Horizontal Menu Bar

Responses to evilbible.com Website Claims

Responses to Common Objections and Claims of Unbelievers (2 Tim 2:15)
            It is patent for unbelievers to rattle off a listing of various objections to the Bible as the foundational/substantive reason why they do not believe in either its inspiration or even, the “moral beneficiality” of the Bible.  As seen in the title of the main website (old website) being responded to here, they come to conclude that the Bible is/must be “evil”. (See also in this post).
            Upon just reading through the listing of claims on that website, it seems evident to me, that the author(s) of these claims may have had some Christian background and later, upon “discovering”, these (supposed) errors/contradictions/“evils” switched to their current stance. Whatever the case, it is still pertinent that literally all of these claims are borne out of deficient, uninformed, or outright erroneous exegesis and theology. The ironic thing is that many believers also see the same errors but just silently overlook them, as if the Bible and its message does not contain the resolving answer. And to a point, that also is not an acceptable approach, because, for one thing, it does breed and perpetuate in some such vehement opposition to the Bible.
            As is the foundational reason for this blog, arriving at the factual/exegetical/theological accurate Truth is an incontrovertible imperative. And so, the various claims collected in that website, -most of which I personally have not seen adequately or satisfactorily, or at all, addressed elsewhere, will be here engaged and addressed. But, as typical with causing “mischief”, e.g. egging & toilet-papering a house, or tagging a wall/property with graffiti, it is so much more easy to cause the damage than to clean it up. So it will take much longer to address, correct and properly/substantively clarify the claims being made against the Bible here, than it took to even find these claims and their (supposed) supporting texts out. In fact, a simple, terse, merely summary answer could be given for each of those objections, but in the interest of not unnecessarily prolonging a discussion, they will instead be (mostly/as necessary) be responded to a fully as required...and that is why the responding here will be incremental over time, with new answers being posted once per week instead of first answering all of the objecting entries and then posting them.

            (Note: Comments from the evilbible.com website have been reposted here in bold navy blue)

Murder in the Bible

The act of murder is rampant in the Bible. 

            All determining things considered, it legally is not “murder” but “killing”....just like any act of self-defense, of which all of these acts in the Bible foundationally, is not “murder”, but a warranted and justified “killing”.  The Bible itself makes a legal, and thus (Hebrew and Greek) linguistic difference between the two.
In much of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there are laws that command that people be killed for absurd reasons such as  working on the Sabbath, being gay, cursing your parents, or  not being a virgin on your wedding night. 

            As later seen in context and detail, these are not “absurd” acts. Once the Theology which undergirds this stand is considered, understood and factored in, such acts by God’s Israel, and towards mainly/defaultly Israelites, are indeed just, preventive acts. As a fitting comparison, one could make a similar argument in regards to the capital punishment penalty for an act of Treason against the United States of America. E.g. disclosing classified military information to another, especially enemy, country of the U.S. Because such an act quite potentially put the life of everyone in America at risk, and also can require tremendous cost to repair its damage (e.g. changing the launch procedure of America’s Nuclear Arsenal), then the penalty of death is see as being a just deterring & punishing measure.

            Given all that is vitally involved in God’s Israel, and which especially novice unbelievers just do not bother to first understand, similar heightened/capital measures were prescribed by God in their Law against what God knows to be vitally hazardous sins.

            What unbelievers today should rather concern themselves about is that a country like America should never become a “Christian” country, e.g. as in the days of the Holy Roman Empire, and then such laws and penalties won’t, or shouldn’t have any degree of implementation.

In addition to these crazy and immoral laws, there are plenty of examples of God's irrationality by his direct killing of many people for reasons that defy any rational explanation such as killing children who make fun of bald people, and the killing of a man who tried to keep the ark of God from falling during transport.  There are also countless examples of mass murders commanded by God, including the murder of women, infants, and children.

            All of these ‘primely cited’ cases will also be examined in detail as they come up later on, but generally stated about the issue of “women and children”, the nationalistic context was even greater than it is today, indeed rooted in religious ideology, and as a simple comparison, God commanding any people who, in such cases, would have been conquered by force, and not free-willed conversion, to also be put to death, is akin to the same caution most countries, including the United States, do not permit even a later naturalized citizen person who had immigrated to America as an infant to be hold its Head of State/President office. (Cf. Deut 17:15b) Emotional/Psychological National ties to their country of birth are rightly seen as inherently/trumpingly strong enough to lead to subversive acts of treason.

            Relatedly, many Egyptian people, mainly at the fear of the befallen plagues, had opted to go with Israel as they left Egypt. Well that group, termed “mix-multitude”/foreigners (e.g. Exod 12:38; Neh 13:3) , who had been “converted” to Israel under effective compelling, went on to be the leaders in various rebellions in Israel. (e.g. Num 11:4-6) Only willfully free conversions and joinings to Israel were least potentially hazardous and thus more trustworthy.

    The following passages are a very small percentage of the total passages approving of murder in the Bible.  They are divided here into three parts: 1)  Capital Punishment Crimes, 2) God's Murders for Stupid Reasons, 3) Murdering Children, and 4) Miscellaneous Murders.  This list is long, but it barely scratches the surface of all the murders approved of in the Bible.

            For those familiar with the whole Bible, this, and quite commending of the author, actually is an almost exhaustive detailing of acts of judicious “killing” in the Bible. It at the very least is quite comprehensive as it covers most, if not every type of context in which such Divine and Legal Capital Punishment was warranted and justified in/by God’s Israel.

1) Capital Punishment Crime

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests
    Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

            In God’s Israel the judges acted as representatives of the people towards God to of course, rightly see that God’s Laws were rightly applied. (E.g. Exod 18:17-26) Priests also had similar, but much less injunctive (cf. e.g. Num 5:14-16ff), mostly merely functional, intermediary duties also in regards to God’s Laws. With these two entities each having an office of Chief Judge and High Priest, who both could be appealed to, and even could have direct determining communication with God (e.g. Exod 33:9-11; Jos 1:1; Jdg 6:11-12; & Exod 28:30; Lev 8:8; Num 27:21; Deut 33:8; 1 Sam 28:6), so a person choosing to indeed “arrogantly” act in contempt of a lower rung decision by a judge or priest, who actually also could decide/act under direct inspiration, then that person was effectively acting in contempt of God Himself. And, for the well-being of the entire nation, such (effective) arrogance and defiance towards God Himself could not be permitted to stand in God’s Israel. It was indeed “evil”, resembling the indifference and arrogance of Satan himself towards God and His Truth, and thus must be thoroughly purged. There just was no warranted justification for such contempt of both process and God.

Kill Witches
    You should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

            For the unbeliever, communication with anyone/anything relatable to the occult world may seem fictional, but the Biblical reality is that there does exist a Devil/Adversary, who is followed by millions upon millions of fallen angels (Rev 12:4, 7-9 cf. here). So communicating with the occult world, or even trying to do so, was not at all an empty act. There was supernatural forces and powers which could easily respond to such entreaties and thus act to lead God’s people astray, as is the chief wantonly murderous covert objective of this Adversarial camp. [E.g Gen 3:1-7ff]. So dealing in the occult was indeed a vitally most dangerous endeavor in, and for, people in God’s Israel putting the well-being, and thus lives of everyone at risk.

            Most foundationally and necessarily, God, if He could justly ever extend any degree of mercy to His Created Beings, has to have these created beings operate within a genuine context of honesty and sincerity, and thus True Faith must be that warranting context. So given that God thus has mercifully chosen to not openly reveal Himself to His Creation, thus allowing for such warranted “deniability”, for corresponding reasons, Satan refrains from openly/truthfully revealing himself to Humans knowing that most, if not all of them, would reject him and his bankrupt worldview, and instead choose to side with the All-Powerful God, who most trumpingly has power over life and death. So Satan is forced to work in the shadows, as God superiorly ,conversely uses this same approach to be able to forgive any, thus inadvertent, transgression which may be committed by His Created Being during their desired Truly Loving Relationship. And it is because both sides here are not fully concretely seen and known, (with at best ambiguous angelic form apparitions being done), that God needs to keep in check any inherently deluding attempt from His people to try to engage the opposing side.

Kill Homosexuals
     "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
            Succinctly restated here, as demonstrated at Issue #5 in here, the homosexual lifestyle is just not conducive to life. It also can be a source of the spreading of sexually transmitted diseases, especially with men, (which then may be transferred onto women, and even into heterosexual relationships), and, as seen with the outbreak of HIV/AIDS, even more rampant than non-monogamous heterosexual relationships as the caution due to pregnancy is not present, and thus protection is more likely to not be used. So, merely platonically, in both term of “viability”, and also public health, and then in terms of nature “violence”, God has rightly and justly acted to keep this behavior in check.

            Again here in the deemed trumping context of today’s society which have invented measures to be able to, more than less, “protect against” the hazard and detriment tied to this non-natural behavior, as stated here, a person who does not believe in God and the Bible, should not be bothered by Believers not accepting this behavior, unless a “kill the gays” laws is attempted to be passed in Secular/Civil Government. Moreover, New Covenant Christians know that at best, they would only have a “disfellowshipping” authority in this regards, and not a capital death one, which is now reserved to/by God alone, and which He, also most graciously/mercifully, will only be executing at the utter end. (Rev 21:8)...

Kill Fortunetellers
    A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

            The capital punishment justifying reason here is that the same as for “Killing Witches” above, and it must be highlighted that “bloodguiltiness” (NASB) is indeed foundationally implicated in such acts as the whole camp is vitally put a great risk, even directly from Satan himself (e.g. 1 Sam 28 -Satan was actually trying to save the life of Saul (1 Sam 28:19, and thus prolong his detrimental reign over Israel).

Death for Hitting Dad
    Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.  (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

            Well I guess, children were expected to be much more respectful of their parents (the law also includes mothers), than they permissively are today. Don’t view this as “unfairness” but on as the bias of a presently degenerated society. God’s Israel aimed to be a orderly and civil society and a circumstance when a child could most deliberately permit themselves to be that tangibly disrespect of the person and authority of their parents was a, actually societal, hazard, both order-wise and physically. Indeed, much like all the seemingly bias manhunt frenzy which is seen when police are trying to track down and arrest a person who had killed a police officer vs. most other lone-person murderers, the similar warranting rational is seen where it is deemed that if this person is bold enough to kill a (especially uniformed) officer, then anyone else in the community is likely fair game, including other officers. So a person who has the gall to strike their parents who have natural authority over them, will most likely not subject themselves to anyone else, and also may not shy from killing them if they tried to (also) stand in their way.

            So this law was to try to keep in check this most extreme and decided rebellion, which tellingly enough, is just as “high-handed” shocking in today’s (jaded) world/society.

Death for Cursing Parents
    1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness.  (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)

            This Proverbs (see in NASB) does not necessarily imply, as seemingly deemed here by Chris, that the person in that should be put to death during the coming nightfall, though that is legally mandated, but that (if they manage to escape), would still meet such a fate when “darkness” later comes in their life. At the very least, God Himself would see so to it.

    2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.  They are guilty of a capital offense.  (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

            Such an act is indeed an indicative precursor of potential heightened rebellion, and so was considered as a capital offense. Much like the nowadays act of actively plotting terrorism is considered as punishable as carrying it out. Again, our present, jaded, society may consider that Biblical Law extreme, but the also indicative demonstration of how such an act could easily be considered as a threateningly high handed offense, indeed in a context when the authority of the parents was, as today, deemed (naturally) ultimate, is that the scene of a child cursing out their parents is innately shocking to most.

            A society where a child has no respect for (respectable) the authority of their parents is indeed an endangered society because all kinds of delinquent disorder is likely to follow, which moreover will hazardously tax and burden other people/parent in the society.

            So God’s Most Righteous Society was to also keep these, really not warranted, behavior in check, moreover as there were laws and judicial procedure to take care of any sin/crime which the child may have been reacting to towards their parent(s).

More Rape and Baby Killing
    Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.  (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
            Generally said, first of all, God is here merely relating what He foresee that Medo-Persia will do to Babylon. He is not actually commanding Medo-Persia to do this. Now on the more specific levels, the great dilemma of God when having to Geo-Politically order (see here) this fallen and sinful world as best possible from what is available, at the time this prophecy was given, it was the ruthless Assyrians who were the leading Imperial Power in the Earth. But God could see that the Babylonians were raising themselves up to endeavor to overtake the Assyrians in that World Hegemony, which they indeed did. Probably seeing that Babylon was a nation that He could better work with and through (cf. Dan 2 & 4), God allowed them to take this leading world role. But God no doubt could also see and understand that such local/regional powers which then accede to World Hegemony will normatively naturally just expand the reach of what they had been doing locally/regionally in their new imperial role, and thus God could see that a cornerstone of Babylon in its local/regional conquests and triumphs was to cruelly dispose of the very young, probably to cut off the potential upcoming revolting strength of the people they were conquering while also, as seen in Dan 1 with Daniel and his 3 friends, take control of the ‘best and the brightest’ youths that the nation they had conquered had. And as seen in Isa 47:5-7; Psa 137:8-9, Babylon did ruthlessly slaughter the very young and unborn when conquering Israel’s Southern Kingdom of Judah.
            But another cornerstone of God’s Ordering is that it will always involve the administering of Justice. And so, when it would come the time for Babylon to be replaced, God would then, as seen just above in regards to Judah, raise up a power which would “repay” Babylon according to how itself had been acting, pointedly in regards to wantonly slaughter the very young and the unborn. So that is what Isa 13:15-18 is long, thus warningly, (merely) foreseeing, would happen. God would only “stir” Medo-Persia with the desire to overtake Babylon and accede to the World’s Hegemony.
            Furthermore, in regards to how God did not actually command Medo-Persia to do these acts, but that this was just what Medo-Persia itself naturally did, at least initially then, in Dan 7:5, the supplanting of Babylon by Medo-Persia is prophesied by God, and is symbolically represented by a devouring Bear. The key thing to notice here is that the bear has 3 ribs in its mouth, which historically represents the three major conquests of Medo-Persia over the kingdoms of Lydia, Babylon and then Egypt, producing its World Hegemony. It thus had already ‘consumed the flesh’ i.e. off of these rib bones, and that is what had brought it to its present power. So to Medo-Persia, that approach had circularly been a ‘justified means’ for them So all this shows that they inherently were a power which conquered by “eating much flesh”. And that is what God judicially dealt to the likewise ruthless Babylon.

[...to be added to...]

In the meantime, see the excellent presentation entitled: Genocidal God or Just Judge - New Material on Genocide in the OT by Anil Kanda. As well as the sermon entitled: Jehovah, Joshua and Genocide by David Asscherick. And the seminar presentation entitled: The God Under Your Rug: Why the Old Testament God Appears So Mean? by Andy Im.
            See also this conversational debate between Christian Pastor/Apologist Mike Winger vs. atheist “Skylar Fiction” wherein Mike makes several key corrective point stemming from how having a proper translation and also proper exegesis (i.e. keeping a text in its context) resolves many of these otherwise misconstrued statements/passages in the Bible. Also, in one area where “Skylar Fiction” thought he had Mike Winger pinned was manifestly given Winger’s Theology where he believes that the Bible teaches that ‘God makes people as they are’. In this God & the Future blog post which had to deal with the issue of: “Since God is All Mighty, then why does He not do certain “beneficial” things” I present my Theological discovery that there is an economy of Divine Energy that is involved in God’s Creation and especially His dealings to remedy sin....The Theological Fact of the Matter is that sin is tangibly, and very, costly, i.e. in terms of the Energy required to variously, preventively, interveningly and/or repairingly deal with it. In other words, for God to be able to afford a Universe Creation and (Free-Willed) Human Inhabitation which He can also assure that He can tangibly and rightfully claim ownership to it in the case, as it happened with Satan’s Rebellion, that any of these Created Beings would choose to mount a rebellion against the Love&Beneficence (vs. Selfishness and Self-Seeking) Rule of God, then He had to give of Himself (=Divine Energy), in God the Son Jesus Christ, to form the atomic/material building blocks for this Creation. And also to mercifully repair (=Redeem&Restore) it from its fallen State, more of that Divine Energy (from Jesus’s Christ’s Sacrifice) had to be tangibly provided. So God’s necessary ideal is a World&Creation which is renewably self-sustaining by it living according to His Laws of Life, and so one in which He has to expended virtually no additional/new Energy Resources to keep it going, and so He can therefore use that Energy to create new such Worlds and Beings. So, God has had to, as much as possible, leave, especially this sinful Planet to its own fallen fate and consequences....So God does not make babies/people with deformities and sicknesses...That is just the “luck of the draw” consequence of sin that humans themselves have to cope with. And a passage like Jer 1:5, as its context actually states (i.e. versus common homiletic license extrapolations) specifically refers to God’s dealing with Jeremiah when/as He needed to “invest” into preparing a human being who He could use for the Greater Good of having a prophet to Israel and, likewise in Judgement, to the rest of the World (Jer 1:10).
            So God only acts/intervene Supernaturally, which tangibly is Him expending new Divine Energy towards this Physical Planet and/or its World/Human Affairs, only when a “Greater Good” makes such an expense worthwhile. Otherwise it would be a waste of this Energy as it automatically prevents Him from expending it on creates something/someone new. Thus is comes at the cost of someone else’s life and vital provision. This is why Adam was the King of this World and why his decision to sin has extensively affected this whole Planet and all of his descendants. God could only afford to make a one-shot investment for the Creation of this Planet and any additional expense to supernaturally correct what has gone wrong comes at the sacrificial cost to someone else.
            That Theological Understanding also explains the sticking issues in that debate conversation of why God, indeed at times, allow for the killing of the children of conquered enemies: a) An all-knowing God [which does not include knowing the (non-existent) Future] surely knew the depth of the corruption in a given society, and so, as involved with the also debated issue of homosexuality, once a child’s “plastic” mind has been forged into a sinful mold, it is unlikely/hard for them to turn away from it when they get older.  (In fact, in these cases, God  would have seen that these “children” had ‘participated in the sins of their fathers/parents’ and so could not be held blameless as for the (non-sinning) children/descendants mentioned in Ezek 18:14-20) So b) God could fore-expect that Israel having to take on the responsibility of caring of a large number of orphaned children would be both costly and at the likely peril of the strived-for righteous society of Israel when and as these children, forged/molded in (even abominable) sin, and with them likely having a persisting innate, deep-seated hatred against their conquerors Israel would either influentially and/or physically cause the detriment and/or destruction of the society and nation of Israel. So it would not be worth the cost of allowing them to live, nor also for them to either be left to regroup or become slaves to other nations which could later use/force them to fight against Israel. So in that larger applicable context of Divine Energy, it was better for them to be put to death, and also not “Supernaturally”, which itself would involve an expenditure of Divine Energy, but from the “energetic resources” that Israelites themselves already possessed. Proper Theology, which basically sees that God is “real” and so has a tangible, justifying reason why He does or does not do something, perfectly resolves these issues...

Bible Contradictions

Here is a short and incomplete list of Biblical contradictions which were obtained from postings in internet newsgroups. Unfortunately I did not record who posted them or if they have a web site with a longer and more complete list.  If you like this page you might also like Contradictions of the Gospel and this  List of Biblical Contradictions at  www.infidels.org

    If the Bible was divinely inspired, then why would it have so many really obvious contradictions?

No contradictions are actually involved in these passages when, as typical, one knows, and rightly considers, the wider pertinent context. (Relatedly, see the (online) books of the Answers In Genesis ministry entitled: “Demolishing Supposed Bible Contradictions”: Volume 1 & Volume 2).

Theological doctrines:

      1. God is satisfied with his works
          Gen 1:31
         God is dissatisfied with his works. 
          Gen 6:6

            God was satisfied with His Perfect Sinless work. God later became abhorred by the heightened turned towards constant, perpetual and wanton violence that sinful man took. That turn was “man’s work” not God’s. The issue of the supposed “foreknowledge” of God can claimed in the background here, but the Bible itself teaches that God does not know the future, thus the future actions/decisions of men. So man having gone to this irrational extreme of being so violent was indeed a surprised to Him and He intervened by justly bringing the Capital Punishment of the Flood upon all who did not want to be saved in Noah’s Ark.

      2. God dwells in chosen temples
          2 Chron 7:12,16
         God dwells not in temples
          Acts 7:48

            2 Chr 7:12 actually says that God chose that temple for sacrifices to Him and 2 Chr 7:16 merely says that God’s name would be associated with that Temple. Throughout the times of the Old Covenant Temple, it was merely God’s glory which filled that Earthly Temple, and not the physical presence of God Himself. So Acts 7:48 is not saying anything in contradiction to that fact. Acts 7:49-50, quoting God in Isa 66:1-2 go on to point out this impossibly of anything man-made being capable of containing the physical presence of God. At best they could only enclose a bestowed strand of light of His Glory. 2 Chr 2:6 had made the same point, with a full awareness that it would merely be representations of God which would be present in that temple, e.g. ‘His name’ (2 Chr 2:4).
            All Bible writers were fully aware of the uncontainable majesty and grandeur of the God they worshipped and thus indeed fully knew that He would and could not be contained in their Earthly Temples.                            

      3. God dwells in light
          1 Tim 6:16
         God dwells in darkness
          1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2

            God Himself, i.e. bodily does dwell in “inapproachable light” 1 Tim 6:16, but in order to be capable of being approached by His mortal/created beings, He cloaks/hides (=Psa 18:11a) this deadly/fiery brightness (cf. Heb 12:29) in darkness as thickly dark as indeed are (deep) ocean waters (=Psa 18:11b) and this is done by clouds (Psa 18:11c; 1 Kgs 8:10-12|2 Chr 5:14-6:1; Psa 97:2; cf. Deut 4:11; Lev 16:2; Exod 33:9-11; -which is just as (“thick”/dense) clouds can completely hide the rays of the, even noonday, sun). Interestingly, in the case of God showing His faceless/backside glory to Moses, He instead shielded Moses with His hand rather than covering up the glory in a cloud.(e.g. Exod 33:22-23). (A dualling “(lighitng) fire and (darkening) cloud” contained as pillar was likewise also used during the Exodus (e.g. Exod 13:21; 14:24)).
            Relatedly, as involved in Rev 15:8, that (manifestly atomic/nuclear reaction) “Consuming Fire” bodily constitution of God, as manifested in glorious appearance, literally burns, indeed “consumes” things where it passes, is present or settles (which is why the top of (the actual) Mount Sinai (documentaries here|here) is still quite contrastingly burned. (Cf. DA 764.1)
            So it is pointedly in order for God to preserve the life of His Created Being that He has chosen to shieldingly/cloakingly contain His unapproachable Light Glory with/within thick, thus deeply dark, clouds.

      4. God is seen and heard
          Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9, 10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
           Ex 24:9-11
         God is invisible and cannot be heard
          John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16

            The Bible is indeed copiously clear that God was both seen and heard by man, though those sighting were merely through veiled or cloaked measures and not a full sighting.

John 1:18 - From the text and Greek wording, this passage is speaking of “perceiving” (horao Strongs #3708), actually, ‘the only begotten God, thus God the Son, Jesus Christ, who came from the bosom of  the Father.’ So John was pointedly speaking no one having ever (Even) perceived, the New Testament’s incarnation of God the Son. (John 1:14) And Jesus indeed had to “explain” that oneness relationship (John 1:18b) in order for people to begin to “perceive” it (e.g. John 10:30-39; 14:7-11). The fact that John for his Theological gospel rightly, and deliberately, refers to both of them succinctly as “God” (cf. John 1:1-2) may addedly be confusing here, but that was indeed purposeful and correct.

John 5:37 - The “you” here of course refers pointedly to those who Jesus was speaking to..and they themselves indeed had never heard or seen God.

Exod 33:20 - The tangible face that any man ever saw from God was either adequately veiled or transformatively, fleshly, incarnated. E.g. in Gen 32:30, Jacob understood that He had been wrestling with God, but this was God (the Son) incarnated in an angelic form, which man can bear to look up. God speaking to Moses “face-to-face” (Exod 33:11) did not actually mean/involve that it was an unveiled face. From Exod 33:20, Moses did not actually “see” God’s face, though they were “face to face” opposite of each other. So it was more of an audible “mouth to mouth” conversation (Num 12:8), rather than an interaction which where the face of God was actually visible. In other, analogic, words, God Himself was actually wearing a veil/mask during that face to “face” meet. 

      5. God is tired and rests
          Ex 31:17
         God is never tired and never rests
          Is 40:28

            This seeming contradiction/difference is exegetically explained in detail in the asterisk* note of this section.

      6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
          Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:21, 22
         God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all     
          Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20, 21/ Gen 3:8

            This is an interesting observation, and it strikes at the typical incomplete Theology in Christian circles where they have been led to make certain assumptions about God which are in actuality not the tangible case. These seeming contradictions are however easily resolved when it is understood that God the Father actually can only see, hear and thus know everything (which exist, and in the past and present), and also can tangibly interact with, through the ministering agencies of, respectively, the (recording/reporting) ministry of angels-spirits (Heb 1:7), who were specially created for that effecting purpose/work; the God “incarnated” into the Holy Spirit who acts as God’s Universal “Network” Infrastructure; and God the Son (now) incarnated in a human body. (See more related info in this post and this post section).
            So in Gen 3:8, as discussed here, God did only later learn about the transgression of Adam and Eve when He, Jesus, went to Earth to visit with them because they had had complete, even thought privacy. In Gen 11:5 and Gen 18:20-21, before taking those two major judgement actions, got, again through God the Son, came in person to Himself ascertain if the various noises and reports given by angels and communicated through the Holy Spirit were so. At the very least this shows that God, the indeed “Just judge of all the Earth” (Gen 18:25; cf. Psa 94:2) does not execute a judgement action without Himself having personally and tangibly considered the evidence.
            So here the fault for confusion squarely is at child-like Christian Theology, which patently cannot, or won’t allow the variously provided snippets of Theological information in the Bible, and in/through the SOP, that, at the very basic foundation, God is very much like the humans which He created in His image (Gen 1:26-27) and much of what He does is through tangible and (most advanced) scientific means and measures, and not through “hocus pocus” magic.
            That the Eternal God’s bodily form is composed of a different, even manifestly nuclear/atomic, substance than human, is a given. That this substance is actually actuated by a perfectly loving Character is another (to be studied out) mysterious given, -(much like a bad demeanor can release quite detrimental toxins in the body and can have various tangible manifestations). But beyond that, the Bible+SOP give many indications that God does operate according to the parameters of tangible necessities.

      7. God knows the hearts of men
          Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
         God tries men to find out what is in their heart
          Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12

            God can indeed know what is in the hearts of men by various observational and capting measures such as visage/countenance indicators and even by capting the brainwaves and, as with Medical Scans, looking into the brain activity of people. The God who made the brain can surely see into,  and precisely decode/understand every neurological firing of the brain. But what is involved in Gen 22:12; Deut 8:2; 13:3, are yet to even be formulated or pondered thoughts, indeed not even yet encountered situations, which God then had to bring about in order to “test” His professed people to see what they will then think and consider in their minds and how they will act in such situations. So here too is involved the Theological Fact that God does know everything that actually exists, in the past and in the concrete present, but the future does not yet exist, and God then only has to work with most likely scenarios, and in this pointed case, candidly test His people to see how they will act then. This all speaks to the actual/realistic Free Will that God has fully granted to man, even in their pivotal future decisions.

      8. God is all powerful
          Jer 32:27/ Matt 19:26
        God is not all powerful
          Judg 1:19                                                                     

            As already discussed before at Issue #3 in here, when Israel finally had the required faith in God to conquer Canaan, it then was at best with a partial Supernatural Assistance from God due to their prior faithlessness and rebellions. (God actually had not actually wanted to go with them at all ‘lest He Himself destroys them’. (Exod 33:1-5)). So even if ‘God was with them’ now, it was only partially so. Perhaps it was just to, when necessary, supernaturally assure that they would not suffer casualties themselves, but not in actually being capable of overcoming, and thus fully dispossessing their enemy, which would be a hands on task that they would have to naturally see to it themselves. So though God was with them, it did not mean that He Himself would see to it that they could overcome all natural obstacle. So that is why the better war “technology” of iron chariots was an hindrance to Israel.

      9. God is unchangeable
          James 1:17/ Mal 3:6/ Ezek 24:14/ Num 23:19
         God is changeable
          Gen 6:6/ Jonah 3:10/ 1 Sam 2:30, 31/ 2 Kings 20:1, 4, 5, 6/
           Ex 32:1, 3, 14, 17

            This is an actually quite deep Theological topic, (which is discussed in some detail in this post), -and 1 Sam 15 is another instance where “God changed His mind”, the succinct and overviewing answer without going into the specific circumstances of each instance where God changed His mind, is given by God Himself in Jer 18:1-10. He clearly states that ‘He Himself won’t renege on a promise He has made, “because He is not like fallible man’ (Num 23:19); but if the conditions for that favorable or damning promise are changed by man, than He will justly, correspondingly adjust His promise. (And by the way Mal 3:6 actually says/means that ‘God will not put on a disguise’. I.e., He remains true to Himself.)
            This topic has actually baffled many Christians, but it actually does speak to the fairness of God who sincerely invites man to ‘come and reason with Him on any issue.’ (Isa 1:18-20). It is actual transpired facts on the ground which ultimately determine what God will, or will not do, and not merely (or “pridefully”) a promise or condemnation which He may have uttered before. So this issue does involve the Theological Fact that the Future, and thus future decision and actions by man, do not at all exist, and thus are not known...even by God as this cannot in any way be a realistic case.

