Welcome to Gaia! ::

Rom.14:21 is not dealing with whether wine or not is good,
but with how we should deal with our brothers and sister.

Romans 14:21
It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

If your brother or sister thinks wine is a bad thing you are not to use the freedom you have received to make them fall.

There are three possibilities:
1. The later Septuagint and Luke are right about Cainan and the Hebrew texts include a scribal error.

2. The Hebrew texts are right, Luke contains a scribal error that propagated into the copying of the Septuagint.

3. The Hebrew texts are right, the Septuagint contains a scribal error that propagated into the copying of Luke.

More

As far as someone who is just a man and suffering from the same problems we all do goes there has not been anyone like him, just like God promised. Despite his wisdom however he was not perfect. He made a mistake that had consequences for the kingdom.

1 Kings 11

However Jesus lived perfectly, but He was not just a man. Solomon was just, a man. So Jesus can not be said to be a King in the same manner Solomon can.

That is why Jesus could say: "now something greater than Solomon is here."
(Luke 11:31)

Had Jesus been just some guy, He would have been lying and contradicting the Old Testament.

As it is Jesus also said: "I tell you that something greater than the temple is here." (Matthew 12:6)

Who is greater than the temple? Any prophets or Kings?

Romans 3:9-18
Universal Bondage to Sin. 9 Well, then, are we better off? Not entirely, for we have already brought the charge against Jews and Greeks alike that they are all under the domination of sin, 10 as it is written:

“There is no one just, not one,
11 there is no one who understands,
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have gone astray; all alike are worthless;
there is not one who does good,
[there is not] even one.
13 Their throats are open graves;
they deceive with their tongues;
the venom of asps is on their lips;
14 their mouths are full of bitter cursing.
15 Their feet are quick to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery are in their ways,
17 and the way of peace they know not.
18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

There is no contradiction because all of these were righteous by faith.

Luke 1.5-6
The birth of John the Baptist foretold
5 In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. 6 Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.

Though we are told to be godly, godliness without faith is an abomination.

2 Timothy 3:5
having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.


Doing what you are commanded without believing in God, and His promises is pointless and will not give you righteousness.


Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

A common trait of all of these people (I believe) is that they had faith. The same faith that saves you and me.

Deuteronomy 10:1-5

Tablets like the first ones
10 At that time the Lord said to me, ‘Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones and come up to me on the mountain. Also make a wooden ark. 2 I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke. Then you are to put them in the ark.’

3 So I made the ark out of acacia wood and chiselled out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I went up on the mountain with the two tablets in my hands. 4 The Lord wrote on these tablets what he had written before, the Ten Commandments he had proclaimed to you on the mountain, out of the fire, on the day of the assembly. And the Lord gave them to me. 5 Then I came back down the mountain and put the tablets in the ark I had made, as the Lord commanded me, and they are there now.

Galatians 3:19
Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator.


It does not say 'directly' in the text as the critique claims. If God speaks through someone, it is still God speaking.

Excerpt:
On occasion, when the English text seems unclear or appears to contradict itself, it often is beneficial to be able to examine the original language in which the passage was written. This is one such instance. One of the leading biblical scholars (some have suggested he was the leading biblical scholar) of his day was J.W. McGarvey, whose knowledge of both the languages and the customs of the biblical lands was without peer. His 1881 volume, Lands of the Bible, was considered a classic, even in its day, and remains so today. In his commentary on the New Testament book of Acts, McGarvey provided an excursion into the Greek text that helps immensely in explaining the “contradiction” posed by Stephen’s statement.

