![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/12\/ScienceChristianity.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nChapter 4 of my book (available for free<\/strong>\u00a0online),\u00a0Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved<\/em><\/a>. See the\u00a0Introduction<\/a>\u00a0and ch. 1:\u00a0How Do Atheists Define a \u201cBiblical Contradiction\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I submit that it is quite reasonable and straightforward to interpret this verse as describing creation of everything out of nothing. In any event, many passages in the Bible plainly assert creatio ex nihilo<\/em>. Whenever it states that God made \u201call things\u201d (Isa. 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11), that is everything out of nothing, since no \u201cthing\u201d came into existence without God. It follows that he created everything<\/em>, (\u201cwithout him was not\u00a0anything\u00a0made that was made\u201d: John 1:3), and that this must be (logically) creation of all things out of nothing at all: creation from literally \u201cno thing.\u201d The Bible also proclaims that \u201cBy the word of the Lord [i.e., not by existing matter] the heavens were made\u201d (Ps. 33:6). All of this is also (almost needless to say) perfectly consistent with the Big Bang theory: currently the consensus model among scientists, with regard to the origin of the universe.<\/p>\n Verse 2 cannot be taken in isolation apart from verse 1. It\u2019s false to argue that this\u00a0water wasn\u2019t made by God\u00a0because the Bible teaches that God made all things out of nothing (which would include the water on the early \u201cformless\u201d earth). Nothing in that notion precludes further \u201cdevelopmental\u201d or evolutionary creation. At first the earth that he created from nothing as part of the universe was \u201cwithout form and void\u201d. Then God began to work with the initial chaotic form to make the earth as we know it.\u00a0There is no logical necessity at all to interpret this as \u201cwater existed eternally\u201d (a notion currently scientifically impossible to prove, based on what we know about matter as non-eternal) and God \u201ccreated\u201d from it. It\u2019s ludicrous. Water was part of his creation of everything. Peter accurately sums all of this up: \u201cby the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water\u201d (2 Pet. 3:5). God made the initial formless earth that included water. Then he proceeded to further develop the earth as we know it.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n How have sailors \u2014\u00a0for millennia \u2013, survived out at sea for months? They had salted pork and beef (which could last up to two years), stored in barrels. Also, dried food goes back to 12,000 B.C. Dried fish, such as cod, has a storage life of several years. That gives us at least two methods of preserving meat or fish, known to the ancients, that would easily sustain carnivores, just as dog and cat food (dried meat) do the trick today. Cats in particular\u00a0must<\/em>\u00a0have meat, and they do quite well with\u00a0dry cat food.\u00a0Smoking or curing meat also goes back to ancient times. A favorite ration of the Egyptian army was smoked goose. Pickling was a fourth way of preserving meat, which is of ancient pedigree. For those who say in reply that the preserved foods above would not be sufficient for some, many, or all carnivores, there are several other options that would provide fresh meat.\u00a0More animals could have been brought on the ark for the sole purpose of being slaughtered and fed to the carnivores. \u00a0The biblical text doesn\u2019t preclude that possibility.\u00a0Fish could have been caught, or\u00a0offspring slaughtered for food, or parents slaughtered after giving birth. Animals that breed at a very high rate (like rabbits or mice) could have been kept and bred. All of these things are clear and unarguable available options. The \u201cdifficulty\u201d in this instance is how and why atheists who devise all these \u201cBible difficulties\u201d couldn\u2019t conceive of<\/em> all these perfectly plausible options?<\/p>\n Jesus simply said to the man,\u00a0\u201cMy son, your sins are forgiven\u201d (Mark 2:5b). He never\u00a0said<\/em>\u00a0that his sins had caused<\/em> his paralysis. In fact, the immediate context explains why he said that: because he \u201csaw their\u00a0faith<\/em>\u201d (2:5a; cf. Matt. 9:2; Luke 5:20). In other words, saying he was forgiven was due to Jesus\u2019 knowledge and observation that he and his friends were\u00a0faithful<\/em>: which state brings about forgiveness (which has nothing to do with his or their physical condition). This ties into other similar sayings of Jesus when he healed. He is recorded in the Gospels saying no less than six times: \u201cyour faith has made you well\u201d (Matt. 9:22; Mark 5:34; 10:52; Luke 8:48; 17:19; 18:42). As to sin being a reason for why this man was sick, or for anyone\u2019s sickness, Jesus roundly refutes this notion elsewhere. Once, he was asked if a man\u2019s sin or his parents\u2019 sin caused his blindness. He replied: \u201cIt was not that this man sinned, or his parents, . . .\u201d (John 9:3). In another instance, he denied that \u201cthese Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered\u201d (Luke 13:2). After asking a rhetorical question, he answered it with \u201cNo\u201d (13:3). Then Jesus gave an example of \u201ceighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them\u201d (Luke 13:4). Again, he asked a rhetorical question and answered it in the negative: \u201cdo you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?\u00a0I tell you, No; . . .