      10. God is just and impartial
           Ps 92:15/ Gen 18:25/ Deut 32:4/ Rom 2:11/ Ezek 18:25
          God is unjust and partial
           Gen 9:25/ Ex 20:5/ Rom 9:11-13/ Matt 13:12

There are justifying circumstances in each of these, and also all other similar, judgement decisions by God:

Gen 9:25 - As revealed in the SOP, Canaan actually had developed and been fostering evil tendencies:

“The unnatural crime of Ham declared that filial reverence had long before been cast from his soul, and it revealed the impiety and vileness of his character. These evil characteristics were perpetuated in Canaan and his posterity, whose continued guilt called upon them the judgments of God.”  (PP 117.2)

And speaking of this actual/indeed fairness of judgement here, by not directly cursing Ham himself with this servitude curse, God thus did not curse all of the (4) sons of Ham, namely additionally Cush, Mizraim and Put (Gen 10:6), but instead He focused the curse on evidently indeed the most deserving of those sons, Canaan. And in those days/times, genealogical “patriarchy” was quite honoringly most determinative of the values and behaviors of the descendants. (cf. John 8:39-47) So Canaan loose morals was, even through some biological passing on, sure to affect his offspring.

Exod 20:5 - As discussed in here, these are actually contemporary generations, which could all be of adult age, as in an: 80-60-40-20 spread, and thus are responsible for reprimanding each other if they fall into such (blatant) sins as idolatry, instead of an indifferent or tacit condoning. Particularly since the whole camp of Israel would be at vital/unprotected risk if certain of them changed allegiance from God to, effectively, Satan.

Rom 9:11-13 - The Creator can easily see the naturally formulating temperament/character of an infant in the womb, and from that information, can make such a decision where He would favor/love one twin (Jacob) and not the other (Esau). And in there developed life, these contrasting temperaments and characters of these twins was strikingly seen where Esau was more interested in looking out for himself, whereas Jacob was more interested in the promises and will of God.
            So it is easy to trust here that the All-Knowing Creature made the right call, from the womb, on these twins, as indeed fully validated by their grown/developed life. Short of supernatural altering Esau character, that was the most just way God could have acted faced with those, actually, later persistingly cultivated character tendencies on Esau’s part. Indeed the “God hated Esau” state of developments, which Paul semi-conflatingly quotes from Mal 1:1-3ff, only was concretized to that emotional extreme later in Esau’s life, upon his lifetime of God despising behavior.

Matt 13:12 - Of course, the context here is Matt 13:10-17 (=Isa 6:8-13). It is a judgement context where God is going to allow people to live according to their preferred flawed ways and thinking resulting in exactly what God had warned them of. So “giving more to the one who has” is all about ‘giving more insight and knowledge into Spiritual things to those who are actually interested’ and conversely ‘taking away from those who have not’ is God actually acting to remove whatever Spiritual knowledge and insight a group, even a prior (professed) people of God may have, so that they can reap the fruit of their preferred unrighteousness. (=Dan 12:3-4, 10; Isa 28:5-13; 29:9-14).
            Such Divine actions and developments have consistently, repeatedly, been seen by God on even His own former Chosen People, namely OT Israel, Historical Catholic Church, Protestants, (=Babylon), and now also the SDA Church. All of these groups formerly had some knowledge into the (prophetic) plans and judgements of God, but as they indifferently persisted in unrighteousness, God caused even that light to go dim, and even conversely serve to blind them to what God was actually, furthering and alternatively doing, and they all ended up hitting God’s “adamant judgement wall” (Amos 7:1-9; cf. Isa 61:1-2|Luke 4:17-21ff versus Luke 21:20-22 = DA 240.4-241.1ff)

      11. God is the author of evil
           Lam 3:38/ Jer 18:11/ Is 45:7/ Amos 3:6/ Ezek 20:25
          God is not the author of evil
           1 Cor 14:33/ Deut 32:4/ James 1:13

            First of all, the underlying reason for a misunderstanding of these passages here are manifestly that God’s judgement actions are being defaultly, glibly/obtusely and indifferently so, considered to be criminal. This is just a biasedly unreasonable as claiming that a judge who justly applies sentencing guidelines, which can also involve capital punishment, is a criminal.
            In Lam 3:38; Jer 18:11; Isa 45:7 & Amos 3:6 God is confronting Israel’s rebelliousness with due punishment, some of which He does have to specially fashion and/or instigate towards them (cf. Isa 13:17-18). In such cases of ‘instigating acceleration” it is because these “calamities” are an inevitable looming consequence that Israel will face, and so, like when God wanted to destroy all faithless, and thus useless, Israel at once in the wilderness (Exod 32) but later settled for killing off only the adults slowly and quasi-naturally (for appearances merely) over 38-40 years (Num 14), it was all for a greater good. In other words, why linger about with a useless people/generation and delay God better greater plans for His Israel. And so, as pivotally discovered in the topic of the “Character of God”, when a natural consequence is not in a position to be swiftly effectuated, God does take the reins of punishment into His own hands and in some effectuating way and/or degree brings about such consequences Himself. This is all like Capital Punishment being used to bring about a penalty of death (e.g within 25 years) which may not naturally occur soon enough with some condemned individuals. So while God is ultimately not the author of evil in the sense that it was not His decision for either Satan, then Man, to both know and practice it, He does at time make use of its consequences to effectuate certain just (=Deut 32:4) punishments.
            Likewise 1 Cor 14:33 does not mean that God is Himself causing people to become confused when He effectuates a related, even confusing punishment. He is just accentuating a confusion which is already present (e.g. Isa 28:5-13; 29:9-14; Ezek 14:1-8). This is effectively God “warring” against His rebellious people, and confusing the enemy in order to bring about their defeat and establish instead a greater good is certainly a warranted and fair tactic. (e.g 1 Kgs 22:13-28ff)
            James 1:13 is clearly speaking of “tempting with evil” which involves trying to make someone do something which they had not been wanting to do. That is completely different than God accentuating something evil that people, including His own wayward people are cherishing doing in their heart. He just gives them the opportunity to pursue it and thus doom themselves...and again, the sooner the better. So God is not “entrapping” anyone here, but just rightly testing them through a fair “sting operation” which demonstrates the true intent of their hearts.
            For a while I could not figure out why Ezek 20:25 w as also cited here, and then I (dull-minded) saw that this could be twisted to mean that ‘God purposely gave Israel bad statutes so that they could die’. Well that misunderstanding is easily resolved by the fact that the words “good” [#02896a] can be translated as “aagreeable/pleasant”; and “ordinances” can translated as “judgement”. This statement would therefore be saying that God had also pronounced as statutes/law certain judgements on Israel which would not be agreeable/pleasant to them if they were unfaithful. And that was indeed the case as seen in the stipulated “curses” in the Law of Moses if they were disobedient to His Laws. (Deut 28:15-68; 30:15-20; e.g. 1 Kgs 17:1 = 2 Chr 6:26-27 = Deut 11:16-17).
            Now the reason why such things are, and that preemptively, set forth as “statutes”, which inherently imply that, though “disagreeable”, they must somehow “be kept”, is because God had a promise to faithful Abraham that He was thus covenantly bound to keep (Gen 12:1-3; 22:15-18), and though His national descendants Israel would be made to suffer due judgement for its waywardness, God would sovereignly act to restore them and place them back into His Earth-redemptive plans (Deut 30:1-14; cf. Ezek 36:22-32). So they had to keep this overarching reason in mind during these days when they would be suffering this ‘prescribed” corrective/object-lesson judgements (e.g. Dan 9:11-14ff). All for their own good, in order to bring about the best “salvage” from such radical judgement outpourings. (cf. Ezek 39:28). So even when being judged by their God, Israel had ‘prescribed statutes’ to be faithful to, which is something which is not at all unlikely in any constructive/corrective punishment where compliance to certain requirements during punishment can be personally remedial, and also alleviate or reduce one’s sentence. What the “Judge” is looking for in this is genuine contrition and repentance.

      12. God gives freely to those who ask
           James 1:5/ Luke 11:10
          God withholds his blessings and prevents men from receiving   
           John 12:40/ Josh 11:20/ Is 63:17

            The simple, contextually determining answer is that: in James 1:5 and Luke 11:10 God is dealing with righteous and sincere people. In John 12:40 (=Isa 6:8-13|Matt 13:10-17); Josh 11:20 and Isa 63:17 (see Isa 63:1-6ff background [=Rev 14:17-20]), God is dealing with people who are acting rebelliously towards Him. So these are all efforts to, through carried out accentuations of cherished motives, to determinatively convict them. And as most common in the cases involving His own people, these are efforts to literally get them off the fence to whichever side they most naturally prefer to fall into (e.g. 2 Thess 2:7-11; Rev 3:15-18)

      13. God is to be found by those who seek him
           Matt 7:8/ Prov 8:17
          God is not to be found by those who seek him
           Prov 1:28

            The surrounding verses, Prov 1:22-25, 29-30, 33 clearly answers that issue. And the preceding verses Prov 1:26-27 clearly also reveal that the “diligent seeking out’ here was merely out of base, ‘because they had been caught’, motivations, and not out of prior sincerity and faith (Heb 11:1-2, 6) and that is why God ignores these typical last minutes “repentances”. (Even the thief on the cross had repented (Matt 27:44) in genuine faith in the dying Jesus Christ. (Luke 23:39-43))

      14. God is warlike
           Ex 15:3/ Is 51:15
          God is peaceful
           Rom 15:33/ 1 Cor 14:33

            There certainly are many more passages than just Exod 15:3 & Isa 51:15 which speak of God’s various warring/adversial actions, but, succinctly and logically said, so is the reason for, and nature of, war. (And see this post of the ongoing, 6000+ year Great Controversy War which, as explain there, as grammatically/syntactically involved in Rev 12:7 was “declared” by God). Given the various great costs of war, it typically is the last resorted to “settlement” solution, after all diplomatic solutions have failed. So, as correctly stated in Rom 15:33; 1 Cor 14:33; God’s ultimate purpose is indeed one of peace but to get there, there are many rebellious enemies to be dealt with. (Cf. e.g. Psa 2:1-5ff; 110:1ff; Rev 19:11-16). In the resulting end, God wants to establish a “covenant of peace” with His People, and by extension (Gen 12:2-3), this planet. (Isa 54:10; Ezek 34:25; 37:26). (I would have cited here as an illustration the paradox of the United States always claiming that it is seeking (world) peace, when, as discussed in here, the vast majority of its wars are actually foundationally motivated by greed and self-interest. So they are actually akin to the James 4:1-4 (=Rev 17 & 18) description.

      15. God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious
           Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2, 3/ 1 Sam 6:19
          God is kind, merciful, and good
           James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/ 
            1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8

            For some obtuse reason, unbelievers needs to paint the straw man that God being (capitally) disciplinary is defaultly cruel and criminal. All of the supposed faulting passages above, include in their textual or historical context the reason why God executed such judgements. At the very least, (as also involved in Rom 1:18-2:16), the people being judged their had acted against various clear light. People today cannot understand how pagans then were actually quite enlightened as to both the God of Israel and His Righteousness, as well as the sinfulness of their, especially unnatural acts. So God only acting in such judgements towards some of them, and quite rarely, all things considered, is a great demonstration of His mercy towards pagans and unbelievers. It is only when these groups became an existential threat to the well-being of this world, including them encroaching on the well-being of God’s purposeful, Chosen people, that God took such checking and correcting measures. But again, even His own people were not exempt from such judgements if they also acted in this way.
            So God’s actions of judgement are never without a warranting cause. Contrary to what unbelievers want, God is not just there to put up with whatever wrongdoing they want to engage in. And the ironic thing is that God is actually willing to abundantly forgive them if they heed His warnings and repent (e.g. the Ninevites (Jonah 4)). But God does have a responsibility of administering the affairs of this world towards His ultimate, also salvifically necessary, faith-based, end, and at times, taking such “Judicious, Law Enforcement”, actions are indeed required and justified.

      16. God's anger is fierce and endures long
           Num 32:13/ Num 25:4/ Jer 17:4
          God's anger is slow and endures but for a minute
           Ps 103:8/ Ps 30:5

            God is indeed slow to anger...because when His wrath is kindled, it is out of overflowing reasons and literally pented up tolerance (cf. Num 14:11, 22), and thus will last as long as it is necessary to do the required, delayed, judgement....But in relative comparison. (e.g. being angry at (Ethnic) Israel for 40 years, then 70 years, compared to a ca. 1500 year history as His Chosen nation), that is indeed a short time, a “moment” (Isa 54:7-8)....all because God is just as generous in His forgiveness (Isa 1:18-20).

      17. God commands, approves of, and delights in burnt offerings,  
          sacrifices ,and holy days
           Ex 29:36/ Lev 23:27/ Ex 29:18/ Lev 1:9
          God disapproves of and has no pleasure in burnt offerings,   
          sacrifices, and holy days.
           Jer 7:22/ Jer 6:20/ Ps 50:13-14/ Is 1:11, 13-14

            Right...God is not blood-lusting as Israel’s mere ceremonial sacrifices and offerings (e.g. Isa 1:11-14; Jer 6:20b; Amos 5:21-24) came to devolve into as they were not accompanied by a contriteness or change of their hearts and minds. So it was this abuse by the people which made God abhor the way these highly symbolic and purposeful actions were being carried out.
            And on a more specific level, as Jer 7:22-23 fully states, God did not initially intend to have Israel involve burnt offerings and sacrifices as a “commanded”/perpetual Law in their worship of Him. All He initially required from them was an obedience to His voice. But as they proceeded to disobey and test Him many capital times in that wilderness (Num 14:11, 22), indeed already 6 times before the first Law on Sacrifices was given starting in Exod 25. A “blood-less” (cf. Exod 23:18) Covenant (namely Exod 19-20, 21-23) was actually ratified in Exod 24. Only after that, due to the prior rebelliousness, was a (bloody and burning) sacrifices and offerings covenant in a sanctuary establishment tacked on. (Exod 25-30). Manifestly only an initial session of atoning sacrifices, probably for their sins while slaves in Egypt, would have been sufficient for the forgiveness of Israel. (Exod 3:18b). After that, they just would need to obey God’s non-burdensome moral & civil (and non-sacrificial system) laws. (cf. 1 John 5:3)
            Moreover, it may actually have been that Moses had already spend much, possibly all of the 40 day and 40 nights mentioned in Exod 24:18 when, e.g around Day 37, God began to notice a movement within the camp towards the paganism and false worship which fully broke out in Exod 32:1ff, and so, in order to also provide these ‘easily distracted’ people of His on Earth with an object-lesson reminder of His Will, He then proceeded to additionally give the Sanctuary Service Laws stipulated in Exod 25:1-31:11 based on all of what He had (lit. “(indirectly) cause to be exhibiting/showing” (=Heb. Hiphil participle)) him in Heaven during that prior time (=Exod 25:9, 40) as also, but supplementary, part of that OT Covenant, -yet all as part of the (secondary “Law of Moses” which was later written down on parchment, and expanded+detailed in the book of Leviticus. (cf. Deut 31:26-27)) (And in closing, God distinctly reemphasized the great importance of His Seventh Day Sabbath, from the already given, and stone-Finger-inscribed, Ten Commandment Law (Exod 31:12-18; 32:15-16)).

            So in that context of Jer 7:1-15ff where the rebellious people were mindless ‘trusting merely in the (now) Temple structure’, God was here rightly reminding them that this sacrificially system was actually never part of His initial plan. (=John 2:18-21; cf. Hos 6:6|Matt 12:7). Indeed as God relatedly adds in Hos 6:7, He had a default condition of “obedience” with Adam (Gen 2:16-17), and not one of the subsequent sacrificial system (PP 68.1; cf. Gen 3:21) when he likewise violated that ‘(mere) obedience covenant’ (Hos 6:7). 
      18. God accepts human sacrifices
           2 Sam 21:8-9, 14/ Gen 22:2/ Judg 11:30-32, 34, 38-39
          God forbids human sacrifice
           Deut 12:30-31

2 Sam 21:8-9 - This was not a “sacrifice” to God. It was the executionof a capital punishment avenging....which was approved by God, hence it was “before the Lord”.

Gen 22:2 - As already stated next in more detail #19, God did not at all intend for Abraham to carry through that act. This degree of testing premise was for another corresponding reason.

Judg 11:30-32, 34, 38-39 - Probably the most puzzling instance in the Bible...but God probably allowed it, i.e. by not at all intervening to stop it, as with Abraham (Gen 22:12), not even in prevent Jephthah’s daughter from being the first to go out to him, in order to serve as a perpetual object lesson to Israel (cf. Jdg 11:40) that: making vows to Him would always be binding (Num 30:2; Deut 23:21), so don’t (a) since God does not require this (Deut 23:22-23), and (b) God much more prefer simple obedience (and/or truthfulness), and sincere faith than a vow. (Cf. Matt 5:33-37). Perhaps Jephthah should have thought to include the caveat that exempted any human, but instead he proceeded to make a foolish, even if pious, vow, and what God allowed to fully transpire was His striking lesson that such things are not at all to be taken lightly/mindlessly/flippantly.

      19. God tempts men
           Gen 22:1/ 2 Sam 24:1/ Jer 20:7/ Matt 6:13
          God tempts no man
           James 1:13
            The word “tempt” basically means “test”, and God is certainly entitled to effectuate this on people to see exactly what they will do in certain pivotal circumstances. The fact of the matter is that God Himself does not test/tempt with that which is intended to be evil (James 1:13), but He can instead (=Matt 6:13) allow for Satan to justly effectuate such extreme testing, pointedly when His professed followers are obstinately insisting upon a sinful/forbidden path. (E.g. Matt 16:21-23|Luke 22:31-32; cf. 1 Cor 5:1-2, 5)

Gen 22:1 - God never intended for Abraham to actually kill Isaac (Gen 22:12) but that “testing” was to candidly, fittingly, atoningly match the fact that Abraham had priorly mistrusted that God has supernatural power over life. (Gen 16:1-5ff; cf. Heb 11:12, 17-19)

2 Sam 24:1 = 1 Chr 21:1 - As explained within here, 2 Sam 24:1 had also grammatically expressed that it was Satan who had done the inciting/tempting here.

Jer 20:7 - the Hebrew word pathath [#06601b] here actually means “to be simple”, and in that sense, when God called Jeremiah to this prophetic ministry (Jer 1:4-7) God had “simply” promised accompanying deliverance and power (Jer 1:8, 10) but had not then related that Jeremiah would also have to endure hardships until that promised deliverance and triumph, which indeed did gloriously come for him (Jer 39:1-2ff, 11-14)!! So Jeremiah was here faulting God for not having also revealed this to him. This may be because God manifestly did not expect the people to react in such an extreme opposition (cf. Jon 3:10) because in other times, when God’s messengers would forseeably encounter hardships, God immediately makes them aware of that. (E.g Matt 10:22; 24:9; John 15:18-21; 16:2; Acts 9:15-16). But Jeremiah well knew that God would ultimately be faithful to His promise. (Jer 20:11-13). He just then was quite irritatedly impatient to see things through to that end. (Jer 20:14ff)

Matt 6:13 - This passage also (literally) says: “Deliver us from the Evil One (i.e., Satan)”. So, contra. 1 Cor 5:5, this is a call for God to be most merciful (Matt 6:12) instead of using that Satan-permitted corrective/punitive method. (cf. 1 Chr 21:13). Jesus Himself was allowed by God to be tempted/tested (with evil) by Satan himself. (Matt 4:1ff/Luke 4:1ff).

      20. God cannot lie
           Heb 6:18
          God lies by proxy; he sends forth lying spirits to deceive
           2 Thes 2:11/ 1 Kings 22:23/ Ezek 14:9

In all of these claimed situations God merely accentuated and accelerated the indifferently knowing, cherished waywardness and ‘love of lies’ already existent in, also, his professed people. (See 2 Thess 2:10, 12; 1 Kgs 22:7-19ff; Ezek 14:1-5ff). So in such cases of preferred indifference by His people, God will not stoop down and subserviently act to change the decisions of these people, but instead will in warring judgement act to make these rebels be convictable of their waywardness so that a due judgement can be pour out on them. (E.g. Isa 6:8-13|Matt 13:101-7).
            A potential instance of ‘God (supposedly) lying by proxy’ would actually be 1 Sam 16:1-5, but there God was preemptively acting so as to not have to supernaturally intervene to protect Samuel and/or David (as in e.g. 2 Kgs 1:9-15; Dan 3:24-27, 28-30; 6:16-23, 24-28) in this replacing of King Saul, and thus non-fairly influence, even change, the mind of Saul which was bent on rebelling towards God, and potentially, if he then became repentant, force God to forgive him (=Isa 6:10b) and let him and his household (hazardly) continue as the monarchy of Israel instead of the better choice of David. Such a supernatural intervention would also thus have averted the evident, desired self-ruin utter end (cf. Isa 6:11-13) that God wanted Saul to consequentially, and thus object-lessonly, encounter. (=1 Sam 31) So not revealing the whole truth in that situation was the (self-defensively) better option.
            Similarly God not acting in judgement against, and even approving of and blessing, the also “life-defending” acts of Abraham (Gen 12:10-20; 20:1-18) and Rahab (Jos 2; 6:17; Matt 1:5; Heb 11:31; Jam 2:25), are examples that, above all things, God is in favor of defending innocent and/or viably living life*, and in such context, virtually any of his Ten Commandments can be “violated” towards such an ultimate end. And for those who variously choose not to, and in consequence lost their own life, God will actually give them a martyr’s reward.

* This alludes to the instances when God also took the lives of (surfacely) seeming innocent children, even infants, while executing judgements on guilty adults. (e.g. 1 Sam 15:2-3). Well, on one hand, the children were already greatly affected by the utter wickedness of the grown up who they lived with, and so this seed of wickedness would be hard to root out of them, and thus be a hazard of being later reproduced. Moreover, with all of the grown ups/adults capitally adjudged, someone would have to take care of possibly millions of children and infants. That could not be an imposed burden that God would place on Israel, but would indeed have to remain the natural burden of those adjudged wicked/guilty adults. And so, rather than leaving these kids to live out a surely horrendous hellishly suffering existence where they tried to survive as long as possible without any adult care, with them probably resorting to cannibalism of the weaker ones, or even be taken over by another nation to, surely, become slaves, and even sexually enslaved and abused, God mercifully had Israel’s army also put them to death along with their adjudged/failing parents. And given what the teaching about the standard of the final judgement is (e.g. Rom 2:14-16; Acts 17:30-31; cf. Matt 25:31-46|LDE 218.3-219.3), where all which be judged by the amount of light that they had (e.g. John 3:19), or (reasonably) could have, if they just exercised their various available capacities and resources towards that end (e.g. Hos 4:6), it may very well be the case that all of these children and infants, who themselves may not have had yet acted out anything evil (Luke 12:45-48; see here) will justly be saved. (=EW 18.2's ‘innumerable company of (also martyred) little ones’.). In fact, it would have really been to preserve them in such a state of redeemable innocence, that God would also/mainly have allowed them to be put to death at that point. God also does this ‘premature ending of life’ with certain sincere adults in order to instead preserve their eternal life.
            So in all of this, the best stance is to trust the judgement of God, and that He always acts with the best intents in mind, which is, to preserve life, even a sincere/innocent person’s achievable eternal life. It was just that in the context of the earthly circumstances and limitations, Israel could not be made responsible for the parenting/adult failures of other wicked, and dangerously so, nations.
            Interestingly enough, in our day, God’s self-readied, (=“Zionistic”), people are now capable of dealing with a similar external burdening in regards to preventing abortions through adoptions.

      21. Because of man's wickedness God destroys him
           Gen 6:5, 7
          Because of man's wickedness God will not destroy him
           Gen 8:21

            Gen 8:21 clearly is stipulating that, unlike what He did in the Global (Weighted) Flood, God will not again act to destroy all living things (i.e., both man and animals Gen 7:21-23), because man will indeed surely continue to be evil. God will instead act to do early-checking, targeted judgements, at various degrees of severity. This was indeed seen in the judgements at Babel (Gen 11:1-9); Sodom & Gomorrah (Gen 19); amongst many others “complete” judgements against nations in the Bible (e.g. 1 Sam 15:1-3ff). So this here is indeed less severe intervening judgements actions by God rather than Him instead mercifully ‘striving with wicked man for a long time’ (Gen 6:3; 1 Pet 3:19-20) until they had pervasively spread their wickedness throughout the world and thus necessitated a global judgement to correct course.
            Interestingly enough, as discussed in this post, God reveals in Bible prophecy that there will come a day when the wickedness in the Earth will result in His Noahic Rainbow Covenant (Gen 9:8-17) to be annulled (Isa 24:5-6) yet not all flesh will be destroyed in that (coming) globally-affecting (Babylon) judgement. (Isa 24:14-16a = Rev 11:13-14)

      22. God's attributes are revealed in his works.
           Rom 1:20
          God's attributes cannot be discovered
           Job 11:7/ Is 40:28

            First of all Rom 1:20 is probably best translated from the Greek to self-specify that the ‘clearly discernable/understandable invisible attributes’ are God’s (1) “eternal power” and (2) “divine nature”. So being able to discern and understand that ‘an Almightily-Powerful God’ does exist can indeed be seen from what God has created. Indeed unbeliever futilely (i.e., even with the logically & scientifically debunked theory of Evolution) have tried to answer the necessary question of what Sovereignly and Intelligently Caused the present Creation.
            Now in Job 11:7, it is the “depths” and “limits” of God which indeed will never be exhausted by inquiring man, even by the redeemed during Eternity. (Cf. Job 9:10; Rom 11:33)...probably because, as with certain quite functional, but great mysteries today, such as the human brain, such understandings of God are just “inscrutable” (=Isa 40:28). So what man can, ever, know, to any degree, about the Eternal God is from what He has revealed, but manifestly some things are just way beyond the comprehension of His Creation....probably starting with His Eternal existence.                                                                                 

      23. There is but one God
           Deut 6:4
          There is a plurality of gods
           Gen 1:26/ Gen 3:22/ Gen 18:1-3/ 1 John 5:7

            Deut 6:4 exegetically can easily be referring to a ‘unity into/of one entity’. And that is what the rest of the testimony of Scripture does bear out. This would be like saying that ‘the U.S. Government is one on a decision’ (which in our times would be news) when this detailedly involves that its Three Branches: the Presidency, the Congress and the Supreme Court, all have the same view on that issue. So those other passages above giving such added details that there indeed are three persons in the Godhead are not being contradictory.
            In fact, as explained from here, passages like Gen 19:24 and Exod 23:20-21 (cf. Mar 2:5-12) agree with what is also involved in Deut 6:4 that each of these members of the Godhead are named (cf. Exod 6:3) “Yahweh”.

Moral Precepts

      24. Robbery commanded
           Ex 3:21,22/ Ex 12:35,36
          Robbery forbidden
           Lev 19:13/ Ex 20:15

            God had craftily orchestrated a reparations for Israel’s ca. 200+ years of (unwarranted Exod 1:8-14) slave laboring by the Egyptians. (Exod 11:2-3; Psa 105:37-38) And this would not even technically be “robbery” since the Egyptians gave to the Israelites out of their own responding agreeing decision and (in terms of quantity), their own generosity. (Exod 12:35-36) Tellingly enough such unjust, oppressing and exploiting treatment which Israel was subjected to is at the foundation of God’s Law in Lev 19:13. It was also just/fair that Egypt was “plundered” [#05337 =lit. “delivered (from something)” as in ‘something being due, being rendered’] because it was this free slave labor which had helped to greatly, especially acceleratedly, built it up. So this “delivering” reparations judgement was just taking Egypt and its economy/economic development back to the level it should have been had they not engaged in slave labor. [The U.S. is, includedly, still pending of a similar Civil Judgement. (=Rev 18:6-8ff)].

      25. Lying approved and sanctioned
           Josh 2:4-6/ James 2:25/ Ex 1:18-20/ 1 Kings 22:21,22
          Lying forbidden
           Ex 20:16/ Prov 12:22/ Rev 21:8

            As stated above in Contradiction Claim #20, one’s lie is going to save the life of someone from an unjust//murderous death, then it, as in the case of killing someone in justified self defense, it is allowed by God. In fact, it is much less severe than resorting to killing someone as a way to protect oneself or someone else from being murdered.
            In 1 Kgs 22:21-22, that apostate King of Israel was already steeped in a culture of lying in the 400 false prophets that he had which he knew were neither speaking forth for God, nor telling the truth. (cf. 1 Kgs 22:15-16). So God here was faithfully acting out his Ezek 14:1-6ff policy against such willfully/preferably deceived people. (=2 Thess 2:11-12). And as with apostate King Saul (1 Sam 28), the death of wicked King Ahab was also in order now, so God allowed all this to deceivingly transpire; and most importantly, for object-lesson reasons, as cause-to-effect naturally-seeming as possible (1 Kgs 22:29-38; I.e., as already (just, strikingly and clearly) experienced in 1 Kgs 18:20-40: listening to (any amount of) lying prophets instead of God’s own will be costly deadly. =Ezek 13:1-16).