As the two clauses stand in our version, “he died, himself, and our fathers; and they were carried over into Shecham,” there can be no doubt that “himself ” and “fathers” are common subjects of one verb “died,” and that the pronoun “they” before “were carried” refers to both alike. But it is not so in the original. The construction is different. The verb rendered died is in the singular number, eteleutasen, and it agrees only with autos, himself. The plural substantive “fathers” is not the subject of that verb, but of the plural eteleutasan understood. The construction having been changed with the introduction of the plural subject, it follows that the plural verb metetéthasan, “were carried,” belongs to fathers, and not to Jacob. The two clauses, properly punctuated, and with the ellipsis supplied, read thus: “and he died; and our fathers died, and were carried over into Shechem.” With this rendering and punctuation, which are certainly admissible, the contradiction totally disappears; and if the passage had been thus rendered at first into English, a contradiction would not have been thought of (1892, p. 121, emp. added, italics in orig.).

McGarvey’s point was this. If Jacob was buried at Machpelah in Hebron (and of that there is no doubt, since Genesis 49:29-30 so states), then Stephen must have been saying that it was the fathers alone who were buried in Shechem, not Jacob. This is quite possible. We know that at least one of the fathers—Joseph—was buried in Shechem (Joshua 24:32). And while the Old Testament does not record the burial places for many of the other patriarchs, we can glean some information from secular history on the subject. In his discussion on Acts 7, the well-known commentator Albert Barnes mentioned that some Jewish historians (e.g., Kuinoel) held to the view that the fathers were buried at Shechem (1949, p. 124). In addition, Jerome, a fourth-century writer from Palestine, stated: “The twelve patriarchs were buried not in Arbes [Hebron—AB/KB], but in Shechem” (as quoted in Barnes, p. 124).

[The idea that the patriarchs were buried in Shechem, however, was neither popular nor representative of the common Jewish thought of the day. In fact, Josephus and other Jewish historians suggested that the fathers were buried at Hebron. And there is a very good reason why they would say such a thing. The Samaritans—the Jews’ bitterest rivals—had seized Shechem. The proud Jews, therefore, would have done anything—perhaps even going so far as to falsify history—to keep from having to admit that their ancestors were buried in their enemy’s land. This actually lends credibility to Stephen’s statement. Given the choice of two answers, one popular but untrue, the other true but unpopular, Stephen doubtlessly would have chosen the latter.]

But what may be said regarding the second mistake that Stephen is supposed to have made—that Abraham bought the tomb in Shechem, whereas the Old Testament states that it was Jacob who did the buying? The possibility exists that this is a case which falls into the second category mentioned above—i.e., that Stephen’s statements themselves were accurate, but subsequently were recorded or copied incorrectly. Various scholars (Adam Clarke, J.W. McGarvey, Albert Barnes, et al.) have presented a good case for the idea that the mistake should not be attributed to Stephen, but rather to a copyist’s error.

However, there are other possibilities that are equally plausible. McGarvey correctly observed: “Two statements are contradictory not when they differ, but when they cannot both be true” (1886, 2:31). Here we have just such an instance. These two accounts do not conflict; rather, they only differ. Consider all the facts as we know them: (1) Abraham bought a field and a cave in Hebron (Genesis 23:17); (2) Abraham bought a sepulcher in Shechem (Acts 7:16); (3) Later, Jacob bought a parcel of ground or a field (Joshua 24:32) also in Shechem (Genesis 33:19). It could be that Jacob merely bought the land whereupon the sepulcher of his grandfather stood. This explanation certainly is feasible.

Yet there is still another prospect. We know that Abraham lived for a time in the land of Shechem, even building an altar there (Genesis 12:5-6). We also know that Jacob went to Shechem and set up his tent there about 185 years later (Genesis 33:18.). Perhaps in the intervening time period, the native people had taken back the land, and, rather than fighting to reclaim what already was his, Jacob simply bought the land back peaceably. Thus, the land would have been purchased twice—first by Abraham, and then, almost two centuries later, by Jacob. This, too, appears to be a logical reconciliation of the facts.

More

A misunderstanding of Matthew 19:12. Jesus is not telling someone to castrate themselves. It is about attitude. Living completely for the Lord. It was in response to the disciples asking Him due to His teachings about divorce: "‘If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.’ (Matthew 19:10)

Matthew 19:11-12
…11But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

Job 31:1
"I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman.