by
0

L E S S O N 1
I) INTRODUCTION
A) DEFINITION
1) Problem text= "a text in the Bible which seems to contradict some other text or seems to teach something that is known to be false"
2) Of the 31,101 verses in the Bible, there are approximately 400 "problem texts"; of this 400, only 20 could be classified as "difficult"; and of this 20, only five could classified as "extremely difficult"
3) That means 99.997% of the word of God is PLAIN (Pro 8:9)
B) PURPOSES FOR PROBLEM TEXTS
1) TO IDENTIFY GOD AS THE AUTHOR (Isa 55:8-9) a) God allows "contradictions" in nature (e.g.- salt melts ice but the polar caps remain frozen two miles deep in salt water; the earth is less than 10,000 years old but has the appearance of being much older) b) It is natural "contradictions" that cause evolutionists to deny there is a God; it is textual
"contradictions" that cause scholars to deny we have an inspired Bible (KJV)
2) TO STIMULATE MEN TO STUDY AND THINK (Pro 25:2; Ecc 12:12; 2 Tim 2:15) a) God could have written all we needed to know on one sheet of paper, or even in the heavens, but he didn't b) God could have inspired a new Bible to accommodate grammatical and technological advances, but he didn't
3) TO TEST A MAN'S HEART AND MOTIVE (Hos 6:3; John 7:17; Heb 4:12)
C) REASONS PEOPLE BELIEVE THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS
1) THE PERSON IS NOT SAVED (1 Cor 2:14)
2) INTERPRETING THE BIBLE IN LIGHT OF PRECONCEPTIONS (Psa 50:21; 1 Cor 4:5) a) If I do not believe in the Trinity, then 1 John 5:7 must be in error b) How could a pagan king know about the Son of God (Dan 3:25)
3) DIFFERENCES IN NUMBERS AND NAMES OF PEOPLE AND PLACES
4) ASSUMING ALL THE PASSAGES OF THE BIBLE ARE IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
1

5) DIFFERENT DETAILS LISTED IN COMPANION ACCOUNTS
D) TYPES OF PROBLEM TEXTS
1) DIFFERENCES IN DOCTRINE a) Two different speakers at two different times cite doctrine for that particular time (Psa 51:11; John
14:16) b) False doctrine may be cited because the speaker is bitter (Job 12:6), sarcastic (Amo 4:4), or Satan
(Gen 3:4)
2) DIFFERENCES IN STANDPOINT
Two conflicting statements that demand the opposite response under the same conditions (Pro 26:4-5;
Exo 20:13; 1 Sam 15:3)
3) DIFFERENCES IN METHODS OF COMPUTING TIME a) The Hebrew "day" is different than the Roman "day" (Matt 27:45; John 19:14) b) A "year" may consist of 360 days instead of 365 days (Gen 7:11; 8:3-4)
4) DIFFERENCES IN NAMES a) An individual may have two or more names
1. Ahaziah (2 Kin 8:25) is also called Jehoahaz (2 Chr 21:17) and Azariah (2 Chr 22:6)
2. David's son Chileab (2 Sam 3:3) is also called Daniel (1 Chr 3:1) b) An individual may be addressed by a surname or family name
1. Matthew (Luke 6:15) is also called Levi (Luke 5:27; Matt 9:9)
2. Moses' father-in-law is called Jethro (Exo 3:1) and Reuel/Raguel (Exo 2:18; Num 10:29) c) An individual may be addressed by a title
1. Pharaoh (Gen 12:15; 39:1; Exo 1:11; 1 Kin 3:1; 2 Kin 18:21)
2. Ahasuerus (Ezr 4:6; Est 1:1)
3. Caesar (Luke 2:1; 3:1; 20:25; Acts 11:28; 25:10-12,21-25) d) There may be variations of spelling the same name
1. Absalom (2 Chr 11:20) is also called Abishalom (1 Kin 15:2)
2

2. Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 29:3) is also called Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 29:21)
5) DIFFERENCES IN MEANING OF WORDS
For example, the word let means "to allow; to permit" (Gen 1:3), but also means, "to prevent; to hinder"
(2 The 2:7)
E) PRESUMPTIONS IN PROBLEM TEXTS
1) GOD MUST NEVER VIOLATE THE MORAL STANDARDS OF THE READER (i.e.- God must agree with society that all genders, races, religions, and sexual preferences are equal
2) GOD MUST NEVER ALLOW A FALSEHOOD TO APPEAR TRUE
3) GOD MUST NEVER BE EVASIVE OR MISLEADING a) The mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds (Matt 13:32), the orchid seed is b) The whale (Matt 12:40) is not a fish (Jon 1:17), but a mammal
4) CLARITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN AUTHORITY
5) IF GODLY EDUCATED MEN REVISE THE BIBLE IT HAS TO BE RELIABLE BY VIRTUE
OF THEIR REPUTATION AND SINCERITY
6) GOD ALLOWS TRANSLATION ERRORS AS LONG AS THE THOUGHT, MESSAGE, OR
FUNDAMENTAL TEACHING REMAINS INTACT
7) GOD MUST ABIDE BY OUR RULES OF LOGIC AND GRAMMAR
F) MOTIVES FOR CORRECTING THE WORD OF GOD
1) FEAR a) Of man b) Of ridicule
2) THE LOVE OF MONEY
3) PRIDE (The desire to be recognized, renown, and respected)
G) SINS COMMITTED IN CORRECTING THE WORD OF GOD
1) A lack of faith (1 The 2:13; Rom 14:23; Heb 11:1)
2) Walking in the flesh (Jude 16)
3) Lying about the truth (Jer 23:16)
3

4) Perverting the words of God (Jer 23:28,36)
5) Authoring confusion by displacing the plain word of God as the final authority (1 Cor 14:33)
6) Destroying the faith of others in the word of God (Gen 3:1)
H) REQUIREMENTS FOR UNDERSTANDING PROBLEM TEXTS
1) SALVATION (1 Cor 2:14; Pro 28:5)
2) STUDY (Pro 15:28; 25:2; 2 Tim 2:15)
3) PRAYER (1 Kin 3:9; Psa 119:18,169; Jer 33:3; Matt 7:7; 21:22)
4) DEPENDENCE ON THE AUTHOR, THE HOLY SPIRIT (Dan 5:12; 2 Pet 1:21)
5) PATIENCE (Isa 28:9-10; John 16:12; Heb 5:14)
6) OBEDIENCE (Psa 119:34; Hos 6:3; 14:9; John 7:17; 2 Tim 2:2)
7) HUMILITY (Gen 32:10; 1 Cor 8:1-2)
8) FAITH (Acts 27:25; 1 The 2:13)
4

L E S S O N 2
1) Genesis 1:26 and Ecclesiastes 3:19
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and LET THEM HAVE
DOMINION over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and OVER
ALL THE EARTH, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Gen 1:26)
"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a MAN HATH NO PREEMINENCE
ABOVE A BEAST: for all is vanity." (Ecc 3:19)
PROBLEM: Does man have dominion and preeminence over the animal creation or doesn't he?
SOLUTION: Ecclesiastes 3:19 refers to the fact that man has no preeminence over the animal creation in
DEATH. Both animals and men must die.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) Genesis 4:4-5 and Acts 10:34
"And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And THE LORD
HAD RESPECT UNTO ABEL and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell." (Gen 4:4-5)
"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF
PERSONS:" (Acts 10:34)
PROBLEM: One verse states that God is not a respecter of persons while another clearly states that he had respect to Abel.
SOLUTION: God had respect UNTO Abel not OF Abel. This respect was specifically based on the type of offering. Abel brought the type of offering God commanded, a blood sacrifice, whereas Cain brought the fruit of his own labor. God did not respect Abel's offering because of his person, but respected the person because of the offering.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3) Genesis 6:15 and Genesis 6:19; 7:2-3
"And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: THE LENGTH of the ark shall be THREE
HUNDRED CUBITS, THE BREADTH of it FIFTY CUBITS, and THE HEIGHT of it THIRTY
CUBITS" (Gen 6:15)
"And of EVERY LIVING THING OF ALL FLESH, TWO OF EVERY SORT SHALT THOU
BRING INTO THE ARK, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female…Of EVERY
CLEAN BEAST thou shalt take to thee BY SEVENS, the male and his female: and of BEASTS
THAT ARE NOT CLEAN BY TWO, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth." (Gen 6:19; 7:2-3)
5

PROBLEM: The obvious problem is, if the ark's dimensions were 450' x 75' x 45' (assuming a cubit is equivalent to 18 inches), how could SEVEN PAIRS of EVERY SORT OF CLEAN ANIMAL and ONE
PAIR of EVERY SORT OF UNCLEAN ANIMAL fit into the ark?
SOLUTION: The word SORT is equivalent to the word KIND (Gen 6:20) and does not mean that every single SPECIES of animal was on the ark. Noah and his FAMILY represented manKIND on the ark; therefore, every kind or sort of animal must mean the family, not the species.
KINGDOM- Animal
PHYLUM- Vertebrae
CLASS- Mammal
ORDER- Carnivore
FAMILY- Canine
GENUS- Dog
SPECIES- German Shepherd
Noah did not have a pair of German Shepherds, a pair of Miniature Poodles, a pair of Doberman
Pinschers, etc. on the ark; he had a pair of CANINES. From this family, came all the species of dogs, wolves, foxes, etc. after the Flood. But assuming Noah did have every species of animal on the ark, it is estimated that there are approximately 35,000 individual vertebrate animals averaging about the size of a sheep. Of course, God did not say the pairs had to be full-grown adults. In order to accommodate this brood, the ark would have to possess the equivalent cubic spacing of 150 boxcars. The dimensions given above equate to approximately 500 boxcars! Keep in mind this is assuming every SPECIES was on the ark (which there wasn't) and each animal was an adult (which they did not have to be). The ark had more than enough room. By the way, the Bible does not say Noah had to gather food for the animals. It is possible that God supernaturally sustained them (Exo 34:28) or caused them all to hibernate (Gen 2:21).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4) Genesis 10:22,24 and Luke 3:35-36
"The children of SHEM; Elam, and Asshur, and ARPHAXAD, and Lud, and Aram…And
Arphaxad begat SALAH; and Salah begat EBER." (Gen 10:22,24)
"Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of HEBER, which was the son of SALA, Which was the son of CAINAN, which was the son of ARPHAXAD, which was the son of SEM, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of
Lamech," (Luke 3:35-36)
PROBLEM: There is a discrepancy in the two geneologies. Genesis states that Salah (Sala) was begotten by ARPHAXAD, whereas Luke says he was the son of CAINAN, and Cainan was the son of
Arphaxad. Which geneology is correct?
GENESIS LUKE
Shem Shem
Arphaxad Arphaxad
Cainan
Salah Sala
Eber Heber
6

SOLUTION: The term, "the son of" does not always mean a direct father-son relationship. It can mean a grandson or great-great grandson (Matt 1:8; 2 Chr 21:1; 22:1; 24:1; 25:1; 26:1), an adopted son
(Rom 8:14-15; Gal 4:5-6), or even a son-in-law (Matt 1:16; Luke 3:23). There is no reference to how old each man was when he begat his son, or when he died, in either Genesis 10 or 1 Chronicles 1. Therefore, the following scenario is a possibility: Cainan could have been Arphaxad's son-in-law. Arphaxad could have died relatively early in life and left his begotten son, Salah without a father. Cainan and his wife,
Salah's older sister, could have adopted him as their son. This scenario would reconcile Cainan being called "the son of" Arphaxad (Luke 3:36), and Sala being called "the son of" Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) yet still being begotten by Arphaxad (Gen 10:24). Although none of this is expressly mentioned in scripture, there is nothing that contradicts it. Give God the benefit of the doubt.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) Genesis 13:15 and Acts 7:5
"For ALL THE LAND which thou seest, TO THEE WILL I GIVE IT, and to thy seed for ever."
(Gen 13:15)
"And HE GAVE HIM NONE INHERITANCE IN IT, no, not so much as to set his foot on: YET
HE PROMISED that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child." (Acts 7:5)
PROBLEM: Does God break his promises? He promised Abraham that he would give him ALL THE
LAND, yet Abraham did not possess any of it, nor did Isaac or Jacob.
SOLUTION: God did not promise Abraham that he would inherit the land IN HIS LIFETIME.
Although Israel possessed much of the Promised Land under Solomon, possession of all the land
(Gen 15:18) will not take place until the Second Coming of Christ and the establishment of the Millennial kingdom (Eze 47:13-48:29)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6) Genesis 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15-17
"Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for THE SON OF
THIS BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR with my son, even with Isaac." (Gen 21:10)
"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and IF THE FIRSTBORN SON BE HERS THAT WAS HATED: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But HE SHALL
ACKNOWLEDGE THE SON OF THE HATED for the firstborn, BY GIVING HIM A DOUBLE
PORTION OF ALL that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." (Deu 21:15-17)
PROBLEM: One verse commands that the true firstborn son be given his rightful inheritance regardless of the father's feelings toward the mother, while the other shows Abraham and Sarah doing the opposite.
SOLUTION: The incident recorded in Genesis 21 took place before the giving of the law. Abraham was not under the LAW, but under the dispensation of PROMISE.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7

7) Genesis 21:31 and Genesis 26:33
"Wherefore HE CALLED THAT PLACE BEERSHEBA; because there they sware both of them."
(Gen 21:31)
"And HE CALLED IT SHEBAH: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day."
(Gen 26:33)
PROBLEM: If Abraham already named the place "Beersheba" (Gen 21:31), why did Isaac do the same
(Gen 26:33)?
SOLUTION: Abraham named THE PLACE, but Isaac named THE CITY
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8) Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13
"And it came to pass after these things, that GOD DID TEMPT ABRAHAM, and said unto him,
Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil,
NEITHER TEMPTETH HE ANY MAN:" (Jam 1:13)
PROBLEM: One verse says that God does not tempt any man, but the other says he tempted Abraham.
SOLUTION: The word TEMPT means, "to incite or solicit to an evil act" OR "to try; to prove". What
God DOES NOT do is solicit anyone to sin; but he does TRY our faith. That God was trying Abraham's faith when he "tempted" him is clear from the following:
"By faith ABRAHAM, when he WAS TRIED, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son." (Heb 11:17)
____________________________________________________________________________________
9) Genesis 26:34 and Genesis 36:2-3
"And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and
BASHEMATH THE DAUGHTER OF ELON the Hittite:" (Gen 26:34)
"Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and
Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; And BASHEMATH
ISHMAEL'S DAUGHTER, sister of Nebajoth." (Gen 36:2-3)
PROBLEM: Was Bashemath the daughter of Elon or Ishmael?
SOLUTION: They are two different people. Esau married two women with the same name. Neither list is an exhaustive list of Esau's wives (Gen 26:34; 28:9; 36:2-3).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10) Genesis 35:18-19 and Genesis 35:23-26
"And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him BENJAMIN. And Rachel died, and was buried IN THE WAY TO
EPHRATH, which is Bethlehem." (Gen 35:18-19)
8

"…Now the sons of Jacob were twelve: The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun: The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and BENJAMIN:
And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali: And the sons of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob, which were BORN TO HIM IN PADAN-
ARAM." (Gen 35:22-26)
PROBLEM: This is one of the five "extremely difficult" texts. How could Benjamin be born in Ephrath
(Bethlehem) and Padan-aram?
SOLUTION: Padan-Aram is where Isaac commanded Jacob to get a wife from the daughters of Laban
Rebekah's brother (Gen 28:2,5). Jacob was there a total of 20 years (Gen 31:38), in which he received four wives (Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah), 11 sons (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali,
Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, and Joseph), and 1 daughter (Dinah). He fled Padan-aram (Gen 31:18) before Benjamin was actually born (Gen 35:18). Since there is no certainty on the amount of time that passed from Genesis 31-35, it is possible that Benjamin was CONCEIVED in Padan-aram and therefore, included in the list of sons "born" in Padan-aram. Maybe God's definition of birth is broader than ours and includes conception. After all, God calls a whale a fish (Matt 12:40; Jon 1:17), but by man's definition a whale is a mammal. Who is right? God of course. It is also possible that IN PADAN-ARAM is a broad statement that includes every place Jacob journeyed on his way back to Isaac in Mamre (Gen 35:27).
There are numerous POSSIBLE explanations to the text, and that should be sufficient. The difficulty of the text is granted, but even our law is not supposed to convict a man if there is a "reasonable shadow of a doubt". Why can't God be given the benefit of the doubt?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
11) Genesis 36:12 and 1 Chronicles 1:36
"And TIMNA WAS CONCUBINE TO ELIPHAZ Esau's son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau's wife." (Gen 36:12)
"THE SONS OF ELIPHAZ; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and TIMNA, and
Amalek." (1 Chr 1:36)
PROBLEM: Is Timna Eliphaz's concubine or son?
SOLUTION: They are two different people. It is not uncommon for a woman named "Francis", "Chris", or "Jackie" to have a son with the same name.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12) Genesis 37:28
" Then there passed by MIDIANITES merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the ISHMEELITES for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into
Egypt." (Gen 37:28)
PROBLEM: Was Joseph sold to the Midianites or the Ishmeelites?
SOLUTION: Both. They were Ishmeelites by ancestry and Midianites by nationality (Jud 8:24,26)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9

13) Genesis 38:2 and 1 Chronicles 2:3
"And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain CANAANITE, whose name was SHUAH; and he took her, and went in unto her." (Gen 38:2)
"The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of
SHUA THE CANAANITESS. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him." (1 Chr 2:3)
PROBLEM: Is Shua a Canaanite or Canaanitess?
SOLUTION: Shua was the name of a certain Canaanite. The CANAANITESS of 1 Chronicles 2:3 refers to THE DAUGHTER OF SHUA, not Shua.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14) Genesis 41:56 and Genesis 43:11
"And THE FAMINE WAS OVER ALL THE FACE OF THE EARTH: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt."
(Gen 41:56)
"And their father Israel said unto them, If it must be so now, do this; take of the best FRUITS in the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present, a little balm, and a little HONEY, spices, and myrrh, NUTS, and ALMONDS:" (Gen 43:11)
PROBLEM: If there was a famine over all the earth, how could Israel have had all these groceries?
SOLUTION: The context indicates that the famine was for BREAD (Gen 41:54-55). Jacob had groceries but no bread.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
15) Genesis 46:26-27, Exodus 1:5, and Acts 7:14
"All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were THREESCORE AND SIX;" (Gen 46:26)
"And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of
Jacob, which came into Egypt, were THREESCORE AND TEN." (Gen 46:27)
"And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were SEVENTY souls: for Joseph was in
Egypt already." (Exo 1:5)
"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, THREESCORE AND
FIFTEEN souls." (Acts 7:14)
PROBLEM: How many souls? 66, 70, or 75?
SOLUTION: All of them are correct, depending on who is being counted. The 70 names listed in
Genesis 46:8-25 represent
“all the souls that came OUT OF THE LOINS OF JACOB…”
(Exo 1:5) and they are:
10

SONS OF LEAH (33) SONS OF ZILPAH (16) SONS OF RACHEL (14) SONS OF BILHAH (7)
1. Reuben 34. Gad 50. Joseph 64. Dan
2. Hanoch 35. Ziphion 51. Manasseh 65. Hushim
3. Phallu 36. Haggi 52. Ephraim 66. Naphtali
4. Hezron 37. Shuni 53. Benjamin 67. Jahzeel
5. Carmi 38. Ezbon 54. Belah 68. Guni
6. Simeon 39. Eri 55. Becher 69. Jezer
7. Jemuel 40. Arodi 56. Ashbel 70. Shillem
8. Jamin 41. Areli 57. Gera
9. Ohad 42. Asher 58. Naaman
10. Jachin 43. Jimnah 59. Ehi
11.
Zohar 44. Ishuah 60. Rosh
12.
Shaul 45. Isui 61. Muppim
13. Levi 46. Beriah 62. Huppim
14. Gershon 47. Serah (daughter) 63. Ard
15. Kohath 48. Heber
16. Merari 49. Malchiel
17.
Judah
18. Er
19.
Onan
20.
Shelah
21.
Pharez
22.
Zarah
23.
Hezron
24.
Hamul
25.
Issachar
26.
Tola
27.
Phuvah
28.
Job
29.
Shimron
30. Zebulun
31. Sered
32. Elon
33. Jahleel
The 66 are "all the souls that CAME WITH JACOB INTO EGYPT, which came OUT OF HIS
LOINS”
(Gen 46:26). This includes the list of 70 above MINUS Er and Onan (who died in Canaan) and
Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim (who were already in Egypt) PLUS Dinah (who is listed in Gen 46:15 but not numbered among the "sons of Leah") (70 - 2 - 3 + 1= 66).
It would not include any of Jacob’s sons’ wives because they did not come out of his loins. The 70 are "all the souls of THE HOUSE OF JACOB, which
CAME INTO EGYPT" (Gen 46:27). This includes the 66 PLUS Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim, who came into Egypt but not with Jacob, and Jacob himself, who is of the house of Jacob and came into Egypt
(Gen 46:8; Acts 7:15) (66 + 4= 70).
The 75 are "all HIS (Jacob's) KINDRED" that Joseph called with
Jacob to come down to Egypt (Acts 7:14). This includes the 66 PLUS nine of Jacob's sons' wives, who are
KINDRED but not FROM HIS LOINS (Gen 46:26). Of the twelve sons, the wives that are not included are, Joseph's because she was already in Egypt (Gen 46:20), Judah's because she died (Gen 38:12), and another unidentified wife who died (probably Dan's) (66 + 9= 75).
11

L E S S O N 3
1) Exodus 1:7 and Deuteronomy 7:7
"And THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and THE LAND WAS FILLED WITH THEM." (Exo 1:7)
"The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for YE WERE THE FEWEST OF ALL PEOPLE:" (Deu 7:7)
PROBLEM: If Israel was "the fewest of all people", then how could they increase so abundantly that
"the land was filled with them"?
SOLUTION: There is a difference in time and place. Deuteronomy speaks of the time God set his love on Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In fact, the context makes reference to "your FATHERS" (Deu 7:8).
Exodus speaks of the condition of Israel in Egypt approximately 400 years after God called out Abraham.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) Exodus 2:18, Exodus 3:1, and Numbers 10:29
"And when they came to REUEL THEIR FATHER, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?" (Exo 2:18)
"Now Moses kept the flock of JETHRO HIS FATHER IN LAW, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb." (Exo 3:1)
"And Moses said unto HOBAB, the son of RAGUEL the Midianite, MOSES' FATHER IN LAW,
We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said, I will give it you: come thou with us, and we will do thee good: for the LORD hath spoken good concerning Israel." (Num 10:29)
PROBLEM: Who is Moses' father-in-law? Reuel, Jethro, Hobab, or Raguel?
SOLUTION: This is a classic example of how differences in names become alleged contradictions. First of all, the name of Moses' father-in-law in Numbers 10:29 is HOBAB not RAGUEL. This is clear from the following:
"Now Heber the Kenite, which was of the children of HOBAB THE FATHER IN LAW OF
MOSES, had severed himself from the Kenites, and pitched his tent unto the plain of Zaanaim, which is by Kedesh." (Jud 4:11)
The name HOBAB means "cherished" and could be nickname Moses gave his father-in-law. That makes
RAGUEL Hobab's father. Second, it is obvious that JETHRO is another name for Moses' father-in-law
(Exo 3:1). JETHRO could be comparable to a first name, or it could be a title. The name means, "his excellency", and could refer to his position as the priest of Midian. Third, REUEL (Exo 2:18) is yet another name for Moses' father-in-law, for he is the father of seven daughters (Exo 2:16), of which one was Moses' wife, Zipporah (Exo 2:21). REUEL comes from the same Hebrew word as RAGUEL but they are not the same person. RAGUEL is the father of HOBAB/JETHRO/REUEL (Num 10:29).
REUEL is a variant spelling of RAGUEL, which is obviously the family or tribal name. In conclusion,
12

Moses' father-in-law had a first name or title (JETHRO), a nickname (HOBAB), and a family name
(REUEL) that he obviously shared with his father (RAGUEL).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3) Exodus 9:6 and Exodus 9:19-20,22
"And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and ALL THE CATTLE OF EGYPT DIED: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one." (Exo 9:6)
"Send therefore now, and GATHER THY CATTLE, and all that thou hast in the field; for upon every man and beast which shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die. He that feared the word of the LORD among THE
SERVANTS OF PHARAOH MADE his servants and HIS CATTLE FLEE into the houses:"
(Exo 9:19-20)
PROBLEM: If all the cattle of Egypt died as a result of the fifth plague (murrain), how could the servants of Pharaoh have any cattle to bring into the houses to avoid the seventh plague (hail and fire)?
SOLUTION: First of all, there is no specification given as to the length of time between these two plagues. If a year or two separated them, the Egyptians could have restocked their supply of cattle from another nation. The more probable explanation is that the cattle killed in the fifth plague were limited to those "in the field" (v.3). The Egyptians could have had some cattle housed in barns that survived the fifth plague. These are the cattle that are "in the field" (v.19) when the warning is given regarding the seventh plague. Since ALL of the Egyptian's cattle that were in the field died in the fifth plague, the warning of the seventh plague was a test as to who feared the Lord.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4) Exodus 31:17 and Isaiah 40:28
"It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days THE LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he RESTED, AND WAS REFRESHED." (Exo 31:17)
"Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, THE LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, FAINTETH NOT, NEITHER IS WEARY? there is no searching of his understanding." (Isa 40:28)
PROBLEM: If God doesn't faint or get weary, then why did he rest and get refreshed?
SOLUTION: God did not rest on the seventh day of creation because he can or did get tired. The word
REST can mean, "to cease from action". He rested and was refreshed because the seventh day pictures the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ, which will be a time of REST (Heb 4:4-9) and REFRESHING
(Acts 3:19) to the people of God.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) Exodus 33:20 and Exodus 24:9-10
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for THERE SHALL NO MAN SEE ME, AND LIVE."
(Exo 33:20)
"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And
THEY SAW THE GOD OF ISRAEL: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness." (Exo 24:9-10)
13

PROBLEM: If no man can see God and live, how did Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders survive?
SOLUTION: No man has (John 1:18) or can see God as he is in all his glory and majesty. What they saw was the angel of the Lord, who is a pre-incarnate appearing of Christ (Exo 3:2,4; Jud 13:21-22)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6) Leviticus 7:23 and Nehemiah 8:10
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall EAT NO MANNER OF FAT, of ox, or of sheep, or of goat." (Lev 7:23)
"Then he said unto them, Go your way, EAT THE FAT, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our Lord: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength." (Neh 8:10)
PROBLEM: Should they eat the fat or not?
SOLUTION: The word FAT in Nehemiah 8:10 is not a reference to the forbidden part of the animal, but an adjective describing the best of what can be eaten. The word is used this way in Genesis 45:18 where the "fat of the land" is mentioned. Note also that EATING THE FAT goes along with DRINKING THE
SWEET. SWEET is a reference to the best of what can be drunken.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7) Numbers 14:25 and Numbers 14:45
"(Now the Amalekites and THE CANAANITES DWELT IN THE VALLEY.) To morrow turn you, and get you into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea." (Num 14:25)
"Then the Amalekites came down, and THE CANAANITES which DWELT IN THAT HILL, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah." (Num 14:45)
PROBLEM: Did the Canaanites dwell in the valley or in the hill?
SOLUTION: Both. A valley is a hollow or low tract of land between two mountains or hills. Anyone living in the Appalachian and Smokey Mountain areas can attest that there are valleys in the hills and hills in the valleys.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8) Numbers 20:25 and Deuteronomy 10:6
"Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up unto MOUNT HOR:" (Num 20:25)
"And the children of Israel took their journey from Beeroth of the children of Jaakan to MOSERA:
THERE AARON DIED, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest's office in his stead." (Deu 10:6)
PROBLEM: Did Aaron die in Mount Hor or Mosera?
SOLUTION: Both. Mosera is the name of the area, Hor is a mountain in that area.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14

9) Numbers 20:19-21 and Deuteronomy 2:28-29
"And the children of Israel said unto him, We will go by the high way: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it: I will only, without doing any thing else, go through on my feet.
And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. Thus EDOM REFUSED TO GIVE ISRAEL PASSAGE through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him." (Num 20:19-21)
"Thou shalt sell me meat for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink: only I WILL PASS THROUGH on my feet; (AS THE CHILDREN OF ESAU which dwell in
Seir, and the Moabites which dwell in Ar, DID UNTO ME;) until I shall pass over Jordan into the land which the LORD our God giveth us." (Deu 2:28-29)
PROBLEM: Why did Moses say the Edomites gave Israel passage through their land in one verse and say they refused to give them passage in another?
SOLUTION: There are two different acts here, allowing passage through the land and selling food to eat and water to drink. It is entirely possible that Edom sold Israel food and water but still refused to give them passage through the land. Moses' parenthetical statement in Deuteronomy 2:29 is a reference to selling meat for money and giving water for money, not passing through on foot (Deu 2:28).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10) Numbers 23:19 and 1 Samuel 15:35
"GOD IS NOT A MAN, that he should lie; neither the son of man, THAT HE SHOULD REPENT: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
(Num 23:19)
"And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for
Saul: and THE LORD REPENTED that he had made Saul king over Israel." (1 Sam 15:35)
PROBLEM: How could the Lord repent if he does not repent?
SOLUTION: The word REPENT can mean, "to change the mind" or "to feel pain, sorrow, or regret for something done or spoken". In the first text, REPENT refers to something God does not do regarding something he has SAID he would do. In other words, God does not go on record as saying he will do something, only later to "change his mind" and not do it. The Lord never goes back on his word when he has made a FIXED and FINAL statement. This is clear from the two questions asked at the end of the verse. The Lord REPENTED about destroying Nineveh (Jon 3:4,10), because the warning was not a fixed and final statement. The implication is that the Lord gave the people of Nineveh the opportunity to turn from their sin through the preaching of Jonah. Since Nineveh was in fact destroyed at a later time (see:
Nahum), it is clear that only the TIMING of the statement changed. In the second text, REPENT refers to
God feeling pain, sorrow, or regret over making Saul king. God never promised to make Saul king; therefore, he was not repenting of a fixed and final statement he made by his word.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
11) Deuteronomy 1:1
"These be the words which MOSES SPAKE UNTO ALL ISRAEL on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and
Hazeroth, and Dizahab." (Deu 1:1)
15

PROBLEM: How could Moses speak to over 600,000 men (and at least 1,000,000 people) at once without a powerful Public Address system?
SOLUTION: The text does not say that Moses spoke to ALL the Israelites AT ONCE. Why couldn't he have given the same words to smaller groups over an extended period of time? Could it not still be said that "Moses spoke these words to all of Israel"? What likely occurred was, Moses gave the words directly to the elders (Deu 5:23), who gave them to the captains over thousands, who gave them to the captains over fifties, who gave them to the captains over tens (Deu 1:15).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
12) Deuteronomy 7:22 and Deuteronomy 9:3
"And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee BY LITTLE AND LITTLE: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee." (Deu 7:22)
"Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and DESTROY THEM QUICKLY, as the LORD hath said unto thee." (Deu 9:3)
PROBLEM: Would the enemies of Israel be destroyed little by little over a period of time or quickly?
SOLUTION: The two statements bear no relation to each other. The first text refers to the nations possessing the land of Canaan (7:17), whereas the second text refers specifically to the ANAKIMS (9:2).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13) Deuteronomy 15:4 and Deuteronomy 15:11
"Save WHEN THERE SHALL BE NO POOR AMONG YOU; for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it:" (Deu 15:4)
"For THE POOR SHALL NEVER CEASE OUT OF THE LAND: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land." (Deu 15:11)
PROBLEM: If the poor would never cease out of the land, why make a statement implying they might?
SOLUTION: The latter text refers to all the land of Israel, whereas the former text refers to a local area, like a city, within Israel.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14) Deuteronomy 25:5 and Leviticus 20:21
"And IF A MAN SHALL TAKE HIS BROTHER'S WIFE, IT IS AN UNCLEAN THING: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless." (Lev 20:21)
"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, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her." (Deu 25:5)
PROBLEM: If it is an unclean thing for a man to take his brother's wife, why is it elsewhere advocated?
SOLUTION: A man could take his brother's wife on the lone condition that his brother DIED.
16

L E S S O N 4
1) Joshua 7:24-25 and Deuteronomy 24:16
"And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, AND HIS SONS, AND HIS DAUGHTERS, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. And
Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, AND BURNED THEM WITH FIRE, AFTER THEY HAD STONED
THEM WITH STONES." (Jos 7:24-25)
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, NEITHER SHALL THE CHILDREN BE
PUT TO DEATH FOR THE FATHERS: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
(Deu 24:16)
PROBLEM: Why were Achan's children put to death if he was the one that sinned, and the law says the children should not die for the sins of the parent?
SOLUTION: The fact that Achan's family was not spared the judgment of death is clear in that Israel burned THEM with fire after they had stoned THEM with stones. According to v.24, the THEM includes
"his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep" . There are at least two possible solutions. First, it is possible that Achan's family was privy to his sin, and said nothing about it; or they actually assisted him in his sin. Second, Deuteronomy 24:16 is a law to govern the nation of
Israel, but the judgment of Joshua 7:24-25 is the result of disobedience to a special command given in
Joshua 6:18. There the Lord commands the children of Israel to refrain from "the accursed thing" under the penalty of becoming accursed themselves. The judgment for those "accursed" is in contrast to Rahab and "all that are with her in the house" . Rahab and her FAMILY were saved ALIVE because of HER faith. Therefore, the judgment of the accursed was DEATH to them and to all that are in their house because of their sin. By touching the accursed thing, Achan became accursed himself, and, as such, placed himself and ALL THAT ARE IN HIS HOUSE (i.e.- his family and his oxen, asses, and sheep) under the judgment of God.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) Joshua 10:39 and Matthew 10:28
"And HE took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE SOULS that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king." (Jos 10:39)
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather FEAR HIM
WHICH IS ABLE TO DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY in hell." (Matt 10:28)
PROBLEM: How could Joshua destroy souls if only God has the power to do it?
SOLUTION: The word SOUL has a variety of meanings. The apparent contradiction is a result of trying to make two different meanings of the word the same. In the former text, the phrase, "all the SOULS" is defined in the context as meaning, " all that BREATHED" (v.40) cf. (Deu 20:17). This would include
ANIMALS and MEN (Job 12:10; Rev 16:3). The word SOUL can also mean "physical life; or entire
17

being" (1 Sam 23:15; 24:11; 26:21,24). In the latter text, the word SOUL refers to the eternal selfconscious part of man that is one of the many things that distinguish him from the animal creation. God did not breathe the breath of life into animals that they would become "living souls" (Gen 2:7), although animals do breathe. The word DESTROY means, "to kill; to take away; to ruin". One way to destroy something is to SEPARATE it's parts. Therefore, man DESTROYS SOULS by causing physical death, which is the SEPARATION of the soul and spirit from the body (Jam 2:26). On the other hand, God
DESTROYS SOULS, not only by means of physical death, but also by spiritual death, which is the
SEPARATION of the soul and spirit from God for all eternity.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3) Joshua 11:23 and Joshua 13:1
"So JOSHUA TOOK THE WHOLE LAND, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and
Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war." (Jos 11:23)
"Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and THERE REMAINETH YET VERY MUCH LAND TO BE POSSESSED."
(Jos 13:1)
PROBLEM: Did Joshua possess all the land or not?
SOLUTION: In warfare, TAKING the land is not necessarily the same as POSSESSING the land. On a more practical note, one can TAKE an article of clothing off the store rack, but they do not POSSESS it until they pay for it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4) Joshua 24:19 and Jeremiah 31:34
"And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous
God; HE WILL NOT FORGIVE YOUR TRANSGRESSIONS NOR YOUR SINS." (Jos 24:19)
"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the
LORD: for I WILL FORGIVE THEIR INIQUITY, and I will remember their sin no more."
(Jer 31:34)
PROBLEM: Does God forgive sin or doesn't he?
SOLUTION: God does forgive the sins his people commit, but they must first confess those sins and repent of them. The reason Joshua said the Lord would not forgive Israel their sins is because they had strange gods (idols) among them (v.24). Until they put away those gods and inclined their heart to the
Lord, their sins would not be forgiven.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) Ruth 3:15
"Also he said, Bring the veil that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city." (Ruth 3:15)
(Oxford publisher)
18

"Also he said, Bring the veil that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and HE went into the city." (Ruth 3:15)
(Cambridge publisher)
PROBLEM: A favorite for enemies of the King James Bible. Who went into the city? Boaz or Ruth?
Whichever one is right, the other has a proven error in it doesn’t it?
SOLUTION: No, as a matter of fact they are BOTH right. Ruth obviously went into the city because the next verse says she came to her mother-in-law, and she was in the city (2:18). But Boaz also went into the city because that is where the gate was (4:1).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6) 1 Samuel 9:1, 1 Samuel 14:50, and 1 Chronicles 8:33
"Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was KISH, THE SON OF ABIEL, the son of
Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of power." (1 Sam 9:1)
"And the name of Saul's wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz: and the name of the captain of his host was Abner, the son of Ner, Saul's uncle. And Kish was the father of Saul; and NER THE
FATHER OF ABNER WAS THE SON OF ABIEL." (1 Sam 14:50-51)
"And NER BEGAT KISH, and Kish begat Saul, and Saul begat Jonathan, and Malchishua, and
Abinadab, and Eshbaal." (1 Chr 8:33)
PROBLEM: What is the correct geneology?
SOLUTION: Remembering that a SON can actually be a GRANDSON (Ruth 4:17), it is clear that Kish is Abiel's grandson (1 Sam 9:1); especially since Ner is said to have BEGOTTEN him (1 Chr 8:33). The correct geneology in reconciling these verses is as follows:
Zeror
|
Abiel
|
Ner
|
Kish- Abner
|
Saul
This means Saul's uncle is ABNER not Ner (1 Sam 14:50).
________________________________________________________________________________
7) 1 Samuel 16:10-11 and 1 Chronicles 2:13-15
"Again, Jesse made SEVEN OF HIS SONS to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The
LORD hath not chosen these. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said,
THERE REMAINETH YET THE YOUNGEST, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither." (1 Sam 16:10-11)
19

"And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, DAVID THE SEVENTH:" (1 Chr 2:13-15)
PROBLEM: Was David the seventh or eighth son?
SOLUTION: There are two solutions. First, and most likely, the listing in Chronicles says Jesse specifically BEGAT the sons. Although Jesse did have eight sons (1 Sam 17:12), based on what has already been learned, the eighth son in 1 Samuel 16 could be a grandson or an adopted son. Second, it is quite possible that the eighth son died before the listing in Chronicles was given.
____________________________________________________________________________________
8) 1 Samuel 28:15
"And SAMUEL SAID TO SAUL, WHY HAST THOU DISQUIETED ME, TO BRING ME UP?
And Saul answered, I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets, nor by dreams: therefore I have called thee, that thou mayest make known unto me what I shall do." (1 Sam 28:15)
PROBLEM: Did the witch of Endor actually bring Samuel up?
SOLUTION: No, but God did. The fact that Samuel actually appeared does not condone the practice of witchcraft or necromancy. But the text does imply that it occurred. Why would the witch be surprised at
Samuel's appearance if it was her familiar spirit masquerading as Samuel? There is a reason they are called "familiar" spirits. In fact, when Saul asked her to bring up Samuel, she did not even get the chance to go into her "act", Samuel simply appeared (1 Sam 28:11-12). In addition, the word of God calls the one speaking to Saul, "Samuel". If this were a familiar spirit, the word of God would have told us
(Acts 19:15). This is a one time occurrence of contact with the dead that God allowed for the purpose of condemning Saul (1 Sam 28:19). The scripture is clear that this will never happen again, especially since we have the complete revelation of the word of God (Luke 16:27-31).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9) 1 Samuel 31:4-6 and 2 Samuel 1:6-10
"Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore SAUL TOOK A SWORD, AND FELL UPON IT. AND WHEN
HIS ARMOURBEARER SAW THAT SAUL WAS DEAD, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him." So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together." (1 Sam 31:4-6)
"And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. And when he looked behind him, he saw me, and called unto me. And I answered, Here am I. And he said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and SLAY ME: FOR ANGUISH IS COME UPON ME, BECAUSE MY LIFE IS
YET WHOLE IN ME. SO I STOOD UPON HIM, AND SLEW HIM, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord." (2 Sam 1:6-10)
PROBLEM: Did Saul kill himself or did the Amalekite kill him?
20

SOLUTION: There are two possible solutions. First, although Saul's armourbearer killed himself when he "saw that Saul was dead", he may have only appeared dead. It is possible that Saul's suicide attempt actually failed and the Amalekite found him and slew him, as the latter text indicates. Another possibility is that Saul actually did kill himself and the Amalekite lied about killing him in order to get a bountiful reward from David. The Bible is not clear as to which is correct, but the fact that life went for life
(Deu 19:21) implies the Amalekite did kill Saul; or at least that David believed that he did. What is clear is that there is no contradiction between the two accounts.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10) 2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8
"Therefore MICHAL THE DAUGHTER OF SAUL HAD NO CHILD unto the day of her death."
(2 Sam 6:23)
"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and THE FIVE SONS OF MICHAL THE DAUGHTER OF SAUL, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:" (2 Sam 21:8)
PROBLEM: Did Michal have any children or didn't she?
SOLUTION: Michal did not have any children of her own. The five "sons" mentioned in the latter text were the children of her sister, Merab, and her husband, Adriel (1 Sam 18:19). The latter text states that
Michal BROUGHT THEM UP, not that she HAD THEM. It is possible that her brother-in-law and/or sister died leaving the five boys without parents, and Michal adopted them and reared them as her own.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
11) 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18
"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew THE MEN OF SEVEN HUNDRED
CHARIOTS of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there." (2 Sam 10:18)
"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND MEN
WHICH FOUGHT IN CHARIOTS, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host." (1 Chr 19:18)
PROBLEM: Did David slay 700 or 7000 men?
SOLUTION: The first text does not say 700 MEN, but men of 700 CHARIOTS. There is no discrepancy in the two accounts if there are 10 men to each chariot.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
12) 2 Samuel 14:27 and 2 Samuel 18:18
"And UNTO ABSALOM THERE WERE BORN THREE SONS, and one daughter, whose name was Tamar: she was a woman of a fair countenance." (2 Sam 14:27)
"Now ABSALOM in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself a pillar, which is in the king's dale: for he SAID, I HAVE NO SON TO KEEP MY NAME IN REMEMBRANCE: and he called the pillar after his own name: and it is called unto this day, Absalom's place." (2 Sam 18:18)
PROBLEM: Did Absalom have any sons or didn't he?
21

SOLUTION: Absalom could have had three sons that died before he said what is recorded in 2 Samuel
18:18.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13) 2 Samuel 15:7
"And IT CAME TO PASS AFTER FORTY YEARS, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron." (2 Sam 15:7)
PROBLEM: How could forty years elapse from the time Absalom first stole the hearts of the men of
Israel to this time?
SOLUTION: It is simply assumption, and false at that, that the forty years refers to the time that passed since the events in v.6. The forty years actually refers to the time that passed since David was first anointed king (1 Sam 16:13).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14) 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1
"And again the anger of THE LORD was kindled against Israel, and he MOVED DAVID
AGAINST THEM TO say, Go, NUMBER ISRAEL and Judah." (2 Sam 24:1)
"And SATAN stood up against Israel, and PROVOKED DAVID TO NUMBER ISRAEL."
(1 Chr 21:1)
PROBLEM: Who moved David to number Israel, the Lord or Satan?
SOLUTION: Although the words PROVOKE and MOVE are translated from the same Hebrew word
(suth), they do have different meanings. The word PROVOKE means, "to challenge; to incite"; whereas the word MOVE means, "to change place". Therefore, Satan was the one who actually enticed David to number the people, the Lord simply permitted it to happen, by placing David in a position to be tempted to test his faith.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
15) 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5
"And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were IN ISRAEL
EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND valiant men that drew the sword; and THE MEN OF JUDAH
WERE FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND men." (2 Sam 24:9)
"And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all THEY OF ISRAEL
WERE A THOUSAND THOUSAND AND AN HUNDRED THOUSAND men that drew sword: and JUDAH WAS FOUR HUNDRED THREESCORE AND TEN THOUSAND men that drew sword." (1 Chr 21:5)
PROBLEM: Were there 800,000 valiant men in Israel or 1,100,000? Were there 500,000 in Judah or
470,000?
SOLUTION: Both. The smaller numbers represent those on ACTIVE duty, the smaller numbers represent those on active and INACTIVE duty.
22

16) 2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:11-12
"So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me." (2 Sam 24:13)
"So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either THREE
YEARS' FAMINE; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me." (1 Chr 21:11-12)
PROBLEM: Was it seven years of famine or three?
SOLUTON: Both. At the time Gad spoke this three to four years of famine had already occurred IN
THE LAND (2 Sam 21:1). The SEVEN years includes the previous four and an additional THREE
(1 Chr 21:12).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
17) 2 Samuel 24:24 and 1 Chronicles 21:25
"And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for FIFTY SHEKELS OF SILVER." (2 Sam 24:24)
"So David gave to Ornan for the place SIX HUNDRED SHEKELS OF GOLD by weight."
(1 Chr 21:25)
PROBLEM: How much did it cost David, 50 shekels of silver or 600 shekels of gold?
SOLUTION: The 50 shekels of silver is the cost of just the THRESHINGFLOOR AND THE OXEN; whereas the 600 shekels of gold is the cost for the entire PLACE. David purchased both.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
23

L E S S O N 5
INTRODUCTION
It is important to keep the following seven facts in mind when apparent discrepancies surface in comparing passages in Kings and Chronicles:
1. There may be lapses of time not specifically mentioned (the same is true in Judges).
2. There are occasions where a period of time less than six months is counted as a year in a king's reign.
3. Queens may have joint reigns with their sons, resulting in an overlap in the two reigns.
4. Sons or grandsons may have joint reigns with their fathers or grandfathers who are aging, sick, or on military campaigns.
5. Sons may be omitted from lists if they did not have any male descendants.
6. Grandsons and sons-in-law may be counted as sons.
7. An adopted son may be counted as a begotten son in the line to the throne.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1) 1 Kings 5:11 and 2 Chronicles 2:10
"And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat for food to his household, and
TWENTY MEASURES OF PURE OIL: thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year." (1 Kin 5:11)
"And, behold, I will give to thy servants, the hewers that cut timber, twenty thousand measures of beaten wheat, and twenty thousand measures of barley, and twenty thousand baths of wine, and
TWENTY THOUSAND BATHS OF OIL." (2 Chr 2:10)
PROBLEM: Was the amount of oil 20 measures or 20,000 baths?
SOLUTION: Both. A "measure" in 1 Kings 5:11 is obviously equivalent to 1000 baths.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) 1 Kings 5:16, 1 Kings 9:23, 2 Chronicles 2:2, and 2 Chronicles 8:10
"Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, THREE THOUSAND AND
THREE HUNDRED, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work." (1 Kin 5:16)
"And Solomon told out threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and THREE THOUSAND AND SIX HUNDRED to oversee them."
(2 Chr 2:2)
"These were the chief of the officers that were over Solomon's work, FIVE HUNDRED AND
FIFTY, which bare rule over the people that wrought in the work." (1 Kin 9:23)
24

"And these were the chief of king Solomon's officers, even TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY, that bare rule over the people." (2 Chr 8:10)
PROBLEM: How many overseers of the work did Solomon have, 3600 or 3300? How many chief officers did Solomon have, 550 or 250?
SOLUTION: The answer to the apparent discrepancy between the first two texts is that there were 3600 total overseers. The 3300 stated in 1 Kings 5:16 does not include the CHIEF OF SOLOMON'S
OFFICERS mentioned in the text that obviously number 300 when compared to 2 Chronicles 2:2. The answer to the apparent discrepancy between the last two texts is that the 250 is a group within the 550.
The 550 are said to be the chief of the officers which bare rule over THE PEOPLE THAT WROUGHT
IN THE WORK; whereas the 250 are said to be the chief of the officers that bare rule over THE
PEOPLE. Obviously, there were people who were not part of the work who had officers over them.
____________________________________________________________________________________
3) 1 Kings 6:2 and 1 Kings 6:17
"And THE HOUSE which king Solomon built FOR THE LORD, THE LENGTH THEREOF WAS
THREESCORE CUBITS, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits." (1 Kin 6:2)
"And the house, that is, THE TEMPLE before it, WAS FORTY CUBITS LONG." (1 Kin 6:16-17)
PROBLEM: What was the length of the temple, 40 cubits or 60 cubits?
SOLUTION: The temple was 60 cubits long, but this included the porch, which was twenty cubits long
(v.3); therefore, the temple itself was 40 cubits long.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4) 1 Kings 7:20, 1 Kings 7:42, and Jeremiah 52:23
"And the chapiters upon the two pillars had pomegranates also above, over against the belly which was by the network: and THE POMEGRANATES WERE TWO HUNDRED IN ROWS round about upon the other chapiter." (1 Kin 7:20)
"And FOUR HUNDRED POMEGRANATES for the two networks, EVEN TWO ROWS of pomegranates for one network, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters that were upon the pillars;"
(1 Kin 7:42)
"And there were NINETY AND SIX POMEGRANATES ON A SIDE; and ALL THE
POMEGRANATES upon the network WERE AN HUNDRED ROUND ABOUT." (Jer 52:23)
PROBLEM: How many pomegranates were there, 96, 100, 200, or 400?
SOLUTION: The pomegranates were arranged on the chapiter of each pillar. There was a total of 400 pomegranates in two pillars, 200 to each pillar. The 200 pomegranates on each pillar were in two rows of
100. In each row of 100 pomegranates, there was a total of 96 arranged on the four sides (24 to each side), and four on the angles of each side. See: Illustration on next page.
25

_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) 1 Kings 7:24 and 2 Chronicles 4:3
"And under the brim of it round about there were KNOPS COMPASSING IT, TEN IN A CUBIT, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast." (1 Kin 7:24)
"And under it was the similitude of OXEN, WHICH DID COMPASS IT round about: TEN IN A
CUBIT, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen were cast, when it was cast."
(2 Chr 4:3)
PROBLEM: What compassed the molten sea, knops or oxen?
SOLUTION: Both. A KNOP is, "a knob; a button". The knops could have been shaped like oxen or the similitude of an oxen could have been etched in the knop.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6) 1 Kings 9:28 and 2 Chronicles 8:18
"And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence GOLD, FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY
TALENTS, and brought it to king Solomon." (1 Kin 9:28)
"And Huram sent him by the hands of his servants ships, and servants that had knowledge of the sea; and they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence FOUR HUNDRED AND
FIFTY TALENTS OF GOLD, and brought them to king Solomon." (2 Chr 8:18)
PROBLEM: Was it 420 talents of gold or 450?
SOLUTION: If they brought 450 talents of gold then they also brought 420. It is also possible that there were two separate trips to Ophir.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7) 1 Kings 10:12 and 2 Chronicles 9:11
"And the king made of the ALMUG trees pillars for the house of the LORD, and for the king's house, harps also and psalteries for singers: there came no such almug trees, nor were seen unto this day." (1 Kin 10:12)
"And the king made of the ALGUM trees terraces to the house of the LORD, and to the king's palace, and harps and psalteries for singers: and there were none such seen before in the land of
Judah." (2 Chr 9:11)
26

PROBLEM: Bible critics are quick to point out this "scribal error". The copyist MUST have erred in one passage or the other by transposing the letters, right?
SOLUTION: Wrong. Down in Louisiana they eat a small lobster-like critter called a CRAWFISH. Up north the same critter is called a CRAYFISH. The spelling of the critter's name varies on regional dialect.
The same could easily be true of ALMUG and ALGUM. God is right and the Bible critics are wrong.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8) 1 Kings 15:14 and 2 Chronicles 14:3
"But THE HIGH PLACES WERE NOT REMOVED: nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the
LORD all his days." (1 Kin 15:14)
"For HE TOOK AWAY the altars of the strange gods, and THE HIGH PLACES, and brake down the images, and cut down the groves:" (2 Chr 14:3)
PROBLEM: Did Asa remove the high places or not?
SOLUTION: He took away the high places out of JUDAH (2 Chr 14:5), but not Israel.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9) 2 Kings 2:11 and John 3:13
"And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and ELIJAH WENT UP BY A WHIRLWIND
INTO HEAVEN." (2 Kin 2:11)
"And NO MAN HATH ASCENDED UP TO HEAVEN, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:13)
PROBLEM: If Jesus Christ is the only man who has ascended to heaven, then what about Elijah?
SOLUTION: Elijah did go up into heaven, but he went up BY A WHIRLWIND, not by HIS OWN
POWER. The word ASCEND means, "to rise up by means of one's own power". In this sense, NO MAN has ascended to heaven but the Lord Jesus Christ. Lucifer tried and failed (Isa 14:13,15; Eze 28:18;
Rev 12:9).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10) 2 Kings 2:23-24 and Luke 18:16
"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, THERE CAME
FORTH LITTLE CHILDREN out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. AND HE turned back, and looked on them, and CURSED THEM in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." (2 Kin 2:23-24)
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN TO COME UNTO ME, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:16)
PROBLEM: If the Lord loves the little children, why did he have 42 of them torn by the bears?
27

SOLUTION: First of all, the Bible does not say that the bears killed or mutilated the little children. The word TARE can simply mean, "to wound". Second, the LITTLE CHILDREN are not necessarily grammar school aged children. Jesus Christ called his disciples, who were in their twenties and thirties,
LITTLE CHILDREN (John 13:33), as did Paul the Galatians (Gal 4:19), and John all Christians
(1 John 2:1). The age of the children is irrelevant. The fact is, they were old enough to recognize the man of God, and they mocked him. This disrespect for an elder, and a man of God at that, is a violation of the law (Lev 19:32). Their remark about Elisha "going up" is probably mockery related to the translation of
Elijah. The latter text means that no one should hinder children from coming to the Lord Jesus Christ if they want to. The children in the former text had no regard for spiritual matters. If a child is old enough to understand he is a sinner, and Jesus Christ died for his sins, no one should forbid him to come to the
Lord to be saved if he wants to. If the same child dies without Christ, he will go to hell just as sure as any other lost sinner.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
11) 2 Kings 6:23 and 2 Kings 6:24
"And he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the bands of SYRIA CAME NO MORE INTO THE LAND
OF ISRAEL." (2 Kin 6:23)
"And it came to pass after this, that Benhadad king of SYRIA GATHERED ALL HIS HOST, AND
WENT UP, AND BESIEGED SAMARIA." (2 Kin 6:24)
PROBLEM: How can Syria come no more into the land of Israel if they later invaded Samaria, which is part of Israel?
SOLUTION: It was the BANDS of Syria that came no more into the land of Israel, not the ARMY of
Syria. The bands (v.23) were roving troops but the host of Syria (v.24) was an organized unit.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
12) 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2
"TWO AND TWENTY YEARS OLD WAS AHAZIAH WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of
Israel." (2 Kin 8:26)
"FORTY AND TWO YEARS OLD WAS AHAZIAH WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri."
(2 Chr 22:2)
PROBLEM: This is another of the five "extremely difficult" texts. It is also the classic "proof text" used by Bible critics in proving the King James Bible has errors. How could Ahaziah begin reigning at the age of 22 and 42 and reign only one year?
SOLUTION: Ahaziah could have been ANOINTED king at the age of 22 in order to reign while
Jehoshaphat and Jehoram were on a military campaign at Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kin 22:29-36). In fact, the king at this time is said to have a son named Joash (1 Kin 22:26). Since Joash is the son of AHAZIAH
(2 Kin 11:2), it is clear that Ahaziah was indeed reigning at this time at the age of 22. After the battle, which did not last very long, Ahaziah stepped down and Jehoshaphat resumed the throne. Twenty years later, upon the death of his father Jehoram, Ahaziah ascended to the throne again. The total time of his reign was one year. Since Ahaziah was 42 years old when Jehoram died, and Jehoram was 40 years old
28

when he died, then Jehoram could not have been Ahaziah's literal father. Who then was Ahaziah's literal father, and what relationship did he actually have with Jehoram? Ahaziah was the literal son of
Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 22:9) and Athaliah (2 Chr 22:10) as a result of Jehoshaphat joining affinity with Ahab
(2 Chr 18:1). Since Jehoram was the firstborn son of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr 21:3), that made him and
Ahaziah step-brothers. He became Ahaziah's "father" when he married Athaliah, his step-mother
(2 Chr 21:6).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13) 2 Kings 15:30 and 2 Kings 15:32-33
"And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, IN THE TWENTIETH YEAR OF JOTHAM the son of
Uzziah." (2 Kin 15:30)
"In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel began JOTHAM the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign. Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign, and he
REIGNED SIXTEEN YEARS IN JERUSALEM. And his mother's name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok." (2 Kin 15:32-33)
PROBLEM: How could Hoshea begin to reign in the 20 th
year of Jotham when Jotham only reigned 16 years?
SOLUTION: Jotham reigned 16 years on his own, but an additional four in a joint reign with his leprous father, Uzziah. These four years are described as a time when Jotham was over the king's house, judging the people of the land while his father was in a several house (v.5).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14) 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9
"JEHOIACHIN WAS EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of
Jerusalem." (2 Kin 24:8)
"JEHOIACHIN WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD."
(2 Chr 36:9)
PROBLEM: How could Jehoiachin begin reigning at the age of 8 and 18 and reign less than one year?
SOLUTION: Johoiachin was eight years old when Jehoiakim died and he was anointed king, but his mother Nehushta reigned as queen for 10 years before he actually ascended to the throne (Jer 13:18).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
15) 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12
"And in the fifth month, ON THE SEVENTH DAY OF THE MONTH, which is the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem:" (2 Kin 25:8)
"Now in the fifth month, IN THE TENTH DAY OF THE MONTH, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem," (Jer 52:12)
29

PROBLEM: Did Nebuzaradan come into Jerusalem on the 7 th
day or the 10 th
day?
SOLUTION: The first text says Nebuzaradan came UNTO Jerusalem on the seventh day of the month; whereas the second text says he came INTO Jerusalem on the tenth day of the month. The difference would account for a three-day seige of the city before entry.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
30

L E S S O N 6
1) Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7
PROBLEM: The texts are too long to reproduce, but there are conflicting figures given throughout the two accounts. Which is right?
SOLUTION: The account given in Ezra is a "head count" of the people at that time. The account given in Nehemiah is the official register. The attendance to a sporting event can be estimated by looking at how filled the stadium is, but the official attendance is counted by how many tickets were sold.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) Ezra 10:3 and Malachi 2:16
"Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to PUT AWAY ALL THE WIVES, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law." (Ezr 10:3)
"For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that HE HATETH PUTTING AWAY: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously." (Mal 2:16)
PROBLEM: If the Lord hates divorce, then why did the people of Ezra's day make a covenant with the
Lord to divorce their wives?
SOLUTION: Just because God hates divorce does not mean that there are not circumstances whereby he would permit it to happen. In fact, the divorces in Ezra's day were not only permitted, but
COMMANDED. The reason is that the marriages should never have taken place to begin with because they were "mixed marriages". Under the law, the children of Israel were forbidden to marry any Gentiles lest the pagan spouse turn the Israelite from the Lord to worship their gods (Deu 7:3-4). These divorces were, therefore, evidence of repentance and a turning back to the Lord and his word. This must have been a most difficult thing to do because, in most cases, children were involved and no doubt, the Israelites loved their Gentile spouses. Nevertheless, they were living in disobedience to the law of God and they were commanded to love the Lord more than anything, or anyone (Deu 6:5). Today, God's attitude toward divorce has not changed; he still hates it. However, as long as there is sin in the world, there will be divorce. There will even be instances where divorce is not just an option, but a necessity (Ezr 10:12).
Our gracious Lord understands this and has told us in his word under what circumstances he will permit it
(Matt 19:9,29; 1 Cor 7:15)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3) Job 36:25, John 3:16 and Psalm 5:5, Malachi 1:3
"Behold, GOD is mighty, and DESPISETH NOT ANY: he is mighty in strength and wisdom."
(Job 36:5)
"For GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)
"The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: THOU HATEST ALL WORKERS OF INIQUITY."
(Psa 5:5)
31

"And I HATED ESAU, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." (Mal 1:3)
PROBLEM: If God does not hate anybody and loved the world, then why does the Bible say he hates all workers of iniquity and hated Esau?
SOLUTION: The simple answer is God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. Another way of putting this is God loves the sinner's soul, but hates the sinner IN HIS SIN. God's love for the sinner was demonstrated by the death of his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The Lord is not willing that any should perish (2 Pet 3:9), but that does not change the fact that he does not love the sinner IN HIS SIN.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4) Job 37:24 and Romans 3:18
"MEN DO THEREFORE FEAR HIM: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart." (Job 37:24)
"THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD before their eyes." (Rom 3:18)
PROBLEM: Do men fear God or not?
SOLUTION: There are simply two types of men, those who fear God and those who do not. There is no reason to believe, outside of mere assumption, that either of these texts speaks of ALL men. It is because the Lord is excellent in power, and in judgment, and in plenty of justice (Job 37:23) that there are men who fear him.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) Psalm 121:1 and Jeremiah 3:23
"A Song of degrees. I will lift up mine eyes unto THE HILLS, FROM WHENCE COMETH MY
HELP." (Psa 121:1)
"Truly IN VAIN IS SALVATION HOPED FOR FROM THE HILLS, and from the multitude of mountains: truly in the LORD our God is the salvation of Israel." (Jer 3:23)
PROBLEM: Is there help or hope from the hills or not?
SOLUTION: The hills themselves offer no help or hope. The hills and mountains were the location of many pagan "high places" where idols were worshipped (Jer 3:2). The Psalmist is not saying that the hills and mountains are the SOURCE of help, but the DIRECTION of help. He gives the source of help in v.2,
"My help cometh FROM THE LORD, which made heaven and earth" . The passage is actually prophetic and speaks about Israel in the Tribulation. There are a few hills and mountains associated with the Second Coming of Christ: Mt. Sinai (Deu 33:2), Mt. Paran (Hab 3:3), and the Mount of Olives
(Zec 14:4). When the Lord Jesus Christ returns, he comes from the heavenly Mt. Zion (Rom 11:26).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6) Psalm 103:10 and Zechariah 1:6
"HE HATH NOT DEALT WITH US after our sins; nor rewarded us ACCORDING TO OUR
INIQUITIES." (Psa 103:10)
"But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not take hold of your fathers? and they returned and said, Like as the LORD of hosts thought to do unto us,
32

ACCORDING TO OUR WAYS, AND ACCORDING TO OUR DOINGS, SO HATH HE DEALT
WITH US." (Zec 1:6)
PROBLEM: Has the Lord dealt with us according to our doings or not?
SOLUTION: Does anyone really want to argue this point? There is a difference between dealing with us after our SINS and dealing with us according to our WAYS. No one has been rewarded according to their iniquities, because if they had, they would be dead and in hell right now. But many are missing out on blessings because of their DOINGS and their WAYS. This applies to saved and lost alike.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7) Proverbs 1:28 and Proverbs 8:17
"Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; THEY SHALL SEEK ME EARLY, BUT
THEY SHALL NOT FIND ME:" (Pro 1:28)
"I love them that love me; and THOSE THAT SEEK ME EARLY SHALL FIND ME." (Pro 8:17)
PROBLEM: Will those that seek the Lord early find him or not?
SOLUTION: The word EARLY can mean, "at the beginning" or "in good season". The context of the first text is JUDGMENT as a result of refusing and rejecting the Lord (v.24-27). Seeking the Lord at the beginning of judgment is a bit too late to expect results. There is a time to seek the Lord (Hos 10:12) because he will not always be found (Isa 55:6); and that time is not at the White Throne Judgment. The second text refers to those who seek the Lord early because they love him. They also seek him with all their heart (Jer 29:13) and not because they have been found guilty and want to avert punishment.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8) Proverbs 26:4 and Proverbs 26:5
"ANSWER NOT A FOOL ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY, lest thou also be like unto him."
(Pro 26:4)
"ANSWER A FOOL ACCORDING TO HIS FOLLY, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
(Pro 26:5)
PROBLEM: Should a fool be answered according to his folly or not?
SOLUTION: The contradictory instructions are for two different situations. The LEST in each verse gives the condition for determining what course of action to take. A fool should NOT be answered according to his folly if, in doing so, it makes you look like a fool. A fool should be answered according to his folly if, in doing so, he is made to see how foolish he is.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9) Proverbs 31:4,6 and 1 Timothy 5:23
"It is not for kings, O Lemuel, IT IS NOT FOR KINGS TO DRINK WINE; nor for princes strong drink:" (Pro 31:4)
"GIVE STRONG DRINK UNTO HIM that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts." (Pro 31:6)
33

"Drink no longer water, but USE A LITTLE WINE for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." (1 Tim 5:23)
PROBLEM: Does the Bible condone moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages?
SOLUTION: Absolutely not. The context of the first text clearly indicates that kings and princes should not drink alcohol because it will skew their sense of judgment. Every Christian is a "king" in Christ
(Rev 1:6), and in preparation for our future responsibilities of judging the world and angels (1 Cor 6:2-3), we have been given the responsibility of judging ourselves on a daily basis (1 Cor 2:15; 11:31). This selfjudgment is in regards to sin in our life. There are severe consequences for neglecting to judge ourselves, including sickness and death (1 Cor 11:30). Consumption of alcohol, even in moderate proportions, skews our sense of judgment. Alcohol breaks down our moral walls and numbs our conscience. Isaiah warned of this very thing (Isa 5:20,22). If a Christian drinks alcohol, he will neglect to rightly judge himself and, consequently, put himself in a position where God will have to chasten him. Although alcohol should not be consumed, it can be USED. The latter two texts outline the conditions for the use of alcohol. The first condition is as an ANESTHETIC. The individual given strong drink in Pro 31:6 is
TERMINALLY ILL. Today, if a person was terminally ill with cancer and could hardly maintain consciousness due to the pain, it would be totally appropriate to administer alcohol as an anesthetic. The dying individual is not interested in getting drunk, he just wants the pain to go away. Of course we have more potent anesthetics available today, but in remote rural areas where hospitalization may not be possible, alcohol may be all that is available. The second condition is as a MEDICINE. Paul instructs
Timothy in 1 Timothy 5:23 to use alcohol for his infirmities. Alcohol is the primary ingredient in most cold medicines today. Sick people are not usually in the mood to "tie one over", they just want to get well again. Note the specific instructions Paul gives Timothy regarding wine (alcohol) in this verse:
1. USE it (as opposed to DRINKING it like water)
2. Use A LITTLE (or else you would be DRINKING it)
3. Use it for the purpose of helping OFTEN INFIRMITIES (colds, flus, etc.)
No other use of alcoholic beverages is permitted in the Bible. A Christian should let his conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ (Phl 1:27). Does the conversation described in Proverbs 23:29-35 become the gospel? For all those other "reasons" to drink alcohol a Christian should remember that,
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise"
(Pro 20:1)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10) Ecclesiastes 1:4 and Matthew 24:35
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but THE EARTH ABIDETH FOR
EVER." (Ecc 1:4)
"Heaven and EARTH SHALL PASS AWAY, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt 24:35)
PROBLEM: Will the earth abide forever or will it pass away?
SOLUTION: The first text is not a doctrinal and prophetic statement. It refers to the point of view of man UNDER THE SUN (v.3). From this point of view, men come and go, but the earth remains. The doctrinal and prophetic truth is that one day the earth, as we know it today, will pass away. It will first undergo dramatic changes at the Second Coming of Christ to make it fit for the Millennial kingdom
34

(Isa 40:4; Rev 16:19-20). After the Millennium, it will be completely renovated by fire (2 Pet 3:10) so that God can make a NEW EARTH (Isa 66:22; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
11) Isaiah 2:4 and Joel 3:10
"And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and THEY SHALL BEAT
THEIR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES, AND THEIR SPEARS INTO PRUNINGHOOKS: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isa 2:4)
"BEAT YOUR PLOWSHARES INTO SWORDS, AND YOUR PRUNINGHOOKS INTO
SPEARS: let the weak say, I am strong." (Joel 3:10)
PROBLEM: Which prophecy is correct?
SOLUTION: Both. The first prophecy refers to the Millennium; the second to Armageddon.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12) Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." (Isa 45:7)
PROBLEM: The classic argument of atheists and skeptics: "If there is a God, and he is loving and allpowerful and all-knowing, then HE, not us, is responsible for sin since he could have prevented it from ever coming into the world". This text seems to fuel their argument by saying God created evil. Did God create evil, or is this a mistranslation?
SOLUTION: This is no mistranslation and the atheists and skeptics are wrong in their accusations. God created evil as an antithesis to good, so all his moral creation (angels and men) could exercise their free will in choosing one or the other. God did not create angels and men to be robots and puppets, but to love, worship, and serve him of their own desire and choice. In order for God to be chosen, there had to be an alternative. That is why evil was created. Evil must be differentiated from sin. EVIL is the alternative to good; SIN is the act of choosing evil over good. Therefore, God did NOT create sin because sin is in the choice of the creature. God created evil but he is not evil himself. He is distinct from all his creation. He is no more evil because he created it, than he is the earth because he created it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13) Daniel 9:27, Daniel 12:7, Daniel 12:11, and Daniel 12:12
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for ONE WEEK: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." (Dan 9:27)
"And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for A
TIME, TIMES, AND AN HALF; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." (Dan 12:7)
35

"And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be A THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY DAYS."
(Dan 12:11)
"Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to THE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND FIVE
AND THIRTY DAYS." (Dan 12:12)
PROBLEM: How long is the Tribulation, 7 years, 1260 days (3
1/2 years), 1290 days, or 1335 days?
SOLUTION: The Tribulation, also called "Daniel's seventieth week", is 7 years in length. This is derived from the fact that THE WEEK in Daniel 9:27 refers to a "week of years" and a week has SEVEN days. It begins with the signing of a covenant between the nation of Israel and the Antichrist (Dan 9:27) and ends with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (Matt 24:29-30). The "time, times, and an half", "forty and two months" (Rev 11:2; 13:5), and "one thousand two hundred and threescore days" (Rev 11:3) refers to the last 3
1/2 years of the Tribulation called, "The Great Tribulation". It begins with the Antichrist breaking his covenant with Israel (Dan 9:27) and setting up an image of himself in the rebuilt temple to be worshipped (Matt 24:15) and ends with the Second Coming of Christ. The "thousand two hundred and ninety days" is the last 3
1/2 years of the Tribulation plus 30 days. This additional 30 days could include the resurrection and judgment of all Jews from Abraham to the end of the Tribulation (Dan 12:2-3)
(Matt 25:14-30). The "thousand three hundred and five and thirty days" is the last 3
1/2 years of the
Tribulation plus the 30 days of the judgment of Israel plus 45 days. This additional 45 days could include the judgment of the nations, which is a judgment of all the Gentiles that survived the Tribulation
(Matt 25:31-46). Those who wait and come to the 1335 th
day are blessed because that will be the official start of the Millennial kingdom of Christ.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14) Hosea 1:2 and Deuteronomy 23:17
"The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, TAKE
UNTO THEE A WIFE OF WHOREDOMS and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD." (Hos 1:2)
"THEY SHALL NOT TAKE A WIFE THAT IS A WHORE, or profane; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband: for he is holy unto his God." (Lev 21:7)
PROBLEM: Why would God command Hosea to marry a whore if it was forbidden under the law?
SOLUTION: The law was to govern the nation Israel. Hosea was given a command outside the law because God wanted his life to be an object lesson to the nation of Israel (Eze 4:1-8; 12:3-6; 24:15-27).
Hosea breaking the law and marrying a harlot pictured Israel departing from the Lord and embracing the gods of the heathen. This exception to the rule is also evident in the Lord allowing Samson to court a
Philistine wife in apparent contradiction to Deuteronomy 7:3, in order to judge the Philistines
(Jud 14:1-4).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
15) Jonah 1:17 and Matthew 12:40
"Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in THE BELLY
OF THE FISH three days and three nights." (Jon 1:17)
36

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in THE WHALE'S BELLY; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matt 12:40)
PROBLEM: "Whales live in the oceans and look like fish. But they are not fish. Whales are mammals, as are dogs, cats, horses, and human beings. There are many differences between whales and fish. The most easily seen difference is their tails. Whales have horizontal tail fins, and fish have vertical tail fins.
Whales, like other mammals, bear their young alive. Their babies nurse on the mother's milk. Whales breathe through lungs and must hold their breath when they go under water…Whales are warmblooded…On the other hand, most fish lay eggs and breathe oxygen from the water through gills. Fish are cold-blooded" (World Book Encyclopedia, 1975, Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, Volume
21, p.213). Is the word WHALE in Matthew a mistranslation since a whale is a mammal and not a fish?
SOLUTION: No. The problem is not in the text, but in the heart of the reader. Since when is the Creator bound to classify his creation according to rules and definitions of the creature? Man may have a criteria for animal classification, but God's is obviously different. The Lord appears to classify all sea creatures as FISH; all flying creatures as FOWL; and all land creatures as BEASTS (Deu 4:17-18). Instead of changing the word of God to conform to "science falsely so called" (1 Tim 6:20), "science" should be conformed to the word of God.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
37

L E S S O N 7
1) Matthew 1:12 and Jeremiah 22:30
"And after they were brought to Babylon, JECHONIAS begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat
Zorobabel;" (Matt 1:12)
"Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for
NO MAN OF HIS SEED SHALL PROSPER, SITTING UPON THE THRONE OF DAVID, and ruling any more in Judah." (Jer 22:30)
PROBLEM: If the Messianic line could not come through Jechoniah (Jehoiachin), how can the Lord
Jesus Christ legally lay claim to the throne of David?
SOLUTION: The only way for Jesus Christ to legally inherit the throne of David in light of the curse placed upon Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and his seed, would be for Jesus Christ to be born of a virgin. The geneology given in Matthew is JOSEPH'S lineage, which includes Jeconiah. Therefore, if Joseph were the true father of Jesus Christ, he could not inherit the throne on the basis of being a man of Jeconiah's seed. But since Jesus Christ was begotten of GOD (John 3:16) and born of the SEED OF THE WOMAN
(Mary)(Gen 3:15), his legal claim to the throne of David is through the lineage of MARY, which excludes
Jeconiah (Luke 3:23-38). It is important to note that an adopted son of a king could legally inherit the throne, just as a begotten son. The geneology in Matthew documents the fact that Jesus Christ is from the line of kings through his adoptive father, Joseph.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23
"And JACOB BEGAT JOSEPH the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called
Christ." (Matt1:16)
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of
JOSEPH, WHICH WAS THE SON OF HELI," (Luke 3:23)
PROBLEM: Who was Joseph's father, Jacob or Heli?
SOLUTION: Since Jacob BEGAT Joseph, he must be Joseph's father. Joseph is THE SON of Heli in the sense that he is his SON-IN-LAW. Even today, the son-in-law is called, "son" by his mother and father-in-law. The geneology given in Matthew is Joseph's, but the one in Luke is Mary's.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3) Matthew 1:17
"So all the generations from Abraham to David are FOURTEEN GENERATIONS; and from
David until the carrying away into Babylon are FOURTEEN GENERATIONS; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are FOURTEEN GENERATIONS." (Matt1:17)
PROBLEM: How can there be fourteen generations from David until the carrying away into Babylon if there are fifteen (including David) given in Matthew 1?
SOLUTION: Here is the apparent contradiction in a table format:
38