      26. Hatred to the Edomite sanctioned
           2 Kings 14:7,3
          Hatred to the Edomite forbidden
           Deut 23:7

            Some commentators claim from the parallel account in 2 Chr 25:5-16 that Edom had here revolted against Judah, so King Amaziah was justified in attacking them and putting down their rebellion, but it rather seems that Amaziah was outrightly acting out of no warranted reason, and thus in disobedience to God’s principle in Deut 23:7. Therefore, from 2 Chr 25:7-8, it does not seem that God was in favor of this war. To the point that when God evidently allowed the obstinate Amaziah to win (2 Chr 25:11-12), Amaziah, indeed oddly enough,  gave worshipful credit to the gods of the Edomites (2 Chr 25:14-15, 19-20).
            2 Kgs 14:3|2 Chr 25:2 is clear that Amaziah did not do everything that was right before God, to the level of King David, and this pointedly cited case was manifestly the main area where he had faltered. (Cf. 2 Chr 25:27) And so, just like King Saul whose main disobeying error vs. the Amalekites warranted God’s rejection of him and transference to King David (1 Sam 15-16), it was similarly the case with the otherwise good king Amaziah.
            It relatedly may seem that God was much more patient with outrightly evil kings (such as Manasseh and his 55 year reign 2 Kgs 21:1-2) whereas other relatively good kings were more rapidly impeached for lesser errors. This may all be out of God’s greater mercy towards those outrightly evil kings who probably were more “sincere”, being more deeply steeped, in their apostasy than those who already/cleary knew what God’s will was but indifferently chose to ignore it. The same principle is actually exercised by God throughout this world’s history where His most favored people are more readily and more severely judged than outright pagans....all out of God’s greater mercy to the sincerely deceived.
            So Amaziah knew better, and thus should have known better, and the statement in 2 Chr 25:8 from God through His prophet which naturally would have led Amaziah to think that ‘if he obtained the victory here, and that contra. God’s own will, it would at the very least be by his own strength and power’, was manifestly all God’s way of candidly testing a probably root of precarious pride and boastfulness in Amaziah (=2 Chr 25:19; cf. 1 Sam 15:17) and he atrociously failed that candid Divine-testing (=Pro 11:2; 16:18; 18:12; Jam 4:6) including in regards to the Deut 23:7 instruction (=Deut 13:1-4) which Amaziah was perhaps (Deut 17:18-20) was fully aware of.

      27. Killing commanded
           Ex 32:27
          Killing forbidden
           Ex 20:13

            As unbiasedly, rationally differentiable: the Capital Punishment (for idolatry) execution, moreover directly commanded by God, of Exod 32:27, and also, against people who had defiantly refused to repent when mercifully given a chance (Exod 32:26), is not the act of murder (cf. Matt 23:31, 35) proscribed in God’s Law. (e.g. Matt 5:21; Luke 18:20; Rom 13:9; Jam 4:2).
            For a group of over 2,000,000 wanderers in a wilderness, only worshiping God (=Exod 20:3-5, 23) was most vital to their subsistence (Exod 23:24-25) moreover as there did not even exist another god which could so miraculously, sufficiently, provide for them (e.g. Exod 16:1-6ff; 17:1-7; cf. Deut 11:13-17). And so them choosing to worship another God, which is a decision which God would honor to their own detriment, would ultimately just also end up in their death. (Deut 8:19; 30:17-18) So that is what substantively warranted the execution of Capital Punishment for idolatry. (Deut 6:14-15; 7:4)

      28. The blood-shedder must die
           Gen 9:5,6
          The blood-shedder must not die
           Gen 4:15

            Cain was merely given (great) mercy (Gen 4:13-14), manifestly because, with this being the first act of murder, he may not have (fully) expected that his angered blow to Abel would have killed him. Manifestly his act was merely considered as a “blood shedding” versus a “murder” (Matt 23:35) though it technically did qualify as such (Num 35:17, 22-23), but it may have fairly been treated as manslaughter pointedly due to this first instance circumstance.
            Moreover, the capital punishment law of Gen 9:5-6 was only acted by God after the Flood, and not during Cain’s lifetime. So there actually was no legal permission to execute capital punishment on (manifestly even) a murderer, let alone manslayer, before the Flood.
            Interestingly enough, God’s preserving of Cain’s life, also against any future avengers, was the same principle which God included in the “city of refuge” provision for people who had committed an (effectively) similar act of manslaughter (versus outright murder). (Num 35:9-29ff)

      29. The making of images forbidden
            Ex 20:4
          The making of images commanded
           Ex 25:18,20

            The making of an image to serve as an idol, or the representation thereof, is what is forbidden by the Second Commandment. But when God Himself instructs you to make a representation, which is not at all intended to be worshiped (and here, i.e. the Cherubim, are being depicted when in worship of God Himself), then that inherently is not a violation of the Second Commandment.
      30. Slavery and oppression ordained
           Gen 9:25/ Lev 25:45,46/ Joel 3:8
          Slavery and oppression forbidden
           Is 58:6/ Ex 22:21/ Ex 21:16/ Matt 23:10

-Gen 9:25 is out of a warranted curse; and is/was, when executed on these Canaanites, actually an option to deserved death. (Deut 20:10-16, 17-18)

-Lev 25:45-46 was allowed to be imposed on the sons of sojourners living as aliens in the territory of Israel, and thus variously consuming Israel’s resources. If they persisted in that choice, but evidently had not intent on integrally (i.e. religiously) becoming a part of Israel, then to prevent them depleting Israel’s resources, -which could indeed be a sly foreign tactic, then they could be made slaves in order to account for this disbursed usage on them.
Joel 3:8 is a punishment which God Himself would justly allow upon His wayward people. And it would actually be most naturally be the consequence of Him no longer protecting them, and thus their enemies being able to effectuate this most beneficial enslavement, of moreover, their enemy/rival.

            The Bible did justly allow for indentured servitude, both of Israelites (up to 7 years, e.g Deut 15:1-2) and non-Israelites (Deut 15:3). Yet there was not to be any oppression or wronging in such forced/alternative repayment actions (Exod 22:21), which included abusing the poor in their situation of need (Isa 58:6). “Kidnapping” is an entirely different (outrightly criminal) issue. (Exod 21:16)

Matt 23:10 actually says nothing about the issue of justified indentured servitude and its lawful slaveowners. In fact the word translated “leader” in Matt 23:10 is “kathegetes” [#2519 from kata [#2596] + hegemonai [#2233] which technically means “according to a (hegemonic) ruler’. Thus ‘an authoritative sub-ruler’ (e.g Joseph, Acts 7:10). Giving such high regards/esteem to any man instead of God was crucial since it could be determinative of one’s own life. (E.g. Heb 11:11, 26).
            So, indeed only Christ (Matt 23:10b), and those who actually spoke according to His words/teachings (Heb 13:7, 17, 24; cf. 1 Thess 5:12-13; 1 Tim 1:12)

      31. Improvidence enjoyed
           Matt 6:28,31,34/ Luke 6:30,35/ Luke 12:3
          Improvidence condemned
           1 Tim 5:8/ Prov 13:22

            It is ignoramusly ironic that this section is qualified as “improvidence” for the operative term here of “providence” involves in this belief context that ‘God will provide (according to His perfect will)’. Hence the actual exhortations by Jesus in Matt 6:28-34 to “not worry”. And this all actually involves in wider context that these people will have already done all within their power to both provide for themselves (=1 Tim 5:8; 2 Thess 3:6-13, 14; cf. Pro 6:6, 9; 20:4; 30:25) and their (affectable) offsprings (=Pro 13:22a), even as they live to, in faith, obey the God-emulating (Luke 6:36), generousness and righteousness instructions of Christ in Luke 6:30-35.
            [Can’t see how Luke 12:3 which (distinctly) deals with hypocrisy concealings (Luke 12:1-3; cf. Matt 6:5-6), -(if that is even a correct referencing), would fit in all of this. Matt 6:1-4 would seem to be more pertinent here.]
            So if one has followed these Biblical instructions, again, including being responsively (sacrificially) generous to people in need (cf. e.g. Luke 3:11; Acts 2:43-45; 4:32-35; 2 Cor 8:7-15) even their enemies/evil men, (as a valid need actually requires it) (Matt 5:38-42; Luke 6:31-35), the Christ stated that God would be responsible for Himself looking after the well-being and livelihood of such people (even miraculously so), and even if it would require, in some valid way, redirectingly funneling the wealth and/or resources from wicked/evil people. (Pro 13:22b)...
            ...And as discussed within here, this is presently largely down by God have allowed unbelievers to be the ones who are obsessed and burdened with technological developments (e.g. satellites, computers, internet, transportation, etc) which come to simply the lives and ministering of also believers as they simply continue to strive to “firstly” advance the kingdom of God. (Matt 6:33) Someone had to do such painstaking technological advancement work, and I personally do not see it as coincidental that it is mostly non-believers (including e.g. countries like Japan) who are obsessively busy in doing this.

      32. Anger approved
           Eph 4:26
          Anger disapproved
           Eccl 7:9/ Prov 22:24/ James 1:20

            Eph 4:26a and its imperative verb (“be angry”) has been claimed to be functioning as, what is known in Greek Syntax, a Conditional Imperative However Grammarian Daniel B. Wallace has satisfactorily shown how this claim in not tenable. (See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, (GGBTB), 491-492) as it would “ludicrously” be, fully, saying/meaning: “If you are angry (and I want you to be), you will not [go on to] sin”. However Wallace goes on to rightly defends a qualifying ‘encouraged, but prohibitingly restrained [=imperative + kai + imperatives construction] “righteous indignation” reaction’, as more protractedly expounded on next.
            Fact is, anger is a natural emotion, in the sense that, when justified, it is a normative reaction to something, all in the light of one actually caring. Total indifference is actually worst than anger, pointedly as it reveals that one actually did not care, and thus no (even if in anger) corrective action would have even been attempted. The Bible repeatedly shows that God himself gets quite angry (e.g. Exod 32:7-10, 11-14; Deut 29:27; 2 Kgs 13:3; 2 Sam 24:1; 2 Chr 25:15) and that all confirms/reveals that God had been emotionally tied with that offending party. But the, pun-intended, “imperative” instruction here actually is the also imperative mood admonishment to “not sin” while in that state of justified anger a.k.a. righteous indignation, which means to not respond to, or address the causing issue/person with something unjust or overstepping. So that would mean in certain contexts, to just walk away from the situation instead of uncontrollably acting out in anger.
            Case in point, Paul goes on to say in Eph 4:26, in the context of a marital disagreement, where (genuine loving) emotions are (typically) certainly highly involved, to ‘not let the sun go down on this anger’. Thus including that even if the offended/victimized spouse had, in anger, just chosen to not even say or do anything on that anger, that they should initiatingly seek to resolve the situation before the night comes. (E.g. go back home and make amends with their spouse...lest the Devil orchestratingly provide them with a then “alluring/consoling/revenging opportunity” (Eph 4:27).
            So with Eph 4:26a actually qualifyingly contexting itself to just mean that ‘anger can be justified, but should not be persistingly dwelt on’, the claims of supposedly contradicting passages actually also echo this realistic way of dealing with the emotion of anger. Eccl 7:9 actually cautions someone to ‘not be hasty/eager to become angry’ (i.e. if avoidable, or even if justified). Morever this is also speaking of a “heart” predisposition rather than a candid emotional outbreak, and such defaulted predisposition is indeed ‘the mindset of a foolish person’. And in converse, not have this predisposed mindset would prevent the hot-temperedness cautioned against, even in mere association in Pro 22:24, for such people only attract uncessary and compounding trouble, for that is all also merely according to the unjust “anger of man”, which, unlike God’s own/Godlike anger, accomplishes nothing constructive towards righteousness/right-doing (=Jam 1:20).
            And distinguishingly enough, before God’s anger “blows over”, resulting typically in judgement actions, He had been quite long-suffering with the offending part. (E.g. as reckoned here six times prior to the seventh (Exod 32) and tenth (Num 14) offence (Num 14:22). See also Rev 18:6-8ff; 16:19 in regards to Babylon (cf. Rev 15:1); as will be the Final Judgement of Hell (Rev 14:9-11).
            So the Bible does allow for the candid emotion of anger, indeed God Himself also experiences this, but what one does when in that anger is what determines if it is sinful, and thus unGodlike, with God’s judgements then typically constrainedly working to justly achieve a/the greater good.
      33. Good works to be seen of men
           Matt 5:16
          Good works not to be seen of men
           Matt 6:1

            Matt 6:1 is speaking against doing good works/righteousness in such a way to, deliberately be seen by men (e.g. here). But inevitably many good works must be publicly done, and this is where Matt 5:16 properly comes in as it is the distinct “light” emanating from the humble accomplishment of these good works which is to, of itself, do the ‘publishing’ of these good works. In other words, followers of Christ doing good works are not to “toot their own (bull)-horns, but let others genuinely praise them and thus spread out that light. Jesus was the perfect model of this. I.e. He did not (even need to) take out ads in the “Jerusalem Times” proclaiming the works which He was doing in love for others, and faith towards God. (=2T 36.2) Indeed at times, cautionarily, futilely, to the contrary. (Mark 1:44-45; 7:36)) The good works did that on their own, through benefitted and appreciative people. (Matt 4:24; 9:26, 31; Mark 1:28; Luke 4:14)

      34. Judging of others forbidden
           Matt 7:1,2
          Judging of others approved
           1 Cor 6:2-4/ 1 Cor 5:12

The counsel in Matt 7:1-2 is actually a tongue-in-cheek one, which means “if you do not want to be judged (literally “indicted/sued” (Greek krino), then just do not do that to others...because the same criteria by which you had (self-)pre-condemned (Gr. krima) will therefore be used against you. And Matt 7:3-5 goes on to highlight that self-blind hypocrisy. Christ goes on to counsel His followers to ‘(trial) judge (Gr. krisis) according to righteous standards, and not by having “indicted” merely according to appearances [or the (merely emotional/reactionary) “flesh”]’ (John 7:24; 8:15 cf. Isa 11:3). And this is to also be conducted in a fair/transparent and (if applicable) open, manner (Matt 18:15-18; =Lev 19:15a).

            So Paul’s rightly remonstrating, inspired counsels to the lackadaisical NT Church in this regard in 1 Cor 5:12-6:5 are not at all contradictory, but indeed bindingly applicable. -And, (quite contrary to what the Medieval Roman Church went on to infamously try to, as prophesied, persecutively do upon all unbelievers (=Dan 7:8, 20, 25)), this enforcing judging mandate only has a jurisdiction upon freely professing believers (1 Cor 5:13).

       35. Christ taught non-resistance
           Matt 5:39/ Matt 26:52
          Christ taught and practiced physical resistance
           Luke 22:36/ John 2:15

Interesting citings here, but they are not actually saying what has been straightly assumed.

Matt 5:39-41 -As stated within the discussion here and here, in Matt 5:39ff Jesus was giving wise counsel against not “standing your ground” against someone who is evil or clearly solely intent on evil. But just go along with them, all in order to avoid unnecessary harm. Tellingly enough, this advice is commonly still giving in societies today. I.e. ‘If a robber want to steal your purse, then just let him have it and do not “resist”’
            Contrary to the spin but on the Law of Exod 21:24|Matt 5:38. God actually would not honor a presumptuous confrontation. And this legal expounding by Jesus was most pertinently applicable and necessary as God’s Israel was now under the (Divinely-allowed) rule of the Roman Empire.

Matt 26:52 - In this situation, and quite along with the principle given by Jesus in Matt 5:38-41, Peter was actually “overacting”, and that effectively preemptively so because the “authorities” had merely come to “arrest” Jesus (for a trial) and were not trying to kill him then and there. (Cf. here.) And, if killing Jesus on sight was actually their immediate intention, it would have actually been better for them to do that right there in the late/dark nighttime seclusion of the Garden of Gethsemane, instead of all of the public attention that a delaying and arraignment in Jerusalem would bring. (Cf. Matt 26:55)
            And this ties in with Christ’s prior counsel in Luke 22:36 (also mentioned here, {cont’d in here}), because Jesus had indeed made proper preparations in the event that these arresting authorities (cf. Luke 22:37; Matt 26:56a) which Jesus knew could/would (surely) come soon/“quickly” (see John 13:26-27, 28-30), would needlessly become lawless and violent, and actually be acting against God’s public plan for this condemnation and execution of Jesus. (Matt 26:54) And along these lines of Jesus knowing (Matt 26:53|DA 694.2), as confirmingly demonstrated (John 18:5-6|DA 694.5), that God would intervene if things got out of hand, Jesus had said that ‘two (hand) sword (for 12 people) was “sufficient/enough”’ (Luke 22:38), because God would indeed be assisting in doing any protective action. So, at the very least, these swords would serve as visible deterrents against any overstepping/unlawful actions. But the hot-headed Peter, being, through obstinacy (cf. Matt 16:21-23), and literal (oblivious) indolence (Matt 26:40, 43, 45-46|DA 688.1-2), was totally blind-sided by any of these developments, and naturally (over-re-)acted, and, all legal and theological things considered, was actually guilty of an act of unjustified, even murder-attempting, aggression when he, ((probably) actually missed splitting the head of the slave of the high priest down the middle in two and merely) just clipped the ear of Malchus (because he had swerved his head out of the way just in time (Matt 26:51)).

John 2:15 - As brought out concluding at this discussion’s exchange, though it is said that Jesus had made a scourge/whip, that evidently was merely for visual compellation as Jesus did not actually make whipping use of it. But even if he had, these were all according to warranted, and encouraged, physical if necessary, ordering/“purging” actions in Israel’s religious system. (Cf. e.g. Exod 32:25-29; Num 25:6-13; Neh 13:25, 26-31)

      36. Christ warned his followers not to fear being killed
           Luke 12:4
          Christ himself avoided the Jews for fear of being killed
           John 7:1

            Funny... Jesus was not at all afraid to face the end of death He knew He was destined to meet. (Luke 9:51; Matt 16:21; cf. John 11:15-16; Luke 13:34-35)...He just clearly knew that God indeed had a set timetable for when (cf. John 2:4; Matt 26:18), where, and also (procedurally) how, this should take place, and thus was duly doing His part to help (naturally) preserve this (prophetically =Dan 9:26-27) most important Divine (Timed)-Planning. Jesus added statements in the context of John 7:1 clearly stipulate and allude to all these imvolved/implicated elements. (John 7:2-8). If/As Jesus diligently did His part to stay within God’s Plan and Timetable, then God could most easily and imperceptively/seemingly naturally do any added thing to protect Jesus (John 7:30; 8:20).

      37. Public prayer sanctioned
           1 Kings 8:22, 54, 9:3
          Public prayer disapproved
           Matt 6:5, 6

            Solomon was dedicating the public Temple building in a corporate worship of God setting. So it was only natural and appropriate that a publicly expressed prayer be offered. Priorly on, when Solomon was passionately involved a private and personally dedicating (visionary-)prayer to (=communication with) God in regards to him being a capable and faithful leader before God, he acted according to the counsel of Matt 6:5-6 and kept those private matters private. (1 Kgs 3:6-9ff, 15)
      38. Importunity in prayer commended
           Luke 18:5, 7
          Importunity in prayer condemned
           Matt 6:7, 8

            Matt 6:7-8 is condemning “vain/meaningless”, i.e. insincere and vacuous, “mantra” repetitions in prayers. (E.g 100 “Hail Mary’s” or 25 Lord’s Prayers, as used in Roman Catholic Spirituality). Moreover these prayers are typically a single session. Luke 18:5, 7, and in its non-parabolic reality, (Luke 18:7-8)* involves people making their needs and appeals reiteratively spoken to God in distinct prayer sessions. Jesus demonstrated such permitted/acceptable persisting prayer in Gethsemane which involved three, mindful, pleading sessions with God (Matt 26:39, 42, 44).
            And the Theological statement and counsel of Jesus in Matt 6:8 is quite significant because, rather than wasting our efforts/breath/emotions in simply making vain repetitions of things that God has indeed already heard, one should instead be mindful about having a “reasoned” (=Isa 1:18) discussion, even debate with God in prayer; even if it may be, as probably involved with Jesus in Gethsemane an effort at a novel/furthering way of more clearly making their case before God. Just repeating the same things over and over to God is a waste of both of His and our (prayer, and applicably also, Praise (singing)  and/or Worshipping) time...because: ‘He already heard you the first time’...Instead one can simply subsequently try to find out from God, and again, also in a ‘lone-pressing manner’, why He has not responded, or why He has responded in the way He did.
            The key issue of “faith” in Luke 18:8 is also most significant in doing all of this, because, true faith does indeed involve that you know, understand and accept that you have in your prayers indeed been conversing with a God who has heard you. And such true faith would indeed go way beyond having made, or making several request, to accompanying “believing” actions, as emblematically seen with Elijah’s 7 faith scoping for the promised rain. (1 Kgs 18:41-45) Evidently Elijah, the Bible’s great man of faith (cf. Jam 5:17), only made his ‘earth-crouching’ and ‘face between his knee’ prayer only once. Similarly his singly-expressed, short and to the point, petition on Mount Carmel (1 Kgs 18:36-37); vs. the greatly animanted “vain repetitions” of the prophets of Baal (1 Kgs 18:26, 28-29) was another demonstration that He indeed did have great/realistic faith in God. God hearing His people’s petitions when, they, i.e. both the people and the content of the prayers, are in accordance to His will, is indeed guaranteed. Only the faith needed to await His timely|optimal time of responding is what people typically are faulting in. (=1 John 5:14-15)

* Yet the illustrative parabolic usage of a “judge” in Luke 18:1-8 is quite fitting, because, try just repeatedly filling the same, previously (summarily) dismissed petition to a judge today...You’ll ultimately probably end up serving a “contempt of court” jail sentence. However if your subsequent motion refiling are involving a reasonable engaging of the reason or insufficiencies for prior dismissals, then the judge is bound by law to appropriately consider that warranted “appealing” before rendering his judgement. So the woman in Luke 18:1-8 was probably not just expressing the same arguments. (And it should be noted that she was making several trips to the judge (Luke 18:3, 50, and not just lingering about his court just repeating her pleas.) And in this case, as this was an ‘“unrighteous judge, who did not fear God, nor respect man’ (Luke 18:2, 6b), then the widow was quite warranted in just merely/unimprovingly repeating her basic petition because the judge had evidently (COL 164.3) not even properly/just considered her case. This, as is Jesus’s point, of course is all unlike God who properly considers the petitions of people at the very first instance. And if this is not the possible case, the fault actually lies with the petitioner. (e.g. Isa 1:15; Psa 66:18; Pro 1:28-29; 28:9; Matt 5:23-24;  Jam 4:3)

      39. The wearing of long hair by men sanctioned
           Judg 13:5/ Num 6:5
          The wearing of long hair by men condemned
           1 Cor 11:14

            As the law of Num 6:1-6 stipulates, and as applied upon Samson in Judg 13:5, it was only people who were consecrated to a Nazirite vow, who could not cut their hair. This was indeed a non-natural thing for men to do (1 Cor 11:14). The men in the Corinthian Church were, morever by being Gentiles, not under any Nazirite vow, nor ever to be subject to that Law, per se. They could however specially ‘consecrate’ themselves to God according to the special and foregoing sacrificial principles of a Nazirite vow.
            And this is actually, commonly, applicably done when a “layman” who is not employed in a formal Church office, sacrificially dedicates himself to contribute to, or lawfully carry out, a needed, effectively formal, Church officer duty. Given that Samson was only to be a Judge in Israel, him also being used by God as a warring “Special Forces” agent against the Philistines (cf. Judg 14:4) who would be Supernaturally-assisted, was what mandated that special consecration.

      40. Circumcision instituted
           Gen 17:10
          Circumcision condemned
           Gal 5:2

            It is called the “New Covenant” of God with His Israel (Heb 8:7-13), where prior symbolic/ceremonial requirements are no longer required (Eph 2:15; Col 2:14, 17) as they have been substantively fulfilled by Jesus Christ, as also clearly stated through inspiration (Gal 1:11-12ff) in Gal 5:2-6. Moreover ‘descendant of Abraham’ (Gen 17:10) are, in the new covenant, no longer limited to ethnic Jews. (Gal 3:29; Rom 9:7-8; 2:28-29). God indeed always knew that mere physical circumcision (critically) was never good enough. (e.g. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Lev 26:41; Jer 4:4; Rom 2:25-29) It was merely a “tutoring” ritual to help lead to the real Spiritual meaning of/in such things. (Gal 3:23-27a)

      41. The Sabbath instituted
           Ex 20:8
          The Sabbath repudiated
           Isa 1:13/ Rom 14:5/ Col 2:16

Well it is not as simplistic as that. This dedicated blog post discusses this high point issue in Christianity and shows that, contrary to what most Christians believe, the Sabbath was not “repdiated/annuled” by God’s New Covenant with His (Spiritual) Israel.

Isa 1:13 - Clearly is speaking against a mere formalistic observation of God’s sabbaths, which here is probably those other than the Weekly Sabbath. Isa 58 delves in more detail into this unacceptable sabbatical worshipping.

Rom 14:5 - As discussed in that dedicated Sabbath post, this verse is actually (logically) not referring to the Weekly Sabbath, -as no one can ‘keep everyday of the week as (the Weekly) Sabbath, since, as (a part of) the Fourth Commandment (Exod 20:9-10) also states, believers are to work on the 6 other days, and also no one is to work for you on the Sabbath. (Cf. Deut 5:14-15) So that would also bar (even uber-rich) people who depend on the work of other for them (including financial/stock investors) as their source of income.

Col 2:16 - is also not referring to the weekly Sabbath, but to Israel’s symbolic festal days which were to be observed as the weekly Sabbath.

      42. The Sabbath instituted because God rested on the seventh day
           Ex 20:11
          The Sabbath instituted because God brought the Israelites    
          out of Egypt
           Deut 5:15

            Deut 5:5-21 is merely a restatement of the Ten Commandments of Exod 20:1-17 by Moses, and interestingly enough, for the Sabbath (and Fifth) Commandment, Moses switches from a First Person (=God) quoting, to a Third Person view, with the qualifying phrase of: “as the Lord your God commanded you”. So it is evident here that it is Moses who is adding the added the added reason to observe the Sabbath as also involving Israel’s liberation from slavery. Passages (directly from God) like Isa 58, further corroborate this valid added reason.
            Moses probably understood this added meaning from the Sabbatical Laws found in his additive, parallel “(By-)Law of Moses” (e.g. Exod 23:10-13; cf. Isa 58:1-5ff & Isa 58:13-14). So his derivedly further substantiating statement for the Sabbath in Deut 5:15 is not a contradiction, but merely an added validation.

      43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death
           Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36
          Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in 
          the same
           John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5

            All these/such common, (even from Christians), knee-jerk claims are fully discussed in the Sabbath post...and the simple answer is that: (1) Jesus did not break God’s own requirements for the Sabbath, but merely the Pharisees’ spurious and unbiblical ones, and (2) the New Covenant of Christ has commuted the (still applicable) Law’s immediate Capital Death penalties...until the utter end. (a.k.a Hell)

      44. Baptism commanded
           Matt 28:19
          Baptism not commanded
           1 Cor 1:17,14

How, clearly disingenuous, and asinine...just read the context. Paul did not say “baptism is not commanded”. He clearly did baptize (1 Cor 1:16)...just not himself everyone he evangelized/ministered to...all to avoid the development of people thinking that they were special because they were baptized by him. Unlike other anointing transference, the anointing in conversion baptism came directly from God through the Holy Spirit. Salvation itself is indeed a gifting of the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:8, 11-13) which man cannot bestow upon another. However, other ministering gifts of the Holy Spirit can be transferred by God from one believer to another as He would will...and that is perhaps what these converts were after (cf. 1 Cor 12:31; 14:1) But Paul did not want to get involve in this, manifestly, merely perfunctory/fleshly “desiring/coveting”.

      45. Every kind of animal allowed for food.
           Gen 9:3/ 1 Cor 10:25/ Rom 14:14
          Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food.
           Deut 14:7, 8

Gen 9:3 is actually limited in its wider context to clean animals (=Gen 7:2), which are the ones which were healthy as foods, “just like” in Gen 1:29 only certain plants were acceptable/fitting as food. See more on this here.

1 Cor 10:25 -  As the context of that passage reveals, the issue in 1 Cor 10:23-33 is about meats which had been sacrificed to idols. The exact same issue is addressed in the context of Rom 14:14, i.e., Rom 14:1-4, 6b-7, 13-23.

       46. Taking of oaths sanctioned
           Num 30:2/ Gen 21:23-24,31/ Gen 31:53/ Heb 6:13
          Taking of oaths forbidden
           Matt 5:34

            Jesus’ counsel in Matt 5:34 was manifestly in the light of people, unlike God (Heb 6:13; cf. Rev 10:6) not being faithful in honoring their vows, and thus were, at least ultimately, held accountable by God for them. So Jesus was here reminding people, for their own good, that they did not actually need to use oath, but simply had to be true to/in their (simple) words.

      47. Marriage approved
           Gen 2:18/ Gen 1:28/ Matt 19:5/ Heb 13:4
          Marriage disapproved
           1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8

            In 1 Cor 7:1, 8 Paul was actually saying that it was alright for someone to remain single, and the reason was in order to be free enough to be able to (speedily) fulfill the Gospel mandate. But not all had Paul’s gift of celibacy/restraint. (1 Cor 7:7, 9). Paul was therefore indeed only giving this reminding counsel to those who, like him, had been “called” to this life of ‘celibacy for more fuller ministry’ (1 Cor 7:17) and not to everyone (1 Cor 7:10-11 = Gen 2:24|Matt 19:5), even for Paul, amongst fellow apostles (1 Cor 9:5, including Peter (cf. John 1:42; Matt 8:14)).
            For the (primary) purposes of having a family, then getting married is worthwhile (=Gen 2:18). For the (primary) purposes of doing the same type of missionary work like Paul, then being married and having a family is not ideal, especially if the spouses are not in full Spiritual union in regards to this missions mandate (as per the principle in 1 Cor 7:12-16).

