How does the LDS Church handle verses that imply there is no one like God? There are quite a number of verses that seem to contrast the LDS teaching of exaltation, where man may become like God and God was once like man, in submission to a God like Him on a different world somewhere.

The most difficult ones to reconcile with this theology are in Isaiah 43, 44 and 45.

  "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me."
  Isaiah 43:10

  "'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."
  Isaiah 44:6

  "Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of
  none." Isaiah 44:8

  "I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God."
  Isaiah 45:5

  "Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God."
  Isaiah 45:14

  "I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18

  "Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A
  righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21

  "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like
  Me" Isaiah 46:9

There are more on this page here, which is where I got these, so I don't know what translation they are.

How does the LDS church respond to this?

The ones in the Old Testament are actually quite easy to reconcile. Latter-day Saints believe Jesus Christ to be the God of the Old Testament. In other words, Moses spoke with the antemortal Christ. Our Heavenly Father created worlds by Jesus Christ. And "beside me there is no God" as read in Isaiah would be spoken by Jesus Christ, who is our only Savior.

And it is consistent that there is no other like God. No other Gods concern us. We worship God our Heavenly Father only, and subject ourselves to His will. No other god, "as there be gods many," is of concern to us.

Quite frankly, Latter-day Saints do not focus on or even discuss other gods and worlds as they are not pertinent to our salvation. There are lots of questions lately about the topic of exaltation, which is fine, but be reminded that not much is understood about it and it is not our concern in mortality. We simply do our best, keep the commandments, and follow the Savior to return home where we want to be. We "hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection to be raised unto life eternal." (Moroni 7:41) That is our concern.

Here's something I took from another website that can help explain the question.
Isaiah 44:6 reads:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Passages such as Isa 44:6,8 and 45:5,21 that read "no God beside me" or a variation of that phrase are traditionally interpreted by mainstream anti-Mormons as meaning that other than Yahweh no form of deity exists at all, including exalted men. This type of interpretation at first seems obvious, but after considering similar passages in other parts of scripture it is clear that this interpretation is incorrect.
For example, Isaiah 47:8-10 depicts the city of Babylon as saying:

Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:
For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

These passages use the exact same phrase as Isa 44 and 45, yet they certainly do not exclude the existence of any city other than Babylon. The city of Ninevah would be very upset if this were the case, as Zephaniah depicts Ninevah in Zephaniah 2:15 as saying:

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

Again it is clear that this phrase does not exclude the very existence of other cities. Using these parallel phrases makes it clear that Isaiah is not excluding the very existence of any other deity when he quotes Yahweh as declaring "there is no God beside me." There are, in fact, several scriptures in the Old Testament that imply that Yahweh is in fact one of a number of Gods, albeit supreme. Compare the following passages from the KJV, NIV and ESV versions of the Bible:

And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him. O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? aor to thy faithfulness round about thee? (KJV Psalms 89:5-8)
The heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings [fn. Lit "sons of god(s)]? In the council of holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. O LORD God almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you (NIV Psalms 89:5-8).
Among all the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works (Psalms 86:8).
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment (ESV Psalms 82:1)
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (KJV Psalms 82:1)

These scriptures speak of divine beings, "gods" who are the "sons of god(s)" who are heavenly beings who dwell in the skies. These cannot be idols or false gods. Yahweh dwells among them, reigns over them, and holds judgment in their midst.
Hope that helps!
(Source: fairmormon.org)


Do churches host distinctive, special services on Christmas, Christmas eve, and Easter? I have read before that some (nominal) Christians only attend worship services on Christmas and Easter. Are there anything special about those two holidays that compel them to attend church during Christmas and Easter? What do the churches do exactly that might convince people to attend church on only those days?

I know that stores hold big sales on those days, which may attract people to go shopping and buy merchandise.

Typically, yes, most denominations how special services on Christmas eve, and some, possibly, on Christmas day.  (More details coming.)

In Catholic Churches, there is the Midnight Mass.  There's also Christmas Vespers for several denominations including the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican Churches.

The LDS Church has some unique Christmas traditions, including visting Templa Square at Christmas, and watching the Church's annual "First Presidency Christmas Devotional" which is broadcast from the Conference Center (at Temple Square) to church buildings worldwide.

