Mark 8:38;9:1; Matthew 24:34

I've been in discussion with a regular commenter on John W. Loftus' blog named Shane. We have been going back and forth on a post Loftus did regarding how do we know our worldviews are right or wrong. You can read the original posts and comments here. I wrote a response to that post here and you can read the exchange there. I challenged Shane to go to scripture and really check to see if there is an unambiguous interpretation. He has brought up two scriptures.

Mark 8:38-9:1 (New International Version)

³⁸If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

Mark 9

 ¹And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

 And

Matthew 24:34 (New International Version)

³⁴I tell you the truth, this generation^[a] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 24:34 Or race

Shane believes that both scriptures are talking about Jesus' second coming and would say that it shows that Jesus could not be a prophet or what we claim because Jesus did not return during the lifetime of those who heard Jesus make the prophecy in person.  It's interesting to me that Shane thinks that Jesus is talking about the same thing in both passages although they are two different contexts at two different times.

I appreciate District Superintendent Harvey Burnett chiming in on the text for Mark. I agree with him. His answer is in the comments section for the post on my blog again found here. The only thing I would add to what his said is don't use the New Living Translation for exegesis. It's a paraphrase not a real translation. "generation" in Mark 9:1 does not mean  the same things as Matthew 24:34.  Elder Burnett did such a great job I see no reason to add to his explanation for why Jesus was not saying that the the Kingdom would be manifested physically in the lifetime of his first disciples.

Instead, let's turn our focus to the the context of Matthew 24.  Verse 34 is in context of Jesus answering a question of his disciples. Jesus issued a prophecy in verse 2. Look at verses 1 and 2.

 ¹Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. ²"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

In verse 3, the disciples wanted to know two things: when would the temple be destroyed  and when would his coming be and the end of the age?

³As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Verse 4-34 is Jesus answering the question. Here is where things get interesting. Historically there has been 3 interpretations and one of them is Shane's that Jesus is talking about the end of the world. The other ones make more sense,.Either Jesus is talking about a real historical event - the destruction of the temple - that would happen in the lifetime of those present, or the disciples were asking about the end of the world and the temple destruction. It is my opinion that verse 34 is talking about the destruction of the temple when Jesus says "these things". So here is the question. Was Herod's temple destroyed during the the lifetime of those present when this prophecy was given? Yes. This prophecy cold be dated towards the end of Jesus' earthly ministry just before he was crucified and resurrected. - say 30 AD. The Jews rebelled against Rome and the Romans didn't take kindly to that in 70 AD. They destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. The Jews ceased to exist as a political nation until 1948 AD! This fact is well attested in history - Roman history and in Josephus.  Because the destruction was never mentioned anywhere else other than in this context (Olivet Discourse), some people think that the entire New Testament should be dated before 70 AD.

I already know what the counter argument is so let me raise it myself. How can we say that Jesus is right about no stone being left one on top of another  if the "Wailing Wall" is still here today? Simple. The Wailing Wall is part of the huge platform that was built to give the builders a level surface on which to build the temple in a remarkable, almost unreproducible feat of ancient engineering. When Jesus spoke this prophecy he wasn't referring to the platform, he was talking to the buildings that had stood on top of the platform. Jesus was probably standing on that platform when he said this. Therefore Jesus was right....validating Himself as prophet, king, and Lord because had He been wrong than everything else He ever said is suspect. It's just following the evidence where it leads. Jesus was not saying that there were those listening to him at that moment who would see his second coming, he was saying that they would live to see the destruction of the temple.

Now the thing to remember is that not everyone agrees with me that Matthew 24 points to any future fulfillment as well as to 70 AD. I was in an online written debate with my friend Mike Felker who believes that all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD and is not talking about the second coming at all. I disagree, but there are many people who would agree with them. I believe Jesus was talking about 60 AD and events beyond the time we now live. You can read that debate by going to the last post at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/02/apologetic-front-my-last-response-to.html and in that post is links to all the other posts. The interesting thing is that the answer to this question is not essential doctrine. What I mean by that is you can either endorse my interpretation or Mike's and still be orthodox. It's not a salvation issue. That's not saying that it's not important. I mean I would like to know which viewpoint is right but that is how I see it now. The truth is all we have to do is wait and we will see which one is right when Jesus returns. If Mike is right, Shane is wrong while Mike and  I still go to heaven and live lives used of God.. If I'm right, Shane is wrong while Mike and  I still go to heaven and live lives used of God.With Elder Burnett's assist on the texts form Mark, it is obvious to see that Shane misinterpreted the scripture.  Either way the Bible is right.