ABRAHAM-DAVID DAVID-BABYLON BABYLON-CHRIST
1. ABRAHAM 1. DAVID 1. JECHONIAS
2. Isaac 2. Solomon 2. Salathiel
3. Jacob 3. Roboam 3. Zorobabel
4. Judas 4. Abia 4. Abiud
5. Phares 5. Asa 5. Eliakim
6. Esrom 6. Josaphat 6. Azor
7. Aram 7. Joram 7. Sadoc
8. Aminadab 8. Ozias 8. Achim
9. Naasson 9. Joatham 9. Eliud
10. Salmon 10. Achaz 10. Eleazar
11. Booz 11. Ezekias 11. Matthan
12. Obed 12. Manasses 12. Jacob
13. Jesse 13. Amon 13. Joseph
14. DAVID 14. Josias 14. CHRIST
15. JECHONIAS
Isn't it interesting that the Bible says the generations in the second set are counted from David until the
CARRYING AWAY INTO BABYLON, and not until JECHONIAS? Jechonias (Jehoiachin) was cursed by God (Jer 22:30). Even the Je- prefix in his name, standing for "Jehovah", was removed. Therefore, it is apparent that the Lord does not count Jechonias as part of the generations. The second set of fourteen starts with David and ends with Josias. The third set starts with Josias and ends with Christ.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4) Matthew 2:22-23 and Luke 2:39
"But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, HE TURNED ASIDE INTO
THE PARTS OF GALILEE: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matt 2:22-23)
"And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, THEY RETURNED
INTO GALILEE, to their own city Nazareth." (Luke 2:39)
PROBLEM: Did Joseph, Mary, and Jesus return to Nazareth after Jesus' circumcision and dedication at the temple, or after they returned from Egypt?
SOLUTION: After they returned from Egypt. Luke does not state how much time elapsed between
Joseph and Mary performing all things according to the law and their returning to Nazareth. It is pure assumption that it was immediately thereafter. For whatever reason, Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus remained in the Jerusalem/Bethlehem area for almost two years. After all, it is a YOUNG CHILD in a
HOUSE that the wise men visited (Matt 2:8-9), not a BABE in a MANGER (Luke 2:12). The events of
Matthew 2:1-22 take place between the performing of "all things according to the law of the Lord" and the returning "into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth" in Luke 2:39.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) Matthew 2:23
"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was SPOKEN BY
THE PROPHETS, He shall be called a Nazarene." (Matt 2:23)
39

PROBLEM: The quote is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, what "prophets" is it referring to?
SOLUTION: It could be any prophet. Just because this was SPOKEN by the prophets does not mean it was WRITTEN by the prophets and, subsequently, included in the Old Testament scripture. The scripture does not reflect ALL that God ever said to his people, but all that he chose to go ON RECORD as saying.
The prophets were inspired when they spoke this, but it was not recorded until Matthew 2:23. A similar example is that the gospels do not contain an exhaustive record of the things Jesus did
(John 20:30; 21:25), but they do include all that God wants us to know he did.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6) Matthew 3:13
"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, TO BE BAPTIZED of him." (Matt 3:13)
PROBLEM: Since Jesus had no sin to repent of, why was he baptized?
SOLUTION: John's baptism was an outward expression of an inward repentance (3:6)(Mark 1:4). Those who repented of their sins and confessed them, were baptized to show that they had believed John's message about the coming kingdom (Matt 3:2). There are two main reasons for the baptism of Jesus: first, to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matt 3:15); and second, to manifest himself to Israel as the King of the coming kingdom (John 1:31). Others have suggested a third reason, namely that, although Jesus was without sin, he identified himself with sinners by being baptized.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7) Matthew 4:1 and James 1:13
"THEN WAS JESUS led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be TEMPTED of the devil."
(Matt 4:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for GOD CANNOT BE TEMPTED with evil, neither tempteth he any man:" (Jam 1:13)
PROBLEM: If Jesus is God, how could he have been tempted?
SOLUTION: The answer lies in the fact that Jesus was not tempted as God, but as a man. It was not his
DEITY that was tempted, but his HUMANITY. The mystery of godliness is that, "GOD was manifest in the FLESH" (1 Tim 3:16). Jesus Christ is God, but he is also a MAN; with the exception of not having the sinful Adamic nature. The question is then raised, could Jesus Christ have sinned? If he couldn't, was the temptation legitimate? The answers are no and yes respectively. To say that Jesus
Christ could have sinned is to divorce his deity from his humanity. It must be remembered that although
Christ was tempted as a man, he is still God. Consequently, if he could have sinned, God could sin; and that is IMPOSSIBLE. The temptation was still legitimate because, as it was A MAN that was tempted in the beginning (Gen 3), so it was "THE MAN Christ Jesus" (1 Tim 2:5) who was tempted in the wilderness.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8) Matthew 6:14-15 and Ephesians 4:32
"For IF YE FORGIVE MEN their trespasses, YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER WILL ALSO
FORGIVE YOU: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matt 6:14-15)
40

"And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, FORGIVING ONE ANOTHER, EVEN AS GOD for Christ's sake HATH FORGIVEN YOU." (Eph 4:32)
PROBLEM: Are we forgiven on the basis of forgiving others, or do we forgive others on the basis of our being forgiven?
SOLUTION: Both are doctrinal statements but under different adminstrations. The first scripture was spoken by Jesus Christ to JEWISH disciples, BEFORE Calvary, under the dispensation of LAW. The second scripture was spoken by the apostle Paul to the SAINTS (i.e.- the church) at Ephesus, AFTER
Calvary, under the dispensation of GRACE. Since we are under the dispensation of grace, we are to forgive others because God has forgiven us.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9) Matthew 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and BARE OUR SICKNESSES." (Matt 8:17)
"Surely he hath BORNE OUR GRIEFS, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Isa 53:4)
PROBLEM: Is Matthew 8:17 a quote of Isaiah 53:4?
SOLUTION: Yes, but not based on the reason put forth by the "scholars". The scholars use the
Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) as the basis for their conclusions since
Matthew 8:17 is a VERBATIM quote of Isaiah 53:4 in the Septuagint (LXX). They also state that since
Matthew quotes the Septuagint rendering, it must have a B.C. origin. First of all, Matthew 8:17 is a quote of Isaiah 53:4 on the grounds that the author of any book, in this case the Holy Spirit, is free to quote his own material in any way he deems appropriate. Second, without getting into a huge discourse on
Manuscript Evidence, the Septuagint is a corrupt text, and it was not written before Christ. The 72 apostate Jews who translated the Septuagint (LXX) recognized that the two verses did not match, and simply made them match A.D.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10) Matthew 8:28 and Mark 5:1-2
"And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, THERE MET HIM
TWO possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way." (Matt 8:28)
"And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. And when he was come out of the ship, immediately THERE MET HIM out of the tombs A MAN with an unclean spirit," (Mark 5:1-2)
PROBLEM: Was there one man possessed with devils or two?
SOLUTION: There were TWO men possessed with devils. Just as the case is with the giving of sight to
TWO blind men (Matt 20:29-34) and the giving of sight to Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46-52), Matthew gives the total account, whereas Mark gives the detailed account of the Lord's dealing with one of the two affected individuals.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
41

11) Matthew 10:23
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, YE SHALL
NOT HAVE GONE OVER THE CITIES OF ISRAEL, TILL THE SON OF MAN BE COME."
(Matt 10:23)
PROBLEM: Is this a historical error since the disciples did preach to all the cities of Israel and Jesus
Christ did not come back?
SOLUTION: No. The context (v.21-22) points to the future Tribulation just prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (24:10,13). Therefore, the statement does not apply doctrinally to the twelve apostles, but to the 144,000, who like the apostles, will spread the gospel (of the kingdom) to the entire world before the Second Coming (24:14).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
12) Matthew 10:34 and John 14:27
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I CAME NOT TO SEND PEACE, but a sword."
(Matt 10:34)
"PEACE I LEAVE WITH YOU, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.
Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid." (John 14:27)
PROBLEM: Did Christ come to bring peace or not?
SOLUTION: Yes and no. He did not come the first time to bring peace ON EARTH, but peace IN THE
HEARTS of individuals who trust him as Savior. When he comes the SECOND time, he comes to make
WAR (Rev 19:11) in order to bring peace ON EARTH (Luke 2:14).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13) Matthew 12:30 and Luke 9:50
"HE THAT IS NOT WITH ME IS AGAINST ME; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matt 12:30)
"And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for HE THAT IS NOT AGAINST US IS FOR US."
(Luke 9:50)
PROBLEM: Does a person need to be WITH Jesus to be FOR him or not?
SOLUTION: The key to reconciling the two texts lies in the wording. The word ME is used in Matthew and the word US in Luke. The text in Matthew refers to the importance of making a personal decision to receive Jesus Christ; whereas the text in Luke is a rebuke against sectarianism. It does not matter what
DENOMINATION we are with, but we must be with CHRIST. If we are with Christ, we will not be against any other DENOMINATION that is truly for him. It is important to note; however, that in order to be FOR Jesus Christ, the denomination MUST be sound in the doctrine of Christ and the gospel.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
42

14) Matthew 15:22 and Mark 7:26
"And, behold, A WOMAN OF CANAAN came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying,
Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil."
(Matt 15:22)
"THE WOMAN was a Greek, A SYROPHENICIAN by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter." (Mark 7:26)
PROBLEM: Was the woman a Syrophenician or a Canaanitess?
SOLUTION: Both. She was a Syrophenician in NATIONALITY, but she lived in Canaan. There are many Americans who live permanently, or temporarily, in other countries.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
15) Matthew 19:24
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through THE EYE OF A NEEDLE, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matt 19:24)
PROBLEM: Shouldn't the "eye of a needle" be translated "the Needle's Eye" to indicate a narrow passage at the entry of Jerusalem?
SOLUTION: There may have been a passage at the entry of Jerusalem called, "The Needle's Eye" that was so narrow a camel could not pass through it, but that is NOT what Jesus was referring to. Based on the context (v.16-23), Jesus was illustrating the IMPOSSIBILITY of salvation as long as man trusted in his riches. Since rich men tend to trust in their riches (v.16-22), Jesus said that they shall HARDLY enter into the kingdom of heaven (v.23). His illustration of how HARD is that, it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (v.24). Recognizing the
IMPOSSIBILITY of camel going through the eye of a needle, and being under the impression that physical wealth reflected divine favor, the disciples asked, "Who then can be saved?" (v.25). Jesus' response was that although it is impossible WITH MEN for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, all things are possible WITH GOD. The ALL THINGS includes a camel going through the eye of a needle, and saving a rich man. NOTHING is impossible with God.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
43

L E S S O N 8
1) Matthew 20:20-21 and Mark 10:35-37
"Then came to him THE MOTHER OF ZEBEDEE'S CHILDREN WITH HER SONS, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? SHE
SAITH UNTO HIM, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom." (Matt 20:20-21)
"And JAMES AND JOHN, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They SAID UNTO HIM, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory." (Mark 10:35-37)
PROBLEM: Who asked the question, James and John or their mother?
SOLUTION: Both. James and John made the initial request, then Jesus asked their mother what she wanted, and she reiterated their request. Combining the two accounts, the chronology is as follows: "And
James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on they left hand, in thy glory. Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) Matthew 25:5 and Hebrews 10:37
"While THE BRIDEGROOM TARRIED, they all slumbered and slept." (Matt 25:5)
"For yet a little while, and HE that shall come will come, and WILL NOT TARRY." (Heb 10:37)
PROBLEM: Will the Lord tarry his Coming or not?
SOLUTION: The Lord will not tarry his Coming because it is at an appointed day and hour
(Matt 24:36). He will not come a second sooner or later than this appointed time. The apparent contradiction is the result of failing to see that one passage deals with the FACT (Heb 10:37), whereas the other deals with the PERCEPTION (Matt 25:5). The "virgins" perceived that the bridegroom was tarrying his coming; that is why they went to sleep. Just because they believed he was tarrying his coming does not mean he actually was.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3) Matthew 26:7, Mark 14:3, Luke 7:37-38, and John 12:3
"There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and POURED
IT ON HIS HEAD, as he sat at meat." (Matt 26:7)
44

"And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and
POURED IT ON HIS HEAD." (Mark 14:3)
"And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the
Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and ANOINTED THEM WITH THE OINTMENT." (Luke 7:37-38)
"Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and ANOINTED THE FEET OF
JESUS, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment."
(John 12:3)
PROBLEM: How many events are described in these four accounts?
SOLUTION: There are two separate events mentioned in these four passages. One event is recorded in
Matthew, Mark, and John and the other in Luke. The event recorded in Matthew, Mark, and John takes place in Bethany at the house of Simon THE LEPER (Matt 26:6; Mark 14:3; John 12:1). Matthew and
Mark say that Mary of Bethany anointed the head of Jesus (Matt 26:7; Mark 14:3); John says the same, but adds that she anointed his feet with spikenard and wiped them with her hair (John 12:3). All three have Jesus stating that she did this for his burial. Conversely, the event recorded in Luke takes place at the house of A PHARISEE also named Simon (Luke 7:36,40). The woman anointed only the feet of
Jesus, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. There is no anointing of Jesus' head, no complaint by
Judas Iscariot, or any of the disciples, over the precious ointment being used on the Lord, and there is no mention of the Lord saying that she did this for his burial. In fact, the washing of a guest's feet was a
Jewish custom.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4) Matthew 26:34 and Mark 14:30
"Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, BEFORE THE COCK CROW, thou shalt deny me thrice." (Matt 26:34)
"And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, BEFORE THE
COCK CROW TWICE, thou shalt deny me thrice." (Mark 14:30)
PROBLEM: Did Peter deny the Lord three times before the cock crowed once or twice?
SOLUTION: Since the cock crowed once after Peter's first denial (Mark 14:68), the answer must be twice. Matthew and Luke mention the cock crowing in a general sense, whereas Mark mentions the specific number of times the cock would crow.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) Matthew 26:71 and Luke 22:58
"And when he was gone out into the porch, ANOTHER MAID SAW HIM, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth." (Matt 26:71)
"And after a little while ANOTHER SAW HIM, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said,
MAN, I am not." (Luke 22:58)
45

PROBLEM: Was it another maid or another man that accused Peter of being one of the Jesus' disciples?
SOLUTION: The discrepancy is with the identity of the second accuser. Initially, it appears to be another MAID, but Peter addresses the second accuser as, MAN. The second accusation takes place on the porch as Peter warms himself by the fire (Mark 14:67-70; Luke 22:56). The answer is found in John
18:25 where it says that, as Peter warmed himself by the fire, THEY accused him of being one of Jesus' disciples. The second accusation comes from the crowd that had gathered on the porch; and from within that crowd, ANOTHER MAID and ANOTHER…MAN accused him.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6) Matthew 27:9 and Zechariah 11:13
"Then was fulfilled that which was SPOKEN BY JEREMY THE PROPHET, saying, And they took
THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;" (Matt 27:9)
"And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them.
And I took THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, and cast them to the potter in the house of the
LORD." (Zec 11:13)
PROBLEM: Is the text in Matthew a scribal error since the quotation is clearly from Zechariah not
Jeremiah?
SOLUTION: No. As mentioned in a previous lesson, just because a prophet SPOKE something does not mean he WROTE it. Jeremiah could have spoken the prophecy that was later written by Zechariah. Both men were inspired of God, but only Zechariah's inspiration became scripture.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7) Matthew 27:28 and John 19:2
"And they stripped him, and put on him A SCARLET ROBE." (Matt 27:28)
"And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him A
PURPLE ROBE" (John 19:2)
PROBLEM: Did the soldiers put a scarlet or purple robe on Jesus?
SOLUTION: They could have put two different robes on him or one robe with both colors in it. Either way, it is not a contradiction and it is very revealing that PURPLE and SCARLET are the colors of
ROME (Rev 17:4).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8) Matthew 27:32 and John 19:17
"And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, SIMON by name: him they compelled to
BEAR HIS CROSS." (Matt 27:32)
"And HE BEARING HIS CROSS went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:" (John 19:17)
PROBLEM: Who bore the cross, Simon the Cyrenian or Jesus?
46

SOLUTION: Both. Jesus bore it part of the way, then the Romans pulled Simon out of the crowd to carry it the rest of the way. There is NO scriptural evidence supporting the Roman Catholic tradition that the reason Simon was compelled to bear the cross was because Jesus fell beneath it three times.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9) Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19
"And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
(Matt 27:37)
"And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS."
(Mark 15:26)
"And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS
IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." (Luke 23:38)
"And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH
THE KING OF THE JEWS." (John 19:19)
PROBLEM: What was the exact inscription on the cross?
SOLUTION: Each writer gives us a portion of the full inscription which read, "THIS IS JESUS OF
NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS" .
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10) Mark 3:29
"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost HATH NEVER FORGIVENESS, but is in danger of eternal damnation:" (Mark 3:29)
PROBLEM: What is the "unpardonable sin"?
SOLUTION: The only unpardonable sin is not even mentioned in the text. The only sin that can never be forgiven is the rejection of Jesus Christ as Savior. The sin mentioned in the text that has been commonly termed, "the unpardonable sin" is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Contrary to Charismatic teaching, denying the Pentecostal gibberish passed off as the gift of tongues is not blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit. The scripture tells us what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is in v.22,30. It is to say that
Jesus Christ has an unclean spirit and he casts out devils by the prince of devils. This particular sin can only be committed when Christ is on the earth; therefore, it cannot be committed today. It will be committed during the Millennium, when Jesus Christ will demonstrate all power and authority as Messiah and King, and yet people will accuse him of the very thing the Pharisees accused him of. What makes this such a heinous sin is that the scripture says that there will not be any unclean spirits on the earth during the Millennium (Zec 13:2), they will all be cast into the bottomless pit with Satan for the entire
1,000 years (Rev 20:2-3).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
11) Luke 14:26 and 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)
47

"HONOUR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." (Exo 20:12)
PROBLEM: Why did Jesus say a man must hate his father and mother to be his disciple in light of what the third commandment says?
SOLUTION: The Lord is not speaking in absolute terms, but relative terms. This is clear when the text in Luke is compared with Matthew 10:37 where it says, "He that loveth father or mother MORE
THAN ME is not worthy of me…"
. In order to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, he must be our first love
(Rev 2:4). How can we follow HIM, if we put anyone or anything ahead of him? We should certainly love our father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and our own life, but when we compare our love for any of these with the love we should have for our Lord Jesus Christ, it should be as vast as love is to hate.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
12) Luke 17:20-21 and John 3:3
"And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, THE KINGDOM OF GOD COMETH NOT WITH OBSERVATION:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
(Luke 17:20-21)
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, HE
CANNOT SEE THE KINGDOM OF GOD." (John 3:3)
PROBLEM: Can the kingdom of God be seen or not?
SOLUTION: The kingdom of God, in and of itself, cannot be seen. As the text in Luke says, it is found
WITHIN. Paul tells us that the "kingdom of God is NOT meat and drink (visible things) ; but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost (invisible things) " (Rom 14:17). The reason why Jesus said the new birth was essential for SEEING the kingdom of God was because he was using the word
SEE in the sense of EXPERIENCING. The word SEE can mean, "to have experience of; to undergo; to come to know". A man must be born again if he is to experience righteousness, peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost. In other words, we enter the kingdom of GOD through the new birth. This is in contrast to the kingdom of HEAVEN which is entered by physical birth. The kingdom of GOD is an invisible, spiritual, kingdom where the Son of God sits upon the throne of our hearts, whereas the kingdom of
HEAVEN is a visible, physical, kingdom where the Son of Man sits upon the throne of David. One additional note worthy of mention is that if a man is experiencing righteousness, peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost, then there should be some VISIBLE evidence (Gal 5:22-23). The reason why so many references to the kingdom of God seem to be interchangeable with references to the kingdom of heaven is because, the Millennial kingdom will be a fulfillment of both kingdoms.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13) John 5:22 and John 8:15
"For THE FATHER judgeth no man, but HATH COMMITTED ALL JUDGMENT UNTO THE
SON:" (John 5:22)
"Ye judge after the flesh; I JUDGE NO MAN." (John 8:15)
PROBLEM: Is judgment committed to Jesus Christ or not?
48

SOLUTION: The second text refers to Jesus Christ judging no man AFTER THE FLESH. The Father has committed all judgment unto the Son and he will judge in TRUTH (v.16) and RIGHTEOUSNESS
(Psa 96:13; Rev 19:11). He will judge the quick and the dead at his appearing (the Rapture) and his kingdom (2 Tim 4:1). He will preside over the judgment seat of Christ (Rom 14:10,12), the judgment of the nations (Matt 25:31-32), and the Great White Throne judgment (Rom 2:16; Rev 20:12).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14) John 10:30 and John 14:28
"I and my Father ARE ONE." (John 10:30)
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN I."
(John 14:28)
PROBLEM: If the Father and the Son are one, how can the Father be greater than the Son?
SOLUTION: This is one of the "proof texts" used by Jehovah's Witnesses to support the Arian heresy that Jesus Christ is a created being and not God. There are two answers. First, as God, Jesus Christ is equal and one with the Father; but as a man, although Jesus Christ is a sinless man, the Father is obviously greater. Second, there is an order within the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The second text could be referring to the fact that the Son is subject to the Father (1 Cor 15:27-28) IN
THE THRONE (Psa 110:1; Mark 16:19; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2) cf. (Gen 41:40).
This does not diminish from his deity in any way.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
15) John 13:21-26 and Matthew 26:21-25
"And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, LORD, IS IT I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said." (Matt 26:21-25)
"When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake. Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, LORD, WHO IS IT? Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas
Iscariot, the son of Simon." (John 13:21-26)
PROBLEM: Did the Lord tell the disciples who would betray him, and did Judas Iscariot partake of the
Lord's Supper?
SOLUTION: Only John and Judas knew. Jesus and his disciples sat in a circle at the Last Supper with
John at the Lord's right hand (John 13: 23), like the sheep nations in Matthew 25:33; and Judas at the
Lord's left hand (Matt 26:23-25), like the goat nations in Matthew 25:33. Peter was at John's right hand
(John 13:24). When the Lord announced that one of the disciples would betray him, Peter leaned over to
John and whispered that he should ask the Lord who it is (John 13:21-24). John then asked the Lord and
49

he responded that it was the one he would give the sop to after he had dipped it; and he gave it to Judas
(John 12:25-26). John is the only one who was given this information. When all the disciples, except
John, began to ask if it was them, the Lord responded that it was one that dipped with him in the dish
(Mark 14:19-20). This narrowed the choices down since all twelve did not share the same dipping dish, but they still did not know the exact identity of the traitor. When Judas Iscariot asked if it was him, the
Lord whispered to him so only he could hear that it was (Matt 26:25). This is clear due to the fact that when Judas received the sop and Satan entered him, Jesus said, "That thou doest (betray Christ) , do quickly" and none of the disciples (except John, of course) knew why he said this. This is when Judas left (John 13:30). His departure to betray the Lord was AFTER the LAST Supper (the passover meal), but BEFORE institution of the LORD'S Supper. Therefore, Judas Iscariot did NOT partake of the Lord's
Supper. This would have to be the case because he is a devil (John 6:70) and the son of perdition
(John 17:12). He was a disciple, but only in the sense of physically following the Lord. His position among the twelve was for fulfillment of the word of God only (Psa 41:9; John 17:12).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
50

L E S S O N 9
1) Acts 7:2 and Genesis 11:31-12:1
"And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father
Abraham, WHEN HE WAS IN MESOPOTAMIA, BEFORE HE DWELT IN CHARRAN,"
(Acts 7:2)
"And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and THEY CAME UNTO HARAN, and dwelt there. And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran. NOW THE LORD HAD SAID UNTO
ABRAM, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee:" (Gen 11:31-12:1)
PROBLEM: If Abram received his call when he was in Mesopotamia, how could he have received it in
Haran?
SOLUTION: The text in Genesis does not say that Abram received his call in Haran. In fact, the words
HAD SAID (Gen 12:1) are in the past tense and indicate that the call occurred prior to the arrival in
Haran. Abram received his call from God (Gen 12:1-3; Acts 7:3) while still in Mesopotamia (Acts 7:2), in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen 15:7), but he did not fully obey God's call in that he took his family with him to Canaan (Gen 11:31; 12:4).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) Acts 7:43 and Amos 5:27
"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away BEYOND BABYLON." (Acts 7:43)
"Therefore will I cause you to go into captivity BEYOND DAMASCUS, saith the LORD, whose name is The God of hosts." (Amo 5:27)
PROBLEM: Was the captivity "beyond Babylon" or "beyond Damascus"?
SOLUTION: Both. There are two possible solutions. First, the Holy Spirit as the Author could be speaking a free quotation through Stephen. Second, the word CAPTIVITY is used only in Amos. The fact that Israel was taken captive TO Babylon does not contradict that they were BEYOND Damascus, since
Babylon is certainly BEYOND Damascus (i.e.- further away from the land of Israel). The phrase used in
Acts is CARRY YOU AWAY and may not refer to the Babylonian captivity specifically, but the dispersion of the Jews BEYOND Babylon.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3) Acts 8:32 and Isaiah 53:7
"The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before HIS SHEARER, so opened he not his mouth:" (Acts 8:32)
51

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before HER SHEARERS is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."
(Isa 53:7)
PROBLEM: One passage has Christ as a (female) SHEEP brought to the SLAUGHTER and a (male)
LAMB before the SHEARERS, while the other has him as a (male) lamb brought to the SLAUGHTER and a (female) SHEEP before the SHEARERS, which is correct?
SOLUTION: Both are correct. The similitudes are to illustrate the fact that Christ did not speak a word as he was led to be crucified. Any sheepherder could inform the Bible critic that a MALE SHEEP and
LAMB will not bleat when they are being sheared, neither will a FEMALE SHEEP, but a FEMALE
LAMB will.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4) Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9
"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, HEARING A VOICE, but seeing no man." (Acts 9:7)
"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but THEY HEARD NOT THE
VOICE of him that spake to me." (Acts 22:9)
PROBLEM: Did the men with Saul of Tarsus hear the voice of the Lord or not?
SOLUTION: They heard A VOICE but they did not hear THE VOICE OF HIM THAT SPAKE. In other words, they heard a voice much like any other sound, but did not hear the articulation of words, nor could they recognize that what they heard was the voice of God.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) Acts 12:4
"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after EASTER to bring him forth to the people." (Acts 12:4)
PROBLEM: Shouldn't the Greek word translated EASTER (
 be translated PASSOVER as it is all other 28 times it appears in the New Testament?
SOLUTION: No. Since v.3 clearly states that PASCHA took place DURING the days of unleavened bread, it cannot possibly refer to the Passover because the Passover took place the day BEFORE the week- long feast of unleavened bread began (Lev 23:5-6). The word EASTER is derived from the word
ASTARTE, which is the Greek name for the goddess and "queen of heaven" called, ASHTARETH
(Jud 2:13; 1 Kin 11:5; Jer 44:18-19). The holiday was observed around the time of the vernal equinox because spring is the time of FERTILITY. Rabbits and eggs became part of the tradition because of their association with fertility. The King James translators were well aware of what they were doing when they translated PASCHA as EASTER. They were not closed minded or ignorant to the fact that, just because the Roman CHURCH incorporated Christ's resurrection into the traditional trimmings and festivities, the holiday still had a PAGAN origin. The simple fact is the Romans were observing Easter while the Jews were observing the feast of unleavened bread.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
52

6) Acts 13:20 and 1 Kings 6:1
"And after that he gave unto them JUDGES about the space of FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY
YEARS, UNTIL SAMUEL the prophet." (Acts 13:20)
"And it came to pass IN THE FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTIETH YEAR AFTER THE
CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WERE COME OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, in the fourth year of
Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that HE BAGAN TO
BUILD THE HOUSE OF THE LORD." (1 Kin 6:1)
PROBLEM: This is another of the five "extremely difficult" texts. If the judges era lasted 450 years up to Samuel, how could Solomon have begun to build the temple just 30 years later when his father David ruled for 40 years?
SOLUTION: The two date spans do not have the same beginning. Using Ussher's chronology, the
Exodus took place approximately 1491 B.C. If Solomon began to build the temple 480 years after the
Exodus, then he began to build around 1011 B.C. Since he began to build in the fourth year of his reign, then he began to reign in 1015 B.C. Since David reigned before Solomon and he reigned 40 years
(1 Kin 2:11), then he began to reign in 1055 B.C. Since Saul reigned before David and he reigned 40 years (Acts 13:21), then he began to reign in 1095 B.C. The problem is that Samuel, a contemporary of
Saul, died around 1060 B.C. A total of 450 years prior to that would mean the judges began in 1510 B.C., which is almost 100 years before the approximate time of the judges as recorded in the book of Judges.
But the text does not say that the first JUDGE had to be from the book of Judges. If the Exodus marked the beginning of Israel as a NATION, then the first JUDGE of that nation was MOSES (Exo 18:13).
Whether the Holy Spirit is counting from Moses' birth (1571 B.C.) or his call from the burning bush
(1491 B.C.), 450 years later (1120-1041 B.C.) will place you at the time of SAMUEL.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7) Acts 17:27 and Proverbs 15:29
"That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though HE BE
NOT FAR FROM EVERY ONE OF US:" (Acts 17:27)
"THE LORD IS FAR FROM THE WICKED: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous."
(Pro 15:29)
PROBLEM: How could the Lord not be far from everyone and yet be far from the wicked?
SOLUTION: The text in Acts refers to the omnipresence of God while the text in Proverbs refers to his response to prayer. A text that sheds light on Acts 17:27 is Jeremiah 23:23-24, "Am I a God at hand, saith the LORD, and NOT A GOD AFAR OFF? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. DO NOT I FILL HEAVEN AND EARTH? saith the LORD" . This text clearly shows that the Lord is not far from everyone of us because he is OMNIPRESENT. The text in Proverbs should be interpreted in light of the remainder of the verse. If the Lord is FAR FROM THE
WICKED, but he HEARS THE PRAYER of THE RIGHTEOUS, then being far from the wicked must refer to the fact that God does not hear their prayers (John 9:31). If iniquity separates the people of God from God, and sin causes him to hide his face from them that he will not hear (Isa 59:2); then it follows that those whose standing before God is in sin (i.e.- the wicked), will never be heard by God unless their prayer is to change that standing.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
53

8) Romans 3:28 and James 2:24
"Therefore we conclude that A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF
THE LAW." (Rom 3:28)
"Ye see then how that BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY."
(Jam 2:24)
PROBLEM: How can we be justified by faith without works and faith and works?
SOLUTION: Romans refers to justification before GOD, whereas James refers to justification before
MEN. God can see the faith that is in our heart, but men cannot. The only way that men will know we have faith is to see it in action through works (Jam 2:18). This is not an unreasonable expectation, for if there is a root, there should be some fruit (Matt 7:18,20). The text in James is not saying that works are necessary to be justified before God, but that faith alone will not justify a man before men.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9) 1 Corinthians 2:15 and Matthew 7:1
"But he that is spiritual JUDGETH ALL THINGS, yet he himself is judged of no man."
(1 Cor 2:15)
"JUDGE NOT, that ye be not judged." (Matt 7:1)
PROBLEM: Are we to judge or not?
SOLUTION: If we are spiritual, we will judge all THINGS, but we will not judge OTHERS. The text in
Matthew is often misapplied to situations where a Christian has witnessed to a lost person and the lost person resents it. The fact is when a Christian tells a lost person they will spend eternity in hell if they do not trust the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior, the Christian is not judging the lost person, but merely proclaiming the judgment GOD has pronounced on all those who die lost. Doctrinally speaking, the text in Matthew is not a reference to saved people judging lost people, but saved people judging saved people.
The word BROTHER is used three times in the context (v.3-5). In fact, Matthew 7:1-5 is similar in principle with 1 Corinthians 11:31-32. We are in no position to judge others until we have completely judged ourselves (Matt 7: 5). Are any of us ever in a position where we are blameless? We need to judge ourselves first (Matt 7:5; 1 Cor 11:31), and if we do not judge ourselves, or if we judge others, we will be judged by the Lord in the form of chastisement (Matt 7:1; 1 Cor 11:32). Judging SOMETHING
(1 Cor 2:15) is not the same as judging SOMEONE (Rom 14:13). Christians are not only to JUDGE all things, but to PROVE all things (1 The 5:21), and TRY the spirits (1 John 4:1).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10) 1 Corinthians 4:3 and 1 Corinthians 11:31
"But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I
JUDGE NOT MINE OWN SELF." (1 Cor 4:3)
"For IF WE WOULD JUDGE OURSELVES, we should not be judged." (1 Cor 11:31)
PROBLEM: If we should judge ourselves, why did Paul say he did not judge himself?
54

SOLUTION: The first text refers to Paul not judging himself as BEING FAITHFUL or unfaithful as a steward of God (1 Cor 4:1-2). He says that it is not for him or any other man to judge that matter, but for
God to judge (1 Cor 4:4). The second text refers to the need for every Christian to judge SIN in their lives, especially before partaking of the Lord's Supper.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
11) 1 Corinthians 7:23 and 1 Peter 2:18
"Ye are bought with a price; BE NOT YE THE SERVANTS OF MEN." (1 Cor 7:23)
"Servants, BE SUBJECT TO YOUR MASTERS with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." (1 Pet 2:18)
PROBLEM: How can we be subject to our masters if we are not to be servants of men?
SOLUTION: The first text refers to the motive and priority in service, whereas the second text refers to it in a general sense. The Lord does not condemn our serving men in the sense of working for them, but he does condemn our putting men first in our lives. Our primary motive for what we say and do should be to please the Lord, not men (Gal 1:10).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
12) 1 Corinthians 10:8 and Numbers 25:9
"Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day THREE AND
TWENTY THOUSAND." (1 Cor 10:8)
"And those that died in the plague were TWENTY AND FOUR THOUSAND." (Num 25:9)
PROBLEM: How many died in the plague, 23,000 or 24,000?
SOLUTION: Both. A total of 24,000 died (Num 25:9), but 23,000 died in ONE DAY (1 Cor 10:8).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13) 1 Corinthians 15:29
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD?" (1 Cor 15:29)
PROBLEM: This is another of the five "extremely difficult" texts. What does it mean to be "baptized for the dead"?
SOLUTION: The solution is definitely NOT what the Mormons teach. Specifically, that living Mormons should be baptized for the remission of the sins of their dead relatives and friends who were not
Mormons. It is important to remember that the theme of the chapter is RESURRECTION. In order to correctly interpret this verse, one must understand the association between resurrection and baptism.
Baptism is said to be a FIGURE (1 Pet 3:21), so it is a RITUAL of something that is REAL. That something real is a death, burial, and RESURRECTION (Rom 6:3-5; 1 Cor 15:3-4). The part that specifically pictures resurrection, is the coming up out of the water (type of the grave). The church at
Corinth had many problems, among them was the belief of some that there is NO RESURRECTION
(1 Cor 15:12). The text states that, if there is no resurrection of the dead, the "baptism for the dead" is a vain activity. The key to interpreting the verse is the word FOR. The Mormon interpretation of the text assumes the word FOR means, “on behalf of”. But this assumption is not accurate. The word FOR can
55

mean, “on behalf of” and “in order to”, but it can also mean, “because of” (Luke 6:23; Acts 2:38;
1 Corinthians 15:3) or “as”. This is demonstrated in Luke 5:14, “And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer FOR
(“because of”) thy cleansing, according as
Moses commanded, FOR
(“as”) a testimony unto them”
. The text becomes clear when it is understood that the word FOR means, “as”. In light of this, what similarity is there between baptism and what is done with the dead? In baptism, the individual is completely IMMERSED under the water, just like a dead body is BURIED completely under the ground. Those who bury their dead do so in anticipation of a future RESURRECTION of the body, while in baptism, the individual is raised up out of the water.
Therefore, being "baptized FOR THE DEAD" just simply means being immersed under the water AS the dead are buried under the ground. If there is no resurrection from the dead, then to be a proper FIGURE
(1 Pet 3:21), baptism would consist of being immersed and kept under the water until we drowned.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14) Galatians 6:2 and Galatians 6:5
"BEAR YE ONE ANOTHER'S BURDENS, and so fulfil the law of Christ." (Gal 6:2)
"For EVERY MAN SHALL BEAR HIS OWN BURDEN." (Gal 6:5)
PROBLEM: Should we bear one another's burdens or our own?
SOLUTION: These are not EXCLUSIVE statements, but INCLUSIVE. If we think of burden bearing in the sense of PRAYER, we understand that we will have no problem praying for ourselves, but for others.
Concerning our own burdens, we should cast them upon the Lord (Psa 55:22; 1 Pet 5:7). This is done by committing them to him in prayer (Phl 4:6). We should do the same with the burdens of others. We should take them upon ourselves as if they are our own (Heb 13:3) and commit them to the Lord in prayer. We should never be like the Pharisees who cast burdens on others but never bore them themselves (Matt 23:4).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
15) Ephesians 4:5 and Hebrews 6:2
"One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM," (Eph 4:5)
"Of the doctrine of BAPTISMS, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (Heb 6:2)
PROBLEM: Is there just one baptism or many?
SOLUTION: There are many lords, faiths, and gods, but only one true Lord, faith, and God. Likewise, although there are at least seven different baptisms, there is only one true baptism. These baptisms are listed below:
1) The baptism of John (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:4)
2) The baptism of the Holy Ghost (Matt 3:11; Acts 1:4-5; 11:15-17)
3) The baptism of fire (Matt 3:11; Rev 20:15)
4) The baptism of suffering (Matt 20:22)
5) Believer's baptism (Matt 28:19-20; Acts 2:38; 10:48; 16:33)
6) The baptism of Moses (1 Cor 10:2)
7) The baptism into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13; Rom 6:3)
56

It is the last of the seven baptisms listed above that is the ONE baptism because it places the believer into the body of Christ at salvation. In fact, it is impossible to be saved in this dispensation without having been baptized into Jesus Christ.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
57

L E S S O N 10
1) 1 Timothy 5:8 and Matthew 6:31
"But if any PROVIDE not FOR HIS OWN, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Tim 5:8)
"Therefore TAKE NO THOUGHT, saying, WHAT SHALL WE EAT? or, WHAT SHALL WE
DRINK? or, WHEREWITHAL SHALL WE BE CLOTHED?" (Matt 6:31)
PROBLEM: Should a man care about providing for his family or not?
SOLUTON: Of course he should, but no saved man should be WORRYING one minute about what he is going to eat or drink, or what he is going to wear. The Lord has promised us food and raiment
(1 Tim 6:8), and that he will see to our physical needs if we see to our spiritual needs (Matt 6:33).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) Hebrews 9:27 and 1 Peter 4:6
"And as it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE, BUT AFTER THIS THE JUDGMENT:"
(Heb 9:27)
"For for this cause was THE GOSPEL PREACHED ALSO TO THEM THAT ARE DEAD, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."
(1 Pet 4:6)
PROBLEM: If there are no second chances for salvation after death, then why was the gospel preached to those that were dead?
SOLUTION: First, there is no second chance after death. The Mormons use 1 Peter 4:6 with
1 Corinthians 15:29 to teach second chance salvation by proxy baptism, but this is heresy. The apparent problem is with 1 Peter 4:6. There are two possible interpretations to the text. First, just because the gospel was preached to them that ARE (present tense) dead, does not mean that it was preached to them
WHEN they were dead. Taken in the context of v.5, the passage means that Jesus Christ is going to judge all men one day, both living and dead; and the basis of the judgment will be what one did with the gospel.
The second, and deeper, interpretation is that the gospel being preached to THEM THAT ARE DEAD refers to the Lord Jesus Christ preaching the gospel to those in paradise when he descended to the lower
PARTS (hell and paradise) of the earth after his death. These individuals were saved and their sins were
COVERED by the blood of bulls and goats, but they were captives to death (Eph 4:8), not able to go into the immediate presence of God because their sins were not yet TAKEN AWAY (Heb 10:4). It was when the Lamb of God shed his blood that their sins were TAKEN AWAY (John 1:29); and that was the good news the Lord Jesus preached to them when he came to lead them captive (Eph 4:8). By leading them captive, the Lord Jesus Christ became the possessor of the key of DEATH (Rev 1:18), he became the possessor of the key of HELL when he preached to the disobedient SPIRITS (angels) in prison (hell)
(1 Pet 3:19-20; 2 Pet 2:4).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3) Hebrews 10:5 and Psalm 40:6
58

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, BUT
A BODY HAST THOU PREPARED ME:" (Heb 10:5)
"Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; MINE EARS HAST THOU OPENED: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." (Psa 40:6)
PROBLEM: Is the text in Hebrews a mistranslation or misquotation of the one in Psalms?
SOLUTION: No, this is another example of free quotation on the part of the Author, the Holy Spirit.
Since the opening of the ear is a sign of dedicated SERVITUDE (Exo 21:6; Deu 15:17), the free quotation of a PREPARED BODY is most significant. It means that the ultimate sign of dedicated servitude was when the Word became flesh (John 1:14); the Son, in service to the Father, was made in the likeness of men and found in fashion as a man (Phl 2:7-8). In his body, the Lord Jesus Christ would one day bare all the sins of the world (1 Pet 2:24), and offer up himself as a sacrifice for sins (Heb 7:27) in order to secure the sanctification of all those who would come to trust him as Savior (Heb 10:10).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4) 1 John 1:9 and 1 John 3:9
"If we CONFESS OUR SINS, he is faithful and just to FORGIVE US OUR SINS, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)
"WHOSOEVER IS BORN OF GOD DOTH NOT COMMIT SIN; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9)
PROBLEM: If the saved do not commit sin, what need is there to confess any sins or receive forgiveness?
SOLUTION: We need to confess our sins and receive forgiveness because we still sin IN THE FLESH
(Rom 7:18-20). It is our new nature that is born of God and cannot sin. In fact, even after we are saved, if we say that we have NO SIN, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8). Being a
Christian does not mean that you will not be able to sin, but that you will be able not to sin. Failure to judge ourselves and confess our sins will eventually meet with "grave" consequences (1 Cor 11:30). In addition, the word COMMIT not only means, "to do", but also, "to pledge; to adhere to". In this sense, no true born again Christian should be "committed" to sin. Paul's response to the question, "Should a
Christian CONTINUE in sin?" was "God forbid" (Rom 6:1-2).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) Revelation 1:8 and Revelation 3:14
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY." (Rev 1:8)
"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD;" (Rev 3:14)
PROBLEM: If Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, how can he be part of the creation of God?
SOLUTION: The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that "the beginning of the creation of God" means
Jesus Christ was the first thing created in all the universe. They believe that Jehovah created Jesus and then Jesus created ALL THINGS (John 1:3). But this is heresy and blasphemy to the deity of Jesus
59

Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the verse as if OF means Jesus Christ is the OBJECT of the creation of God. The fact is, the word OF in this verse is used to describe Jesus Christ as the SUBJECT of the creation of God. Therefore, he is not a PRODUCT of creation, but the AGENT of creation. The true interpretation of this verse is found by comparing it with Colossians 1:15-18:
Revelation 3:14 Colossians 1:15-18
"the creation of God" =
"things…that are in heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers"
"the beginning" = "the firstborn of every creature" = "the firstborn from the dead"
"before all things"
"the beginning"
Therefore, in one sense Jesus Christ is the "beginning of the creation of God" in that he is the head of the new creation, those who are the sons of God. In the other, and more important sense, he is Creator himself. All creation BEGINS with him because, "by him were all things created" (Col 1:16) and "all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6) Romans 8:16
"The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (Rom 8:16)
PROBLEM: Since the Holy Spirit is a person not an "it", shouldn't the verse have been translated, "The
Spirit Himself…"?
SOLUTION: The Greek word
 is a NEUTER pronoun not masculine. Since the Spirit is likened to wind (Eze 37:9,14; John 3:8), it is totally appropriate to use the neuter pronoun when referring to his work or influence. The entire context (Rom 8:16-26) refers to the WORK of the Holy Spirit and not his personality or deity. The Greek word for SPIRIT (
 is also neuter. It is interesting to note that
Jesus Christ is called, "that holy THING" in Luke 1:35.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7) Mark 5:12
"And all the DEVILS besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them."
(Mark 5:12)
PROBLEM: Since there is only one DEVIL, shouldn't the Greek word
 have been translated as DEMONS instead of DEVILS?
SOLUTION: No. First of all, DEMONS is not a translation of
 but a transliteration. A transliteration is taking the letters of one language and putting them into the equivalent letters of another.
Second, there is no debate about a DEVIL being an evil and unclean spirit, but there is over whether a
DEMON is or not. Webster's dictionary (1828 Edition) says the following about the word DEMON, "A spirit, or immaterial being, holding a middle place between men and the celestial deities of the Pagans.
The ancients believed that there were GOOD AND EVIL DEMONS, which had influence over the minds of men, and that these beings carried on an intercourse between men and gods, conveying the addresses of men to the gods, and divine benefits to men. Hence demons became the OBJECTS OF WORSHIP".
60

Someone wants Christians to get used to the idea that these beings are not always bad. What a better way to start, than to change the negative name of DEVIL to the less sinister, DEMON. In addition, by transliterating the word
 rather than translating it, the connection between the devil and devils is not as clear. In Mark 5, the maniac of Gadara is said to have AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT (v.2), DEVILS
(v.12), UNCLEAN SPIRITS (v.13), and THE DEVIL (v.15). The singular and plural forms of the words are used interchangeably because the basic definition of DEVIL is, "unclean spirit". This is further evidenced by the fact that Jesus referred to Judas Iscariot as being both UNCLEAN (John 13:11) and a
DEVIL (John 6:70).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8) Matthew 16:18
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of HELL shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:18)
PROBLEM: Shouldn't the Greek word
 have been translated as HADES instead of HELL?
SOLUTION: No. The word HADES is not a translation of
 but a transliteration. English speaking people know full well what HELL is, but most are sketchy about HADES. When was the last time you heard someone referring to the weather as being "hotter than Hades" outside? How about the last time a person was cursed at and told to "go to Hades"!? How about someone moving so fast they were said to be like "a bat out of Hades"? What about the impossibility of, "when Hades freezes over"? The problem is not with the King James translators, but with the negative connotation of the word HELL. It seems that someone wants to change the bad reputation and certain existence of a place called HELL by changing its name to the more comfortable and mythological HADES. The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 9, 1975
Edition, p.4) says this about HADES, "The kingdom of Hades was a NEUTRAL region reserved for the souls of people WHO DESERVED NEITHER PUNISHMENT NOR REWARD UPON DEATH. The
Greeks believed that Hades was drab and dull, but not necessarily painful". Hades is obviously NOT the same place as hell. The King James translators knew all about Greek mythology and did not want to mislead anyone into thinking that the eternal place of torment in the Bible was anything like the mere boredom of the mythological Hades.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9) Philippians 4:13
"I can do all things through Christ WHICH strengtheneth me." (Phl 4:13)
PROBLEM: Shouldn't the word WHICH be WHO, since it refers to Christ who is a person, not an object?
SOLUTION: No. The Lord's use of the word WHICH in this verse is just as valid as when he used it to ask, "WHICH of you convinceth me of sin?" (John 8:46). The Lord was addressing PEOPLE, but did not ask, "WHO of you convinceth me of sin". Does anyone want to convince the Holy Spirit of a mistranslation of Philippians 4:13?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
61

L E S S O N 11
PROBLEM: Texts that seem to teach BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. Baptismal regenerationists make three assumptions in using these texts: (1) the word WATER always means BAPTISM, (2) the word BAPTISM always means WATER, and (3) the word WASH (ING) always means BAPTISM.
1) Mark 16:16
"HE THAT believeth and IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)
SOLUTION: Although baptism is mentioned in the first half of the verse in the context of salvation, it is important to note that it is not mentioned in the second half of the verse in the context of damnation. If baptism were essential for salvation, then to fail to be baptized would result in damnation. But the second half of the verse clearly states that he that BELIEVES NOT shall be damned. It does not say, "…he that believes not AND IS NOT BAPTIZED shall be damned"; therefore, unbelief is the only condition for damnation. The reason why baptism is associated with salvation in the first half of the verse is because baptism is something that should be done, not TO BE saved, but BECAUSE one is saved. The wording of the first half of the verse can be explained by the following example. Suppose that a sign was posted on one side of town that read, "He that gets on the bus and sits down will get across town". Would this mean that someone who wanted to get across town would have to get on the bus AND sit down? Of course not. What is NECESSARY for the person to get across town is that he GET ON THE BUS.
Sitting down may be a comfort and safety requirement for those who get on the bus, but not a requirement to get across town. If two people are on the bus, one sitting and one standing, they are both going to get across town. The only difference is that the person standing will not have as comfortable a ride. If the only point to get across was what was necessary to get across town, the statement would have said, "He that gets on the bus will get across town". But there was an additional point, and that is, if you get on the bus to go across town, you should sit down. Likewise, this verse is making two points. First, that BELIEF is necessary for salvation, and to not believe will result in damnation. Second, that those who believe should be baptized. Just like "sitting down on the bus" is not necessary to get across town, baptism is not necessary for salvation. But like "sitting down" will result in a more comfortable ride, and is what is expected of those who get on the bus, so being baptized will result in a more enjoyable Christian life because it is obedience to what is expected from someone who is saved.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) John 3:5
"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be BORN OF WATER and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)
SOLUTION: Those who teach baptismal regeneration equate this verse with Mark 16:16 as follows:
John 3:5 Mark 16:16
"A man…born of water" = "He that…is baptized"
"A man…born…of the Spirit" = "He that believeth"
"Enter the kingdom of God" = "Shall be saved"
62

Like most false doctrine, there is an element of truth to their statement. Of the three equations given above, two are true. The one that is false is obviously the one equating being born of water with baptism.
If the Lord Jesus Christ meant baptism, he would have said "baptism" instead of "born of water".
Baptismal regenerationists assume that wherever the word BAPTISM appears it means WATER baptism, and that wherever the word WATER or WASHING appears, it means BAPTISM. This type of reasoning and assumption is what leads to heresy. If being "born of water" is not baptism, then what is it? There are two solutions. The first solution is that being "born of water" means PHYSICAL birth. The Lord states in the next verse (v.6), "That which is BORN OF THE FLESH is flesh; and that which is
BORN OF THE SPIRIT is spirit" . Hence, the following correlation can be made:
John 3:5 John 3:6-7
"Born of water" = "Born of the flesh"
"Born…of the Spirit" = "Born of the Spirit"
It is a biological fact that the PHYSICAL birth is a WATER birth. Consequently, in order for a man to enter into the kingdom of God, he must be born physically AND spiritually. The physical birth is a foregone conclusion since no one can be born AGAIN (born of the Spirit) unless they have been born the first time. This interpretation considers the context of the verse in question and does not contradict the doctrine of salvation as taught elsewhere in the word of God.
The second, and best, solution is that being "born of water" means to be born of THE WORD OF GOD.
The word of God is likened to water in a number of verses because of its ability to CLEANSE spiritually.
"Wherewithal shall a young man CLEANSE his way? by taking heed thereto according to THY
WORD." (Psa 119:9)
"Now ye are CLEAN through THE WORD which I have spoken unto you." (John 15:3)
"That he might sanctify and CLEANSE it with the washing of WATER by THE WORD,"
(Eph 5:26)
There are two agents, outside of the repentant sinner, that are necessary for the new birth, the Holy Spirit and the word of God. The necessity of the Holy Spirit is clear from the phrase, being "born of the Spirit".
The necessity of the word of God is clear from the following verses:
"So then FAITH COMETH by hearing, and hearing BY THE WORD OF GOD." (Rom 10:17)
"Of his own will BEGAT HE US WITH THE WORD OF TRUTH, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (Jam 1:18)
"Being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible SEED, but of incorruptible, BY THE WORD OF GOD, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Pet 1:23)
Since the word of God is a necessary agent for the new birth, and it is likened to water, being "born of water" is to be born of the word of God. In this sense, being "born again" is not just being "born of the
Spirit" as mentioned in the first interpretation, but also to be born of the word of God. This interpretation also does not contradict the doctrine of salvation as taught elsewhere in scripture.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
63

3) Acts 2:38
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and BE BAPTIZED every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
(Acts 2:38)
SOLUTION: This is the "crowning glory" proof text for all baptismal regenerationists. They interpret the verse by equating it to Acts 3:19 as follows:
Acts 2:38 Acts 3:19
"Repent" = "Repent"
"And be baptized" = "And be converted"
"The remission of sins" = "That your sins may be blotted out"
And Mark 16:16 as follows:
Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16
"Repent" = "He that believeth"
"And be baptized" = "And is baptized"
"The remission of sins" = "Shall be saved"
The correlation to Acts 3:19 is INCORRECT on two counts. First, in equating baptism with conversion; and second, by equating the remission of sins with sins being blotted out. Evidence has already been given that baptism and conversion (salvation) are not the same. But REMISSION of sins is also not the same as having sins blotted out. REMISSION of sins means FORGIVENESS of sins. The Old Testament saints had their sins FORGIVEN by exercising faith in God through the shed blood of bulls and goats
(Rom 3:25). But the blood of bulls and goats did not TAKE AWAY (blot out) sins (Heb 10:4). Only the blood of the Lamb of God can TAKE AWAY sin (John 1:29). The blotting out of Israel's sins speaks of what God will do for them as a NATION "when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord" . And when shall this happen? At the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (Acts 3:20; Rom
11:26-27).
The difficulty of correlating Acts 2:38 with Mark 16:16 is compounded by the fact that the correlation is
CORRECT on all three counts. The difference between truth and falsehood lies in the interpretation of one three-letter word, the word FOR. The word FOR can mean, IN ORDER TO as in the following examples:
"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, FOR to give repentance to
Israel, and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:31)
"The senator will be running FOR president in the upcoming elections".
"The woman got a job FOR extra family income".
But the word FOR can also mean, BECAUSE OF as in the following examples:
64

"And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and show thyself to the priest, and offer FOR thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them."
(Luke 5:13-14)
The man was not to give an offering IN ORDER TO be cleansed, but BECAUSE he was already cleansed.
"Rejoice ye in that day, and leap FOR joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets." (Luke 6:23)
We are not to leap IN ORDER TO get joy, but BECAUSE we have it.
This is the way the word FOR is used in Acts 2:38. In fact, in three other instances the phrase, FOR THE
REMISSION OF SINS clearly means BECAUSE the person has already received the remission of sins:
"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance FOR THE REMISSION
OF SINS." (Mark 1:4)
"And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance FOR THE
REMISSION OF SINS;" (Luke 3:3)
THE BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS does not mean that the people were baptized IN ORDER TO repent, or IN ORDER TO get remission of sins, but BECAUSE their sins were remitted when they repented. The order is as follows:
1. Repent
2. Remission of sins
3. Baptism
A person is baptized BECAUSE they have remission of sins, and they have remission of sins BECAUSE they repented. If the order is reversed, the definition of the word FOR becomes IN ORDER TO. A person repents IN ORDER TO receive remission of sins, and they receive remission of sins IN ORDER
TO be baptized.
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS that are past, through the forbearance of God;"
(Rom 3:25)
God did not declare his righteousness IN ORDER TO remit (forgive) the sins that are past. The sins that are past were already remitted by the forbearance of God. The righteousness of God is declared
BECAUSE the sins that are past (those of the Old Testament) were already remitted through the forbearance of God. God temporarily forgave sin on the basis of the shed blood of bulls and goats because he knew that one day the Lamb of God would shed his blood to TAKE AWAY the sin of the world.
That baptism is not necessary to receive remission of sins is clear from Acts 10:43:
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN
HIM SHALL RECEIVE REMISSION OF SINS." (Acts 10:43)
65

This verse clearly states that BELIEF in the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior is what is necessary IN ORDER to receive remission of sins. Another important point to consider in interpreting Acts 2:38 is that Peter knew the plan of salvation did not include baptism (2:21). The reason he mentioned baptism was because he was asked, "What shall WE DO?" (v.37). Peter's answer to the question was two-fold, "Repent" and
"be baptized" . Baptism is not essential to be saved, but it is something that should be DONE AFTER salvation. If he had been asked, "What must I do TO BE SAVED?" (Acts 16:30), he would have responded as Paul and Silas did, "BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ, AND THOU SHALT BE
SAVED, and thy house." (Acts 16:31). The two passages are contrasted below:
Acts 2:37-38 Acts 16:30-31
QUESTION: QUESTION:
"What SHALL" "What MUST" (strictly essential)
"What shall WE" (corporate) "What must I" (individual)
"What shall we DO" (not strictly salvation) "What must I DO TO BE SAVED" (strictly salvation)
ANSWER: ANSWER:
1) "REPENT" "BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ"
2) "Be BAPTIZED"
RESULT: RESULT:
Repent

1) "the remission of sins" Believe

"thou shalt be saved"
2) "the gift of the Holy Ghost"
The relationship between baptism and the remission of sins has already been proven to be that baptism is
BECAUSE OF remission of sins. The relationship between repentance, baptism, remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost is that remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost are received as a result of repentance,
"Repent…and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"
.
In conclusion, the text does not teach baptismal regeneration. Repentance and belief on the Lord Jesus
Christ results in the remission of sins (Acts 10:43) and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Understanding that the word FOR means, "because of" in the text is imperative for a correct interpretation. When a person REPENTS of their sin and BELIEVES on the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, they receive the REMISSION OF SINS and the gift of THE HOLY GHOST. They should then be BAPTIZED BECAUSE of these facts.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
66

L E S S O N 12
PROBLEM: More texts that seem to teach BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.
4) Acts 22:16
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and BE BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)
SOLUTION: The baptismal regenerationist states that since baptism is associated with washing, and washing is associated with regeneration (Tit 3:5), then baptism must be associated with regeneration. But the word BAPTISM is not mentioned in Titus 3:5. In fact, the WASHING OF REGENERATION is associated with THE BLOOD OF CHRIST (Rev 1:5) not water. There are a couple of facts to consider in interpreting this verse. First, under the law, water and washing is associated with PURIFICATION as opposed to REGENERATION (Num 8:21; 19:9; Mark 7:1-5; John 2:6). For example, the priests'
WASHING at the brasen LAVER had no effect on their sins whatsoever; but their SACRIFICE on the brasen ALTAR did. They washed at the brasen laver to purify themselves for service (Exo 30:17-21) not salvation. In addition, after a leper was cleansed of his leprosy, he was to wash with water
(Lev 13:6,34; 14:7-9). The water cleansed the FLESH but did not cleanse the LEPROSY. In the Bible, leprosy is a type of sin. Just as the water could not wash away leprosy from the leper, so water baptism cannot wash away sin from the sinner. The leper was washed in water BECAUSE his leprosy was cleansed. Likewise, a person is baptized BECAUSE he is cleansed from his sins. When John the Baptist began baptizing people, the Jews assumed it had something to do with purification but did not know exactly how (John 3:25). If baptism is associated with purification in any way, it is that it pictures a
TOTAL cleansing. Although Ananias was a Christian, he was still "a devout man ACCORDING TO
THE LAW" (v.12). Consequently, he associated water with purification. He was not telling Paul to be baptized TO BE saved, but BECAUSE he was saved. Just like the leper WASHED in water as evidence that his leprosy had been cleansed, so baptism is evidence that a person has been cleansed from sin. The fact that Ananias knew Paul was already saved is clear in that he addresses him as BROTHER before he baptized him (v.13). The baptismal regenerationist argues that Ananias was referring to Paul as a
JEWISH brother. But this does not hold up given the information contained in the parallel account
(Acts 9:10-19). When the Lord told Ananias to find Paul and lay hands on him to receive the Holy Ghost
(v.11-12,17), Ananias wanted to make sure it was the same guy he had heard about. After all, only a saved man should be receiving the Holy Ghost. When the Lord confirmed that Paul was saved (v.15),
Ananias proceeded to locate him. Consequently, the use of the word BROTHER is in a Christian, not
Jewish, context. Even if the WASHING was REGENERATION instead of PURIFICATION, it is
“ calling on the name of the Lord" that washes away our sin not baptism (Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST were baptized into his death?" Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
(Rom 6:3-4)
"For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ." (Gal 3:27)
67

SOLUTION: These two texts are cited together because the baptismal regenerationist uses both of them to teach that water baptism puts a person into the body of Christ (the church). These texts are a good example of how baptismal regenerationists assume the word baptism means WATER baptism. The fact is, of the seven baptisms mentioned in the Bible (Matt 3:11; 20:22; 28:19; 1 Cor 10:2; 12:13), only two involve water. The baptism that is mentioned in these two texts is equivalent to the Spirit baptism
(1 Cor 12:13) for a number of reasons. First, the baptism in these texts involve a person being put INTO
JESUS CHRIST not water. The Spirit baptism places a person INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST. The baptismal regenerationist argues that water baptism does place a person into the body of Christ; it makes him a member of the local church. Although a person originally becomes a member of a local church by water baptism, we must not mistake this for becoming a member of the body of Christ by the Spirit baptism. Even some Baptists err on this particular point. They state that the baptism of 1 Corinthians
12:13 is WATER baptism and the ONE BODY is the LOCAL CHURCH. The problem with this view is that all members of the body of Christ are saved. You cannot be a member of his body and "of his flesh, and of his bones" (Eph 5:30), or be "joined unto the Lord" (1 Cor 6:17) as part of the bride of Christ
(Rom 7:4; 2 Cor 11:2) and be lost. Yet, countless numbers have been baptized and joined even Baptist churches without being saved. Somewhere along the line, they either fooled a pastor into believing they were saved, or a pastor did not question or care if they were saved. These individuals may have been baptized into the membership of a local church, but they are NOT members of the body of Christ. The church, as the body and bride of Christ, consists of all born again believers. The fact that the baptism mentioned in these texts puts a person into Christ, and all the members of the body of Christ are saved, proves that the baptism must be SPIRITUAL and is equivalent to the Spirit baptism of 1 Corinthians
12:13. Further evidence is that the baptism in these two texts is associated with our becoming dead to sin
(Rom 6:2), our old man being crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6), and our becoming the children of God
(Gal 3:26). When did these occur? When we placed "faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26). This further demonstrates that the Spirit baptism took place at salvation. Water baptism PICTURES our death to sin with Christ and our resurrection with him to a new life, but it did not make it so. It is the Spirit baptism
(1 Cor 12:13) that actually made it happen.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6) Titus 3:5
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by
THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;" (Tit 3:5)
SOLUTION: The baptismal regenerationist assumes that THE WASHING is water baptism although the word WATER does not appear within 140 verses (1 Tim 5:23) and the word BAPTISM does not appear within 117 verses (Heb 6:2)! He does not realize that this washing is the washing of THE BLOOD OF
CHRIST at salvation (Rev 1:5). Even if he does, he will still insist that it refers to water baptism. He will simply contend that a person is washed in the blood of Christ when he is baptized in water. His evidence for making this assumption is the fact that Jesus turned water into wine (a type of blood) (John 2:9)! He will also correlate this verse with John 3:5 as follows:
Tit 3:5 John 3:5
"Washing of regeneration" = "Born of water"
"Renewing of the Holy Ghost" = "Born…of the Spirit"
We have already discussed that being "born of water" means to be born of the word of God not baptism.
As far as equating water baptism with being washed in the blood of Christ is concerned, the only similarity is that the blood of Christ is likened to PURE water (Heb 10:22). Otherwise, they are two
68

distinct events, one occurring AT salvation, the other AFTER salvation. Previous discussions have proven that baptism is an act done AFTER and BECAUSE of salvation. Besides, if water baptism is THE
WASHING OF REGENERATION, then the first part of the verse is not true because we would be saved by works instead of God's mercy. Salvation is something GOD does, baptism is something WE do.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7) 1 Peter 3:21
"The like figure whereunto even BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ:" (1 Pet 3:21)
SOLUTION: Baptismal regenerationists are quick to point out that part of this verse actually says that baptism saves. What they neglect to point out is that it also says baptism is not THE PUTTING AWAY
OF THE FILTH OF THE FLESH, and it is a FIGURE of salvation. The word FIGURE means, "a type; a representative; an image". It is used the same way in Hebrews 9:24, "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the FIGURES of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us" . In this verse, the earthly tabernacle is a figure of the TRUE tabernacle in heaven (8:2). Likewise, water baptism is a figure of what saves us not the actual means.
What does water baptism picture? A death, burial, and resurrection (Rom 6:3-5). The specific death, burial, and resurrection that saves the soul is that of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is clear from the fact that salvation is the result of believing the gospel, and the gospel is identified as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our sins:
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you THE GOSPEL which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; BY WHICH ALSO YE ARE SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless YE HAVE BELIEVED in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the scriptures;
And that HE WAS BURIED, AND that HE ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY according to the scriptures:" (1 Cor 15:1-4)
The end of the text even states that the actual MEANS of salvation is the RESURRECTION OF JESUS
CHRIST. If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then there is no coming up out of the waters of baptism. The figure would consist of immersing a person under the water and keeping him down until he drowned. There would be no picture of resurrection to a new life, but rather, death under the judgment of
God. That brings us to the next point. In the text, baptism is said to be the LIKE figure of salvation.
What it is compared to is the water that "saved" Noah and his family during the Flood.
"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, EIGHT SOULS WERE SAVED BY WATER"
(1 Pet 3:20).
The word SOUL in this verse means, "that which breathes" (Jos 10:39-40) or "that which has physical life" (Rev 16:3). The water "saved" Noah and his family in the sense that it RAISED UP the ark. If the water did not RAISE UP the ark, Noah and his family would have drowned in the ark. The ark is a type of
Jesus Christ and the raising up of the ark is a type of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore, without
THE RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ, there cannot be salvation by being IN CHRIST. Just as Noah and his family would have drowned in the ark if the water did not raise it up, so we would perish in Christ if he did not rise from the dead. But as sure as Noah and his family were saved from the Flood by the water raising up the ark, so we are saved from the judgment of God in Christ by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
69

The resurrection guarantees eternal salvation to all those IN CHRIST. Just as all those outside the ark perished, so all those not in Christ will perish. In conclusion, water baptism does not save our souls, but pictures what does: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not "the putting away of the filth of the flesh" , but the "answer of a good conscience toward God" . In other words, baptism is something we do BECAUSE we know we are saved, and to demonstrate our personal relationship with
Jesus Christ and identification with the gospel.
BAPTISM is THE LIKE FIGURE of THE WATER of the Flood
Noah and his family

Christians
The ark

The Lord Jesus Christ
The Flood

Judgment of God
The waters raising up the ark

The resurrection of Jesus Christ
THE FIGURE OF SALVATION THE MEANS OF SALVATION
BAPTISM

The death, burial, and resurrection

THE GOSPEL of Jesus Christ for our sins
_____________________________________________________________________________________
70

L E S S O N 13
PROBLEM: Texts that seem to teach ARMINIANISM. Arminianism or more specifically, the teaching that a Christian can lose salvation is the result of not recognizing the differences between: (1) justification and sanctification, (2) salvation and service, (3) standing and state, (4) eternal life and rewards, and (5) position and practice.
1) Matthew 24:13
"But he that shall ENDURE UNTO THE END, the same SHALL BE SAVED." (Matt 24:13)
SOLUTION: Arminians claim that this verse teaches a Christian must keep his faith and live right in order to be saved in the end. If he does not, then, even though he once trusted Christ as his Savior, he will be eternally lost in the end. The context clearly proves the verse has nothing to do with a Christian in the dispensation of grace. First, THE END does not refer to the end of a person's life, but THE END OF
THE WORLD (v.3). The end of the world takes place at the Second Coming of Christ AFTER THE
TRIBULATION (v.29-31). If a person must endure UNTO the end (of the world), then the Lord must be referring to their need to endure through the seven-year Tribulation. There is not a true Christian on this earth today who will need to endure to the end of the Tribulation because they will be taken out in the
Rapture of the church before the Tribulation begins (1 The 1:10; 5:9). Second, the word SAVED does not refer to the salvation of the soul, but to the salvation of the FLESH (v.22). The Tribulation is going to be a horrible time of judgment resulting in billions of deaths. The Lord Jesus Christ said that if the days of the
Tribulation were not shortened, NO FLESH should be saved. The word SAVED here means, "preserved from injury or destruction; spared". It clearly refers to PHYSICAL life not ETERNAL life. Further evidence is given by examining the parallel passages in Mark and Luke.
"Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be PUT TO DEATH. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall ENDURE UNTO THE END, the same shall BE SAVED.
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:" (Mark 13:12-14)
"And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be PUT TO DEATH. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.
But there shall not an hair of your head perish. IN YOUR PATIENCE POSSESS YE YOUR
SOULS. "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto."
(Luke 21:16-21)
The passage in Mark contrasts enduring to the end and being saved with being put to DEATH. During the Tribulation, those who trust Christ as Savior will be betrayed by their own families and martyred for their faith. The passage in Luke equates PATIENCE with ENDURING TO THE END and
POSSESSING YOUR SOULS with BEING SAVED. The fact that Luke mentions the word SOUL seems to lend support to the idea that SAVED means the salvation of the soul. But the word soul can mean, "that which breathes" (Jos 10:39-40; 11:11) or "that which has physical life" (Rev 16:3). The phrase POSSESS YE YOUR SOULS is in contrast to being PUT TO DEATH (v.16). The person will
71

"possess his soul", that is, avoid physical death by being PATIENT. The Bible says that we should be
"PATIENT in TRIBULATION" (Rom 12:12), and in no sense is this more apparent than in the coming
Tribulation. The association between ENDURING TO THE END and PATIENCE with the Tribulation is seen in Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, and Luke 21:20-21. In these passages, Jesus tells his disciples that those that are in Judea during the Tribulation should flee to the mountains when they see the Abomination of Desolation and Jerusalem surrounded by armies. This flight of the Israel into the wilderness is described in Revelation 12:6,14. The reason for the flight is that the Antichrist will be indwelt by Satan at this time and will be seeking to destroy all Christians and Jews. Once in the wilderness, God will feed
Israel with manna from heaven for 3
1/2 years. The Jew will be a world-wide fugitive from the Antichrist for this entire period of time and the mark of the beast will be instituted as the only means of obtaining food. It is for these reasons that the only way a Jew can physically survive the Tribulation is to have faith in the Lord to sustain him and PATIENTLY wait for the coming of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ
(Jam 5:7-8). This patiently waiting is what ENDURING TO THE END means. If the Jew loses his faith or patience and flees the refuge God has prepared for him in the wilderness, the Antichrist will hunt him down and kill him. This prophetic scenario is typified by the laws governing the cities of refuge
(Num 35:9-29; Jos 21:7-8). In conclusion, this verse does not refer to a Christian in the dispensation of grace, but to the Tribulation saints. It does not refer to enduring in good works to the end of one's life in order to be eternally saved, but to enduring with patience to the end of the world in order to survive physically.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) Mark 3:29
"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost HATH NEVER FORGIVENESS, but is in danger of eternal damnation:" (Mark 3:29)
SOLUTION: Arminians use this verse to teach that a Christian can lose his salvation by committing the
"unpardonable sin". The phrase UNPARDONABLE SIN does not appear anywhere in the Bible. The sin mentioned in the text that has been commonly termed, "the unpardonable sin" is blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit. Contrary to Charismatic teaching, denying the Pentecostal gibberish passed off as the gift of tongues is not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The scripture tells us that blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit is to say that Jesus Christ has an unclean spirit and he casts out devils by the prince of devils
(v.22,30). This particular sin can only be committed when Christ is on the earth; therefore, it cannot be committed today. It will be committed during the Millennium, when Jesus Christ will demonstrate all power and authority as Messiah and King, and yet people will accuse him of the very thing the Pharisees accused him of. What makes this such a heinous sin is that the scripture says that there will not be any unclean spirits on the earth during the Millennium (Zec 13:2), they will all be cast into the bottomless pit with Satan for the entire 1,000 years (Rev 20:2-3). As far as this sin being UNPARDONABLE is concerned, the text says that those who commit it are IN DANGER of eternal damnation. If a man walks out onto the ledge of a 50-story building, he is IN DANGER of falling, but there is no guarantee that he will. The only true "unpardonable sin" is the rejection of Jesus Christ as Savior; the sin of UNBELIEF.
Since a Christian is by definition a BELIEVER, he is incapable of committing this sin. The Arminian argues that the Christian may come to a point in his life that he ceases to trust Jesus Christ as his personal
Savior. But the word of God says, "IF WE BELIEVE NOT, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself" (2 Tim 2:13). Therefore, if a Christian could cease believing on the Lord Jesus Christ he would still be saved because the Lord is faithful. If the Lord denied that the Christian is his child he would deny himself since Christians are part of his body.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
72

3) John 15:6
"If a man ABIDE NOT IN ME, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and CAST THEM INTO THE FIRE, and they are burned." (John 15:6)
SOLUTION: Arminians use this verse with Matthew 13:36-43,49-50 to teach that a Christian, through sin, can cease to be in Christ and be eternally lost. The only similarity between the two texts is that both mention something being CAST INTO THE FIRE. The text in Matthew does not refer to something that takes place to a backslidden CHRISTIAN at the end of his LIFE, but to what takes place to THE LOST
(typified by tares and bad fish) at the end of the WORLD (v.39-40,49). The text in John is not an illustration of a Christian losing his salvation, but of the uselessness of a Christian who does not bear the fruit of the Spirit. A branch ABIDES in a vine for one purpose, to BEAR FRUIT. The Christian has one purpose in this life and that is to bear THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT (Gal 5:22-23). Just as it is impossible for a branch to bear fruit except it abide in the vine, so it is impossible for a Christian to bear fruit except he abide in Christ (v.4). If a branch does not bear fruit it is has no use except to be burned. Likewise, a
Christian that does not bear the fruit of the Spirit is of no use to God, and the Lord will eventually take him home to heaven by way of PHYSICAL DEATH (Luke 13:6-9). The casting of the branch into the fire does not illustrate God sending forth his angels to cast a disobedient Christian into hell, but God taking his disobedient child home by death. It is clear that ABIDING in Christ is not the same as BEING in
Christ. The word ABIDE means, "to accept without objection; to conform to; to continue in a place". A person can be a Christian and still object to complete obedience to Christ. In other words, all those
ABIDING in Christ are IN Christ, but not all those in Christ are abiding in him. The differences are cited below:
BEING IN CHRIST vs. ABIDING IN CHRIST
Salvation Service
Justification Sanctification
Standing State
Relationship Fellowship
Once/Permanent Daily/Temporary
Conditioned upon the will of God Conditioned upon the will of the Christian
Kept by power of God Kept by submission of Christian
Frees from the penalty of sin Frees from the power of sin
What is at stake in considering the subject of abiding in Christ is not salvation but CONTROL. For example, cruise control is an option on a car that will ensure total compliance to speed limit laws if it is activated. But the car does not automatically activate the cruise control, the driver does. If the driver activates the cruise control, he can relax and not worry about breaking the speed limit law because he has surrendered control of the car's speed to the car itself. The only way the car can break the speed limit is for the driver to take back control by deactivating the cruise control. The same is true of the Christian life. As long as the Christian abides in Christ, that is, surrenders control of his life to Christ, he will not commit sin. But if he does not abide in Christ, he will eventually commit sin. A study of John 15 reveals the benefits of abiding in Christ:
1. Fruitfulness (v.4)
2. Prolonged physical life (v.6)
3. Answered prayer (v.7)
4. Glory to God (v.8)
73