Other denominations have special services as well.  Typical Baptist Christmas services, for example, involve plays and singing by the kids in the Church.  It tends to draw family members that do not attend.

Christmas is the celebration of the Lord and Savior - the entire reason for the existence of the Church in the first place, so it kind of makes sense that there would be some special pomp and circumstance surrounding the celebration.  The same can be said for Easter.

As for why people visit church on Christmas, that's far more personal and individual.  As such it's probably not on-topic to speculate, but reasons I've heard and my own reasons when I wasn't' a Christian included:

It helps you get into the Christmas spirit.
Tradition
From an atheist perspective: It's a nice thing to do to show support for that Christian relative of yours that's always bugging you to get saved and turn your life over to Jesus.  it's only an hour or so and it tends to seem to make them happy to have you there, so why not?
Maybe people already are in the Christmas spirit, and therefore are more willing to go.

I'm sure there are dozens of other reasons.  Again, that's all unique and individual, and hard to answer.

Nominal Christians = Christians in name only, not (yet) transformed by the renewing of their mind by the presence of Christ and His Gospel in their lives.

Besides the festivities around Christmas that attracted these group of people the same way the stores attract us with their light displays and big discounts, there is also an aspect of guilt in play here.

Christians who are not motivated enough to attend the church regularly often feel guilty about it at times.  Therefore Christmas and Easter are seen as the two occasions when they can somehow "redeem" their guilty feelings.


Why does communion frequency vary in different denominations? Different churches celebrate the Eucharist (Communion, Lord's Supper, ...) with different frequency. At one extreme, Catholic and high Anglican churches tend to celebrate it at least daily. Many Protestant churches offer it only once a month, though they will have a Sunday service each week. Some churches have Communion even less often - quarterly or annually.

What factors have caused the divergence in practice (between Catholics and Protestants) and how does each modern model compare to the frequency of its celebration in the early Church?

As you note, there are lots of different traditions here. My ancestry is Scottish and some old Scottish churches only celebrate communion once a year. I've looked through the some liturgies for these services that basically run all day, and it's quite an affair. I have even heard it advocated that once in a life-time ought to do the job, sort of like baptism. I don't think this is at all the spirit of the thing we find in the NT.

On the other end of the spectrum are those who say that every meal we eat together as believers counts, so basically we do it a couple times a day. For several reasons I don't think this argument holds much water.

By personal background growing up was the "traditional" once a month celebrations. I wouldn't argue that this practice is inherently wrong or sinful, but I think it is arbitrary and not the best representation of what the Lord's Supper is supposed to be about.

I believe the best representation and celebration of the Lords Supper is to do it once a week during the normal Sunday gatherings. This is consistent with the description we have of the early church gathering together (we know they did this specifically in celebration of the resurrection on the first day of each week) and the description we have of them celebrating the sacrament whenever they were gathered together.

The Last Supper is practiced in many ways. Firstly, in some aspects, the Bible isn’t very specific. For example, the Bible says to dress modestly, but how do you interpret that? Some Churches dress in white cloaks, where as others just wear smart clothes. This leads to different denominations. Also, the Bible isn’t specific about if you should have alcohol in Church services. The Catholics tend to have wine where-as protestant Churches normally have grape juice. Again, this leads to more denominations! This is because different Churches are doing what they think is correct.  Secondly, Catholic/ High Churches tend to celebrate the communion everyday where-as Low/Protestant Churches may celebrate it once a month.  Lastly, there has to be different denominations because when Henry the 8th made the Church of England he had to differ the Catholic rules.


What Scriptures was Paul referring to in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 What Scriptures was Paul referring to in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4?

  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

It is interesting that most English translations use the word "scriptures" which may seem somewhat ambiguous.  However, Young's uses specifically "Writings".

" for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings,
4 and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings,"  (YLT)

The Hebrews referred to the three sections of the OT as the Tor'ah, or the Teaching (also called the Pentateuch - the five books of Moses); the Nevi'im (Prophets); and the Ketuvim (Writings). In shorthand the TNK, or Tanakh.