\u201d (13:4-5). In other words, physical affliction is not everywhere and always a result of sin. That\u2019s not Jesus\u2019 teaching, and it\u2019s not biblical teaching. The book of Job had already resolved that matter long since. God describes Job: \u201cthere is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil\u201d (Job 1:8; cf. 2:3). Yet the entire book is about his extreme sufferings.<\/p>\n Commentators freely admit that there is little known about this place-name from Mark, but that\u2019s not\u00a0proof<\/em>\u00a0that such a town never existed. Many biblical places or items previously mysterious have been illuminated by scores of archaeological findings. Matthew 15:39, the parallel verse, gives us our only biblical geographical clue: \u201che got into the boat and went to the region of Magadan.\u201d That provides at least something to work with and from. Magadan is an alternate name for\u00a0Magdala: where Mary Magdalene was from.\u00a0This town\u00a0is known to have been located\u00a0on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee: between biblical\u00a0Capernaum\u00a0and\u00a0Tiberias. It so happens that archaeologists (as reported in September 2013) have indeed found an ancient town that fits the bill, and might be Dalmanutha: since it was about 500 feet from Magdala. If Matthew can be trusted, and Dalmanutha was in \u201cthe region of Magadan\u201d then this could very well be Dalmanutha. Mark (like Matthew) reports that Jesus departed a town after feeding the 4,000 and \u201cgetting into the boat again he departed to the other side\u201d [of the Sea of Galilee] (Mark 8:13).\u00a0There is evidence\u00a0that the place where this feeding occurred was near the\u00a0archaeological site of Kursi, on the\u00a0eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. If so, it is almost\u00a0directly across<\/em>\u00a0from Magdala and what may be Dalmanutha.<\/p>\n The Mount of Olives was where Jesus\u00a0was<\/em>\u00a0(Matt. 21:1; Mark 11:1) before His entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:10; Mark 11:11; John 12:12), and of course it has a lot of olive trees. At the base of it is also the Garden of Gethsemane: with many old olive trees, and they have leaves in March or April, as \u201cevergreen\u201d tropical trees. Since Mark didn\u2019t specify which tree he was referring to, one can reasonably opine that it is the olive tree,\u00a0since everything matches up perfectly. Nehemiah 8:15 is similar: \u201c. . .\u00a0\u201cGo out to the hills and bring\u00a0<\/strong>branches of\u00a0olive, wild olive, myrtle, palm, and other leafy trees to make booths, . . .\u201d The word for \u201cbranches\u201d in both KJV and RSV for Matthew 21:8 is\u00a0klados. <\/em>In Jeremiah 11:16 in the Greek Septuagint it\u2019s used for \u201cbranches\u201d of an \u201colive tree.\u201d Zechariah 4:12 has \u201cbranches\u201d of \u201colive trees.\u201d In Romans 11:16-19, 21 (five usages) it refers again to an olive tree (see 11:17, 24). Both Matthew and Mark could be referring to olive leaves or possibly mustard leaves. Olive trees, however, were a lot more common in Israel (mentioned in the Hebrew Bible\u00a046 times), whereas mustard trees receive zero mentions in the Hebrew Bible and only\u00a0five references\u00a0in the New Testament.<\/p>\n John 12:13 specifically mentions \u201cbranches of palm trees\u201d in connection with the first \u201cPalm Sunday.\u201d Date palms\u00a0grew in Jericho, which is 3,280 feet lower in elevation than Jerusalem, and only 25 miles east.\u00a0Jericho is called the \u201ccity of palms\u201d in\u00a0Deuteronomy 34:3 and 2 Chronicles 28:13. They can survive all the way down to 20 degrees Fahrenheit, and the leaves are ten to twenty feet long (the average is about 13 feet) and do not shed. Date palms easily survive in Jericho all year-round, based on\u00a0temperature data and averages. The mean minimum never dips below 43 degrees Fahrenheit in January or February or below 47 in December, while the mean maximum temperatures for those months are 53-58 degrees. The most likely scenario is that the crowds hailing Jesus had\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0olive leaves and palm tree \u201cbranches\u201d or leaves. The texts do\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0contradict each other. Luke doesn\u2019t mention the people having leaves, but it\u2019s not\u00a0required<\/em>\u00a0that he do so to avoid a \u201ccontradiction.\u201d He doesn\u2019t\u00a0deny<\/em>\u00a0it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ***** Photo Credit<\/strong>: worker<\/a> (1-23-18)<\/span> [public domain \/ Openclipart<\/a>]<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Ch. 4 of Dave Armstrong\u2019s book, \u201cInspired!\u201d: in which he examines 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chapter 4 of my book (available for free\u00a0online),\u00a0Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the\u00a0Introduction\u00a0and ch. 1:\u00a0How Do Atheists Define a \u201cBiblical Contradiction\u201d?\u00a0All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted. ***** Genesis 1:1: \u201cIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth\u201d doesn\u2019t assert that God created everything out of nothing (ex nihilo). I submit […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":78182,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[2519,171,2848,2847,18260,18230],"class_list":["post-78176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","tag-alleged-biblical-contradictions","tag-bible-science","tag-biblical-exegesis","tag-biblical-hermeneutics","tag-inspired-191-supposed-biblical-contradictions-resolved","tag-scientific-biblical-contradictions"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n*<\/p>\n