5. Fullness of joy (v.11)
A study of 1 John 2-3 reveals the evidence that a Christian is abiding in Christ:
1. A Christ-like walk (2:6)
2. Love for the brethren (2:10)
3. Living for Christ (2:24)
4. Learning from the Holy Spirit (2:27)
5. Spiritual confidence (2:28)
6. No sin (3:6)
7. Keeping Christ's commandments (3:24)
____________________________________________________________________________________
4) Romans 11:21-22
"For if God spared not the natural branches, TAKE HEED lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: OTHERWISE THOU ALSO SHALT BE CUT OFF."
(Rom 11:21-22)
SOLUTION: The Arminian uses this verse to teach that a Christian will be cut off from Christ and salvation if he does not take heed to the type of life he lives. Although a Christian should take heed to the type of life he lives, and he stands to lose much by living in sin, he will not lose his salvation. THEM
WHICH FELL is a reference to the nation of Israel (v.7,11). They did not fall from being God's chosen people and nation, but they did fall from favor and blessing. This FALL is also referred to as a
CASTING AWAY (v.15), a BREAKING OFF (v.17), and BLINDNESS IN PART (v.25). It is partial because Jews are saved today, and it is temporary because God's call to Israel will not be revoked
(v.1,29). Their fall has resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles in that the gospel is now preached to them
(v.11). The warning in the text is addressed to the GENTILES corporately (v.13), not Christians individually. The warning is that if the Gentiles do not continue in God's goodness and take heed to the privilege and opportunity of the gospel, they will meet the same fate as Israel did (v.20). The prophetic word tells us that the Gentiles will corporately reject the gospel and worship the Beast in the Tribulation.
This, coupled with the salvation of Israel (v.26), will result in the Gentiles being corporately and nationally in subjection to Israel during the Millennium.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
74

L E S S O N 14
PROBLEM: Additional texts that seem to teach ARMINIANISM.
5) Galatians 5:4
"Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; YE ARE
FALLEN FROM GRACE." (Gal 5:4)
SOLUTION: Arminians use this verse to teach that a Christian can fall from grace and be lost. In order to correctly interpret the text, the theme and background of Galatians needs to be considered. The theme of the book is justification by faith. Paul was compelled to write the Galatians on this theme because the
Judaizers were spreading a false gospel of faith AND WORKS throughout the region. They believed that in order to be saved a person needed to trust Jesus Christ as Savior AND be circumcised AND keep the law of Moses (3:3; Acts 15:1,5). Paul called this doctrine "another gospel" (1:6) and a "perverted gospel"
(1:7). He said the Galatians were FOOLISH and BEWITCHED in believing it (3:1). The first phrase that needs clarification is, CHRIST IS BECOME OF NO EFFECT UNTO YOU. This phrase does not mean that the Christian has been severed, alienated, or estranged from Christ, as all the corrupt bibles indicate.
The word EFFECT means, "desired result". The desired result is that, "Christ be formed in you" (4:19).
Unlike salvation, which is an EVENT, this is a PROCESS. The Lord is working within the heart of every
Christian to conform him to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29; Phl 1:6; 2:13). Therefore, the phrase does not refer to the ETERNAL RELATIONSHIP between the Christian and Christ, but to the INTERNAL
WORK of Christ to the Christian. The Christian who believes that he is justified by the law hinders, or frustrates this work of grace (v.4; 2:21). That is how Christ becomes of NO EFFECT (v.4), or does NOT
PROFIT (v.2) the Christian. After all, if the only way to bring forth the desired results is by grace, and the
Christian believes they can be obtained by works, then the desired results will not be realized. The next phrase that needs clarification is FALLEN FROM GRACE. It is important to realize that there is not just
SAVING grace, there is also DAILY grace. The grace of God is needed and active throughout the life of a
Christian (Heb 4:16). The word FALL not only means to "apostatize" but it also means, "to deviate; to depart from a directed course". The directed course is to CONTINUE (Acts 13:43), be ESTABLISHED
(Heb 13:9), and GROW in grace (2 Pet 3:18). If a Christian believes he is justified by the law, then he has
FALLEN from the course of grace that God intended him to take. If parents direct a course for their child to take over the family business one day, and the child deviates from that course by pursuing his own career, the child does not cease being a child of his parents because of his choice. However, his choice disappoints his parents and renders their efforts of no effect. A final note, if FALLEN FROM GRACE did refer to losing salvation, then those who lose their salvation are "whosoever of you are justified by the law" . Who is justified by the law? "NO MAN is justified by the law" (3:11). Since NO MAN is justified by the law, then NO MAN can lose salvation.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6) Hebrews 6:4-6
"For IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, TO RENEW THEM AGAIN UNTO
REPENTANCE; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb 6:4-6)
75

SOLUTION: This is the "crowning glory" proof text for Arminians. They claim that the text proves that a Christian who backslides loses his salvation. This interpretation is based on the following:
1) THEY= Christians based on the description given below: a) "those who were once enlightened" b)
"those who…have tasted of the heavenly gift" c) "those who…were made partakers of the Holy Ghost" d)
"those who…have tasted the good word of God" e) "those who…have tasted the… powers of the world to come"
2) FALL AWAY= BACKSLIDING or SINNING WILFULLY (10:26)
3) RENEW THEM= GETTING SAVED
4) AGAIN= implies that THEY lost their salvation
The problem the Arminian has in using this text to support his theology is that it actually contradicts it.
Although Arminians believe a Christian can lose his salvation, they also believe he can get it back. But if the text refers to a Christian losing his salvation, and proof will be given that it does not, then if he loses it, it is impossible for him to get it back. Note,
"It is IMPOSSIBLE…if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance" . Repentance, along with faith, is said to be the FOUNDATION of the doctrine of Christ (v.1). This foundation is laid only ONCE for a true Christian. If a Christian could lose his salvation and get it back, in the process of getting it back he would need to lay the foundation again.
This means that Christ would need to be crucified for that person afresh (v.6), and that is impossible
(7:27; 9:28; 10:10,12,14; Rom 6:10). What is clearly revealed in the text is that it is impossible for
SOMEONE, if they do SOMETHING, to be SOMETHING because they would be crucifying Christ again. We just need to correctly interpret the SOMEONE and the SOMETHINGS.
The following definitions are imperative in order to correctly interpret SOMEONE:
ENLIGHTENED= "to illuminate with knowledge of the truth"
TASTE= "to experience; to try; to sample as if to make a decision"
PARTAKE= "to take part, portion, or share in common with others"
THE HEAVENLY GIFT= "eternal life" (Rom 6:23; Eph 2:8)
THE WORLD TO COME= "The Millennial Kingdom" (2:5)
Is a Christian enlightened, a taster of eternal life, a partaker of the Holy Ghost, and a taster of the word of
God and the powers of the world to come? Yes, but a better question is, based on the definitions given above, can a lost person be as well? Consider the following:
1) A lost person CAN be ENLIGHTENED. Knowing the truth does not mean a person believes it in their heart. Knowing what the gospel is and knowing that Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation does not make one saved. Hell will be full of "enlightened" people.
2) A lost person CAN TASTE eternal life, the word of God, and the powers of the world to come. Just because a person TASTES something does not mean that it is theirs. As a matter of fact, if they TASTE it, they are doing so in order to decide if they want it for their own. If I want to convince a friend to get steak at a restaurant, I will ask him if he wants to taste mine. He can choose to taste it or not. If he tastes
76

it, he will then make another choice. The choice of whether or not to get a steak for himself. His tasting my steak did not make it his steak. The same is true of salvation. Many people read the Bible, pray, go to church, and hear testimonies of the grace and power of God, and are still LOST. They continually taste the benefits of being a Christian without being one.
3) A lost person CAN PARTAKE of the Holy Ghost. A lost person is a partaker of Holy Ghost when he is under conviction of sin (John 16:8).
4) A lost person CAN FALL AWAY by rejecting Jesus Christ after he has "tasted" what it is like to be a
Christian. This is illustrated in Luke 8:6,13:
"And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture…They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, RECEIVE THE WORD WITH JOY; and THESE HAVE NO ROOT, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation FALL
AWAY." (Luke 8:6,13)
These people may believe in the sense of recognizing the truth, but they do not believe in their heart because they have NO ROOT. The ROOT is the Lord Jesus Christ (Rev 5:5; 22:16), and if he is not in a person's heart, they are LOST. The fact that these people FALL AWAY proves they are NOT true
Christians:
"THEY WENT OUT FROM US, but THEY WERE NOT OF US; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" (1 John 2:19)
The conclusion is that the SOMEONE refers to people who may LOOK LIKE Christians, and may
PROFESS to be Christians, but ARE NOT Christians.
The first SOMETHING to be interpreted is FALL AWAY. The same phrase is used in 2 Thessalonians
2:3, where it refers to the great apostasy that will precede the day of Christ. "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a FALLING AWAY first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition." Under Galatians 5:4, the word FALL was defined as, "to apostatize; to deviate; to depart from a directed course or stated position". What these professors "depart" from is, the living God (3:12), the faith (1 Tim 4:1), and the truth (2 Tim 4:4). The phrase FALL AWAY does not refer to BACKSLIDING, which all Christians do to some extent, but to APOSTASY, which no true Christian does because it involves rejecting Jesus Christ in the end.
The second SOMETHING to be interpreted is, RENEW THEM AGAIN UNTO REPENTANCE. The word RENEW means, "to make new; to bring back; to rebuild; to re-establish" (1 Sam 11:14; Psa 51:10).
Although a renewal takes place with regeneration (Tit 3:5), they are NOT the same. If they were, then the new nature would be "regenerated" daily (2 Cor 4:16) and salvation would be a life-long process instead of an immediate event. In the text, the word RENEW is used in the sense of "bringing back" or "reestablishing". The word AGAIN implies that the professors in the text were once renewed unto repentance. The phrase UNTO REPENTANCE means "to the point of repentance". The word UNTO is used the same way in Ephesians 2:10, where the Bible says we are created "UNTO good works"; that is, for the purpose of good works. Certainly, a person who is enlightened about the truth, tastes eternal life, the word of God, and powers of the world to come, and partakes of the Holy Ghost is at a decision point about repenting and receiving Jesus Christ as Savior. But just because they are brought to this point does not mean they will accept Christ. On the contrary, those in the text brought to this point do not choose to
77

repent, but FALL AWAY. If they had truly repented, they would not be PROFESSORS, but
POSSESSORS of salvation. We do not know how many opportunities God will give a lost man to be saved. All indications from this text are that if a person falls away after he is enlightened, tastes eternal life, the word of God, and powers of the world to come, and partakes of the Holy Ghost, he will never have another opportunity to receive Jesus Christ. If this verse means it is impossible for the professor to be brought back to a point of repentance if he falls away, then how does he
"crucify… the Son of God afresh" ? The Lord Jesus Christ was crucified because the Jewish leaders rejected him as their Messiah, even though they KNEW who he was (Matt 21:37-38; 27:64), TASTED the heavenly gift, the word of
God, and the powers of the world to come, and were PARTAKERS of the Holy Ghost. What Paul is saying is that a person who is in the position of experiencing all these things and rejects Jesus Christ as
Savior is repeating the crime of the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day.
____________________________________________________________________________________
7) Hebrews 10:26
"For IF WE SIN WILFULLY after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS," (Heb 10:26)
SOLUTION: Arminians use this verse to teach that a Christian will lose his salvation if he sins wilfully.
They profess to keep their own salvation in spite of committing sin by saying that they do not sin
WILFULLY. First, it must be understood that every sin a Christian commits is done WILFULLY. There will be an internal struggle between the two natures over whether to carry it out or not (Rom 7:18-19), but either way, there is an act of WILL. We CHOOSE to submit to God, or we CHOOSE to submit to sin.
The issue in the text is not sinning wilfully, but sinning wilfully AFTER THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED
THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH. The WE in the text are HEBREWS. By using the word WE instead of YOU, Paul includes himself. He does not do this to imply that he could possibly be guilty of this sin, but because he is a Hebrew (Phl 3:5), and he is speaking in the collective sense. One of the reasons Paul wrote Hebrews was that he was concerned that some of the Hebrews that professed salvation were still sacrificing bulls and goats and clinging to the priestly rituals and traditions done away in Christ.
Although he was persuaded they were saved (6:9) the warnings given throughout the book were written for those who were and are mere professors. Hebrews 10 is a rebuke of animal sacrifice and a tribute to the eternal sufficiency of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH is that the
Old Testament sacrifices are no longer efficacious; only the blood of Jesus Christ can take away sins.
"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins…By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of
God;" (Heb 10:4,10-12)
The knowledge of the truth came from word of God that was preached (2 Tim 4:2) when they
ASSEMBLED THEMSELVES TOGETHER (v.25). The WILFULL SIN is defined as treading under foot the Son of God and counting his blood an unholy thing (v.29). This sin would be demonstrated by the continuation of animal sacrifices in spite of knowing they are no longer efficacious. The phrase, THERE
REMAINETH NO MORE SACRIFICE FOR SINS means that if a person rejects the sacrifice of Jesus
Christ on Calvary there is no other sacrifice to take away his sins. The word REMAINETH indicates that there was no other sacrifice for sins before OR after the person came to the knowledge of the truth. Since
Calvary, there is only ONE sacrifice for sins and that is the Lord Jesus Christ. All who reject him are subject to divine judgment, indignation, and vengeance (v.27-31).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
78

8) 2 Peter 2:20-21
"For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, THEY ARE AGAIN ENTANGLED THEREIN, and overcome, THE
LATTER END IS WORSE WITH THEM THAN THE BEGINNING. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." (2 Pet 2:20-21)
SOLUTION: Arminians use this verse not only to teach a Christian can lose his salvation, but those that do will receive a worse eternal punishment than those who never got saved. The idea that there are degrees of eternal punishment is scriptural (Deu 32:22; Matt 10:15; 23:14-15). Why wouldn't there be since there are degrees of eternal reward for the saved (Luke 19:17,19; 1 Cor 3:12; 15:41; Dan 12:3)?
The individuals referenced in the text certainly receive a greater degree of punishment, but they were never saved. In fact, they are identified as FALSE PROPHETS and FALSE TEACHERS (v.1). The
"damnable heresies" of these false prophets and teachers consists of "denying the Lord that bought them" . That means they must deny the deity of Christ and the blood atonement. The sad part is that
2 Peter 2:21 says that they did not always believe this. There was a time that they KNEW the truth, but they FORSOOK the right way (v.15), and TURNED FROM the holy commandment (v.21). Just because they had KNOWLEDGE of the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior does not mean they TRUSTED him as
THEIR Savior. There are numberless individuals who KNOW Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world and that he is the only way to heaven, but they are still LOST. Their knowledge of Jesus Christ has even motivated them to clean and moral living and church attendance. So, just because they have ESCAPED
THE POLLUTIONS OF THE WORLD through the knowledge of Jesus Christ does not mean they are saved. Jesus Christ likened the scribes and Pharisees to whited sepulchres because they were clean on the outside, but corrupt on the inside (Matt 23:27). The man described in Matthew 12:43-45 was in the same predicament as the individuals described in the text. The reason is that he was REFORMED in his living, but not REGENERATED in his heart. Final proof that the individuals referenced in the text are not
Christians is that they are likened to DOGS and SOWS (v.22). Christians are likened to SHEEP
(John 10:11,27; 21:16) but NEVER to dogs and pigs. Sheep are classified as CLEAN beasts
(Deu 14:4) but dogs and pigs are UNCLEAN (Lev 11:27; Deu 14:7-8). Jesus said all his disciples were
CLEAN except Judas (John 13:10).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
79

L E S S O N 15
PROBLEM: Texts that seem to teach SALVATION BY WORKS, SOUL-SLEEP, or
ANNIHILATIONISM.
1) Ecclesiastes 12:13
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS: for THIS IS THE WHOLE DUTY OF MAN." (Ecc 12:13)
SOLUTION: The text does not refer to what men need to do to be saved, but what they should do because God is the Creator (v.1) and Judge (v.14) of all men. Fearing God and keeping his commandments are the whole DUTY of man, not the SALVATION of man. Although neither saves a man (Ecc 7:20; Rom 3:10,23; Eph 2:9), both can lead to salvation. The fear of the Lord is said to be the beginning of knowledge (Pro 1:7) and wisdom (Pro 9:10). Therefore, if a man sincerely fears the Lord, he has taken the first step toward salvation and the Lord will make sure he hears the gospel
(Acts 10:2,22,35; 13:26; Psa 85:9). Additionally, if a man sincerely attempts to keep the commandments of God, the Lord will make sure he hears the gospel (Psa 50:23; Acts 10:2). His sincerity to keep all the commandments of God will be tested when he is presented the gospel because two of God's commandments are to REPENT (Acts 17:30) and to BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST
(1 John 3:23). If he keeps these two commandments, he will be saved (Acts 20:21).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2) Matthew 19:16-17
"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but IF THOU WILT ENTER INTO LIFE, KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS."
(Matt 19:16-17)
SOLUTION: Jesus' response should not be taken as a statement validating salvation by works, but rather an honest answer to the rich young ruler's question. Just because a man would have eternal life IF he kept the commandments (Gal 3:21) does not mean that he CAN keep the commandments or should seek to keep the commandments to be saved. The fact is that we are all sinners by birth and by choice; therefore there is none good but God (v.17; Rom 3:10,12,23) and he is the only one, in the person of the Lord Jesus
Christ, who can fulfill the law (Matt 5:17). Salvation is by grace through faith and not by works
(Rom 3:20,28; Gal 2:16; 3:11; Eph 2:8-9; Tit 3:5). If the rich young ruler would have chosen to follow the Lord rather than sorrow after his possessions, he would have realized that the only "good thing" or
"work" a man can do to have eternal life is to BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ (John 6:28-29).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3) Acts 10:35
"But in every nation HE THAT feareth him, and WORKETH RIGHTEOUSNESS, IS ACCEPTED
WITH HIM." (Acts 10:35)
SOLUTION: The word ACCEPT means, "to regard with partiality; to value or esteem". Therefore, those who fear God and work righteousness are regarded, valued, and esteemed by God. This does not contradict what is said in the previous verse about God not being a respecter of persons. Acceptance with
God is available to all, but certain conditions must be met. If some choose to meet those conditions it is
80

not God who is respecter of persons, but certain people who are respecters of God. It has already been noted that FEARING GOD and KEEPING HIS COMMANDMENTS are the whole DUTY of man
(Ecc 12:13); and that those who are sincere in their attempts to do so, will be given the gospel
(13:26; Psa 50:23). Cornelius was not saved because he feared God, gave alms, and prayed (10:2,4), but all these things resulted in getting God's attention so that he was given the opportunity to hear the gospel and be saved (11:14).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4) Philippians 2:13
"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION with fear and trembling." (Phl 2:12)
SOLUTION: The text does not say work FOR your own salvation, but work OUT your own salvation.
An athlete who "works OUT" is trying to strengthen and build up something that is already there.
Therefore, the text does not refer to what a person should do TO BE saved, but what a person should do
BECAUSE he is saved. How is our salvation WORKED OUT? By an outward life that reflects the inward life. Another name for a WORK OUT is EXERCISING. The Bible says, "EXERCISE thyself rather unto GODLINESS" (1 Tim 4:8) and to, "live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world" (Tit 2:12). A godly life is evidence to the world of our salvation. Since God WORKS IN us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (v.13), our salvation will be WORKED OUT if we submit to the control of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
5) Hebrews 12:14
"Follow peace with all men, and HOLINESS, WITHOUT WHICH NO MAN SHALL SEE THE
LORD:" (Heb 12:14)
SOLUTION: This text has not only been used to teach salvation by sinless perfection, but also a partial rapture. Both false teachings come from misinterpreting the words HOLINESS and SEE. The word
HOLINESS means, "the state being holy; sanctified; separated to the service of God". The Bible speaks of holiness/sanctification in two senses, positional and practical. In the positional sense, God fully sanctified all Christians unto himself the moment they were saved (1 Cor 1:30; 6:11; Heb 10:10,14).
There is no variation in positional holiness/sanctification. In the practical sense, Christians sanctify themselves by choosing to resist sin and obey God. The command is, "BE ye holy; for I am holy"
(1 Pet 1:16). Since Christians GROW in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ (2 Pet 3:18), there is variation in practical holiness/sanctification. For example, a brand new Christian is going to have more of the world in him than a mature Christian. It is clear that the text refers to the practical sense since the word FOLLOW denotes action on the part of the Christian. The word FOLLOW means, "to pursue; to practice; to act in conformity to". A Christian should be striving to be separated unto God each and every day. If a Christian is practicing holiness then he does not have any unconfessed sin in his life at that particular time. The word SEE can mean, "to converse with; to experience; to enjoy". Therefore, it can be used in the sense of FELLOWSHIP. The context refers to divine chastening (v.5-11) and how a Christian should respond to it (v.12-15). Divine chastening comes as a result of unconfessed sin in the life of the
Christian (1 Cor 11:32). It is sin that breaks our FELLOWSHIP with God (Isa 59:2; 1 John 1:7-10).
Therefore, the text teaches that in order to have fellowship with the Lord, as opposed to chastening
(v.5-11), one of the things a Christian must do is practice holiness. God cannot fellowship with sin.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
81

6) James 2:24
"Ye see then how that BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, and not by faith only." (Jam 2:24)
SOLUTION: This is the "crowning glory" proof text for those who believe in salvation by works. Even
Martin Luther had difficulty reconciling this verse with the glorious truth of justification by faith clearly stated in Romans and Galatians. The solution is quite simple. Justification in James is not the same as justification in Romans and Galatians. The latter two books speak of justification before GOD but James speaks of justification before MEN. Men cannot see faith as God can so the proof that we truly possess that which we profess is WORKS. Works SHOW, or are evidence of, our faith (v.18). The Lord said that a good tree will bring forth good fruit (Matt 7:17). James gives the illustration of Abraham. Abraham was justified before God in Genesis 15:6 according to Romans 4:3-5. But he was not justified before men until he demonstrated his faith in God by his willingness to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice. James says that works made Abraham's FAITH perfect (v.22), not Abraham. That is why the theme of James is
JUSTIFICATION OF FAITH BY WORKS.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7) Revelation 22:14
"Blessed are THEY THAT DO HIS COMMANDMENTS, that they may HAVE RIGHT TO THE
TREE OF LIFE, and may enter in through the gates into the city." (Rev 22:14)
SOLUTION: The solution is NOT to change THEY THAT DO HIS COMMANDMENTS to THEY
WHO WASH THEIR ROBES, as the corrupt bibles do. The key to understanding the passage is knowing
WHO has the right to the tree of life. Comparing scripture with scripture, those who eat of the tree of life are those who OVERCOME (2:7). A breakdown of the facts concerning the OVERCOMERS is given below.
BENEFITS OF OVERCOMING WHAT IS OVERCOME MEANS OF OVERCOMING
1. Eat of the tree of life (2:7) 1. The world (1 John 5:4) 1. Faith (1 John 5:4)
2. Not hurt by the second death (2:11) 2. The devil (12:9-11) 2. The blood of the Lamb (12:11)
3. Eat of the hidden manna (2:17) 3. The word of their testimony
4. Given a white stone with a new name (12:11)
(2:17) 4. Loving not their lives unto the
5. Given power over the nations (2:26) death (12:11)
6. Clothed in white raiment (3:5)
7. Name not blotted out of the book of life (3:5)
8. Name confessed before God and the angels (3:5)
9. Made a pillar in the temple of God
(3:12)
10. Inscribed with the name of God, the
city of God, and the new name of
Christ (3:12)
11. Sit with Christ in his throne (3:21)
12. Inherit all things (21:7)
82