      48. Freedom of divorce permitted
           Deut 24:1/ Deut 21:10,11,14
          Divorce restricted
           Matt 5:32

            As Jesus, who actually was that Old Covenant Law-Giver, redressed for the New Covenant, divorce was only valid in cases of marital infidelity, and not for the myriad of whimsical and flippant reasons that people had come to claim under that quite open OT provision. (Deut 24:1-ff) (Just see the shocked reaction of the disciples to such stringent constraints in Matt 5:32; 19:10, -clearly merely at the potential prospect of e.g. ‘being stuck with a wife who can’t cook well.’) It fully is within God’s prerogative to remove or restrict a prior permission if it had become, unexpectedly (cf. Isa 5:4b), unrighteously abused (cf. Jer 18:9-10); and that through His Chosen Prophets (Deut 18:; Amos 3:7)
            Moreover God had actually only reluctantly allowed for divorce beyond adultery in the OT, probably in the light of the abuses that women stuck in wedlock were being subjected to by “hard-hearted” husbands (Matt 19:8) who manifestly were sinfully insisting in such injustices. Fittingly enough, Jesus also included the stipulation that remarriage was only acceptable for spouse who had been divorced due to adultery. (Matt 5:31; 19:9)

      49. Adultery forbidden
           Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4
          Adultery allowed
           Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3

Num 31:18 - The whole context here is adultery and God’s judgement for it (see Num 31:15-17). And the simple, non-biased (derived) point of the Num 31:18 is that the, actually “female children, who had not engaged in this sin, were to be spared, and also as acceptable, later potential wives for Israel. With Israel’s military conscription being 20 years and older, not all soldiers were actually already married.

Hosea - At times God has to use shocking extreme to capture the attention of His wayward people (cf. e.g. Isa 20; Ezek 4; Jer 27), and that was the case through the prophet Hosea. But in this case, “adultery” was not actually allowed, since Hosea married that “woman of harlotry” as Hos 1:2 clearly states. (And the fact that God did not have that harlot killed, as per the law, was also to reflect how merciful He was being with His wayward people who were deserving of Exod 32:10-type instant/capital punishment). Hos 2:1-3 is clearly just a prophetic utterance explaining this whole object-illustration by God.

      50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced
           Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17
          Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union
           Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16

            Deut 27:22 & Lev 20:17 do not actually speak against a formal marriage with a sister, as it was allowed priorly (e.g. amongst the sons/children of Adam and Eve), and this is manifestly how Abraham’s marriage to Sarah his half-sister was lawful/acceptable. (The genes of the time were capable of not producing unhealthy offspring in such close blood unions then. Marrying cousins was quite common (e.g. Jacob and Rachel+Leah)). So what those Laws seem to be speaking against is what would be thought to be allowed, which is having casual sexual relations with siblings (outside of an actual formal marriage).

      51. A man may marry his brother's widow
           Deut 25:5
          A man may not marry his brother's widow
           Lev 20:21

            Evidently the Law of Lev 20:21 was pointedly speaking against taking a brother wife (not widow) i.e. while they are still alive, even in order to have offspring as in Levirate provisions. Deut 25:5 allows for taking a brother’s widow if she was childless. So until a brother had actually died, it was not permitted to try to have offspring with his wife.

      52. Hatred to kindred enjoined
           Luke 14:26
          Hatred to kindred condemned
           Eph 6:2/ Eph 5:25,29

            Jesus was known to use the teaching method of using extremes to stress the seriousness of a point (e.g. Matt 5:29, 30; 7:4-5; 15:26; 18:8-9; cf. Luke 16:19-31), but they were not meant to get to the point of being applied/understood literally. This is the same for Luke 14:26 where Jesus is saying that ‘even if it came to an extreme choice of hating family vs. following Him, then it was better to love Him more.’ And many people have indeed been pressuringly, even persecutively, placed in such extreme family vs. Christ situations. Jesus Himself had to make a choice within that spectrum when faced with brothers and sister, and even his mother, who, at one point, did not believe in what He was doing. (John 7:5; Mar 3:21, 31-35)

      53. Intoxicating beverages recommended
           Prov 31:6,7/ 1 Tim 5:23/ Ps 104:15
          Intoxicating beverages discountenanced
           Prov 20:1/ Prov 23:31,32

Prov 31:6-7 - As discussed within this post, this statement was actually from the personal view of the mother of a pagan king, Lemuel (Prov 31:1). So not all of what is said there, and was included may have been out of “prescription”. This was merely her&his last gasp way of trying to bring solace to depressed, suffering and/or dying people, manifestly to try to numb a physical and/or psychological pain. (Today medicine could give such people other types of mind/senses-altering drugs, e.g. antidepressants, sleeping pills, painkillers or morphine, but back then, alcohol was the best numbing “medicine” they could come across. This passage however is not at all recommending to otherwise, freely drink intoxicating beverages, as clearly expressed in the prior verses in Pro 31:4-5.

In 1 Tim 5:23 ‘a little (fermented) wine was also recommended out of medicine purposes. If there indeed was a stomach virus issue with Timothy, then the alcohol could serve to disinfect and kill it. Again, that was the best (raw) medicine they could come across back then.

Psa 104:15 - As seen in this comprehensive study, not all mentions of “wine” in the Bible is a reference to the fermented kind. It can simply be referring to “grape juice” which was a choice, and thus, merrying, beverage in itself at the time. It did not have to be fermented/alcoholic. E.g. the wine that Jesus miraculously produce at Cana (John 2:9) was not alcoholic, and was considered ‘good/the best’ (John 2:10) because it was fresher than what they had been consuming in prior days of feasting.

            So none of those passages contradict the Bible’s clear stance that (freely) drinking alcoholic/fermented wine is strongly prohibited. (Pro 20:1; 23:31-32; Lev 10:8-9; Eph 5:18; cf. 1 Tim 3:3; Tit 1:7).

      54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers   
          and punish evil doers only
           Rom 13:1-3,6
          It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the  
          good and receive unto themselves damnation therefor
           Ex 1:17,20/ Dan 3:16,18/ Dan 6:9,7,10/ Acts 4:26,27/
            Mark 12:38,39,40/ Luke 23:11,24,33,35

            Most logically, rulers, who are indeed established by God (Dan 2:21), who do evil should indeed not be obeyed. (Acts 5:29) That also went for Israelite kings/rulers who were not righteous (cf. Matt 23:1-3). A ruler who is from God by still acting in the will of God will clearly be doing God’s will, and these are the ones who are to be obeyed. In other cases, then the Superior will of God is what is to be obeyed instead.
            Even secular law does not fault someone for disobeying the (even the “direct”) order of their superior if it is not legal/ethical/“Constitutional”. Christians ultimate only answer to the Higher Authority of God. (Cf. Matt 10:28)

      55. Women's rights denied
           Gen 3:16/ 1 Tim 2:12/ 1 Cor 14:34/ 1 Pet 3:6
          Women's rights affirmed
           Judg 4:4,14,15/ Judg 5:7/ Acts 2:18/ Acts 21:9

            As seen in this dedicated post, this issue is a much more involved one than just these passages, but the Bible’s full view can be summarized as follows:

-The Bible recognizes a headship of truth, which in Bible times was more readily, and thus defaultly, conclusively arrived at by men.

-As indeed several OT examples show, God had always intended for women to have full and top leadership roles amongst His people (e.g. Judges and Prophets), but the full allowance of this (Gal 3:28c) was only to be done in the New Covenant. (E.g. Acts 2:18 is quoting Joel 2:28-29 in the OT).

-Paul statements in e.g. 1 Tim 2:12; 1 Cor 14:34 did not actually contradict this full Biblical view. They just regulated it to avoid the confusion caused by uneducated/uniformed/incompetent women trying to have ‘self-originating/validated authority’.

      56. Obedience to masters enjoined
           Col 3:22,23/ 1 Pet 2:18
          Obedience due to God only
           Matt 4:10/ 1 Cor 7:23/ Matt 23:10

Matt 4:10 - Satan was certainly not Jesus’ “Lord/Master”

1 Cor 7:23 - This is speaking in the spiritualistic sense of freely becoming enslaved to men by obeying them rather than God. (cf. Rom 6:16). The situation where someone was technically someone else’s slave (including through indentured servitude) was a distinct circumstance.

Matt 23:10 was (exegetically) addressed above in Contradiction Claim #30.

      57. There is an unpardonable sin
           Mark 3:29
          There is not unpardonable sin
           Acts 13:39

            The ‘greater forgiveness’ available in Acts 13:39 is pointedly in contrast to what the Law of Moses could not allow forgiveness for, but instead mandated capital punishment. (E.g. adultery, Sabbath breaking, etc) But that still does not mean that there isn’t an unpardonable/eternal sin (Mark 3:30), i.e., also in the New Covenant, and that was indeed the blasphemy, lie to/about, the Holy Spirit, which could indeed also bring about immediate capital punishment (from God Himself). (E.g. Acts 5:3-5, 9-10).

Historical Facts

      58. Man was created after the other animals
           Gen 1:25,26,27
          Man was created before the other animals
           Gen 2:18,19

            That may surfacely seem to be the “contradicting” case, but actually a strict chronological, 7 day account of creation had been given from Gen 1:1-2:4. Then in Gen 2:5-25. Moses selectively focuses on certain further implications in this Creation all revolving around the crowning act of God Creation, the creation of Man. Syntactically speaking, the statement in Gen 2:19, similar to the one in Gen 2:9, are not actually chronological statements, but mere contextualizing re-statements about already accomplished events. They thus involve a sense of ‘...God had (already) formed...’, and in Gen 2:19, this was all the animals, which were now brought to man to be named.
      59. Seed time and harvest were never to cease
           Gen 8:22
          Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years
           Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6

            The Gen 8:22 oath-promise of God is actually given in the context of the destruction curse which He had brought about on the Earth through the Flood (Gen 8:21), and indeed way beyond the 40 days and 40 nights of waters overflowing and rain downpour (Gen 7:4, 12, 17ff), the flood waters remained on the Earth for 150 (more) days (Gen 7:24; 8:2-5ff) = 5 months. So that curse-caused impediment in itself was enough to ‘cause to cease’ the seedtime and harvest period for that year. So God’s promise in Gen 8:22 was pointedly in regards to He himself Super-naturally acting to cause such an impediment to such crucial crops production set times. However that did not mean that the Earth would not still be subject to naturally-caused disturbances as in those (habitual) famines of Egypt (including Gen 12:10; 26:1), which probably were all related to the prior, distinct, work-complicating curse which God had set on the Earth. (See within Gen 3:17-19).
            And therewith is the related Sabbatical-Cycle Law in regards to crops production that God later gave to His Israel, where if they were followed, would allow for the land to remain replenishedly fruitful, and manifestly would involve God suspending some parts of that Adamic curse in allowing the land to be more productive than normal. (Exod 23:10-11; Lev 25:1-7, 19-22)

      60. God hardened Pharaoh's heart
           Ex 4:21/ Ex 9:12
          Pharaoh hardened his own heart
           Ex 8:15

            Short answer, as this is detailedly laid out here, is that God acted to hardened Pharaoh’s heart whenever it was necessary. (=only for 4 time of 10, and tellingly all during the last 5 plagues) I.e. Whenever Pharaoh was about to capitulate before the effectuation of the desired full 10-Plague Judgement outpouring.       

      61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died
           Ex 9:3,6/ 14:9
        All the horses of Egypt did not die
           Ex 14:9

            Manifestly God had deliberately spared the ‘horses of Pharaoh’ for that expected/planned/desired (see Exod 14:4, 8) climatic ending, for their drowning, including the officers/soldiers (Exod 14:7), in the Red Sea.

      62. Moses feared Pharaoh
           Ex 2:14,15,23; 4:19
          Moses did not fear Pharaoh
           Heb 11:27

            When Heb 11:27 says “he left Egypt”, it is speaking of Moses’ endeavors during the Exodus as Moses repeatedly, indeed fearlessly, confronted Pharaoh, and not his prior, indeed fearful wilderness flight.

      63. There died of the plague twenty-four thousand
           Num 25:9
          There died of the plague but twenty-three thousand
           1 Cor 10:8

            As NT writers typically quoted the Greek translation of the OT, the Septuagint/LXX, but as it also says 24,000 at Num 25:9 LXX there, then this discrepancy is manifestly simply out of a misspeaking of Paul while writing his letter.
            Some (e.g. MacArthur Study Bible notes) have suggested that the historical reference in 1 Cor 10:8 is still continuing on speaking about the Golden Calf incident just related in 1 Cor 10:7, and so/thus, the 23,000 refer to the 3,000 which were killed by the Levites (Exod 32:28) and the rest, =20,000 were the number who were killed when God Himself smote some of the apostasiers (Exod 32:35). But the problem with that is that the people who died by God’s smiting died “the next day” (Exod 32:30ff). So they did not die on/in “the same day” (1 Cor 10:8b). Moreover, every time Paul adds “Nor (let us)...” in 1 Cor 10:8, 9, 10 he jumps to another abhorrent episode in OT Israel’s (Wilderness) History.
            So this is most likely merely a misspeaking mistake, which is not anything “capitally impeaching” against the overall trustworthy testimony of the Bible. In fact, this, as well as several other such misspeaking errors, most notably Jesus’ (or Matthew’s?) mistake in Matt 23:35 only serve as evidence that the Bible was not written out of some sort of conspiratorial, moreover, united session, human organization, but involved people freely speaking of, and writing about, what they had experienced with God over 1600 years. And so this candid speaking can involve miscellaneously mistakenly not giving the exact figure detail of some past story. Paul was manifestly just writing that counsel off the top of his recollecting head.
            Indeed, if as unbeliever posit, people (moreover ‘sometime in the 4th century A.D.’) were creating the Bible as a canard then they would have made sure to not have such, actually easily avoidable, mistakes.

      64. John the Baptist was Elias
           Matt 11:14
          John the Baptist was not Elias
           John 1:21

            This expectation of “Elijah (who was to come)” (=Mal 4:4-6) was only in a Spiritual sense, i.e., with John the Baptist, “in the power and Spirit of Elijah” (Luke 1:17). So these references to Elijah were according to the non-literal understanding, but at best by someone upon whom Elijah’s courageous and faith-full Spirit had been transferred to (cf. 2 Kgs 2:9-10)

      65. The father of Joseph, Mary's husband was Jacob
           Matt 1:16
          The father of Mary's husband was Heli
           Luke 3:23

            Several possibilities may be applicable here, pointedly because this is such a close ancestor of Jesus and so the chances of an actual historical/documenting error are that much unlikely. The chief of those possible resolutions is that Joseph was the product of a Levirate conception (Deut 25:5-6) and so his legal father may have been Jacob or Eli, but his biological father (really uncle) was Jacob or Eli. (See more (mainly similar) discrepancy-resolution issues in Jesus’s genealogy (cited by Jews today; e.g. Matt 1:12 vs. Luke 3:27b) here.

      66. The father of Salah was Arphaxad
           Gen 11:12
          The father of Salah was Cainan
           Luke 3:35,36

            From the OT’s LXX version (translated in ca. the 2nd Century B.C.), it appears that a genealogical record mistake of Moses, or the source he was using/depending on was corrected at Gen 11:12 by the LXX and the generation ancestor Cainan was added here. Luke appeared to, as many other NT writers, rely on the LXX and so also included this correctively added entry in his account at Luke 3:35, 36....Nothing “capital” here also to: ‘curse God and die’ [Job 2:9].
            ...Indeed if the supposed Bible inventors were merely trying to fool people then, those LXX authors, would just have not done anything to “show-up” the humaness of Moses and correct his manifestly deficient/erroneous genealogical account....and who, especially today, would have known the difference....Clearly instead, they were intent on producing the exact truth, whatever the (really inconsequential) cost/price!!

      67. There were fourteen generations from Abraham to David
           Matt 1:17
          There were but thirteen generations from Abraham to David
           Matt 1:2-6

            Matthew was right, there were indeed 14 generations from Abraham to David in his genealogical account (which, as discussed here, is actually not exhaustive)...that is if you rightly/naturally (inclusively) count “Abraham” as the first generation!!

      68. There were fourteen generations from the Babylonian captivity
          to Christ.
           Matt 1:17
          There were but thirteen generations from the Babylonian      
          captivity to Christ
           Matt 1:12-16

           Same type of response as in Claim #67 above, however here it is the case that Jeconiah (=Jehoiachin) was not counted as part of the pre-Babylon generations, for, moreover, that group (Matt 1:6-11) would then have 15 generations. Jeconiah was instead counted with the post-Babylon group in Matt 1:12-16, manifestly because he himself lived, and had offspring, during the deportation. He actually was only 18, but already married, when he began his 3y10d reign in 598-597 B.C. (2 Kgs 24:8, 15 (2 Chr 36:9 has an error in saying 8 years)). And so he was considered part of the post-(initial)-deportation (ca. 605 B.C. = Dan 1:1-2) era/generations.

      69. The infant Christ was taken into Egypt
           Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23
          The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt
           Luke 2:22, 39

            Contrary to popular glib assumption, the arrival and visit of the wise men from the East (Matt 2:1) occurred some time after Christ’s birth, when he was 2 years old (=Matt 2:7) when Joseph and Mary were now in a “house” with the “child” (Gr. paidion) not “infant” (Gr. brephos). (=Matt 2:11) The, actually suddenly reappearing, Star (Matt 2:9 -which, as discussed here, was actually a “distant company of (the Luke 2:13-15) angels”), evidently guided the Wise Men ca. 75 miles north to the house where Jesus had returned to in Galilee. (=Luke 2:22, 39). Herod and the other chief priests and scribes only knew of nearby Bethlehem as the likely birth place. (Matt 2:4-6, 8) (Nonetheless, God still instructed Joseph to flee to Egypt immediately after the Wise Men’s visit (Matt 2:13-14), for Herod could have also turned his attention to Galilee next, especially if a local person tipped them off about this wanted “outlaw” Child/family.)
            So it appears that here to, the glib manger scenes/Nativity plays, where the Wise Men are conflatedly depicted to be adoring the Baby Jesus along with the Shepherds on the very night that He was born (Luke 2:8-14, 15-20) is the culprit for this popular confusion here.

      70. Christ was tempted in the wilderness
           Mark 1:12,13
          Christ was not tempted in the wilderness
           John 2:1,2

            The “third day” in John 2:1 refers to the third day since Jesus had left the place where John was ministering for Galilee (John 1:43). Three days would indeed account for the walking travel time (=3 mph x 10 hours per day(light)) for the ca. 70 mile trip from Bethany (KJV: Bethabara) near Jerusalem where John was first baptizing (John 1:28; 10:40; 11:18) north to Cana in Galilee (John 2:11, near Nazareth). The prior “next day” mentions in John 1:29, 35, 43 all stem back to when Jesus had just come out of that (temptation) wilderness.

      71. Christ preached his first sermon on the mount
           Matt 5:1,2
          Christ preached his first sermon on the plain
           Luke 6:17,20

            How about Jesus first met, physically ministered and heal the people them in the “plain” (Luke 6:17-20; cf. Matt 4:24-25), and then afterwards, to be able to best speak to all of them, he, as a pragmatically common “platforming” practice then, ‘went (part way) up (‘the sides of’) a hill/mount (=Greek: ‘towards/against the mount (right at hand (GGBTB 208)’) and preached his sermon’ (Matt 5:1-2ff; DA 298.3) Luke 6:20 just does not mention that first positionally elevating detail.

      72. John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee
           Mark 1:14
          John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee
           John 1:43/ John 3:22-24

            Jesus went multiple times to Galilee. So the mention in the truncated and fast paced Gospel of Mark (the very first written Gospel of the NT’s 4), did not include those other pre-lone ministry visits which John’s Gospel (the last (cs. 90 A.D.), and deliberately complementary (=filling in) account) did. Indeed in John 2:4, when having arrived in Galilee (John 2:11) Jesus had said that His time for His ministry had not yet come. Mark 1:14 indicates that He formally launched His ministry upon John’s arrest. John’s Gospel account begins to sync up with Mark 1:14ff only at John 4:43ff when then Jesus “again returned to Galilee and was accepted (John 4:45-46a), based mainly on the past ministry healings & signs which He had priorly been doing. (John 2:11; cf. John 4:54; Luke 13:32)

      73. Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff   
          and sandals
           Mark 6:8,9
          Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with neither
          staffs nor sandals.
           Matt 10:9,10

            Christ’s instruction in Mark 6:8-9 told the disciples to merely ‘take the staff and sandals they already had’. Matthew elaborates on this by pointing out that Jesus had also said (and/or meant) ‘not to acquire additional/extra items such as (reserve) money, coats/tunics, and also back up sandals or staff’ because the worker was worthy of his hire/support. Meaning that if what they had simply set out with failed, then people should/would deservingly supply them with a replacement.

      74. A woman of Canaan besought Jesus
           Matt 15:22
          It was a Greek woman who besought Him
           Mark 7:26

            To Jews, any non-Jew were considered to be according to belong to the dominant culture of that day, which was the “Greek”/Hellenistic (a.k.a. Gentile) Culture. (See e.g. 1 Cor 1:22-24; 10:32; 12:13; Rom 1:13-16; 2:9-10; 3:9; 10:11-13). So even Canaanites, -here a woman of the Syrophoenician race (=from the region of Phoenicia which was part of the province of Syria), were lumped into that categorization.

      75. Two blind men besought Jesus
           Matt 20:30
          Only one blind man besought Him
           Luke 18:35,38

            Alright this is where I make a (perhaps uniquely) novel exegetical judgement call on this infamous “error”, which I more prominently was aware of because of the “leaving Jericho” (Matt 20:29a) vs. “approaching Jericho” (Luke 18:35a) “discrepancy”. Based on that initial discrepancy, as well as others such as: (two men vs. one); slightly differing statements from and to Jesus; Jesus doing the healing through touch vs. through speaking; I am here concluding that these were actually two distinct miracle events. Very similar, even around the same time of a visit to Jericho, but one as Jesus was approaching/coming to the city, and the other (very similar, (quasi-Deja Vu) one when He was leaving. And the “lone blind man” account in Mark 10:46-52 is the same instance as Luke 18:35-43.
            Probably the two blind men had heard of what Jesus had done earlier for Bartimaeus (=Mark 10:46) along the road when arriving at Jericho, and here also called out to Him to do the same thing for them as He was leaving, -(which was probably through the very same road/gate (area) into the city, if/as Jesus was returning to the location where He had arrived from). Jesus, probably sensing that deliberate/allusive commonality, i.e. by them manifestly purposefully employing the same appealing/endearing: “have mercy on (us) Son of David” (Mar 10:47|Luke 18:38 vs. Matt 20:30) “formula”, tested the genuineness of their allusive faith in that prior miracle, and proceeded to deliberately use the very same response question which He had made to Bartimaeus. They confirmed their faith in His power merely by believingly echoing what Bartimaeus had then said, but then Jesus acted to show that God’s provision was not a matter of formulas (a lesson that many believers today need to learn) but actually genuine and candid faith, and so, instead of speaking to them as with Bartimaeus who had the original, and thus, (originally-wise), greater faith, He proceeded to differently heal them through touch.

      76. Christ was crucified at the third hour
           Mark 15:25
          Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour
           John 19:14,15

            The simple, culturally contexting, answer is that Mark, writing ca. 15-20 years before the 70 A.D. fall of Jerusalem was using a sunrise to sunrise reckoning of time which considered the start of a day’s time (=zero hour) as 6:00 A.M. Therefore Mark 15:25 pinpoints that Jesus was crucified at 9 A.M. John on the other hand, writing ca. 20-25 years after the Fall of Jerusalem, thus when Roman power had all but completely uprooted and overrun Jewish culture was using a, probably more commonly familiar, even amongst (Judeo-)Christians, Roman midnight-to-midnight time reckoning, -which of course is still in main (civil) use today.* So his sixth hour was ca. 6 A.M., and non-contradictory enough, it was perhaps only ca. 6 A.M. when Pilate, who probably had been awaken from sleep for this strategically most early trial session, thus manifestly before the cock-crowing/sunrise (John 18:27, 28; Matt 27:1-2) and manifestly even before his wife had even awaken and found out what had been happening, and then at actually a second/returning, thus later, (re-)appearance before Pilate (Matt 27:19) (Cf. DA 723.3)

* Case in point, the famous Osama bin Laden (trial-less) execution film Zero Dark Thirty, that phrasing is actually the technical way in which the U.S. military reckons time, with the “Zero Hour” being midnight. (The actually used/accurate military phrasing can also simply be “Oh Thirty” [and also e.g. “Zero One-Eighty” = 3 A.M.]
            [Not that much unrelatedly, I had priorly thought that the movie titling Zero-Dark-Thirty was a cryptic highlighting allusion to the transpired history in that decade-long manhunt leading up to that Abbottabad Compound showdown with Bin Laden: I.e. {the long-prophesied} 9/11's/WTC’s Ground Zero - years of U.S. Intelligence being in the Dark about his location - and (assumedly) a team 30 Special Ops forces being assigned with that “Operation Neptune Spear” assassination mission. (See more at Note #11 from here.)]

      77. The two thieves reviled Christ.
           Matt 27:44/ Mark 15:32
          Only one of the thieves reviled Christ
           Luke 23:39,40

            That’s actually an easy one, initially both thieves/criminals were hurling insults at Christ, but over time, while hanging on the Cross and pondering things (Luke 23:41; including what he had priorly witnessed about Jesus in the judgement hall), one of the thieves repented and began to stand up for the blameless Christ (See DA 749.3-750.1ff), and proceeded to, in great faith, effectively ask Him for forgiveness/mercy (Luke 23:42).

      78. Satan entered into Judas while at supper
           John 13:27
          Satan entered into him before the supper
           Luke 22:3,4,7

            Satan entered Judas distinctly twice, the first to get him to go ahead meet with those who wanted Jesus dead (John 11:53); and the second, to get him to overrule all that Jesus had, in a last gasp opportunity, desperately done to try to get him to change his mind during the Passover Meal Session (John 13:21-26). Both of those pivotal occasions needed a special influential impetus from Satan into/onto an open and willing Judas to seal him into carrying out these (unwitting -cf. Matt 27:3-4) betrayal plans. Satan probably did indeed have to exit/leave Judas for a while in between as Jesus’s influential may have gotten Judas to second guess his plans. (Cf. DA 720.3) But as Judas would let Jesus completely in, Satan could easily return. (Cf.  Matt 12:43-45|Luke 11:24-26) Great exposition on Judas in DA 716-722 {contextually borne from Matt 27:3-10}.
            God’s Holy Spirit also influentially acts in the same way, of course towards converse objectives, with anyone who is “open and willing”, =actionably leaning towards heeding, to knowing what God’s Truth is. (Luke 11:28; John 7:17; SC 105.2)

      79. Judas committed suicide by hanging
           Matt 27:5
          Judas did not hang himself, but died another way
           Acts 1:18

            That is actually not a discrepancy, but two segments from how Judas fully died. It is well revealed in DA 722.5. =The cord that Judas used to hang himself was not strong enough and broke, and his body hurtled down a ravine and jagged rocks burst it open and then wild dogs came and ate parts of his exposed, mangled, body/insides before his remains could be buried.
            Since death by hanging came be instantaneous, i.e. if the neck is broken by the impact of the hanging, then Judas may have already been dead before the cord broke. He also may have slowly choked to death, and then, after he was dead, the rope went on to fail.

      80. The potter's field was purchased by Judas
           Acts 1:18
          The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests
           Matt 27:6,7

            That issue has been treated in detail at the “Messianic Prophecies” section within this post section.

      81. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre
           John 20:1
          There were two women who came to the sepulchre
           Matt 28:1

The simple answer here is that Matthew (and Mark 16:1-8) mentions the two
women, while John simply focused only on one of them, Mary Magdalene. (And btw ‘these women ‘told no one’ (Mark 16:8) along the way to telling the 11 disciples+ (Matt 28:8; Luke 24:9; 20:2)’

      82. There were three women who came to the sepulchre
           Mark 16:1
          There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre
           Luke 24:10

            Again here, Mark addedly stressed another women that was also present, namely Salome, while Matthew and John glossed over her presence. It however does not mean that she was not also there.
            Relatedly, a most foundationally key thing to also understand here about this part of the Resurrection is, as related in DA 788.3, -from a prophetic visionary viewing of the Resurrection:

 “The women had not all come to the tomb from the same direction. Mary Magdalene was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples. Meanwhile the other women came up. ”

            There indeed were 2 groups of women who came to the sepulchre and then reported what they saw. (1) there were the 3 who came by one way, and then (2) other women, who came from another way.

            By the way, for these Claims #81-#85, the corroborating revelatory account of the Resurrection found in The Desire of Ages 779-787, 788-794, is great for perfectly harmonizing the seemingly conflicting and contradictory distinct gospel accounts.                                                                                          

      83. It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre
           Mark 16:2
         It was some time before sunrise when they came.
           John 20:1

            I have already addressed this contradiction claim during a private (July 2010) email discussion with a (former SDA) Christian. So I’ll here just merely repost my detailed (exegetical) response verbatim:

“Again this objection of yours in Matt 28:1 is perfectly resolved upon more indepth exegetical analysis. Exegesis dictates that Scriptural context is also to be taken into consideration, and in the case of a statement in the Gospels, this includes the other 3 when available. It is straightly seen that Mark 16:2 would seem to contradict your understanding as it is commonly translated to mean that ‘the women came to the tomb when the sun had risen,’ however, the Greek term for “rising” is an aorist participle and thus its time is antecedent to the controlling verb and not contemporaneous as often translated, especially when that controlling verb is not also an aorist as it the case in Mark 16:2. (See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 614). So the actual reading here should be “before the rising of the sun.” Still the fact that it is mention in connection with the sunrise is much more strongly indicative that the visit occurred very close to that time of a day, than not (i.e., not more closer to ‘early sunset of that night’ as you advance). Additionally,  the synoptical Greek expression in Luke 24:1 of orthrou batheös is colloquially understood as “towards/close to daybreak”, and similarly, the statement in John 20:1 also colloquially says that ‘Mary Magdalene came to the tomb “early in the morning, while it was still dark” (Greek: pröi skotias eti)’. Therefore with such clear and consistent corroborating testimony, it must first be exhaustively seen if the statement in Matt 28:1 can also be interpreted and understood in this prevalent light.