The OVERCOMERS are identified as BRETHREN (12:10) and those BORN OF GOD (1 John 5:4).
Those who KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD are identified as the SAINTS (14:12). In light of all this information, it is conclusive that those who DO HIS COMMANDMENTS do so BECAUSE they are saved, not TO BE saved. The conditions of the Tribulation will be such that only true saints will keep the commandments of God.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
8) Job 14:10-12
"But MAN DIETH, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and WHERE IS HE? As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: So MAN LIETH DOWN, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, THEY SHALL NOT AWAKE, NOR BE RAISED OUT OF
THEIR SLEEP." (Job 14:10-12)
SOLUTION: This text is used by Adventists to teach the false doctrine of soul sleep. What the
Adventists fail to recognize is that man is composed of a body, soul, and spirit (1 The 5:23). "And the
LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground (BODY) , and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (SPIRIT) ; and man became a living soul (SOUL) " (Gen 2:7). It is the body that is laid to rest in the grave to await the resurrection, but the soul and the spirit of the saved go to heaven (2 Cor 5:8) and the soul and the spirit of the lost go to hell (Luke 16:23). This text refers to the BODY because it is the body that DIES.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
9) Psalm 146:3-4
"Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, HE RETURNETH TO HIS EARTH; IN THAT VERY DAY HIS THOUGHTS PERISH."
(Psa 146:3-4)
SOLUTION: This verse is also by Adventists to teach the false doctrine of soul sleep. They contend that this verse proves there is no consciousness after death because the man is "asleep" in the grave. The solution is once again that the text refers to the BODY, not the soul and spirit. That there is full consciousness for the soul and spirit after physical death is clear from Luke 16:23-31. The account is
NOT a parable but a true story of one man who died and went to paradise and another who died and went to hell. The man who went to hell was able to SEE (v.23), HEAR (v.27,30), FEEL (v.24), THINK (v.30), and TALK (v.24, 27-28, 30) after death. If that is not consciousness what is? It also proves that HELL is not the GRAVE but a real PLACE of torment.
____________________________________________________________________________________
10) Ecclesiastes 9:5
"For the living know that they shall die: but THE DEAD KNOW NOT ANY THING, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten." (Ecc 9:5)
SOLUTION: This soul-sleep proof text also refers to the BODY not the soul and spirit. The dead know not anything UNDER THE SUN (v.6).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
11) Matthew 10:28
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY IN HELL." (Matt 10:28)
83

SOLUTION: This text is used by Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses to teach the false doctrine of annihilation. They base this belief on the misinterpretation of the word DESTROY. The word DESTROY can mean, "to kill; to slay" as it undoubtedly does in Matthew 2:13; 12:14; 27:20. In these passages, no one is seeking to ANNIHILATE Jesus, they are seeking to KILL him. DESTROY can also mean, "to ruin the form, structure, or condition of; to be no longer fit for the purpose originally created or made".
Numerous things can be built for a specific purpose, only to have some outside force adversely affect it in such a way that it can no longer be used for its original purpose. Just because it may be broken or burnt does not mean it is ANNIHILATED, but it is still DESTROYED. God created man for his pleasure (Rev
4:11) and for the purpose of glorifying and worshipping him, as well as to have dominion over God's physical creation (Psa 8:6-8). When man allowed the outside force of SIN into his being, it destroyed him. Sin did not annihilate man, but it changed his position and condition before God. Before the fall, man walked and talked with God. After the fall, man was SEPARATED from God. The only way to change the current sinful position and condition of man is by the new birth. If a man dies without accepting Jesus Christ as his Savior, the spiritual separation from God he experienced in this life will be eternal in a place called hell. The body is DESTROYED, that is it is no longer fit for its original purpose, by DEATH. The soul is DESTROYED, that is it is no longer fit for its original purpose, by the SECOND
DEATH (Rev 20:14-15). Men can have power over the BODY and DESTROY it in the sense of
KILLING it, but only God has power over the SOUL.
"Behold, ALL SOULS ARE MINE; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Eze 18:4)
"There is one lawgiver, WHO IS ABLE TO SAVE AND TO DESTROY: who art thou that judgest another?" (Jam 4:12)
That the lost are not annihilated in hell is clear from the fact that their torment is said to endure FOR
EVER AND EVER (Rev 14:11). In addition, the Beast and False Prophet are said to be in the lake of fire
1,000 years after they were originally cast into it (Rev 19:20; 20:10). The Lord spoke to Moses out of the midst of a bush that BURNED with fire but was not BURNT or CONSUMED (Exo 3:2-3). There is just no scripture stating that the souls of the lost are CONSUMED or ANNIHILATED in hell. Another mistake of Adventists and Arians is to misinterpret passages referring to fire from the Lord
CONSUMING the BODIES of the lost at the Second Coming (2 The 1:8; 2:8; Heb 12:29) with the eternal state of the lost. If something is annihilated when it is destroyed, then how could it be destroyed TWICE
(Jer 17:18)?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
84

L E S S O N 16
PROBLEM: The "archaic" words contained in the King James Bible warrant modern translations of the
Bible.
SOLUTION: The argument is that since the King James Bible contains a multitude of archaic words, a modern translation must be made of the Bible so people can understand it. Modern translations may be easier to read IN SOME PLACES, but they are definitely not easier to understand. The modern translations often replace the monosyllable words of the King James Bible with multiple syllable words.
Other "easier to understand" replacements are: SHEOL and HADES for HELL, NEGEV for DESERT, and CUSH for ETHIOPIA. The King James Bible does contain some archaic words but does that mean a modern translation is necessary? The Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address all contain the same archaic Elizabethan English, yet it would be considered near treason to create modern renderings of these documents. The writings of Shakespeare contain archaic words but are there over 100 different modern versions of MacBeth as there is with the Bible? All should agree that the issue ceases to be an issue if God's will in the matter is clearly revealed. Well, the word of
God reveals the will of God even in the matter of archaic words. In 1 Samuel 9:9 the Bible says that the archaic word for the contemporary word PROPHET was SEER. Did the Holy Spirit ever inspire the use of the word SEER again, or did he adopt a modern translation? In v.11,18-19 he continues to use the word SEER! Therefore, GOD'S way of handling archaic words is to DEFINE them NOT REPLACE them. In fact, the word SEER appears another 23 times in the Old Testament, the last time being in
Micah 3:7 approximately 360-385 years after the word was said to be archaic in 1 Samuel 9:9. The King
James Bible was first published in 1611. So, what is wrong with having a Bible that contains wording that has been archaic for less than 385 years if God himself has no problem with it? Other instances where the Bible itself defines the archaic word are, the word WONT (Matt 27:15) defined as CUSTOM
(John 18:39), and the word LET (2 The 2:7) defined as WITHHOLD (2 The 2:6). We do not need a new
Bible but a new attitude and affection toward the one we have.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PROBLEM: The italicized words in the King James Bible should be removed since they are not in the underlying Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.
SOLUTION: The King James Bible is a word for word translation of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English. As any linguist or person occupied in translation work can testify, it is not possible or practical to produce a PERFECT word for word translation with any two languages. That is, after the translation of all the words in a particular text, the order of the words in each of the sentences may change and additional words may be added in order to give it sense. In the King James Bible, the italicized words represent words not in the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts that the translators have added in order to give sense to the text or clarify the meaning of the text. The King James translators demonstrated their integrity and honesty by placing these words in italics for the reader. The modern translators are not so honest. Although virtually all of the modern translations are "thought translations" (i.e.-dynamic equivalent translations) rather than word for word translations, the words, thoughts, or ideas of the translators are NOT specially noted in the text in any way. In fact, in many places they insert the italicized words, or at least THE THOUGHT of the italicized words, of the King James Bible into the text without italics. This misleads the reader to believe that the words are in the text of the original language. This dishonesty is seen by comparing the wording of 1 John 2:23 in the King James Bible with that of the three best selling modern translations.
85

KING JAMES BIBLE
"Whosoever denieth the
Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."
( 1 John 2:23)
NKJV
"Whoever denies the
Son does not have the
Father either; he who
NIV
"No one who denies the
Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges acknowledges the Son the Son has the Father has the Father also." also." (1 John 2:23)
(1 John 2:23)
NASB
"Whoever denies the
Son does not have the
Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."
(1 John 2:23)
Since the NKJV is a word for word translation, the italicized words are reproduced (with minor changes) in the text without italics. Since the NIV and NASB are primarily dynamic equivalent translations, the
THOUGHT of the italicized words is reproduced in the text without italics.
There are two reasons why ALL the italicized words in the King James Bible should be retained:
1. There is a scriptural precedent
2. Removing them may not only result in rendering the text without clear meaning, but may also result in historical error
The scriptural precedent is set in the numerous instances where the New Testament quotes the Old
Testament and the word italicized in the Old Testament text is not italicized in the New Testament text.
Consider the following three examples.
EXAMPLE #1
"I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved."
(Psa 16:8)
"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:" (Acts 2:25)
EXAMPLE #2
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." (Deu 25:4)
"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?" (1 Cor 9:9)
EXAMPLE #3
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." (Deu 8:3)
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matt 4:4)
86

In each of the three examples, the italicized words in the Old Testament text (i.e.- HE IS, THE CORN,
WORD) are not italicized in the New Testament text. That means they were not in the underlying
Hebrew text but they were in the underlying Greek text. Consequently, the first to add the italicized words to the text was not the King James translators, but the HOLY SPIRIT! Question: were the words added by the Holy Spirit INSPIRED? What does that say therefore about the italicized words in the King James
Bible? Oops! Something just fell to the floor. For those who are skeptical about God inspiring additional words AFTER the original manuscript is written we submit Jeremiah 36 as evidence. In this chapter, God told Jeremiah to write all his words in a roll of a book (v.2). In v.4, Baruch transcribes the word of God from Jeremiah's mouth onto the roll of a book. This roll was eventually brought into the presence of the king (Jehoiakim) who instructed a man named Jehudi to read it to him (v.21). After it was read, the king cut the roll with a penknife a threw it into the fire that was on the hearth (v.23). As a result the original manuscript was destroyed. But God commanded Jeremiah to write another roll that had "all the former words that were in the first roll" (v.28). In other words, it was an exact copy of the original. There was one exception. Not only did this copy contain all the words of the original, but "there were ADDED besides unto them MANY LIKE WORDS" (v.32). Therefore, the copy had words not found in the original manuscript. Were these words that were not in the original manuscript inspired? Case closed.
In at least one instance, removal of the italicized words results in a blatant doctrinal error.
"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a
Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." (2 Sam 21:19)
If the italicized words THE BROTHER OF are removed, then 2 Samuel 21:19 states that ELHANAN slew Goliath instead of David! But if Elhanan did not kill Goliath, then who did he kill? The answer is found in 1 Chronicles 20:5:
"And there was war again with the Philistines; and ELHANAN the son of Jair SLEW LAHMI
THE BROTHER OF GOLIATH the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam."
(1 Chr 20:5)
Elhanan did not kill Goliath but LAHMI, who is clearly said to be THE BROTHER OF Goliath. The
King James translators had to add the words THE BROTHER OF to 2 Samuel 21:19 or the translated text would have been in error. What about the modern translations? Here are the unbelievable results of comparing the wording of 2 Samuel 21:19.
KING JAMES BIBLE
"And there was again a battle in Gob with the
Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a
Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the
Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." (2 Sam 21:19)
NKJV
"Again there was war at
Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of
Jaare-Oregim the
Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the
Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." (2 Sam 21:19)
NIV
"In another battle with the
Philistines at Gob,
Elhanan son of Jaare-
Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a
(2 Sam 21:19)
NASB
"And there was war with the Philistines again at
Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the
Bethlehemite killed
Goliath the Gittite, the like a weaver's beam."
(2 Sam 21:19)
87

The NIV and NASB unapologetically teach false doctrine by saying Elhanan killed Goliath. Although the
NKJV retained the phrase THE BROTHER OF, it neglected to italicize the words as the King James translators did.
ALL the italicized words should be left in the King James Bible because they are part of the preserved word of God. The Holy Spirit himself has set the precedence for adding words to a translated text to give it sense or clarify meaning. Removal of ANY of the italicized words could result in false doctrine.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PROBLEM: The King James Bible cannot be inspired because it is only a translation and only the original manuscripts are inspired.
SOLUTION: There are two misconceptions that need to be corrected. The first is that the word
SCRIPTURE in the Bible always refers to the original manuscripts. The second is that a translation cannot be inspired. The verse that supposedly supports the belief that only the original manuscripts are inspired is 2 Timothy 3:16:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Those who hold this belief allege that the word SCRIPTURE refers to, and is synonymous with, the
ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. But the context clearly indicates that the word SCRIPTURE does not always refer to the original manuscripts. In v.15 Paul states that Timothy knew the SCRIPTURES when he was a child:
"And that from a child thou hast known the holy SCRIPTURES, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus".
Since only Matthew and James were written at the time Timothy was a child (40-50 A.D.), the
SCRIPTURES mentioned in the text refer to the Old Testament scriptures. Since the original Old
Testament scriptures were written 1530 to 430 years before Timothy was born, the SCRIPTURES that
Timothy knew could not have been the original manuscripts. They may have been copies of copies of copies of copies…of the original manuscripts, but they were NOT the original manuscripts.
Jesus stood in the synagogue at Nazareth to read from the book of Isaiah (Luke 4:16-17). When he finished reading, Jesus himself said that what he read from was SCRIPTURE (Luke 4:21). Was this
"scripture" the original book of Isaiah? If so, then how was this 700 year-old manuscript preserved even though it was available to the public and used daily? If your church had one of the original manuscripts do you think it would be used as a pulpit Bible? And if this was the original Isaiah (and it obviously was not), then why was it kept at a synagogue in Nazareth? Nazareth was what people would call today "a nothing town". If the original manuscript of the most prolific Old Testament prophet were preserved it would most certainly have been kept in the temple at Jerusalem. What Jesus read from was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy…of the original Isaiah, but he still called it SCRIPTURE. Consequently, according to the Lord Jesus Christ, inspiration is not confined to the original manuscripts but extends to
PRESERVED COPIES also.
The Ethiopian eunuch was reading the SCRIPTURE when Philip came to him (Acts 8:30-33), specifically from the book of Isaiah. Did the Ethiopian eunuch have the original Isaiah in his possession? If so, then he must have borrowed it or stolen it from the synagogue in Nazareth where Jesus read from it. Are we to
88

believe that such a rich document as the original Isaiah was in the possession of a traveling eunuch?
Assuming that the Ethiopian eunuch, by virtue of his ambassador position, knew Hebrew then what he had was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy…of the original Isaiah. Since the Holy Spirit through Luke calls the COPIES the Ethiopian eunuch had SCRIPTURE, and ALL scripture is given by INSPIRATION of God, then inspiration must not be confined to the original manuscripts but extends to PRESERVED
COPIES also. The word SCRIPTURE means, "a written record of words given by inspiration of God".
That the written record of the word of God does not need to be the ORIGINAL written record is attested to by Jesus Christ and Dr. Luke.
According to Jesus Christ, the SCRIPTURES can be:
1. Read (Matt 21:42)
2. Known (Matt 22:29)
3. Fulfilled (Matt 26:54,56)(Luke 4:21)(John 13:18; 17:12)
4. Searched (John 5:39)
How could those told to read and search the "scriptures" read and search the original manuscripts since they were not available?
According to Luke, the SCRIPTURES can be:
1. Expounded (Luke 24:27)
2. Opened (Luke 24:32)
3. Understood (Luke 24:45)
4. Fulfilled (Acts 1:16)
5. Read (Acts 8:32)
6. Preached (Acts 8:35)
7. Reasoned out of (Acts 17:2)
8. Searched (Acts 17:11)
If the scriptures are the original manuscripts then how did the Bereans get hold of them (Acts 17:11)?
It is abundantly clear that the word SCRIPTURE does not always refer to, and is not synonymous with, the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. It is equally clear that inspiration is not confined to the original manuscripts but extends to PRESERVED COPIES also. But what about translations? The overwhelming majority of Fundamentalists do not believe that a translation can be inspired. The arguments given to support this belief include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The original words were inspired of God; therefore, no addition, subtraction, or change to these words as part of the translation process could be the word of God.
2. The original manuscripts were written in Hebrew and Greek; therefore, it is not possible that a Bible written in another language can be inspired.
Much of the same problems inherent to translation are inherent to copying. The copyist can get weary, lose his place, and pick up copying at the same word he left off but a full sentence later. A good example of this is 1 John 5:7-8:
89

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." (1 John 5:8)
Each verse contains the words THERE ARE THREE THAT. Suppose a copyist has the original manuscript of 1 John and he has copied it clear through to "there are three that bear" in 1 John 5:7
(keeping in mind that there were no chapter and verse divisions then) before he is interrupted by a knock at the door. After giving directions to a stranger in town, the copyist sits back down to continue his work.
He looks at his copy and sees he left off with the words "there are three that bear" . As he looks at the original he finds the words "there are three that bear" and continues his copying. The problem is that he continues with the words "witness in earth" in 1 John 5:8, not the words "record in heaven" in
1 John 5:7. The result is that the inspired words from half of a verse are accidentally subtracted from the copy. It has already been proven that inspiration extends to PRESERVED COPIES. Given the magnitude of copying the entire Bible word for word, what can prevent such a thing like this from happening numerous times? God. The Lord has promised to PRESERVE his inspired word (Psa 12:6-7; Matt 5:18;
24:35; 1 Pet 2:25). The word PRESERVE means "to keep safe from destruction; to protect; to keep intact or free from decay; to keep and reserve for personal or special use". Since the Lord has promised to preserve his inspired word, HE has ensured that copyists have not made errors in copying. This does not mean that EVERY copy is a PRESERVED copy, but PRESERVED copies DO exist. In fact, they MUST exist since it is obvious to everyone that we do not have the original manuscripts and the Lord has
PROMISED to preserve his inspired word. For example, how can we today SEEK and READ from the book of the Lord (Isa 34:16) if the book of Lord is the original manuscripts? Or how can we today TAKE the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God (Eph 6:17) if the word of God is only the original manuscripts? The Lord is also the one who ensures the preservation of his inspired word through the translation process. The first argument against the inspiration of translations, specifically the King James
Bible is that the words are different from the original so they cannot be inspired. But the words are not different! A translation is simply the words of one language put into another. In other words, the
WORDS do not change but the LANGUAGE does. For example, "water" and "agua" are the SAME
WORDS but in a DIFFERENT LANGUAGE; water is English and agua is Spanish. The second argument is refuted in that the Lord promised to preserve his WORDS not the LANGUAGE they were originally written in. The words are still inspired even if they are in a different language. It has already been demonstrated that COPIES can be scripture and, subsequently, inspired. The proof that TRANSLATIONS can be inspired is evident by the following examples.
EXAMPLE #1
OLD TESTAMENT (HEBREW) NEW TESTAMENT (GREEK)
"They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture." (Psa 22:18)
"And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." (Matt 27:35)
In this example, the last part of Matthew 27:35, as originally written in Greek, was a TRANSLATION of the Hebrew in Psalm 22:18. Was the original Matthew 27:35 inspired? Then it contained an inspired
90

translation. In fact, every time the Old Testament is quoted in the New Testament we have an example of an inspired translation.
EXAMPLE #2
"And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull."
(Mark 15:22)
In the original manuscript, the word GOLGOTHA (
 was transliterated from Hebrew letters to
Greek letters, and the phrase THE PLACE OF A SKULL is the Greek TRANSLATION of the Hebrew word GOLGOTHA. Was the original Mark 15:22 inspired? Then it contained an inspired translation.
EXAMPLE #3
"And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying," (Acts 21:40)
"Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you." (Acts 22:1)
In this example we are told in Acts 21:40 that the comments about to be made by Paul (Acts 22:1-21) were spoken in Hebrew. But when the original manuscript was written God gave Luke the Greek
TRANSLATION of what Paul said in Hebrew. Was the original Acts 22:1-12 inspired? Then it was an inspired translation.
For those who would argue that inspired translations are confined to the Hebrew and Greek languages, the
Bible offers the following examples in refutation.
EXAMPLE #4
"And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted,
Damsel, I say unto thee, arise." (Mark 5:41)
The words TALITHA CUMI are not Hebrew but ARAMAIC. Therefore, in the original manuscript, the words DAMSEL, I SAY UNTO THEE, ARISE are a Greek TRANSLATION of the ARAMAIC words
TALITHA CUMI. Was the original Mark 5:41 inspired? Then we have an example of an inspired translation that is not confined to Hebrew and Greek. There are numerous other examples of Aramaic to
Greek translation in Mark (7:34; 14:36; 15:34).
For those who would argue that Aramaic is a Hebrew dialect, the Bible offers the following example in refutation.
EXAMPLE #5
"And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; for I fear God: If ye be true men, let one of your brethren be bound in the house of your prison: go ye, carry corn for the famine of your houses: But bring your youngest brother unto me; so shall your words be verified, and ye shall not die. And they did so." (Gen 42:18-20)
91

And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter."
(Gen 42:23)
The latter verse tells us that Joseph spoke to his brethren by an INTERPRETER and not in their native tongue (Hebrew). The former verse is an example of Joseph speaking to his brethren. Since Joseph was the second ruler in Egypt and he had not yet revealed himself to his brethren, then it is reasonable to conclude that he spoke to his brethren in EGYPTIAN. The interpreter then translated what Joseph said into Hebrew for his brethren to understand. If Joseph spoke in Egyptian, then the original Genesis 42:18-
20 contained a TRANSLATION from EGYPTIAN to Hebrew. Was the original Genesis 42:18-20 inspired? Then it contained an inspired translation that was not confined to the original languages or any of their dialects.
These examples clearly demonstrate that the SCRIPTURAL precedent is that a translation CAN be inspired. This does not mean that ALL translations are inspired but that inspiration is NOT confined to the original manuscripts or the original languages. A word does not cease to be inspired just because it is translated into another language. It is the SAME word only in a different language. Don't be misled to believe that because INSPIRATION means "God-breathed" it can only refer to the original manuscripts.
INSPIRATION is further defined in 2 Peter 1:21 as "moved by the Holy Ghost". The word MOVE means
"to persuade; to influence; to cause to act". Why couldn't the Holy Spirit "move" men in the copying process to ensure they don't make a mistake similar to the one previously described? Why couldn't the
Holy Spirit "move" men in the translation process to ensure the exact word that God wants is selected in every instance? God's promise to preserve his inspired word and the fact that the original manuscripts have perished is proof that the Holy Spirit can and HAS moved such men accordingly. Since the original manuscripts have perished, those who believe that only the original manuscripts are inspired are left without the word of God. They may have a "Bible" but, based on their own belief of inspiration, it is not the word of God. If they say it is, then they must believe there is such a thing as an "uninspired" word of
God. It is interesting to note that those who do not believe the King James Bible is the inspired word of
God USE it to prove it is not inspired (usually by citing 2 Tim 3:16). If by their own admission the King
James Bible is not inspired, and consequently is not an infallible, errorless authority, then where do these poor brethren get the idea that using it as IF IT WERE an infallible authority is an appropriate and honest practice? It is clear that those who believe inspiration is confined to the original manuscripts do not fully understand what INSPIRATION means. In fact, it appears they confuse inspiration with REVELATION because it is revelation that is confined to the original manuscripts. God preserves his inspired word through the copying and translation process but he does not give new revelation.
If the original manuscripts have perished (and they have) and has God promised to preserve his inspired word (and he has), then the only question left to answer is, "where is the word of the Lord" (Jer 17:15)?
If you want to find a particular fruit tree you look for a tree that bears that particular fruit (Matt 7:18,20).
If the Christian makes a close, honest, and prayerful inspection of the fruit-bearing history of all the manuscripts, copies, and translations available today, it will not take long before he realizes that the King
James Bible is the preserved word of God.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
92

B I B L I O G R A P H Y
1. Cloud, David W. Things Hard To Be Understood . Oak Harbor, WA: Way Of Life Literature, 1996.
2. Gipp, Samuel C. The Answer Book . Shelbyville, TN: Bible & Literature Missionary Foundation,
1989.
3. Ruckman, Peter S. Problem Texts . Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Institute Press, 1980.
93

FOR THE PASTOR/TEACHER
The purpose of this course on PROBLEM TEXTS is four-fold:
1) Acquaint the students with the texts that are used by Bible critics to substantiate their claims that the
Bible contains contradictions and that the King James Bible in particular, contains translation errors
2) Acquaint the students with the texts that are used by Christian denominations, religions, and cults to substantiate their false teachings and heresies
3) Demonstrate to the students that all apparent contradictions and verses that appear to teach false doctrines can be resolved be prayerful study and “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15)
4) Strengthen the students’ faith in the word of God and equip them to “hold fast the faithful word” so they “may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers” (Tit 1:9)
The course consists of 16 lessons, two tests, and a final exam. The recommended grading system is as follows:
A= 94-100 Test #1 (Lessons 1-8)= 25% of final grade
B= 83-93 Test #2 (Lessons 9-16)= 25% of final grade
C= 70-82
D= 60-69 Final exam (Lessons 1-16)= 50% of final grade
F= 0-59
It is also recommended that the test questions (not a copy of the test itself) be provided to the students two weeks prior to the test date. The philosophy behind this is to encourage learning through repetition and memorization and to foster cooperation between the students. The final exam questions should not be provided to the students, but the final exam should consist of a sampling of questions from the tests.
Consequently, the students will need to memorize the questions and answers from the tests to adequately prepare for the final exam, thus enhancing the learning process through repetition and memorization.
Since there can be no copyright on the truth, this material is not copyrighted. Pastors and teachers are free to make copies of this course with 1 Corinthians 9:11 and Galatians 6:6 in mind not only for this author, but also for those whose prior labors helped contribute to this work. These authors are listed in the course bibliography and their works can be obtained by writing the publisher listed in the bibliography.
May our Lord Jesus Christ richly bless the teaching of his word,
Dr. Joseph A. Speciale
President, Scripture Knowledge Institute
(2 Tim 2:2)
94