The expression in Matt 28:1 that is translated simply as “after” here (Greek: opse (Strongs #3796)) actually literally means “long after, late”. Indeed this is the consistent meaning in which it is used throughout the Bible, (i.e, see also its uses in the LXX). That is why it is often translated as “evening” as it is indicating the ‘latest part of a day’ or the time “long after” a day had begun. The more precise word for “after” in the sense of “immediate succession” is the Greek: opiso (Strongs #3712). So here it would precise either be saying “late in the Sabbath” or “long after the Sabbath.” By contextual comparison, it is definitely not saying “late in the Sabbath” (i.e., some time before sunset), as the women were insistent on not attending to the body of Christ until after the Sabbath rest. Indeed Mark 16:1 says they bought the anointing spices ‘when the Sabbath was past.’ (Luke indicates on the other hand that the women from Galilee already had spices with which to prepare the embalming Luke 23:56). Therefore the only other option is “late after the Sabbath.”

Now the adjoining term epiphosko is expressed as a (present) participle, and is also in the dative case. The dative here, with its root meaning of ‘some form of personal interest’ is indicating that this ‘long after time’ was an advantageous time for these women. This could be seen in the fact that this long time after the Sabbath, early in the morning before dawn allowed them to do their shopping, get some rest and also go to the tomb while it was dark to avoid the verbal and possible physical abuse of those who hated the Jesus that they were going to pay homage to. After all were not similar disciple followers of Christ hiding “for fear of the Jews.”  The participle is a verbal adjective. Therefore it simultaneously has characteristics as both a verb and an adjective. If it was simply here being used as a point in time (i.e., ‘beginning to dawn’), then, like its use in Luke 23:54, it would have been expressed purely as a verb. The fact that it is an adjective thus indicates that it is making a qualitative statement, i.e., the quality of the day’s part. Therefore the most likely understanding here would not be a single point meaning of “at the time when the first day dawn” (which as you correctly point out should be understood to be when the day started according to normative Jewish sunset to sunset reckoning, a reckoning that Matthew himself probably used for his Gospel intended for Jews in general devoted), but rather as describing a prolonged state of dawning, which could be understood as all of the dark portions before sunrise that morning. This view is reinforced by the fact that epiphosko is a (present) participle thus indicating contemporaneous time. However an understanding of ‘right at the time when the first day was starting’ does not concord with a notion of ‘long after the Sabbath.’ So this dawning time must indeed be seen as depicting a period of time and not a point in time, and that, one that is long after the Sabbath hours.

So the verse would therefore read as: “Now long after the Sabbath, during the dawning period with respect to the first day of the week...” (I.e, ‘long after the Sabbath, yet when it was still dark, before the sunrise of the first day of the week.’) Indeed this most accurate syntactical interpretation and reading of Matthew 28:1 fully agrees with the testimony of the other 3 Gospels, and not surprisingly, also perfectly harmonizes with the testimony of the SOP [i.e. DA 779.1].”

      84. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and
          they were standing up.
           Luke 24:4
          There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down.
           Matt 28:2, 5

            The very simplistic answer here is that there evidently was not a specifying of details in the separate Gospel accounts as to ‘who exactly saw how many angels’, but the visionary account from the SOP provides such distinguishing details:

The women had not all come to the tomb from the same direction. Mary Magdalene was the first to reach the place; and upon seeing that the stone was removed, she hurried away to tell the disciples. [=John 20:1-2] Meanwhile the other women came up. A light was shining about the tomb, but the body of Jesus was not there. As they lingered about the place, suddenly they saw that they were not alone. A young man clothed in shining garments was sitting by the tomb. It was the angel who had rolled away the stone. He had taken the guise of humanity that he might not alarm these friends of Jesus. Yet about him the light of the heavenly glory was still shining, and the women were afraid. They turned to flee, but the angel's words stayed their steps. "Fear not ye," he said; "for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead." Again they look into the tomb, and again they hear the wonderful news. Another angel in human form is there, and he says, "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."  {DA 788.3}

      85. There were two angels seen within the sepulchre.
           John 20:11,12
          There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre
           Mark 16:5

            As shown earlier at Claim #82, John 20:3-12ff retell of Mary Magdalene’s second/return visit to the empty tomb, after her first upon which she had quickly returned to alert the disciples, then herself not knowing that Jesus was raised, for, as seen above in Claim #85 from the DA 788.3 account, he had left before the angels appeared to the other women who themselves had stayed behind. (John 20:1-2).
            So it was only Mary the mother of James and Salome who had lingered behind and proceeded to enter the tomb (Mark 16:1-5), then later Mary Magdalene returned with Peter and (probably) John himself, upon her quick report, and after they had left and she lingered behind, she then went into the tomb herself for the first time, and that is when she herself/alone saw two angels.

      86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave
           Matt 12:40
          Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave
           Mark 15:25,42,44,45,46; 16:9>

            Again, I had relatedly discussed this (popular) (“Sign of Jonah”) issue in that private (July 2010) email discussion mentioned above in Claim #83, so again simply here, here is my detailed/(=long form) response then verbatim (and for proper contexting I have included in bold blocs, the original statements of that objector):

3. The greatest injustice to God and to His Son were done by the writings
that Ellen did on His life and especially His death. If you want to speak
about exegesis or rather the lack of it, her account is nothing but that! It
is a complete acceptance of the traditional views of His death which came
from her Methodist background.

1. I no longer have a copy of the DA, so I will just write it as I remember
it and you can verify it if you wish. In the chapter about the Feast at
Simon’s Home, on the first page, third paragraph, she writes that Christ
enters Bethany to be with His friends for the Sabbath. She is right on
there, so how do SDAs come up with Him dying on a Friday, even if it were to
be the following Friday?

John clearly states in John 12:1 that Christ enters Bethany SIX days BEFORE
the Passover. (caps are for emphasis, not screaming). IF she is right on the
money on that statement, how does she make the giant leap into utter
confusion in the next chapter, same paragraph where she states that Christ
enters Jerusalem on Sunday!?. John simply tells us in John 12:12 that Christ
enters Jerusalem the ‘NEXT DAY’. Was it the custom of the Jews to hold a
candle light meal to welcome the Sabbath on a Friday evening or was it on a
Sabbath evening after sunset? Should I go on, it only gets more ridiculous
the deeper one goes. Let’s just say that Christ followed ALL required steps
for Him being the Passover Lamb as He had directed to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
Which included Ex. 12:3, for when the lamb was to be selected from the flock
on the 10th day of Abab or Nisan, which also follows the proper pattern for
His death to take place on the 14th of Abab or Nisan.

There were TWO Sabbaths that week which most readers of the Gospels fail to
consider when they read the words "preparation day" or a derivative of it.

Christ enters Jerusalem on Sabbath, NOT Sunday! Otherwise how does a
believer ever come up with Sunday if they believe that He died on Friday AND
He enters Bethany 6 days BEFORE the Passover. Think about it for a second,
it should only take a second, Ronald. IF Christ enters Bethany 6 fays before
the Passover and the Passover is on the coming weekly Sabbath, as I am sure
you have been taught. Then that would also mean that He entered Bethany on
SUNDAY and that He entered Jerusalem on MONDAY!!!

On the other hand, if He enters Bethany on Friday and Passover was on
Thursday the following week then counting back six days from a Thursday
Passover, gives us a Friday entrance into Bethany, a Friday evening meal at
Simon’s home, a Sabbath entrance into Jerusalem, a Tuesday evening Last
Supper with a Wednesday crucifixion.

I have examined the reference in the Bible and DA on Christ’s arrival in Bethany and clearly your difference here, and also in general to this Passover date issue, lies in what is known as the synoptic problem. This is where the Synoptic Gospels say that the Passover meal was on Friday evening, while John says that it was on Thursday evening. That apparent contradiction has been resolved in modern scholarship which revealed that it resulted out of the different ways in which the Jews reckoned the days. Those in the north of Judea where Galilee was, and where Jesus and all of the disciples except from Judas were from, reckoned the day from Sunrise to Sunrise. While those in the southern part where Jerusalem was and where the priests lived, reckoned it from sunset to sunset. So according to the Northern sunrise to sunrise reckoning, the 14th of Nisan started at the sunrise of Thursday morning. Therefore, according to the Law, they had their Passover meal at twilight that evening. This is the calender that Jesus went by, though currently in Jerusalem, and thus had His Passover meal on Thursday evening, all probably more out of convenience here, so that He could partake in this type with his disciples before His death. The southern Jews on the other hand which including the priests considered the 14 of Nisan to start only on Thursday evening and thus their twilight meal was on Friday evening, thus the day after Christ’s.

Now in relation to the John 12:1, 12 and DA 557 & 569 datum, if Jesus, travelling from Jericho, expressedly arrived for the Sabbath in Bethany, He therefore arrived some time just before the Sabbath, thus late on Friday. That portion of Friday, using the common Jewish inclusive reckoning method could easily be considered His first day before the Passover, which again, in John’s Northern reckoning would start on sunrise that Thursday. If you count six days from there you end up with the sixth day being on Wednesday, thus the day before this Northern observed Passover. Therefore these “six days” did indeed all occur before that Thursday Passover observance of Christ. [Calculation: F-1 | Sa-2 | Su-3 | M-4 | T-5 | W-6 | T-Pass. ].

As the feast of Simon probably involved a lot of manual labor, it was probably put off until after the Sabbath hours, thus sometime after Saturday’s sunset (which in Israel from mid-March to mid-April is/was around 6:00 P.M. (No one-hour daylight savings shifts back then, of course) Indeed in DA 563-564, it is said that this was a “supper”, and that ‘Judas went immediately from that supper to meet with the priests where he offered to betray Jesus.’ (Matt 26:14-16). So with this supper ending on that Saturday night, and according to John’s utilized sunrise to sunrise reckoning, the following day did not start until sunrise that next morning, thus Sunday at sunrise.
Now that ‘next day’ statement in John 12:12 could possibly be understood in two ways. One can assume that John was referring back to his initial datum in 12:1, and thus say that he meant ‘the day after Christ had arrived in Bethany.’ That therefore would mean this ‘next day’ was sometime on Saturday. On the other hand that ‘next day’ statement, coming right after the account of the supper feast in Simon’s house (vs. 2-11) could more proximately be referring to “the (next) day after” the day of the feast. Thus Sunday, which again according to John’s understanding started at sunrise. (This is the understanding of the SDABC, 5:1021 PDF p.4644). This latter choice makes much more contextual sense and also according to the clarifying contribution of the SOP in such areas of legitimate dilemma, EGW’s deliberately emphatic statement that “it was on the first day of the week (Sunday)...” confirms the choice of this latter option, at least for me. So that Sunday would also be the third day since Christ had arrived in Bethany.

So upon closer analysis the SOP is perfectly accurate here in it revelations on this Biblical episode and as it is always the case, any misunderstanding is solely at the fault of scholarly deficiency.

On the issue of the expression “preparation day,” while it (presumably) can refer to the preparation for the feast day, it also does refer to the Seventh Day Sabbath. So again with two choices here, it is this latter on that best harmonizes with the well established chronology of the Passover episode, especially with the “Synoptic problem” resolved.
If you count forward 3 days and 3 nights, it takes us to a Sabbath evening
resurrection, which is confirmed in different ways:

Succinctly said here, the “Sign of Jonah” issue of 3 days and 3 nights is perfectly resolved for me by the fact that it simply could be another way of emphatically saying 3 days. And using the Jewish method of inclusive reckoning, you do get three days of Christ being dead from Friday, before sunset, the whole Sabbath day, Saturday, and then the part of Sunday from Saturday sunset to his pre-dawn resurrection.               
See Bacchiocchi’s book on ‘The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection’ for much more on this, and also previously discussed issues here.

Inclusive Reckoning
            Upon further study, I have discovered that it is clear that the notion of inclusive reckoning is not only reserved for the reckoning of regnal years, but was pervasive throughout Jewish counting practices. First and foremost it is clearly found in the Law. In Leviticus 23:15-16 the timing, in days, for the Festival of Weeks (Shavuot) is established by God. The start of counting for the Festival of Weeks is said to be "the day after the Sabbath" i.e., the Feast of Unleaven Bread/Passover Sabbath. (Hebrew: mimaharat ha-shabat, vs. 15), and is to end "the day after the seventh Sabbath" (mimaharat ha-shabat ha-sheviyit, vs. 16). These seven weeks would be considered as 49 days in most of the world methods of reckoning today. Nevertheless, verse 16 says that they are to be reckoned as 50 days. Similarly the Feast of Tabernacles is to last for seven days (Leviticus 23:34-36), but the last day is called the eighth day (v. 36). Thus it is clear that God used inclusive reckoning for these time periods.
            This method of reckoning is also common in Scripture throughout Scripture. The SDABC 5:249, 250, gives the following examples: “One example of this method is a period (when Shalmaneser besieged Samaria) beginning in the 4th year of Hezekiah and the 7th year of Hoshea, and ending in the 6th year of Hezekiah and the 9th of Hoshea, “at the end of three years” (2 Kings 18:9, 10; see .... II, .. 136). It was evidently counted thus: 4, 5, 6 (of Hezekiah’s reign), three years, inclusive.

            It then give the example of the reckoning of Noah’s years: “Take another example. We say that a child is not one year old until after he has lived 12 full months from the date of his birth. He becomes one year old as he enters his second year of life, and becomes 2 years old after he completes his second year. Thus a child is called “10 years old” all through his 11th year, and becomes 11 only after he has reached the end of 11 full years. Not so in the Bible. Noah was, literally, “a son of 600 years” “in the six hundredth year” of his life (Gen. 7:6, 11); although his 600 years were not reckoned inclusively (see SDABC Vol I, p. 181 and note), these verses show that in his 600th year his age was considered 600, not 599. A Hebrew baby was circumcised when he was “eight days old” (Gen. 17:12), “the eighth day” (Lev. 12:3; Luke 1:59), or “when eight days were accomplished” (Luke 2:21). The Bible lists several periods of “three days” that ended during, not after, the third day, and thus covered less than three full 24-hour days (see Gen. 42:17–19; ... 1 Kings 12:5, 12 with 2 Chron. 10:5, 12).”

            See also in 1 Kgs 20:29 and Esther 4:16-5:1 where it shows that the Jews indeed counted parts of days as whole days.

            It also seems that the practice of inclusive reckoning was the norm in many other cultures outside of Israel. However since god himself used this method of reckoning even days, and that in the Law, it is not at all surprising that the Jews similarly used this divine example for their reckoning, especially if given a choice between our way of reckoning and literally God’s way. It thus is also quite convincingly argued that the Jubilee cycle in Leviticus 25:8-11 was also reckoned in that way with this “50th” year occurring in the year of the last year of the 7x7 years cycle.

Indeed in further support of this understanding, it is said that:

“The consideration that the Jubilee was identical with the seventh Sabbatical year solves the various practical problems, as also addressed by these authors. If the Jubilee were separate from, and following the seventh Sabbatical year, then there would be two fallow years in succession. Lefebve points out, however, that there is no support in Scripture for two voluntary fallow years in succession, even though some have misinterpreted Leviticus 25:21-22 as if this refers to a Jubilee year following a Sabbatical year, which is not the sense of the passage. Lefebvre shows that this cannot be the case because planting is mentioned for the eighth year; it is the year after a Sabbath, a year in which planting and harvesting resume. Another practical problem that would occur if the Jubilee cycle were 50 years is that, after the first cycle, the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles would be out of phase unless the seventh Sabbatical cycle was stretched to eight years. But Scripture gives no instructions for making such an adjustment. Instead, it is assumed that the two cycles will always be in phase so that the shofar can be sounded in the seventh year of the seventh Sabbatical cycle.”

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(Biblical)

Sign of Jonah
I have studied in more original detail the Sign of Jonah and have observed the following:

In Gen 1:5 which clearly uses specific terms (Strong # included) in saying: “God called the light [#0216] day [#03117], and the darkness [#02822] He called night [#03915]. And there was evening [#06153] and there was morning [#01242], one [#0259] day [#03117].” NASB

These term distinctions are also made in the Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew here. Clearly a day is primarily made up of a light/day part dark/night part, And indeed this is all understood as a whole “day”. So both the ‘light part of a day’ and a ‘whole day’ can be synonymously understood and thus they both are term #03117 - Hebrew Yom. (To also be specific it is when, first an “evening” occurs, i.e., the beginning of the night, and then the “morning” occurs with a sunrise, that a day occurred).

So this foundational text shows that a day can be understood a either simply “the day parts” or also as “day + night”
Now upon further study it seems that saying the explicit formula of “x days and x nights”
is used to emphasized that the said action would occur in both the day portion and also the night portion of a 24 hour day. Thus the rainfall during the flood (Gen 7:4, 12, 17); the silent stay of Job friends for 7-days (Job 2:13); Moses 40-day stay with God (Exod 24:18; cf. Deu 9:9, 18, 25; 10:10) - i.e., he did not return to the camp to at night to sleep, but if he did sleep, he did so in the presence of God.); Elijah 40-day trek’s to Horeb (1 Kgs 19:8); Christ’s stay in the barren wilderness (Mat 4:2); and of course Jonah’s “incarceration” in the belly of the whale (Jon 2:1). For statements that do not need to make this particular emphasis only “x days” is expressed and many examples can be cited. (Cf. Luke 21:37, 38 which shows that for several days, Jesus taught in the temple during the day but spent the nights on Mt. Olivet.) Indeed all of the “day/night” actions could have simply been expressed in days, but to emphasize this extension whether or not this actually duratively resulted in the act being done, incessantly throughout the entirely “days and/or nights” e.g., Did Job and his friends, Moses and Elijah not sleep at all during the night parts of these periods.* Case in point, Elijah did not need 40 days and nights to travel the ca. 200 miles from Jezreel to Mount Horeb, with the normative 8-hour day trip then being ca. 24 miles. So a full 24 hours per day would cover 72 miles per day. Two hundred miles over forty 24-hour days results in a snail pace of about 1/5 of a mile per day, which can easily be covered in ca. 12.5 minutes of walking. Clearly Elijah did not “walk” (as the Hebrew of 1Kgs 19:8 literally points out) for the full 24 hours over these 40 days and nights. So this statement probably emphasized that he travelled in parts of both the day time and the night time, probably whenever best safe and convenient. Indeed night travel was best for him in this flight for his life. So if only parts of nights are included in a day/night formula then it indeed shows that inclusive reckoning of days and nights partially occupied by the said action could still be fully incorporated in it and reckoned in the whole.

* While Exod 34:28 says that Moses did not eat or drink while in the presence of the Lord, and also while Elijah was sustained by the food provided by God (1 Kgs 19:8) no would be logical indication that they did not sleep is made thus suggesting that they did not also abstain from this vital need. In the case of Elijah it seems that the food may not have been supernatural as Moses and Jesus (Matt 4:2) have shown that a total fast for forty days, though most extreme, and probably not coincidentally so, symbolizing a death/sacrifice of self, is still physically achievable.

            Now when it comes to understanding passages that seem to be problematic, I first gather all of the other pertinent passages and see where the lead to and then seek to harmonize the divergent passage in the light of this one. As already explained, there are many passages in regards to the time of the crucifixion that indicate that it occurred on Friday and the Resurrection on Sunday a little before the dawn. Indeed the fact that Mary met Jesus before He, evidently by necessity, had first ascended to heaven shows that his resurrection had just occurred when he met with her. If he wanted to first appear immediately appear to his believers before he ascended to heaven only to return by the evening hours, he would have appeared to Peter and John who had just left Mary at the tomb. (The other women were told of his resurrection by the angels). It therefore seems that Jesus himself appeared to Mary because of the extreme sadness that she felt and unlike the other disciples, she had not previously been told first hand by Him that he would rise again on the third day. Indeed EGW that when Peter and John saw the empty tomb they immediately recalled Christ’s statements of his resurrection. However Mary did not have this reassurance hence her genuine broken heartedness and thus Christ personal appearance to her. Also EGW says in DA 788 that the resurrection occurred while the woman with Mary were on their way to the tomb.
            Now I have just done a study into John 20:17, which I will explain in my studies in much more detail and more fully document at a later time, and it clearly reveals that the word that is translated “touch” there [Strong’s #681] more precisely mean handle. The Greek word for mere touching is clearly #2345 as seen in many examples. Col 2:21 indeed shows the distinction between these two term. Most interestingly, in writing on this statement in DA 790, EGW quotes the KJV verbatim indeed in explicit quote marks, all except for the first part which says in the KJV “Touch me not” instead she says “Detain Me not” and not in quote marks showing that these words were indeed from her. SDA preachers, including the SDABC, and also many Christian commentators, have assumed that what is meant here is that Mary was grasping onto Jesus feet and he was telling her to ‘stop clinging to him so that He may ascend to Heaven’ but the verb is clear here to mean: “I prohibit you to handle/embrace Me” (i.e., not mere a simple touch). Indeed even EGW makes this point (contrary to the SDABC 5:1066 PDF p.4693) as she says that Mary simply had ‘sprung towards Him, as if to embrace his feet.’ She clearly does not say that she was clinging to his feet. So since Jesus was not prohibiting Mary from merely touching him, but from affectionally handling/embracing Him, he clearly was solely in a hurry and did not want to be “detained.” Also as he still could have made a similar quick appearance to all of his disciples as he did to Mary, including Peter and John just moments before at the tomb, then it is understood the EGW statement that ‘He did not want to receive homage from his followers until He had ascertained that his sacrifice was acceptable to the Father.’
            (It also seems that if Matthew was saying in Matthew 28:2 that an earthquake had occurred some ca 15 hours before when the angel descended to roll away the stone, then a perfect tense indicated this wholly past completed earthquake action would have been used instead of simply an aorist verb.)
            In further support of all of this, if as you claimed that 3 days and 3 nights are to be exactly 72 hours, then this would mean that since Christ died around 3 P.M. (Matt 27:45, 46) He would have been raised around 3 P.M., 72 hours later. This would mean that when He met with the women very “early in the morning, around daybreak” (Mark 16:2 - clearly this is not a reference to ‘late in the evening, long before daybreak’ as your view has to say) He would have already been resurrected for over 15 hours. If, however when He later met with the disciples on the road to Emmaus which was around 3 P.M that afternoon as their ca. 7 mile trip from Jerusalem took at least 2 hours, and probably three as the were more busy talking and also the two disciples themselves were quite depressed, and also as they reached Emmaus when the sun had just set, thus ca. 6 P.M., then it would have been less than 9 hours since He had appeared to Mary following His Resurrection. Therefore His visit to Heaven only needed ca. 9 hours at the most. He therefore could have easily made His 9 hour visit to heaven in the 15 hours from a 3 P.M. resurrection and a ca. 6 A.M. appearance. So your theory has to explain why He didn’t make a visit to Heaven during these 15 hours or even, since He manifestly did not want to appear to his followers, but only did so to Mary because she was so distraught, during your supposed ca. 3 hours to the time of early evening at 6 P.M. (however exegetically unsupportable that conclusion actually clearly is). Indeed the time for His resurrection as the women were approaching the tomb to His appearance to Mary, even after she had first returned to the nearby city to tell the disciples could have taken less than half an hour. An he probably just stay a little while to see how his followers would react before He left them for ca. 9 hours in the case, as with especially the previously unwarned Mary became overly depressed and distraught.
            All this to say that Christ resurrection was indeed quite apparently close to the time when the woman visited the tomb, which was at day break.
            So now, did the 3 days and 3 nights have to be 72 hours and if it was not, would this be making God and Jesus a liar as you claim. If it was not for examples in the Bible Prophecy and the Gospels where God accomplished something either in the spirit or in the letter yet either fulfillment was valid, I hold the position that this prediction could have also been fulfilled through inclusive reckoning. First for example in prophecy, you yourself seem to believe that Dan 9:27 speaks of Christ crucifixion. How you see it as a literal statement, thus Wednesday of Passion week, while I see it as symbolic, thus 3.5 years after the start of Christ’s ministry, thus in the Spring of A.D. Still in either one of our views, the sacrifices did not physically/literally cease when Christ was crucified. The only possible explanation, in my view, is that, as the Hebrew indicates, they were not prophesied to physically cease, but merely lose their meaning leading to an eventual complete cessation.
            Another example is Matt 16:28. Did Jesus lie there? According to your solely literalistic interpretation vs. a possible spiritual one, He would have since all of the people present died before Christ’s Kingdom was established. Indeed this would be just like Matt 10:23. However I personally allow for the transfiguration of Christ in the next chapter to have fulfilled that with three of His disciples. I also believe that it is then that Jesus, the Prophet was first informed by God the Father that His ministry would not end in the earthly establishment of the Kingdom of God/Heaven as He honestly (i.e., in genuine faith) expected (See e.g., Matt 3:2; 10:23; Mark 1:14, 15). And that apparently because of the manifested hardening of the hearts  and/or spiritual unfitness of the Jews. So God there, through Moses and Elijah made Him aware of these, indeed, change in circumstances. I.e., the Jews had a chance to make the Kingdom of God triumph and were genuinely given a chance by God, however now they proved to be unfit and things were indeed going to be fulfilled as some of the OT prophecies said.
            So in conclusion, while a 72 hour rendering here would seem as the natural interpretation for mainly spiritual reasons involving the rest of the testimony of the Bible, I chose to understand is as having still been fulfilled through inclusive reckoning. Again I use the exegetically sound method of understanding a seemingly divergent passage according to the light of the greater whole rather than vice versa. Furthermore, both Mark and Luke do not mention the specific 3 days and 3 night in their synoptic accounts of that statement. As they were written for more of a Gentile audience, whereas Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, it very well may be the fact that they new this prophecy was not literally fulfilled (i.e., in 3 full days) that led them to leave out this thus confusing statement for their readers, whereas Matthew knew that his Jewish readers would more readily understand that it was fulfilled through the common inclusive reckoning of the Jews. (Indeed, this practice of Matthews is seen throughout his account, especially when Messianically applying/interpreting OT passages and prophecies using a midrashic style.)
            As the Jewish “colloquial” understanding of the days/nights formula also shows that other actions that are also do in the line of the main action being described, such as ‘staying overnight’ with Moses and Job’s friends and “being in travel’ Elijah, are also included in the said time period, in this way it could be spiritually seen that Christ was symbolically “in the heart of the earth” from the time that He began suffering his great psychological passion in the Garden of Gethsemane on Thursday night “to the point of death’ to the point where, manifestly for the first time He sought to avoid this end in death (Matt 26:38-39). In this way from this evening in the garden to his resurrection close to daybreak on Sunday morning it could be seen that Christ spiritually spent 3 days and 3 nights suffering His passion of suffering and death for the sins of the world. Indeed, as shown in the SOP, Christ Passion was not complete when He met with Mary, which by then may have been at daybreak, but only when He had ascended to Heaven and presented ascertained that His sacrifice for the world was accepted by the Father.
            Interestingly enough, as with most “signs” granted by God, there is still some incorporated elements in it to allow those who want to continue to disbelieve to do so. So it was with this “Sign of Jonah”, especially for those who wanted/want to see 3 full day of 24 hours of Christ literally being in the tomb. This is indeed how, despite the fact that Jesus’s ministry was filled with “signs” (cf. John 2:11; 3:2; 6:2; 7:31; 9:16; 11:47; 12:37; 20:30~Luke 13:32; Mar 16:17), the unbelieving Jews still had Him crucified.

The Preparation Day
            In regards to the preparation Day, I will not restate the study of Bacchiocchi on the Time of the Crucifixion work which you can read for free online, but I think that he makes it clear on pp 40-43, that Mark 15:42 clearly speaks of the Day before the weekly Sabbath
I hope this helps.

And by the way, I did not study at all in the SDA Seminary, I have just bought scholarly textbooks which are used by virtually all Bible Colleges and Seminaries, not just the SDA Seminary. So I have not been ‘tainted by them’ as you presume, and I am myself quite glad I didn’t. The fact that I did not spend the money to be educated by them, which I easily could have, even if through mainly student loans, is because, from very early own, I saw for myself that both their methods and their content in regards to Biblical Study and Research was greatly flawed and deficient. It certainly was not worth $18,000. So I used part of that money to educate myself with more precise studies.

Also, as it seems to be, if you do not accept that Northern Jews used a sunrise to sunrise reckoning while southern Jews had a sunset to sunset reckoning, then how do you explain the Synoptic problem. If as you say the Sabbath of Mark 15:42 speaks of the Feast of Unleavened Bread then how did Christ and his disciples have a Passover meal 24 hours before the actual Passover meal. Matt 26:17-20ff clearly shows that both the disciples of themselves and also Jesus fully believed this to be the Passover Day meal? Indeed both Mark and Luke show that this was not simply a special dinner organized by Jesus, but a full fledged feast day “when the Passover Lamb would be sacrifice. However John 13:1ff clearly would seem to say the complete opposite, were it but for this discovered difference between these two regions. The Bible is indeed clear that their was a theological dichotomy between Northern Galilean Jews and Southern Judea Jews, with Galilee, being even beyond Samaria, being in the area where the now 10 lost tribes of Israel had been and who had long since been conquered. Hence the skepticism and default disdain by Judeans for Jews from this area. This all still reflected the distinct separation that had occurred with the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel.

Also, since the women were eager to embalm Jesus’ body and only deferred it because of the Sabbath, if, you understand this Sabbath to be a Wednesday evening to Thursday Evening celebration of the Feast of Unleaven Bread, then why didn’t the women seek to embalm Christ’s body in the 24 hours from right at Thursday at sunset, i.e., the exact same time when, in your theory, they went to try to embalm Jesus’s body but found that He was already resurrected, until Friday at sunset, when weekly Sabbath would start. Indeed these women should have known that waiting three days would be too late as it was known with Lazarus that by 4 days a dead body now stunk, and an embalmed body at that, as Lazarus surely was. Indeed ‘resting according to the Commandment’ is most naturally associated with the weekly Sabbath Commandment. According to your view they would not even have deferred embalming Christ body, because of the requirement to observe the Passover as a Weekly Sabbath and thus also rest.

Furthermore, if the resurrection had occurred ca. 3 hours before according to your view, then how come the news had not already spread, with the Roman soldiers as it did soon after the women went to the tomb. This is again proof that their visit was near the time when it had just occurred.

I have found a website that, in my opinion demonstrates that it was always on the 16th of Nisan that the wave sheaf were waved and not one the say after the weekly Sabbath, thus the first Sunday after passover. See: http://www.wednesdaycrucifixion.com/

      87. Holy ghost bestowed at pentecost
           Acts 1:8,5
          Holy ghost bestowed before pentecost
           John 20:22

            Theologically|Spiritually|Culturally understood, John 20:22 was the Apostolic Church’s “Early Rain” and the Acts 1:5, 8; 2:1-4ff was the “Latter Rain” (cf. Joel 2:23); the promised baptism with (also) “fire” which was to follow that one of simply of a portion of the Holy Spirit. (=Luke 3:16).
            As discussed here, the “Early Rain” was to do a work of internal preparation amongst the still not “in one accord” disciples, and the “Latter Rain(’s fire)” was to equip these now purified disciples with what they lack on/of their own so that their evangelistic efforts would have the maximum impact and thus results. (Cf. Rev 18:1ff|EW 270-273).

      88. The disciples were commanded immediately after the           
          resurrection to go into Galilee
           Matt 28:10
          The disciples were commanded immediately after the           
          resurrection to go tarry at Jerusalem
           Luke 24:49

The special use of a present tense in the Greek of Matt 28:10 for “said” thus “says” is manifestly for a “Historical Present”, in order to have a present effect of a past statement. In Matt 28:10 Jesus had instructed many women to go and tell all of His brethren (and not just the 11 disciples) to meet Him at a mountain in Galilee. Then in a time lapsing, hence the use of that Historical Present, Jesus eventually met with them all on that mountain (Matt 28:16-20). These are manifestly the 500 other/subsequent followers of Jesus, which were scattered about, which Paul spoke of. (1 Cor 15:6). I.e. the candid phrase: “some were doubtful” (Matt 28:17) cannot merely apply to the 11 as they already had met Jesus and believed (John 20:20), including Thomas (John 20:28). So it indeed is an inclusive references to those 500 others. Therefore this meeting was distinct, and subsequent (i.e. 2+ weeks) after the ones which Jesus priorly had with only His close 11 disciples immediately starting on the day of His resurrection. (1 Cor 15:4-5; Luke 24:34; Luke 24:35-43|John 20:19-25, John 20:26-29).
            Following that Galilee meeting, the 11 disciples themselves returned to Jerusalem where Jesus also met with them, and told them to remain there, and was from their, (and not from the Matt 28:10-20 account, as popularly/cinematographically depicted), ascended into Heaven (Luke 24:50-53).
            Again see the SOP’s (also) visionary account in DA 818-819ff for a perfectly harmonizing account.
      89. Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at    
           Luke 24:33,36,37/ John 20:19
          Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee
           Matt 28:16,17

            As discussed above in Claim #88, that Galilee Mountain meeting involved more than just the 11 disciples. It gathered ca. 500 other believers/disciples that Jesus had, probably as they most lived around that northern area.

      90. Christ ascended from Mount Olivet
           Acts 1:9,12
          Christ ascended from Bethany
           Luke 24:50,51

            The Mount of Olives was in the vicinity|territory of Bethany (cf. DA 830.3). As Luke was writing to a Roman Official, named Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4), it was probably better for him to then mention the probably better known village of Bethany as the reference point. This is manifest from the fact that when Luke goes on to specify the Mount of Olives location in his follow up correspondence with a manifestly then believing|converted Theophilus (Acts 1:1-2), he does go about in quite a roundabout way to mention that mountain (Acts. 1:12).

      91. Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood      
           Acts 9:7
          Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate
           Acts 26:14

            This issue is perfectly resolved in Greek Syntax. See details within here.

      92. Abraham departed to go into Canaan
           Gen 12:5
          Abraham went not knowing where
           Heb 11:8

             The Journey of Abraham from initially Ur in the area (a.k.a. country) of the Chaledeas (just south of Babylon) to, first Haran (Acts 7:2, 4; Gen 12:4-5), and then (“the country of”) Canaan was over 1100 miles. (See the map in here). Abraham knew that he was to set out to go to some country which God would (eventually) show him (Gen 12:1) and manifestly best presumed that the general direction of Canaan was probably a good possibility. He however did not have a city to go and dwell there. (Heb 11:9-10) In fact he had to go and settle in the harsh southern desert regions. (Gen 12:9; 20:1) So Abraham did indeed wander about not knowing where he was to settle down. And it manifestly was not until Abraham, -moving out in faith, again merely towards a most likely area, had entered the land of Canaan, 1100 miles later, that God confirmingly told him that this was the place that he would inherit (Gen 12:6-7). (Cf. SOP account in PP 126.2-3ff).
            And most telling, and Spiritually most pertinent, to such faith in God, with Canaan being a most choice place (cf. Exod 3:8, 17; Num 13:27) to live in the then known/discovered world (in ca. 2100 B.C.), that Abraham did indeed have great faith in God by intuitively targeting the very best of, even if vastly inhabited, lands, trusting that God would accomplish what He had promised. In other words, for Abraham, nothing but the very best would do for God and His Righteous cause. I am even inclined to Biblically believe that if Abraham had set out for a “low hanging fruit” area, that God would have had to act ‘in accordance to that little faith.’ (cf. Matt 8:10, 13; 9:22, 29, 13:58; Mark 6:3-5).
            It indeed most likely that pre-acting faith in God’s promise by Abraham, in he himself defaultly “eying/targeting” the bountiful land of Canaan, again despite its many populace and kingdom obstacles, which then warranted God to respond to that faith and indeed give that self-chosen land to Abraham and His descendants.

      93. Abraham had two sons
           Gal 4:22
          Abraham had but one son
           Heb 11:17

            In agreement with the Spiritual distinction made in Gal 4:22-31, Isaac was considered as Abraham’s only (legitimately) begotten son, a.k.a. the son/child of promise (Gen 21:12; Gal 4:28-31; Heb 11:18). Ishmael was treated as a bastard, and was thus rejected (Gen 16:4-6ff), but God Himself justly saw to it that he would be compensated (Gen 16:10-12; 21:13; 25:16, 18 = Deut 21:15-17), even to the point where, to this day, this (populacely greater) blessing is still evident in the Arab people. (Cf. here).

      94. Keturah was Abraham's wife
           Gen 25:1
          Keturah was Abraham's concubine
           1 Chron 1:32

            Perhaps the writer of 1 chronicles, writing in the time of the monarchy, best understood a second wife, even if it is post the death of a first, to be a “concubine”.
            Perhaps it was, as actually lawfully possible, that Keturah had formerly been Abraham’s concubine (i.e. will Sarah was alive), but any offspring he had (compensatorily) given her then (as she was in full/dedicated servitude to his household) was not being considered as his own sons. (Cf. in here). Only the sons he went on to later have with her when he married her. Or it also could be that Keturah had not had any children when she was (priorly) Abraham’s concubine.

      95. Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the  
          interposition of Providence
           Gen 21:2/ Rom 4:19/ Heb 11:12
          Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years 
          old without any interposition of providence
           Gen 25:1,2

            Right ‘Abraham considered his own body “as good as dead”’ (Heb 11:12) but it actually was not, but it was always only Sarah’s reproduction organs which were “dead” (Rom 4:19; cf. Gen 16:1-4a)...and then even later on Abraham’s reproductive function were still not dead. (Gen 25:1-2). The only miraculous interposition was done in regards to Sarah, not Abraham (no matter what he, or others, (merely) assumed.)

      96. Jacob bought a sepulchre from Hamor
           Josh 24:32
          Abraham bought it of Hamor
           Acts 7:16

            The explanation from the MacArthur Study Bible (MSB) well explains this difference here:

“Joshua 24:32 states that Jacob bought this tomb, although Abraham had earlier built an altar at Shechem (Ge 12:6, 7), and probably purchased the land on which he built it. Abraham did not settle there, however, and the land apparently reverted to the people of Hamor. Jacob then repurchased it from Shechem (Ge 33:18–20), much like Isaac repurchased the well at Beersheba (Ge 26:28–31) that Abraham had originally bought (Ge 21:27–30). It is clear that Joseph was buried at Shechem as he requested (Ge 50:25; Ex 13:19; Jos 24:32). The OT does not record where Joseph’s brothers were buried, but Stephen reveals it was in Shechem.”

      97. God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed      
           Gen 13:14,15,17; 17:8
          Abraham and his seed never received the promised land
           Acts 7:5/ Heb 11:9,13

            Acts 7:5 & Heb 11:9, 13 are right in saying that Abraham himself, nor his immediate descendants (i.e. the generations alive when he was), never themselves received that promised land as their own possession, but were, at best, aliens and sojourners in that land. It was not until after Abraham’s descendants had been in Egypt for centuries that they took possession of the land as theirs under Joshua’s conquests.

      98. Goliath was slain by Elhanan
           2 Sam 21:19 *note, was changed in translation to be        
            correct.  Original manuscript was incorrect>
          The brother of Goliath was slain by Elhanan
           1 Chron 20:5

Again from the satisfactory MSB notes:

-“The minor scribal omission of “the brother of” (in the Heb.) belongs in this verse, based on 1Ch 20:5 which includes them, and because clearly the Scripture says that David killed Goliath as recorded in 1Sa 17:50. There has probably been a scribal error in the text which should read, “Elhanan ... killed the brother of Goliath.””

-“A second possible solution is that Elhanan and David may be different names for the same person, just as Solomon had another name (cf. 2 Sam 12:24, 25).”

-“A third solution is, perhaps that there were two giants named Goliath.”
            -Indeed just like post-Flood men who were of great stature were surnamed “the Nephilim” (Num 13:33) which means “ the fallen ones” as in the sinfully fallen/wicked antediluvian people who were also giants in stature as well as worldy grandeur/renown (a.k.a. “mighty men” Gen 6:4*), it could be that the Philistines surnamed any man of great/gigantic physical stature as “Goliath” and/or they simply did this surnaming for here a similar man in honor of their past, fallen giant Goliath who had been slain by David.

* I’ll relatedly add here about the controversial Gen 6:4 (which many, even Christians, claim/believe involved angels (see e.g. here)) that I find the view (see within here) that there came to be an “unequal yoke mixing’ of the righteous sons in the lineage of Seth and the unrighteous daughters in the lineage of Cain (cf. 2 Cor 6:14-15). Well then, how did such a union suddenly bring forth “great men of renown” and also result in such wickedness that God had to intervene with the Flood. An illustration from present society may explain this.
            It would not at all be surprising that the standard of living and development of line of Cain was much more inferior than the faithful line of Seth who had the added advantage to still being in connection with God. Moreover through their wicked living, the line of Cain would have been limiting their advancement. In our post-9/11 world, the various Militant Islam groups are taken seriously, but because they mostly operate within a developmental context which is not very advanced, indeed, compared to (Judeo-Christian borne&couched) Western achievements, relatively at a “stone age” level, they are generally not considered as an imminent threat, though they are still seriously monitored. It really is only when such groups begin to have access to Western capabilities, that they are then militaristically engaged, with nowadays, ISIS being considered as the most serious of such threats, pointedly because of the influx of Westerners joining, and greatly aiding, them.
            Now, similarly, when those two lineages of Genesis came to mix, the line of Cain then gained all the developmental knowledge and abilities of the line of Seth, and used those capabilities to produce even greater, indeed the greatest of, evil, -perhaps even naturalistic rivaling what men are artificially doing today. And so God had to intervene to keep that growing tide of advanced/great evil in check.
            So Gen 6:4ff did not have to involve ‘an alien seed/influence’, but just a sudden, invigorating empowerment of people who, as always, were only bent on doing evil. And just as in today’s sin-loving world/society, various sinners can have most wide acclamation and “renown” (i.e. as seen in entertainment), so it much decidedly likewise was in those days. (cf. Eccl 1:9-10)

      99. Ahaziah began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram
           2 Kings 8:25
          Ahaziah began to reign in the eleventh year of Joram
           2 Kings 9:29
            Again here the MSB succinctly presents the resolving “accession year system” response:

“Ca. 841 b.c. Cf. 2 Kgs 8:25, “twelfth year.” In 2 Kgs 8:25, the non-accession-year system of dating was used, so that Joram’s accession year was counted as the first year of his reign (see note on 2 Kgs 12:6). Here, the accession-year dating system was used, where Joram’s accension year and his second year were counted as the first year of his reign.”

            As to why the author of 1 Kgs reckoned according to two systems for so close passages, is not known....He may have had a couple week interval in his writing between those two passages and in 2 Kgs 9:29 turned to a source which used that accession year system...again it’s not the end of the (Bible’s) world.

      100. Michal had no child
            2 Sam 6:23
           Michal had five children
            2 Sam 21:8

            The (manuscript of) the KJV/NKJV are evidently in error at 2 Sam 21:8, and as seen e.g. in the NASB, the correct reading should be Merab, who was the oldest daughter of Saul. (1 Sam 1449; 18:17, 19).        

      101. David was tempted by the Lord to number Israel
            2 Sam 24:1
           David was tempted by Satan to number the people
            1 Chron 21:1

            See full (exegetical) explanation and resolution here.

      102. The number of fighting men of Israel was 800,000; and of    
           Judah 500,000
            2 Sam 24:9
           The number of fighting men of Israel was 1,100,000; and of  
           Judah 470,000
            1 Chron 21:5

            The later-writing “Chronicler” had (revising) access to more accurate census/registration/muster figures.

      103. David sinned in numbering the people
            2 Sam 24:10
           David never sinned, except in the matter of Uriah
           1 Kings 15:5

            This sin against Uriah was indeed the most egregious of David’s sins (esp. in the eyes/judgement of the author of 1 Kings). Indeed it was a (personally) Capital Sin. Yet even this grand “human” deeming was (surely awarely) still short of the cleaned slate which God Himself had given to David (back) in 1 Kgs 14:8! (=Isa 43:25; Jer 31:34; 50:20; Mic 7:18-19)

      104. One of the penalties of David's sin was seven years of      
            2 Sam 24:13
           It was not seven years, but three years of famine
            1 Chron 21:11,12

            The (manuscript of) the KJV/NKJV are evidently in error at 2 Sam 21:8, and as seen e.g. in the NASB, the correct reading should be Merab, who was the oldest daughter of Saul. (1 Sam 1449; 18:17, 19).        

     105. David took seven hundred horsemen
            2 Sam 8:4
           David took seven thousand horsemen
            1 Chron 18:4
            Manifestly, merely, a clerical correction by the later-writing Chronicler.

      106. David bought a threshing floor for fifty shekels of silver
            2 Sam 24:24
           David bought the threshing floor for six hundred shekels of 
            1 Chron 21:25

MSB: “The 50 shekels reported in 2 Sam. 24:24 was for the instruments and oxen alone, while the price here includes the whole property, Mt. Moriah, on which the future temple stood. The threshing floor of Ornan is today believed to be the very flat rock under the Moslem mosque, the Dome of the Rock, inside the temple ground in Jerusalem.”

Cf. SDABC PDF p.1994) at 1 Chr 21:25: “According to Gen. 23:16, 17, Abraham paid 400 shekels of silver to Ephron for the field containing the cave of Machpelah (see on Gen. 23:15). Thus it would seem that 50 shekels was too low a price for the property of Ornan. It is possible that the 50 shekels was the price of the threshing floor and the oxen, and that these were only a portion of the total purchase (see on 2 Sam. 24:24).”

      107. David's throne was to endure forever.
            Ps 89:35-37
           David's throne was cast down
            Ps 89:44
            Again, as fully Theologically discussed in this post, the Bible/God has never taught/stated that the future is set in stone, or actually even exist. As God clearly states in Jer 18:1-10, the future, free-will decisions of men is what determines if God can do His part to fulfill a promised that He made.
            But in this case, the actual issue is that David, though anointed to be the next king, is then in the midst of being persecuted as a a fugitive by King Saul, and so he was then, candidly asking God why He was not acting to fulfill that enthronement promise (cf. Psa 94), pointedly in the light of God having expressed that He had enduring future plans for also David’s descendants (Psa 89:38-47). God was instead acting to candidly full expose, and openly/publicly (self-)condemn King Saul, as well as best prepare David for that most important of tasks. (cf. GC 47.1-48.2).
            The future developments showed that God did indeed keep this promise, and indeed enduringly so with David (Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25) as long as Israel had an (independent) monarchy. And if the First Century Jews had accepted Jesus, i.e., on His (spiritual) terms (John 6:15, 26-27), He would have continued this promised enduring regnal posterity (Luke 1:32-33)

Speculative Doctrines          

       108. Christ is equal with God
            John 10:30/ Phil 2:5
           Christ is not equal with God
            John 14:28/ Matt 24:36

            Right, just as with a (U.S.) President and Vice-President, God the Father and God the Son Jesus are both Eternal and originally had been equal in substance, until Jesus agreed to sacrificially bestowingly diminish Himself for the Creation of all things, and then, as Phil 2:6-8ff goes on to say, also later necessarily for a redeeming of a fallen part of this Creation; but the head of Christ is the Father. (1 Cor 11:3; 3:23; John 14:28) See much more in this post section as well as this sermon).
            With Jesus having, and for the rest of eternity, sacrificially, expendingly, diminished Himself to now the same physical nature of a human, to the point where He actually Spiritually&Prophetically depended on God the Father for Divine Insight and Knowledge, as can any other man, it is manifest that He does not now contain the innate Divine Knowledge or Wisdom that God the Father has maintained in having. So on that “intellectual” level, Jesus is indeed “inferior” to the Father, yet His own experiential knowledge and wisdom is most key, even determinatively so (See EW 149-153), to God’s governing of His Created Universe and Creation. So that is why certain decisions have been left up to God to deem when and how best to execute. (E.g. Matt 24:36: John 5:16-18) and yet, as e.g., seen in here, there also, Jesus’ experiential input can still be influentially determinative. (E.g. EW 38.1-2 =Rev 7:1-3).
            ...No “speculation” here, but just (various) Divine mysteries gradually revealed over this Great Controversy’s history when enlighteningly and beneficially proper (cf. Dan 12:4; Rev 10:7)

      109. Jesus was all-powerful
            Matt 28:18/ John 3:35
           Jesus was not all-powerful
            Mark 6:5

            First of all, chronologically strictly speaking, the All-(actually)“Authority” of Matt 28:18 is in a post-Victorious Cross Ordeal Triumph context, and so actually are not related to what the humanly incarnated Christ could do, and that then through the Father’s Authority, before. Evidently now, i.e., post that Overcoming Victory, that “(Greatest of )Authority” has been fully (re-)given over to Christ (Rev 3:21) and indeed comes with that (Glorious) Position/Territory (John 17:4-5; Rev 18:1).
            That clarified, John 3:35 speaks of ‘all the things’ which God had mandated Christ to execute in that Earthly mission. Jesus did not then have the “Authority” to acceptably deviate from that mandate. (cf. John 5:19-23)
            Then in Mark 6:5, the next verse, Mark 6:6, clearly points out that it was the people’s unbelief which limited what Jesus was able to do amongst them. And this probably did indeed make Him “wonder” because this would actually involve that even the sick themselves were doubting Him, and thus were preferentially, i.e. despite some miracles, refusing for Him to lay hands on them, probably, as with Jesus’ own family/relatives and the people’s religious leaders back in Mark 3:20-22, 31-35, slanderously (Mar 3:28-30) attributing His healing powers to the power of Satan. (See DA 321-327).
            And that is all what is foundationally, necessarily, Free-Willedly implicated in this ongoing Great Controversy. When people, as here, defaultly, effectively and/or awarely choose to side with the Devil’s sin-favoring camp (cf. Luke 16:13b), then Divine Authority over their sin-caused adversed conditions and inflictions (=Mar 3:15; 6:7|Luke 9:1-2; 10:17-19|Matt 10:1, 8) just cannot be exercised. In the end God will be granting/giving everyone exactly what they preferred to have, -and that despite sufficient influential self-evidence for them to choose otherwise (John 3:16-21; Rom 1:18ff), and will not have in any way violated or force His own will, however remedial/beneficial to them it would have been, upon them....That is all what is (self-painingly) involved in truly Loving Aspirations. (1 John 4:7-21; Matt 22:34-40)

      110. The law was superseded by the Christian dispensation
            Luke 16:16/ Eph 2:15/ Rom 7:6
           The law was not superseded by the Christian dispensation
            Matt 5:17-19

            The confusion occurring here is from a, actually quite common even within Christian circles, overstating reading of what Jesus actually said and meant in Matt 5:17-19. Jesus did not actually mean that the (OT) Law, or what was prophesied by the (OT) Prophets would never, ever be altered in any way, but rather that any such altering would not be done until “all might come to be” (=Greek subjunctive aorist middle voice; and not actually “accomplished”). Now this “all come to be things” state actually did indeed begin to occur when Christ did His specific initiating part by dying on the Cross as He said: “It is finished/done/accomplished” (John 19:30), and from that very instance, the “jots and tittles” OT Law and Prophets could be defaultly superceded by its Greater Righteousness/Right Doing (Isa 42:21; Matt 5:20), as Jesus had been preparatorily teaching throughout His Ministry for this New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34). In other words, the OT Law and OT Prophecies could be adjusted, even abrogated, as applicable, in the context, and for the purposes, of this much more Glorious and Spiritual New Covenant. (Cf. 2 Cor 3:4-18).
            Prior to the pivotal event and accomplishment of/at the Cross, indeed Heaven and Earth would have more easily passed away than anything be changed in God’s Old Covenant. And on an actually literalistic level, had the New Covenant not be successfully implemented by Christ, pointedly by He Himself, -as He “might” have (=Gr. subjunctive implicative), violating the sacrificial template and mandate in that Old Covenant (e.g. John 3:16-21; 9:39-41; 12:27, 31-33, 35-36; Matt 26:36-46), Heaven and Earth would then have indeed passed away. (-Luke 12:49-50, 51-53).

Law-Cross, new covenant

      111. Christ's mission was peace
            Luke 2:13,14
           Christ's mission was not peace
            Matt 10:34

            I have dealt with this issue within this post at/from Rev 19:15 (=Rev 6:3-4 discussed in here); But the corroborating SOP’s exposition in GC 46.3 and its context (GC 46-48) is additionally/confirmingly great. No further explaining required.
            By the way Luke 2:14 was also qualifying clear that God was promising peace from Him through Christ only to “men with whom He is pleased.” Similarly Jesus’s Advent/Mission never promised to be a white-washing cakewalk for those who were at enmity and opposition to His (Actual) Truth/Righteousness/Love principles (Luke 2:34)....(but that is all the pompously wishful vacuous narrative that unbelievers need to disculpatingly cling to). Indeed even Mary’s own self-interestly (cf. Matt 16:23b) prideful heart (John 2:4|DA 144.3-147.4; Mar 3:20-21, 31-35|DA 321.1-2; DA 325.1-326.4ff) would be exposed by this ‘sword (=words/“logic”/wisdom) of Christ’ (Luke 2:35; John 12:48|Heb 4:12-13; John 1:1-5; Luke 11:49|Matt 23:34).

      112. Christ received not testimony from man
            John 5:33,34
           Christ did receive testimony from man
            John 15:27

            John 5:33-34 says and means that John the Baptist testified of the Truth which He had received from God and not man (See DA 110.1; 112.2-4ff). John 15:27 is actually a completely different thing. It is not speaking of the disciples validatingly testifying about Jesus, but them telling others about what they had themselves experienced with Jesus.

      113. Christ's witness of himself is true.                         
            John 8:18,14
           Christ's witness of himself is not true.
            John 5:31

            Since John 5:32 speaks of ‘(an additional) “another” of the same kind’(Greek allos) who (also) testifies of Jesus, all in reference to God the Father (and, as seen above in Claim #112: “not from man”), then, as translationally supplied by the NASB, John 5:31 should read/be understood as: “If I alone testifies of Myself...not true.” (cf. Deut 17:6; 19:15; 2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28 (=Rev 11:3 here)).

      114. Christ laid down his life for his friends
            John 15:13/ John 10:11
           Christ laid down his life for his enemies
            Rom 5:10

            Rom 5:10 is actually pointedly (inclusively) speaking of/about people (= “we”) who then had become Christians, but prior to their conversion had been enemy of Christ/Christianity. But now they were considered ‘friends of Christ.’ (1 John 3:1; James 4:4). But as also involved in John 10:11 = Luke 15:1-7, John 3:16 in its context (John 3:17-21) does specify that Jesus died, not only for the ca. 500 (1 Cor 15:6 = Matt 28:16-17) who in some degree held on to a belief in Him when He was hanging on the Cross, but for any-unknown-person, to the end of time, who will come to believe in Him, and also for anyone who lived before the Cross, who had chosen to live a righteous life. (Cf. Rom 1:18ff; 2:1-16). These are indeed all “His past, present and future, friends”!!!

      115. It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
            John 19:7
           It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death
            John 18:31

            Really...The Jews had no legal authority to themselves effectuate Capital Punishment (John 18:31)...eventhough according to their own (religious) laws, the offense they were (emptily) charging Jesus with warranted such a penalty. (John 19:7) That situation is exactly the same reason why e.g. Western Countries do not either honor, nor allow for “(religious) honor killing” by any religious group within their territorial jurisdiction.
            Now see how seriously Pilate took that implication (John 19:8-12), probably putting two & two together from the supernatural, preemptive dream his wife had been given (Matt 27:19), and thus sought to fully disculpate himself (before “God”) (John 19:14-16, 19-22)... However, given his cognitive awareness about that case, and “Authority”: evidently not enough GC 667.2. Clearly being a ‘“timeserving”* leader’ is a Capital offense before God...how much more with/for Ecclesiastical leaders...

Noah Webster’s Dictionary 1828 Era/Edition:
* Time-serv-er/ing:
-One who adapts his opinions and manners to the times; one who obsequiously complies with the ruling power.
-An obsequious** compliance with the humors of men in power, which implies a surrender of one's independence, and sometimes of one's integrity
** Obsequious: Promptly obedient or submissive to the will of another; compliant; yielding to the desires of others, properly to the will or command of a superior, but in actual use, it often signifies yielding to the will or desires of such as have no right to control.

-With reverence for the dead. (Cf. Luke 9:57-62)

      116. Children are punished for the sins of the parents
            Ex 20:5
           Children are not punished for the sins of the parents
            Ezek 18:20

            The much more likely meaning of the Exod 20:5 stipulation is discussed here&here, which thus is not in thematic conflict with Ezek 18:20; Deut 24:16; Jer 31:30.

      117. Man is justified by faith alone
            Rom 3:20/ Gal 2:16/ Gal 3:11,12/ Rom 4:2
           Man is not justified by faith alone
            James 2:21,24/ Rom 2:13

Short form answer to this issue which is variously and pervasively cited throughout this
blog, indeed because of the James 2:14-26 calibration: True faith/belief in Christ will indeed not be without the corresponding and demonstrating/manifesting works which He has commanded to be done (John 14:11, 15; 15:14; 1 John 3:23|Matt 22:34-40)...And this is all something that Paul, perhaps accepting this calibrating correction from James also (went on to) likewise (fully) express (Eph 2:8-10; Titus 2:14b -the NASB’s translational renderings as: (a) “every lawless deed” more accurately is simply “all lawlessness”; and (b) “zealous for good deeds” is more accurately: “...good works”). And the comment made here[19:45-21:06ff] is very accurate in stating that: ‘Christ has given His followers the “work” to “believe” in Him’ (John 6:28-29; cf. James 2:22)...indeed, as Francis Chan impressionably illustrates: ‘truly/actually believe’ (cf. here).

      118. It is impossible to fall from grace
            John 10:28/ Rom 8:38,39
           It is possible to fall from grace
            Ezek 18:24/ Heb 6:4-6, 2 Pet 2:20,21

John 10:28 - As long as people remain in Christ’s hands, that promisory gifting of eternal life indeed ‘“might” (Gr. Subjunctive) never be remove’

Rom 8:38-39 - Only one’s personal choices would be able to separate themselves from the love of God. As long as they themselves are not willing, nothing else then can.

Ezek 18:24; Heb 6:4-6; 2 Pet 2:20-21 - Right, as involved above, only personal choices, including the choice to remain in apostasy will cause someone to damningly remain in their sins. Just going by the “fallen form grace” take here...sorry if you, apparently, have been exposed to the Calvinist heresy of “once saved, always saved’. The Full testimony of the Bible doesnèt teach that.

      119. No man is without sin
            1 Kings 8:46/ Prov 20:9/ Eccl 7:20/ Rom 3:10
          Christians are sinless
            1 John 3: 9,6,8

            What part of the Spiritual terms: “abide” & “(in faith) sees” (1 John 3:6 = John 15:1-11); “practicing” (1 John 3:7-8); and “born of” (1 John 3:9 = John 3:3-12ff) cannot be factored in here, and understood!??? People are indeed inherently and in actuality sinful (Rom 3:23) and people who practice sin, and never want, let alone ask, to be forgiven, are indeed sinful, people who in full faith are striving for the contrary are correspondingly, graciously viewed by  God as being sinless. That’s what Christianities Theology is all about. (Rom 3:21-26).

      120. There is to be a resurrection of the dead
            1 Cor 15:52/ Rev 20:12,13/ Luke 20:37/ 1 Cor 15:16
           There is to be no resurrection of the dead
            Job 7:9/ Eccl 9:5/ Is 26:14

            Also add e.g Dan 12:2; John 5:28-29 1 Thess 4:14-17 to that first tier. The second tier of passages are only speaking in a context of God not supernaturally acting to restore life/consciousness, as He will for the (final) resurrection, and in the case of the wicked, merely for their final judgement.

      121. Reward and punishment to be bestowed in this world
            Prov 11:31
           Reward and punishment to be bestowed in the next world
            Rev 20:12/ Matt 16:27/ 2 Cor 5:10

            The simple answer (for such a simpleton claim) is that both the wicked and the righteous are not only rewarded in this world (or more accurately: age), but also, and that most fully, in the next age. (E.g. Mark 10:29-30| Luke 18:29-30; Matt 12:32; Luke 6:38)

      122. Annihilation the portion of all mankind
            Job 3:11,13-17,19-22/ Eccl 9:5,10/ Eccl 3:19,20
           Endless misery the portion of all mankind
            Matt 25:46/ Rev 20:10,15/ Rev 14:11/ Dan 12:2

            First of all, not “all mankind”, but only the unsaved & wicked (John 3:16-21). Then none of the first tier claim verses actually speak of “annihilation”, but merely death, i.e. the “First Death”, which its undergoers are all to be awaken from (Heb 9:27), some to then experience the Second Death (John 5:28-29), which itself is the death of annihilation. (Rev 20:6, 14-15). Manifestly/Likely the claimant was here confused by the popular, but heretical “Babylonian” understanding of most Christians about the State of the Dead which believe that there is “soul” consciousness by both the wicked and the righteous during/after death.

            The terminal nature of Hell is fully addressed here. Summarily stated here, the Bible consistently speaks of: (1) a judgement/punishment of the wicked which will, when completed, have “everlasting” effects (Matt 25:46; Dan 12:2); -as evidently will, at least for a lingering while, be the “smoke” (Rev 14:11) from that prior, completed consummation (cf. Gen 19:24-25, 27-28; Jude 1:7); and (2) a period for the effectuation of this judgement/punishment which will last in what is reckoned as “into ages of ages”, thus only a portion of all the “ages” of Existence/Creation. E.g. 1-3 “ages” out of 7.
Possible/Manifest Existence|Creation Ages:

(1) Godhead Eternal (Alone) Existence
(2) Created Heavenly Beings
(3) Created Earthly Beings
(4) Great Controversy Age(s): (a) Fall|Antediluvians (b) Patriarchs (c) Old Covenant/Israel (d) Messiah (e) New Covenant/Apostolic Church (f) Church History (g) Time of the End
(5) Millennial Age
(6) Hell’s Execution Age(s): For: (a) Ignorant Capital Sinners (b) Unforgiven Sinners (c) Defiant/Rebellious (d) Jewish Opposers/Persecutors (e) Christian Opposers/Persecutors (f) Fallen Angels (g) Satan
(7) Eternity: New Heavens and New Earth

            So Rev 14:11 is actually stating that: ‘the smoke from prior accomplished tormentings will be continuing to waft into subsequent ages of tormentings (i.e. for more entrenched rebelling sinners)’...And so those smoke(s) will serve as the lasting testimony of that prior burning up righteous judgement by God. In fact, with people lasting in Hell’s fire in proportion to their inculcated guiltiness, the more smoke that will be produced and found afterwards, will testify to how guilty, and thus deserving of this confessions-exacting judgment these people/groups had indeed been.

      123. The Earth is to be destroyed
            2 Pet 3:10/ Heb 1:11/ Rev 20:11
           The Earth is never to be destroyed
            Ps 104:5/ Eccl 1:4

            Again, technically speaking, the (Hebraic) expression “forever” does not inherently mean “eternally” but rather ‘as long as something can/is supposed to fully last’. (e.g. Exod 21:6 NKJV; Jon 2:6; 1 Sam 1:22 = 1 Sam 1:11, 28)...That qualifyingly stated: when God created this Planet/Earth He did indeed ‘inherently establish it on its foundations so that it would remain stable and functional “forever”’ (=Psa 104:5). Only the great tectonic cataclysm of the God-effectuated Global Flood, all due to Sin, came to destabilize the Earth, -shifting it on/from its axis, came to change that perfect plan (cf. Jer 18:9-10). Then Eccl 1:4 is just speaking of the Earth in contrast to the passing human generations who live on/in/from it.
            But in regards to God destroying, then restoring this Fallen Sinful World/Earth, the damage of sin, again indeed greatly accentuated by the damages during/for the Flood, are literally (Crust) surface-layer deep (thus up to 30-36 miles deep (=Continental+Oceanic Crusts) cf. Gen 7:11b). Meaning that that entire layer likely may need to be completely dissolved and reformed by God, albeit while the underneath, and probably not at all damaged/altered from its original perfect formation, Mantles, -upon which these Crusts “float”, and outer and inner cores remain. Hence the prophetic depictions of the (visible/inhabited “Earth” portions being total dissolved. (2 Pet 3:10)...and indeed also the especially now famously (Ozone layer) damaged at least up to 62 miles of atmosphere(s) (=“heaven”) above. E.g. part of it may have been condensed into rain water for the Flood (Gen 7:11a), though, as presented here, part of the Flood’s rainwater may have also been taken from other planets in this galaxy (e.g. Mars).

      124. No evil shall happen to the godly
            Prov 12:21/ 1 Pet 3:13
           Evil does happen to the godly
            Heb 12:6/ Job 2:3,7

            ...Didn’t also read 1 Pet 3:14!??? The Bible is unequivocally clear that the righteous can (unjustly) suffer for/when pursuing righteousness (2 Tim 3:12; cf. GC 48.3), but the pivotal qualifier here is the word “befall” (lit. “opportune” Strongs #0579) in Prov 12:21, and the wider authorizing context of the Job story, which all show that: ‘no evil will “opportunistically” happen the godly if God does not allow for it (cf. Psa 90:10-12), -for incontrovertible candidly evidencing, ‘dually purposeful’ reasons (See GC 48.1-2)...{Even (indeed) righteous Job was benefitted by his permitted ordeal (Job 42:5-6)}.

      125. Worldly good and prosperity are the lot of the godly
            Prov 12:21/ Ps 37:28,32,33,37/ Ps 1:1,3/ Gen 39:2/
             Job 42:12
           Worldly misery and destitution the lot of the godly
            Heb 11:37,38/ Rev 7:14/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Luke 21:17

            As those first tier passage all contextually involve God (a) does adequately provide for the righteous and (b) He ultimately will indeed allow the righteous to live comfortably, especially when the specific and/or general enemies of the righteous and righteousness have been defeated. So God-Created earthly good and prosperity have always been, i.e. from the start of Creation, for the enjoyment and benefit of humans, it is just that Fallen, Sinful and Wicked men then came to make various, selfishness-rooted, misuse of them.
            Adversity, misery and destitution only come upon th e righteous when the wicked variously persecutively interpose themselves in the well-being of the righteous, indeed whenever the righteous living of the righteous is about to overrun their vacuous fables and futile sinful ways of living...and as explained in GC 47.1-48.2, God allows this for a purpose.
      126. Worldly prosperity a reward of righteousness and a blessing
            Mark 10:29,30/ Ps 37:25/ Ps 112:1,3/ Job 22:23,24/
             Prov 15:6
           Worldly prosperity a curse and a bar to future reward
            Luke 6:20,24/ Matt 6:19,21/ Luke 16:22/ Matt 19:24/
             Luke 6:24
            Succinctly, summarily responded to:...prosperity is a ‘damning curse’ when one has made an idol out of those blessings, thus allowing these inanimate, created things to lead them astray from the moral and righteousness Will of God. (Btw Job 22:23-26 (falsely accusingly spoken by Job’s friend Eliphaz) does not speak in favor of material things...but Job did indeed (unaffectedly) have such blessings).

      127. The Christian yoke is easy
            Matt 11:28,29,30
           The Christian yoke is not easy
            John 16:33/ 2 Tim 3:12/ Heb 12:6,8

            The “Christian Yoke” is only what Jesus requires of His followers (Matt 11:28-30), which also can include disciplinary measures used to keep a willing person in that right way. (Heb 12:6, 8). What the then hating wicked world goes on to persecutively do to believers (John 16:33; 2 Tim 3:12) is from Christ’s yoke, but solely from the Satan and/or naturally disposed evil people. (Cf. Isa 54:15ff). Christ’s ideal for His people is to give them all the best of life (John 10:10) but unconverted people and their leader the Devil just cannot allow this to happen....

      128. The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness
            Gal 5:22
           The fruit of God's spirit is vengeance and fury
            Judg 15:14/ 1 Sam 18:10,11

            The fruit of the Holy Spirit is also “faithfulness”, and that involves being faithful in doing what is right and just...and that can indeed involve exacting judicious vengeance on avowed and trespassing-in-acts enemies of Truth and Righteousness. (E.g. Judge 14:4; 15:14-16).
            The “evil spirit from God” in 1 Sam 18:10 involves God having allowed Satan to influence the mind of the backsliding Saul in order to adjudge him. (See Isa 45:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-23). This was all in order to demonstrate to all the people in Israel what kind of character Saul really had, and thus disqualify him in their eyes/minds to continue to be king, fully accepting David instead.

      129. Longevity enjoyed by the wicked
            Job 21:7,8/ Ps 17:14/ Eccl 8:12/ Is 65:20
           Longevity denied to the wicked
            Eccl 8:13/ Ps 55:23/ Prov 10:27/ Job 36:14/ Eccl 7:17

            God does not strike down the wicked every time they sin or else they then would be seeking to know and serve Him merely out of self-serving fear. Instead he lets them live naturally live out their life, reaping whatever is the fruit of their living, and when, as all of those second tier passages involve, this fruit is ‘excessively wicked’ then the wicked either naturally reap an immediate fate which usually cut down their years, or, if a natural means is not present to naturally do this checking, then, as e.g. done with the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the 7 vile nations in Canaan, God acts to do this necessary preventative measure. In other cases, God does mercifully allow the non-overstepping and societally-threatening wicked to live out whatever existence they can sustain, all in the merciful hope that one day they’ll repent and choose to live according to His way and will, and thus Eternally, instead. Moreover God does lovingly allow the (again non-overstepping) wicked to live out whatever existence they can manage, because (1) this limited life is the only round of life that they’ll ever get, and (2) just like a law enforcement agency doing evidence collecting against a criminal organization, when comes the time for them to be judged, then there will be ample evidence to justly, completely, condemn them for the life of sin and evil they had choosingly/indifferently (cf. Rom 1:18-2:16) preferred to pursue. (=Psa 92:7; GC 48.2)

      130. Poverty a blessing
            Luke 6:20,24/ Jams 2:5
           Riches a blessing
            Prov 10:15/ Job 22:23,24/ Job 42:12
           Neither poverty nor riches a blessing
            Prov 30:8,9

            Again all passages in their proper immediate and also wider contexts. A key running implicit harmonizing|calibrating/grounding theme in all of this is ‘knowing where your riches come from, i.e., from God’s blessing, for then you won’t allow them to become a snare, and used them for the furthering of good.

Luke 6:20 - Jesus is here speaking to people who are already poor and which God has not chosen to bless with riches, probably knowingly for their own good, -and that is Jesus’ point: they thus are more likely to enter God’s/His Kingdom (cf. Luke 18:23-27; cf. Rev 2:9).

Luke 6:24 - Riches, especially if known or deemed to be self-acquired and not God-bestowed/blessed, do indeed most likely lead people to become Spiritually complacent (perfect case in point: Laodicea (Rev 3:14-19)), and so Jesus rightly speaks to this other group by giving them a “woe” (~a warning of (looming) evil) should then continue in that mentality.

James 2:5 - As seen with the encounter with the rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-27; i.e. vs. Christ’s other former fishermen disciples), -and who Christ wanted to become one of His (12) disciples (COL 392.2-393.2; evidently as the future replacement for the quite manifest betrayer Judas (John 6:70-71|DA 716.4; cf. 719.3)) it was indeed harder for Christ to get the “complacently full” rich individuals to do like these disciples and ‘give everything up to follow after Him” (cf. Matt 22:1-14). So it was indeed the “no choice ones” but eventually chosen, poor ones who were in this position to become “rich in faith” (cf. 2 Cor 8:9, 14), which is the New Covenant “pearls” (Matt 7:6) which Christ was going to impart upon them.

Prov 10:15 - This is merely a quite factual statement that rich people will, as they can, rely on their wealth in/for (natural) hard times, whereas the poor will “naturally” be ruin in similarly times because of their poverty state.
            Perfect demonstration, while the United States probably (at least on average) recurringly annually territorially suffers more Major Natural Disasters (e.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floodings, (and the 9/11 Attack’s physical and economic damages can be included here) etc) than any other single country (indeed just compared with their northern neighbor Canada), and which cause billions of dollars in damages, they have no difficulty at all easily bouncing completely back from such losses. But if/when a similar event occurs in a poor country, not only are the (actually less costly damages, harder to recover from, but the loss of life is many times exponentially much greater than it was in the United States...all because of the great wealth disparity between these poor or developing countries vs. the U.S.

Job 22:23-24; 42:12 - Yes Job did have much riches/wealth, and he, and even Satan, knew that it was given to him by God (Job 1:9-10), and God probably did this abundant bestowing because Job was most, perhaps even the lone, faithful person to Him throughout the Earth being manifestly the only person who stood in objection to Satan’s claim of total (democratic) overtaking. (Job 1:7-8). So God here would have no one else with whom He could share those blessings but Job.
            Job 42:12 is always an interesting citation in the sense that, when compared with the (starting) figures in Job 1:2, it shows that God exactly doubled the wealth that Job had prior to the totally devastating ordeal that God deliberately put him through...but all except for again coming to having also 10 children. Evidently, unlike Job’s other live cattle wealth, the number of children he would have had would not actually have also “doubled”. So God merely gave him the same number of children he priorly, settledly, had.

Prov 30:8-9 - As seen from the life of King Solomon (1 Kgs 11:8ff), riches can indeed become a curse for even the wisest of people. Hence the right statement here by Agur (Pro 30:1) for God to not give him too much wealth so that he would not be tempted to deny God in his life. Then poverty can indeed lead one on a path of lawlessness, even beyond a survivalism (indeed the most crime-ridden parts of a country/city are typically its poorest areas/communities), and thus the joint request by Agur to not be allowed to sink to that low socio-economic state. So for Agur, and anyone else susceptible|disposed like him, the juste-millieu is perfectly fine for him. However God does need for certain of His followers to be materially blessed ‘so that they can in turn be a wider blessing’ (Gen 12:2-3; 22:17-18), but, again as seen through Solomon, and also to some related extent with Abraham, God has to be very cautious with whom He grants this opportunity, because it is not a guarantee that it will work out to how He intended it. Indeed Solomon himself most damagingly and lastingly perverted God’s Israel plans (1 Kgs 11:9-13ff). So God typically first greatly tests, and when applicable, pertinently breaks/molds such candidates for this opportunity before fully so entrusting them.

      131. Wisdom a source of enjoyment
            Prov 3:13,17
           Wisdom a source of vexation, grief and sorrow
            Eccl 1:17,18

            It is manifest, since Solomon also includes “madness and folly” in this pursuit of “much knowledge”, that he is here relating how he probably delved into also searching out human wisdom, speculations and philosophies, indeed in all that men were doing under the sun (Eccl 1:13a) rather than merely limiting himself to a ‘fear of the Lord and His ways’ which would in turn have provided him all the wisdom he would ever need (Job 28:28; Pro 15:33). Indeed that is the proper “anchor” for any other advanced knowledge (Psa 111:10; Pro 1:7; 9:10).
            To illustratively put this issue of Solomon in contemporary perspective, Solomon would be like a believer today pursuing all of the various philosophies, theories and claims of unbelieving men today about the various things which occur in the world and the universe, instead of merely trusting the Word of God. That all can indeed result in headaches, and mostly lead into ‘futile and vain’ pursuits. And God has indeed given (unbelieving) sons of men this trial and error, pin-in-a-haystack, “grievous/evil task” of trying to solve such mysterious things (Eccl 1:13b), -really just to keep them busy and thus less prone to sink into utter sinfulness (as during the days of ease in the pre-flood ravaged Earth (Gen 6:5-7ff)); whereas, whenever actually necessary, He simply reveals the solution to His people through His prophets. E.g. People have been trying to figure out how to live longer and healthier for years, when all along, as seen in newscast reports by (e.g.): ABC/GMA, CNN and other, God had long prophetically given the solution to His most faithful followers. Similarly, man today is spending billions of dollars in trying to find life on other planets, and also trying to figure out how to live on other planets, when they should instead be focusing the state of things on this planet, where there moreover are ample resources to fully sustain much more human live and development. So a “foolish Solomon” today would likewise allow himself to be engrossed and perplexed by such vacuous galactic explorations and speculations, which would indeed just only cause him much ‘stress, vexation, grief, pain and sorrow’, indeed compared to the little helpful/practical information that such endeavors can actually provide. (E.g what exactly has the moon landing contribute to everyday life on Earth...except for Cold War victory pride...and better rocket science and technology to advanced the delivery means for nuclear weapons...)
            The efforts of people today in trying to make daunting sense of, and figure out their man-made, whimsical Capitalistic Economy is also a perfect demonstration of this futility...To me, given the foundational socio-economic principles in God’s word (cf. here), this is all merely as worthwhile as a dog pantingly chasing its own tail....And attached to this is “governments trying to solve the economy” when what they can at best do, given the entirely skewed basis of this economic system is just teeter the whole imbalanced mass towards the other side...until a party with the opposite, but likewise skewed “wisdom” comes into power and “corrects” what the philosophy of the other party had, naturally, unbalancingly skewed.
            Really man should instead be indeed focusing on mastering their “fear of the Lord” because then God would most faithfully undertake to solve all of their “mysteries” for them.
            But in a context of pervasive/majoritarily lawlessness, God does allow, even “task” unbelievers with such searching excursions so that they can possibly “naturally” provide as much as possible for themselves. (E.g. for possibly defeating threats from incoming asteroids) because He correspondingly has not warrant to do this defending for them, -just like He could not protect an unfaithful Israel nation from natural/human dangers and threats.

      132. A good name is a blessing
            Eccl 7:1/ Prov 22:1
           A good name is a curse
            Luke 6:26

            A “good name” was indeed the personal “credit rating” of a person in those times, and to a certain intangible extent, even in our day, but in regards to the statement in Luke 6:26, given the world|society overturning Gospel message (cf. Matt 10:22, 34-36; 11:12; John 15:18-21) that Jesus would be entrusting to His followers, if “all men” equally were speaking well of them it was either because they just had not actually comprehended that Gospel message, and the inherent claim that it was making on their life and way of living, and/or those followers of Christ were just not properly preaching and testifying of this message, and thus were indeed acting like the flattering false prophets of old.          
            This was all perfectly demonstrated in Church History. The Apostolic and Early Christian Church were most faithful in proclaiming and living out Christ’s Gospel message, and so they most naturally were vehemently hated and deadly persecuted. But then a spurious, diluted, form of Christianity was usher in by Constantine and Christians then had a “good name” even amongst their former pagan foes, as these pagans were no longer being called to abandon all of their paganistic ways for the Gospel...and thus Spiritual Babylon, with all of its fundamental blasphemous self-idolizing|worshipping mentality, was transferred from Pagan Rome (1 Pet 5:13) into the Church/People of Christ itself (as indeed fundamentally still seen in Heretical Roman Catholicism and also (then) Capitalist/Capitalistic Protestantism (=Rev 17-18)).

      133. Laughter commended
            Eccl 3:1,4/ Eccl 8:15
           Laughter condemned
            Luke 6:25/ Eccl 7:3,4

            As Eccl 3:1 well premised: “There is an appointed time for everything”...Therefore there is an appointed time when it is better/beneficial to laugh and have a good time (Eccl 8:15); and other times, to cry, reflect and wisen up (Eccl 7:3-4)...and several examples of both can be most logically cited...
            Luke 6:25 is actually involving that those who then were insouciantly laughing, i.e. in the face of the need for the kingdom of God message to be courageously proclaimed and upheld (cf. Matt 11:11), would (most likely) be the ones weeping when they reap the judgement of their carefree indifference and complacency. (e.g. Luke 21:23-24)

      134. The rod of correction a remedy for foolishness
            Prov 22:15
           There is no remedy for foolishness
            Prov 27:22

            Well (a) some people just are “hell-bent” on being, and remaining foolish (a.k.a. moronic) and their granted Free-Will will certainly help them maintain this mindset; but (b) Prov 22:15 is speaking in the context of a child’s almost innate/natural propensity to, more easily/readily, be/act foolish; while Prov 27:22 is speaking about physically or spiritually “Grown up Children” (1 SM 110.1; Heb 5:11-6:8) and that latter, life-well-entrenched, even relapsed/regressed, state is indeed much more difficult to uproot and redress; even in/by God’s own “boot-camp” (Heb 12:3-11).

      135. A fool should be answered according to his folly
            Prov 26:5
        A fool should not be answered according to his folly
            Prov 26:4

            The conundral point is: You just can’t win against a fool, either way, engaging them will greatly “cost you” something. I certainly known this first hand.

      136. Temptation to be desired
            James 1:2
           Temptation not to be desired
            Matt 6:13
            In special, object-lesson and demonstrative purposes, God can lead someone into a realm of variously testing/trying/concretely proofing temptation, all to “produce endurance” (James 1:2; e.g. Jesus (Matt 4:1ff|Luke 4:1ff); Job (Job 1:9-12; 2:3-6ff); the 11 disciples (Luke 22:31-32ff)); (Heb 12:3-11); but Jesus states that it is better to be asking God not to have to do this (Matt 6:13; i.e., if possible, find another way (cf. Matt 26:38-44)).

      137. Prophecy is sure
            2 Pet 1:19
           Prophecy is not sure
            Jer 18:7-10

            Contrary to popular, but Biblically incorrect, theological assumption, prophecy as “sure” as conditions required for its fulfillment are meant as clearly stipulated by the Sovereign (Jer 18:1-6) Author (Isa 46:9-11) and Orchestrator/Executor (e.g. Jer 18:11-12) of Prophecy in Jer 18:7-10. And yet more, 2 Pet 1:19a in context can also be understood to jointly/pivotally mean that: ‘[thus] we have the more sure prophetic word (about the Messiahship and Divinity of Jesus)’ due to what they had fulfillingly seen/heard/experienced when on the Transfiguration Mount (Matt 17:1-9; 2 Pet 1:16-18). And yet even not yet fulfilled prophecy is still just as “sure” (2 Pet 1:20-21), because God has the overmastering power to have it fulfilled as pertinently applicable (Isa 48:3), and thus, in ‘dark times’, can/must be heeded as a guiding light (2 Pet 1:19b).

      138. Man's life was to be one hundred and twenty years
            Gen 6:3/ Ps 90:10
           Man's life is but seventy years
            Ps 90:10

            First of all, Psa 90:10 actually says ‘70-80 years’, which, (and unless one is following the Biblical lifestyle/diet, as discussed above in Claim #131, which adds 7-10+ (moreover healthy) years), is indeed the best life-expectancy range that even modern/advanced Western society can arrive at; and as shown by the supplied strikeout above, Psa 90:10 actually says nothing about 120 years. But the very short exegetical answer is that Gen 6:3 can rather be understood to mean that God, now that ‘He no longer was going to strive with the sinful, violent and wicked antediluvian population through His Spirit’, was nonetheless, not going to immediately blot them out, but was going to give them 120 years of probation until that utter judgment in the Flood. (1 Pet 3:20). And during that time, Noah was preaching righteousness to them, and all the while, through his faithful building of the Ark, was warning them of that coming Divine destruction (Heb 11:7).

      139. The fear of man was to be upon every beast
            Gen 9:2
           The fear of man is not upon the lion
            Prov 30:30

            Prov 30:30 actually sequiturly (accurately) says in context that: ‘the lion, being mighty amongst the beast, does not retreat before any (beast).’

      140. Miracles a proof of divine mission
            Matt 11:2-5/ John 3:2/ Ex 14:31
           Miracles not a proof of divine mission
            Ex 7:10-12/ Deut 13:1-3/ Luke 11:19

            Short answer is that Satan does have the power to do signs and (sham) miracles, but the real determiner of a Divine Mission is, as clearly stated in Deut 13:1-5, is whether or not the full testimony of God’s Word is (then) also being fully upheld. As prophesied in Rev 16:13-14ff, Satan will use miracle power and even the (non-supernatural) doing of good works (indeed as prominently seen in/advocated by the Roman Catholic Church (see in here)), to deceive people who are Biblically illiterate/indifferent into accepting a false Gospel. (See GC 588.2-3; 590.2ff; 593.1; 612.1; 624.1ff).

      141. Moses was a very meek man
             Num 12:3
           Moses was a very cruel man
            Num 31:15,17

Moses was “humble” enough in God’s Eyes to fully/properly/justly do God’s will (Num 31:15-18), and not fear, or kowtow to man’s will (Acts 5:29); indeed not proudly/pompously thinking that he himself was more just than God (1 Sam 15:8-9, 10-24ff).

      142. Elijah went up to heaven
            2 Kings 2:11
           None but Christ ever ascended into heaven
            John 3:13

            Actually Enoch (Gen 5:24|Heb 11:5|EW 39.3a), and also Moses (Matt 17:3ff), had ascended to Heaven. But Jesus is in context here (John 3:12) speaking of someone needing to have gone to heaven to be able to also understand heavenly things. Only He, the Son of Man, would have had such prior elucidation, though Jesus actually was born with a “blank slate” in regards to His knowledge, as any other human is. And so, as He does next, Jesus is not at all referring to, or depending on, any “special/Heavenly knowledge” in sharing these things to Nicodemus, but is straightly referring to what God has already object-lessonly done on Earth, amongst His OT Israel. (John 3:14-15, 16ff)

      143. All scripture is inspired
            2 Tim 3:16
           Some scripture is not inspired
            1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17
            Not all that is recorded in the Bible is defaultly formally considered “Scripture”, as in, a direct revelation/inspiration, and thus prescribing instruction, from God (2 Pet 1:20-21). Some things are merely descriptive/narrative accounting, and in regards to teachings, it is only as statements agree with those direct revelations from God/Christ, then are they also considered as (prescriptive) “Scripture”. All things are to thus be properly tested (1 Thess 5:19-22). And that is Paul’s knowing point in being this transparent here. The same thing indeed occurs with prophetic ministries (=the SOP (Rev 12:17; 19:10)), e.g. in the writings of EGW.
      [144] Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
      peace, but a sword.
      - Matthew 10:34

      ... all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
      - Matthew 26:52
            Matt 10:34 seeming paradox is best explained in GC 46.3. But the caution given to Peter in Matt 26:52 is in regards to using the sword as a, especially default/unwarranted, offensive means, instead of merely as a life saving/sparing defensive means.
            Interestingly enough, as fully discussed in here at Issue #3 about “Israel’s “Offensive” Wars”, God’s original plan for Israel’s obtaining of their promised land was to be through its inhabitants being driven out by swarms of hornets (Exod 23:27-30). But because of Israel subsequent disobedience and faithlessness (Exod 32; Num 14), God could no longer use that most covert supernatural and awing plan (Exod 33:1-3ff), and had to let Israel fight for the land ‘with the sword’...and as an (enduring) result, just as Jesus said in Matt 26:52, Israel has has, even to this day, maintain “the use of the “sword”” (i.e. military might) in order to try (cf. Luke 21:24) to secure their (insistent) occupation of that piece of land.

      [145] For wrath killeth the foolish man...
      - Job 5:2

      ... let not the sun go down on your wrath.
      - Ephesians 4:26
            ...Which is why one should not end their day and (try to) go sleep while having not reconcilingly resolved those angering issues. But Job 5:2 is more pointedly focusing on “foolish”, uncontrolled temper, people who mindlessly and wantonly act on their anger and end up reaping untimely consequence, indeed even a slain death. (e.g. in a (gun|knife) fight). Likewise, simple people who go around being jealous of other who have done any ‘complicated” work in order to arrive at a goal, just end up ruining/killing themselves, even simply by festering on this attitude, all the while while either being innately way too simple(-minded) to be able to do something to change things and/or being too simple(-minded) to even think to start doing something towards such an objective.

      [146] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, even the Son of man which
      is in heaven.
      - John 3:13

      ... and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
      - 2 Kings 2:11
(Odd, (moreover proximate), repetition; -also several other times below...(Most likely from an unfiltering copy & paste aggregating here from various listings found on the internet). Already addressed above in Claim #142)

      [147] If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
      - John 5:31

      I am one that bear witness of myself...
      - John 8:18
      [Jesus was the speaker in both of these quotes]
(Already addressed above in Claim #113)

      [148] A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children...
      - Proverbs 13:22
      Sell that ye have and give alms...
      - Luke 12:33
            Prov 13:22a is commending a, manifestly wealthy man, who has not acted “bad” by selfishly expending/squandering his entire wealth on himself and leaving nothing for his children, and even his grandchildren, as indeed quite possible.
            As seen in e.g. Luke 10:29-30ff; Matt 25:45; doing good towards people in need is much more desire by God, and so, if the family/descendants are themselves not in need, then following the directive of Luke 12:33 is indeed the logical act of right doing to pursue. And even after properly cared for the well-being of his immediate family/descendants a person may then still have great riches left over, and so give that to the poor and needy would still be in commended order.

      [149] Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord... Wealth and riches
      shall be in his house...
      - Psalms 112:1-3

      It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than
      for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
      - Matthew 19:24

            Job (Job 1:1-5, 8; 2:3) is the perfect example of someone who truly feared God (cf. Job 28:28), and thus who, God was not leery on greatly, materially, blessing. Job definitely was not as the amply typical rich man spoken by Jesus in Matt 19:24 who allow their riches to lead them away from faithfully serving God. (cf. Prov 30:8b-9)
      [150] I and my father are one.
      - John 10:30

      ... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
      - John 14:28
      [Jesus was the speaker in both of these quotes]
(Already addressed above in Claim #108)                   

      [151] Thou shalt not kill
      - Exodus 20:13

      Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his
      side... and slay every man his brother...
      - Exodus 32:27
(Already addressed above in Claim #27)

      [152] Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.
      - Exodus 20:8

      The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot
      away with: it is iniquity.
      - Isaiah 3:22
            Really!???...You can’t read and/or have no (intent) on exercising any reading comprehension...: First of all, it would actually be Isa 1:22 and then simply reading the immediate Isa 1:10-17 context should of itself explain why God cannot stand these sinful, abominable and corrupt people (as also in Amos 5:21-27; Zech 7:4-7, 8-14; Isa 58:1-5, 6-12, 13-14; 1 Sam 15:22; Matt 12:7) thinking to be in right standing to offer him acceptable sacrifices. (Psa 66:18; cf. Amos 5:18-20)

      [153] Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
      of anything that is in heaven... earth... [or] water.
      - Leviticus 26:11

      And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt
      thou make them.
      - Exodus 25:18
(Already addressed above in Claim #29)

      [154] For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works.
      - Ephesians 2:8-9

      Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
      faith only.
      - James 2:24
(Already addressed above in Claim #117)

      [155] God is not a man, that he should lie: neither the son of man,
      that he should repent.
      - Numbers 23:19

      And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his
      - Exodus 32:14
            The (untranslated) intensive reflexive Hebrew tense (=Hithpael) in Num 23:19 qualifies this “changing of His mind” by God in stating that: ‘“He will not of himself change his mind” i.e. without any altering warranting reason, as (fickle) man does.’ (all as per the principle in Jer 18:7-10). 1 Sam 15:29 involves a similar, but stricter notion, in regards to Saul himself, where God, (with merely a passive tense (=Niphal) used), says that: ‘He not even allow Himself to be convinced to change His mind, and go back on, this (thus ponderedly final) decision.’ (Cf. 1 Sam 15:23-28ff)

      [156] ... the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall
      hear his voice, and come forth...
      - John 5:28-29

      As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth
      down to the grave shall come up no more.
      - Job 7:9
            Job 7:10 contextually indicates that Job was merely relatively speaking in Job 7:9, i.e., outside of the supernatural resurrecting intervention by God, as spoken of Jesus in e.g. John 5:28-29. Indeed Job himself knew/believed that there would be an end of time, supernatural bodily restoration (from also persecutions), including from death/martyrdom, for the righteous, when all has been adjudged (Job 19:25-27, 28-29; =1 Cor 15:51-57, 58)

      [157] ... thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,
      hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for
      wound, stripe for stripe.
      - Exodus 21:23-25

      ... resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
      cheek, turn to him the other also.
      - Matthew 5:39
            Exod 21:23-25 is in the context of a (Israel’s) civil judgement procedure and the penalty that is to be exacted then. This involves that the perpetrator has either been subdued and/or has allowed himself to come under that civil judicial authority. Matt 5:39 is speaking of the different circumstance when one is facing an “evil person”, which at the time, perfectly reflected the oppressive and in certain instances abusive rule that Israel was then under from the Romans. God’s/Jesus’s adjusted statement then was not to try to exact justice then, as that could not possibly bring out a favorable result given that Rome would not subject itself to Israel’s “teethless” authority. So they would certainly oppose any such exaction. And therefore, in that case it was better to conversely “oppose” them by “heaping coals (of remonstrating guilt) on their head through such overly-generous submission & compliance, to thus “overcome” these ‘evil enemies’. (=Matt 5:40-42, 44; Rom 12:14, 17-18, 19-21; which are counsels and directives which were also (even “adjustingly”) given in Old Testament times (Prov 25:21-22))
            And, as with the evidently Pharisaically supplied/appended “hate your enemy” clause in Matt 5:43b to the mere “You shall love thy neighbor” Law in Lev 19:18, it may indeed be that the law of Exod 21:23-25 had likewise been misguidedly expounded by the Pharisees to be exercised beyond a civil judicial context, i.e. to any “hot” warring/war context.
            Relatedly the instruction in Deut 23:3-6 for Israel to never seek reconciliation with the offending Ammonites and Moabites ((controversial) descendants from Abraham’s nephew Lot (Gen 19:37-38), thus blood relatives), was in regards for Israel itself seeking to initiate such, including assimilating, reconciliation. These blood-relative peoples were to remain distinct forever, and given that God would be blessing Israel, this would mean that these other people, as with the descendants of the Israel-blessing disdaining Esau, though they were not to be “detested” (Deut 23:7a =by Israelites themselves), they also were to remain in their self-produced state of non-prosperity and non-peace as part of God’s own inflicted due judgement on them. (=Deut 23:6; cf. Mal 1:2-5).

      [158] Honor thy father and mother.
      - Exodus 20:12

      If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and
      wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own
      life also, he cannot be my disciple.
      - Luke 14:26
            The “hating” degree here is in direct contrast to the greater love of Jesus and His Truth/Message that one should have over even their family/relatives, who, as Jesus amply knew first hand (cf. Mark 3:20-22ff; 3:31-35|DA 321.1-2ff), could play on that blood tie/bond to try to dissuade people from fully following and properly/timely doing the Will of God, or even pervert it by suggesting a seemingly supportive course which is not entirely according to God’s perfect will. (John 2:4; 7:1-10) (=Matt 8:19-20, 21-22; Luke 14:20; cf. 1 Cor 7:32-34)

      [159] Lay not up for yourself treasures upon the earth...
      - Matthew 6:19

      In the house of the righteous is much treasure...
      - Proverbs 15:6
(Already addressed above in Claim #126)       

      [160] I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
      - Genesis 32:30

      No man hath seen God at any time.
      - John 1:18

            Jacob was wrestling with an tangible being, who was an angel (Hos 12:4) in a human form (Gen 32:34). This was Jesus, in His Michael theArchangel form; = “the (Divine)Angel of the Lord” (Exod 23:20-23; 33:2 = Jdg 2:1-4) who many people have seen face to face. (e.g. Gen 16:10; 18:1-3ff; Exod 3:2; Jdg 6:11-12ff)  And though Michael/Jesus was indeed God, it was in order to also be capable of having this tangibly visualizing, “face to face” interaction with His created being that Jesus was “incarnated” as a Mighty Angel, for God Himself, in all His glory, “dwells within unapproachable light” (1 Tim 6:16).
            So Jacob rightly understood that he had encountered God Himself, =Michael/Jesus, and had thus indeed ‘seen God face to face’, though not God in all His glory. And just the fact that Jacob was still in anguish over the guilt of his prior treachery, as suddenly remonstrated by his then oncoming, vengefully angered brother (Gen 32:6-7ff), then Jacob could then only naturally feel that his sin had not been forgiven by God, which thus made him even more surprised that he, a manifestly unforgiven sinner, had survived this encounter with the holy/sinless Divine. (Cf. Jer 30:7; EW 272.1-3|283.2; )

      [161] The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
      - Ezekiel 18:20

      ... I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
      the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth
      - Exodus 20:5
(Already addressed above in Claim #116)

      [162] Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth
      - Proverbs 3:13                                        

      For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth
      knowledge increaseth sorrow.
      - Ecclesiastes 1:18
(Already addressed above in Claim #131)

      [163] The Lord is good to all.
      - Psalm 145:6

      I make peace and create evil.  I the Lord do all these things.
      - Isaiah 45:7
            Psa 145:6 is merely speaking of ‘men speaking of the great power/strength of God’, which is not necessarily, in regards to “all”, i.e. including the wicked, only in good/beneficial acts/works, but also in the quite powerful works and acts of judgement that God can do upon the wicked, as seen throughout the Bible. (E.g. Egyptian Deliverance (Jos 2:9-11); the Flood; Sodom and Gomorrah Destruction; etc.). (cf. Num 14:21; Hab 2:14; Isa 45:23) That is what the statement in Isa 45:7 is all about as God is in the business of administering both mercy and justice, and at times capital acts of justice require justly, but ‘most violently adversarial’ (=“evil”) actions. But as stated in Matt 5:44–48, God does “perfectly/completely” start by giving everyone the very same general basis for their decision making process (cf. Rom 1:19-20) but many choose to act “unnaturally” and thus ultimately, as they pursue their rebellion to an utter end, incur the wrathful judgement and retribution from God. (Rom 1:18-32ff)   

      [164] Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
      - Matthew 5:22

      [Jesus said] Ye fools and blind.
      - Matthew 23:17
            Sometime you just have to ‘call a spade a spade’, if for anything, just to factually warn them of their true condition and their looming judgement because of that, actually willful stance. And that is what Jesus was doing here, and throughout Matt 23.
            Matt 5:22 also, grammatically/syntactically, involves making a mere declaration, i.e., just name-calling, versus the factual denunciation basis of Matt 23:17.

      [165] For all have sinned.
      - Romans 3:23

      There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect
      and upright.
      - Job 1:1

            Job 1:1 does not say, nor mean that “Job had never sinned’ (cf. Job 7:20-21). In God’s Theological provision, any forgiven person is considered by God to be perfect and righteous/upright, and Job was diligent in repenting of all/any of his sins, (as well as those possibly committed by his children (Job 1:5); which is all why this entire ordeal was so perplexing to him.  (Cf. Job 8:2-6; 35:6-8) 

      [166] Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
      - 2 Kings 8:26

      Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
      - 2 Chronicles 22:2
MSB: Some versions read “forty-two” here, a copyist’s error easily made due to the small stroke that differentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 2Ki 8:26 of “twenty-two” should be followed.

      [167] If a man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an oath... he shall do
      according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.
      - Numbers 30:2

      But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven... nor by
      - Matthew 5:34-35
            Right... given the past track record of men not being able to live up to their promissory vow to God, Jesus counseled that it was better to not do so at all, and instead focus on just carrying out the proper actions. (cf. Matt 5:37)

      [168] ... the earth abideth forever.
      - Ecclesiastes 1:4

      ... the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and
      the works that are therein shall be burned up.
      - 2 Peter 3:10
(Already addressed above in Claim #123)

      [169] ... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger
      - Jeremiah 3:12

      Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.
      - Jeremiah 17:4
            As the wider context shows (Jer 3:11-14ff), the Jer 3:12 statement is pointedly addressed to the then long scattered 10 northern tribes and how God is now, given how Judah had “treacherously” done much worse than them, willing to forgive them...if only they sincerely admit their sins. (=1 John 1:9). Then, also as the wider context shows (Jer 17:1-4ff), the Jer 17:4 is in regards to that “treacherously unfaithful” southern kingdom of Judah. That ‘resolute “fire” which will burn forever’ is the planned destruction that God will be bringing against them from Babylon. That indeed was not going to be set aside, particularly as Judah had chosen not to repent. And in regards to the term “forever”, in the Bible (as is the case with Hell), it merely refers to the natural lifetime of something, and not, as commonly understood today, ‘for eternity’. So when that promised “fire” will have completed its destruction work upon Judah, then it will be ended; then will the anger of God be appeased and later on will God be in a position to forgive and thus restore Judah (& Israel) (=Ezek 36:22-38ff), particularly as He then (i.e., 70+ years later), will be working with a new, hopefully wiser and better, generation of Israelites.

      [170] ... God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
      - James 1:13

      And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt
      - Genesis 22:1
            (a) James 1:13 sequiturly implies in context ‘“tempt” with evil’; (b) Gen 22:1 actually, more accurately, has more the sense of “test/try”, and not ‘tempt (with evil)’...furthermore, God never intended to have that act be actually carried through.

      [171] And God saw everything that he made, and behold it was very good.
      - Genesis 1:31

      And it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it
      grieved him at his heart
      - Genesis 6:6
            Right (Seriously!???), -God did not make ‘evil-minded men who only were continually interested in doing evil and violence’ (Gen 6:5, 11-13). So both the Fall, and that drastic turn to extreme, suffocating, sinfulness, is indeed what God was grieved by and definitely did not create nor intend.

      [172] For now have I chosen and sanctified this house that my name be
      there forever; and mine eyes and my heart shall be there
      - II Chronicles 7:16

      Howbeit the most high dwelleth not in temples made with hands.
      - Acts 7:48
            God’s name, His eyes(=gazing sight) his heart (emotions) would be tied with that earthly, man-made temple (=2 Chr 7:16), but He would not be physically dwelling there. (=Acts 7:48)

      [173] [God dwells] in the light which no man can approach unto.
      - I Timothy 6:16

      The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.

      - I Kings 8:12
(Already addressed above in Claim #3)                                   

      [174] And the Lord called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
      And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid.
      - Genesis 3:9,10

      Ye hath neither heard his voice, at any time, nor seen his shape.
      - John 5:37
            Before sin/the Fall God, in the person of Michael/Jesus, did openly and physically meet with man (cf. this section). But not so, at least defaultly/commonly, after the Fall, and certainly, no one who Jesus was speaking to in, or alive at the speaking of, John 5:37 had seen the shape of God, or heard his voice. At best, (most) humans after the fall (e.g not Moses (Exod 19:20; 33:11; Num12:7-8)), saw the clouded-light glory of God (e.g. Exod 33:7-11), and heard His voice a thunder (Exod 19:16-19; 20:18-19|Deut 18:15-18; John 12:28-30; cf. Rev 10:3-4 more here).

      [175] Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the
      elders of Israel.  And they saw the God of Israel... They saw
      God, and did eat and drink.
      - Exodus 24: 9-11

      Whom no man hath seen nor can see.
      - I Timothy 6:16
            Given the statement and example of the later Exod 33:20-23, they probably did not see God’s face, but merely saw a concealed form of God, i.e., wrapped in that “unapproachable light” (Exod 24:17; 1 Tim 6:16; cf. John 1:18; 6:46; 1 John 4:12). Indeed later on Moses had to go further up to God on the mountain (Exod 24:12) into that cloud which evidently concealed the form of God. (Exod 24:15-16, 18)

      [176] With God all things are possible.
      - Matthew 19:26

      And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of
      the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the
      valley, because they had chariots of iron.
      - Judges 1:19
(Already addressed above in Claim #8) - Matt 19:26|Mar 10:27 is also echoed in Mark 14:36. And I’ll exgetically add here that the word “possible” is actually from the Greek word related to “power” “might” “strength” and involves that ‘God has the power to do anything, but that is only “possible” if/when people comply with the required conditions (cf. Jer 18:7-10), including actually believing/having faith in God(‘s power) (Mar 9:23; Matt 13:58). Therefore, as inherent in Bible Prophecy, an Almighty God can indeed be frustrated in the timely/integral execution of His Plans by e.g., non-cooperative (professed) “believers”.

      [177] God is not the author of confusion.
      - I Corinthians 24:33

      Out of the mouth of the most high proceedeth not evil and good?
      - Lamentations 3:38
            Lam 3:38, which is in the aftermath context of God have allowingly executed destructive judgements on a rebellious Jerusalem/Judah, is actually saying that God does pronounce both promises of blessings, as well as curses, each to be applied if they are warranted. (E.g. Deut 30:15-20; Jer 18:1-10)

      [178] Those that seek me early shall find me.
      - Proverbs 8:17

      Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall
      seek me early, but shall not find me.
      - Proverbs 1:28
            Because, as the context clearly shows, ‘repenting after the clearly-evidenced fact’ (=Pro 1:20-27) is not considered as a valid/honourable repentance by God. (Cf. Psa 66:18)

      [179] On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of
      atonement; it shall be a holy convocation unto you; and ye shall
      afflict your souls and offer an offering made by fire unto the
      - Leviticus 23:27

      For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day
      that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt
      offering or sacrifices.
      - Jeremiah 7:22
(Already addressed above in Claim #17)

      [180] And the priest shall burn all on the altar to be a burnt
      sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the
      - Leviticus 1:9
      Your burnt offering are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet
      unto me.
      - Jeremiah 7:20
(Already addressed above in Claim #17) Offerings from unrepentant sinners is indeed not acceptable to God (Amos 5:21-24; Matt 5:23-24)

      [181] God is not a man, that he should lie
      - Numbers 23:19

      And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the
      Lord have deceived that prophet.
      - Ezekiel 14:9
            This wider passage of Ezek 14:1-9, which involves the judgement permission that: “all’s fair in war”, is discussed in and from here, and basically involves a prophet raised by God refusing to give the exact ‘deceived-hearts-reflecting’ (Ezek 14:3-5) judgement message that God had wanted him to. (Cf. Isa 6:8-13). So God would then in turn act to have that faithless and rogue prophet be discredited and (lawfully) destroyed as per (Deut 13:1-5). And again, this is a type of Judgement that Satan and his angels are either not willing to permittedly do in behalf God, or, as God may have redemptive purposes in mind, versus merely destructive ones, one which God Himself wants to personally execute. (Cf. 1 Kgs 22:15-18, 19-23)

      [182] There is none other God but one.
      - I Corinthians 8:4

      And God said, Let us make man in our image.
      - Genesis 1:26
            The Bible indeed fully reveals that the “God” entity is a Trinity, thus a Godhead of 3 Divine beings. See study here.

      [183] When ye go, ye shall not go empty; but every woman shall borrow
      of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels
      of silver and jewels of gold, and raiment; and ye shall put them
      on your sons and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the
      - Exodus 3:21,22

      Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, nether rob him.
      - Leviticus 19:13
            This was not at all a “defrauding”. The Egypt-“immigrated” Israelites had just been enslaved for over 200 years, (as expected by God (Gen 15:13)), by the Egyptians simply because they were afraid that they would overtake them given their higher birth rate. (Exod 1:8-14ff) So this act by God was a “judgement” (Gen 15:14) in order to exact the slavery wages & damages reparations to the Israelites.
            (Similarly the United States still owes pecuniary slavery reparations to African-Americans: e.g. $100,000 towards a mortgage and/or college tuition).

      [184] At the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of
      man.  Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.
      - Genesis 9:5,6

      And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should
      kill him.
      - Genesis 4:15
            Gen 4:15 actually occurred (long, ca. 1600 years) before God had instituted the post-flood Murder Capital Punishment Law of Gen 9:5-6, pointedly in the light of all the wanton violence that the world had reached prior to the Flood (Gen 6:5, 11, 13). And it was out of the great and considerate mercy of God that He had set that protective mark upon Cain, as Cain had pleaded Him to mercifully do. (Gen 4:11-14)

      [185] Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not,
      neither do they spin... if God so clothe the grass of the
      field... shall he not much more clothe you?  Therefore, take no
      thought, saying what shall we eat?  or what shall we drink?  or
      wherewithal shall we be clothed?... Take, therefore, no thought
      for the morrow.
      - Matthew 6:28, 30-34

      But if any provideth not for his own, especially for those of his
      own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an
      - I Timothy 5:8
            God simply said and means: If you are doing all you can, but still cannot provide enough to be at peace, then “do not worry”, God will supply that lack..

      [186] Be ye angry and sin not.
      - Ephesians 4:26

      Be not hasty in they spirit to be angry; for anger resideth in
      the bosom of fools.
      - Ecclesiastes 7:9
(Already addressed above in Claim #32)         

      [187] Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
      - Matthew 5:16

      Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of
      - Matthew 6:1
(Already addressed above in Claim #33)         

      [188] And Solomon stood before the alter of the Lord, in the presence
      of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands
      toward heaven...
      - I Kings 8:22

      When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for
      they love to pray standing in the synagogues, and in the corners
      of the streets, that they may be seen of men...
      - Matthew 6:5
(Already addressed above in Claim #37)         

      [189] And no razor shall come on his head; for the child shall be a
      Nazarite unto God from the womb.
      - Judges 13:5

      Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man hath long
      hair, it is a shame unto him?
      - I Corinthians 11:14
            That is ‘every man” except on who is taking a Nazirite vow, which was defaultly only momentarily (Num 6:1-5ff) and also for women. As the “shame” here was, as still seen today, that a man would then resemble a woman, the sign in that vow was manifestly to indicate that the man was “sacrificing” his manhood to God.
            And with a “woman” being a symbol of the Ecclesiastical and Religious (e.g. a Church) while that of a man spiritually, correspondingly symbolizes the wider/overall National entity of Believers (also a Church’s Ministry), then the Nazirite vow as a symbol that a man was going to trustingly devote himself to God’s Spiritual things instead of relying on his own physical strengths and natural abilities....and of course that was perfectly demonstrated in Samson who himself was to have a lifelong vow (Jdg 13:3-5)

      [190] Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
      - Exodus 20:8

      One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every
      day alike.  Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
      - Romans 14:5
            Rom 14:5, as well as other similarly mis-claimed NT passages, supposedly deposing of the Seventh Day Sabbath are addressed in this dedicated Sabbath post, so succinctly restated here, Rom 14:5 speaks of the ceremonial feast days that were optional to be kept and not the the Ten Commandment’s Sabbath Day. Some NT Believer kept still all those feast days, other only kept some. They were ‘free to be persuaded in their own mind.’

      [191] For in the six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and
      all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the
      Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.                                  
      - Exodus 20:11

      And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and
      that the Lord thy God brought the out thence through a mighty
      hand and by a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy God
      commanded the to keep the Sabbath day.
      - Deuteronomy 5:15
            Given all of the added Sabbatical Laws that God went on to give to Israel, through/in the “Law of Moses” (e.g. Exod 23:9-12; 31:12-17; Lev 25:13-22), Moses here, in this restatement of his of the Ten Commandment, saw it to be applicable to add this socio-economic basis for God’s Sabbath, as indeed seen in Isa 58.

      [192] There is nothing unclean of itself.
      - Romans 14:14

      Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel and the hare, and the coney; for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof, therefore they are unclean unto you.  And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass.
      - Deuteronomy 14:7,8
            Succinctly explained here, (as a former Theology classmate of mine had pointed out), Paul is speaking in context of Rom 14:14 of meats, which are actually “common”, having been sacrificed/dedicated to idols, and thus considered ceremonially “uncommon” by some. But that is different from healthily “unclean” meats (e.g. Isa 65:4; Eze 4:14). The Biblical designations of “common” vs. “unclean” (cf. Acts 10:14, 18) are actually distinct. “Common” meats include meats which could be eaten, where it but for, as some ‘thought’ (Rom 14:14), in that Rom 14 context, having been dedicated to idols.

      [193] Cursed is he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother.
      - Deuteronomy 27:22

      And Abraham said... She is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
      - Genesis 20:11,12
            God instituted that curse long after the days of Abraham when it manifestly was genetically necessary. In Abraham’s days and before, that was not a health-wise necessity, and if it was not for the sons of Adam and Eve marrying and procreating with their full sisters, there would not have been any human life past them.

      [194] If brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife.
      - Deuteronomy 25:5

      If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing... they shall be childless.
      - Leviticus 20:21
            Taking a brother wife outside of those levirate conditions, i.e., in an adultery situation, thus when the other brother is alive is what is wrong.

      [195] He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.
      - Mark 3:29

      And by him that believe are justified from all things.
      - Acts 13:39
            Clearly the sin against the Holy Spirit is not understood here. It is a finalizing sin, i.e. when one’s probation closes as God’s Spirit no longer strives with them to change their course and just abandons them to their insisted upon fate. That sin has no forgiveness because the offender does not ever come to ask to be forgiven of it, or the underlying capital sinning. So they clearly are not (actual) “believers”.

      [196] [John the Baptist] is Elias which was for to come.
      - Matthew 11:14

      And they asked him, what then? Art thou [John the Baptist] Elias?  And he saith, I am not.
      - John 1:21
            John the Baptist was to indeed come in “the Spirit and Power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17 = Mal 4:4-6), therefore not Elijah reincarnated, but as Jesus pointed out, this would only be realized by, and effectuated with, those who were willing to accept his ministry and heed his reformingly  preparatory message. (Matt 17:10-13)

      [197] Now, after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee,
      preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God.
      - Mark 1:14

      After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea... and John was also baptizing Enon... for John was not yet cast into prison.
      - John 3:22-24
            Right, Galilee and Judea are two different regions separated by ca. 70 miles, thus John 3:22-24 occurred before (the Mark Gospel account starting) Mark 1:14. As stated in here, John in his much later written Gospel account did indeed “fill in” much of what the prior “synoptic gospels” had not included about the life, ministry and message of Christ, and this early Judean ministry account is one of those supplementary things.

      [198] And it was in the third hour, and they crucified him.
      - Mark 15:25

      And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, behold your king... Shall I crucify your king?
      - John 19:14-15
MSB explanation: The crucifixion occurred at 9:00 a.m. based on the Jewish method of reckoning time. John notes that it was “about the sixth hour” when Pilate sentenced Jesus to be crucified (John 19:14). John apparently used the Roman method of reckoning time, which counted the hours from midnight. Thus John’s “sixth hour” would have been about 6:00 a.m.     

      [199] They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall.
      - Matthew 27:34

      And they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh.
      - Mark 15:23
      [Jesus was the thirsty chap in both verses.]
            ...And so what...would it now a sin to be thirsty...Both Matt 27:34 & Mark 15:23 clearly go on to state that He refused to drink that pain-deadening, alcoholic: “wine (Greek: oinos -(Strongs #3631); and not the KJV’s “vinegar”) mixed with gall” concoction. And those passages do not even say that Jesus was actually “thirsty” then. He was in great pain, but not necessarily/actually “thirsty”.
            It is only at a distinct, and ca. 6 hours later (Mark 15:25; Matt 27:45|Luke 23:44, 54) instance (and also not the Luke 23:36 one), when, unlike that prior instance, then Jesus had actually been crucified, that He (deliberately, i.e. to also have Psa 69:21b fulfilled) said He was “thirsty”, and then did drink what was then a actually, simply “vinegar” Greek: oxos -(Strongs #3690); [and not, as mistranslated: “sour wine”] (Matt 27:48; Mark 15:36; John 19:28-30). It indeed was not to be alcoholic, as alcohol is a relaxer and depressant, but was instead meant to be “sharp/spearing” (deriving from Strongs #3691), -(thus also indeed not even “wine” or “strong drink” mixed with this reviving vinegar (cf. Num 6:3)). The intent was to pique, revive and strengthen the weak and fainting/waning crucified person in order to, as pointed out by the MSB, prolong their ordeal, -as the context of that instance indicates, as the Jews were trying to do to see if Elijah would come as they thought Jesus had meant. (Matt 27:46-49|Mark 15:34-36|John 19:28-30; cf. Luke 23:35-37).

      [200] And the men which journeyed with [Paul] stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
      - Acts 9:7

      And they that were with me [Paul] saw indeed the light and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
      - Acts 22:9
            See the exegetical explanation of this supposed contradiction in here.

      [201] Abraham had two sons; one by a bonds-maid, the other by a free woman.
      - Galatians 4:22

      By faith, Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac... his only begotten son.
      - Hebrews 11:17
(Already addressed above in Claim #93)         

      [202] Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.
      - II Samuel 6:23

      The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.
      - II Samuel 21:8
(Already addressed above in Claim #100)

      [203] And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel.
      - II Samuel 24:1

      And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
      - I Chronicles 21:1
(Already addressed above in Claim #101)

      [204] All power is given unto [Jesus] in heaven and in earth.
      - Matthew 28:18

      And [Jesus] could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands on a few sick folk and healed them.
      - Mark 6:5
(Already addressed above in Claim #109)

      [205] There shall no evil happen to the just.
      - Proverbs 12:21

      Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
      - Hebrews 12:6

(Already addressed above in Claim #124 & #125) Furthermore, God’s ‘loving & purposeful (boot-camp) discipline’ (Heb 12:3-11; Col 1:28) is not anything in the ballpark of “evil”...God “hiding His face” and letting people plunge headlong, unimpeded, into the end result of their pursued/preferred ways is that treatment which is the opposite of “good”, thus “evil/adversarial” (e.g. Deut 31:16-18; cf. Isa 45:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-23).

[...to be added to...]

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.

-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.

[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]