"The last of the three divisions, the Ketuvim, contains poetry (devotional and erotic), theology, and drama in Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs (attributed to King Solomon), Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles."  Source: here

Did Paul only mean the Ketuvim (Writings) or was it all OT Messianic prophesy?  Most conclude that all OT scripture prophesy of the death and resurrection of Christ is included.
Excerpt from Benson Commentary:

"According to the Scriptures — The Scriptures which foretold the resurrection of Christ on the third day, and to which St. Paul refers, are Psalm 16:10, (which Peter, Acts 2:31, expressly affirmed to be a prediction of that event,) and Jonah 1:17, which our Lord himself affirmed to be a typical prophecy of his continuing three days in the heart of the earth, and of his subsequent resurrection. "  Source: here

Excerpt from Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

"how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; that is, of the Old Testament, the writings of Moses, and the prophets, according to Scripture promises, Scripture types, and Scripture prophecies; particularly Genesis 3:15 Daniel 9:24 which declare that his heel was to be bruised, that he should be brought to the dust of death, should pour out his soul unto death, and be stricken and cut off in a judicial way, and that for sins; not his own, but for the sins of his people, in order to atone for them, procure the pardon of them, take them away, make an end of them, and abolish them; all which he has done, as the Gospel declares, and the apostle affirms; and thereby was accomplished what Moses and the prophets did say should come to pass. Every promise, type, and prophecy recorded in the law, in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning his sufferings and death, had their fulfilment in him; nothing was more clearly prefigured and foretold, and nothing more punctually and fully answered. "  Source: Ibid.

1 Corinthians is held to have been written approx. 55 AD before the Passover.  As this predates even the gospels, it would appear that the NT scriptures cannot be in view here, as they would not have been circulated before this letter to the Corinthians.  Therefore the "Scriptures" must refer to the OT prophesies.
See Dating the New Testament here

I found this article helpful:

https://biblepropheciesfulfilled.blogspot.com/2014/03/jesus-predicted-his-own-death-three.html

But Peter also said:

  Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. (1 Peter 1:10-12)


Of whom is God jealous? You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your
  God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the
  fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, (Exodus 20:5, NIV)

If there is only one God, who is God jealous of?

Note:
Please see this question on Biblical Hermeneutics about the translation or definition of this passage.

The better question may be "What is it that God is jealous of?"  He is righteously jealous of the devotion and affections of His people.  This is mirrored in our own lives as a married individual is righteously jealous for the affections and devotion of his or her spouse.  Furthermore, a father or mother is righteously jealous for the affections of their children.  If their children started calling other men and women "Dad" and "Mom", it would be a tremendous insult to them, because they alone are the ones that have the true parental devotion to their children.

So, God is not jealous of another god or another being, but for the affections of His people.

This is actually an interesting question. "Why the heck is God jealous of other idols?" is the question you are asking, when really you should be thinking outside the box.

The real question you should be asking is whether or not the writers mistranslated.

In the King James Bible as published by the LDS Church, there are footnotes on the bottom of each page that attach to various words in each of the verses. One of the footnotes in Exodus 20:5 is attached to the word "Jealous" and gives the explanation of "HEB qannah, 'possessing sensitive and deep feelings.' This word was either supposedly the word from which the interpretaion of Jealousy was derived from when translated, or the word "jealousy" had an alternate definition that, back when the KJV was being created, was akin to the meaning of the Hebrew word "gannah." If that is the case, then if you use that word instead of the word "jealousy" we receive a completely different interpretation of the passage.

Instead of: "Thou shalt anot make unto thee any graven cimage, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" (Exodus 20:4-5)

...which seems to display a harsher nature in God than the New Testament would seem to indicate, we have this:

"Thou shalt anot make unto thee any graven cimage, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God [am a God with deep and sensitive feelings], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

With this translation, we gain an insight into the sensitive nature of our Heavenly Father. He isn't wrathful and jealous when we worship other idols; he is hurt. He is sensitive, he cares about our feelings intimately, and when we don't try to share that same sensitivities, it hurts him to the core.

He wants us to have a relationship with Him, and when we turn our backs on Him, to worship and give our attention to things that don't even matter, it hurts our God to the core. His own children, the people that he created lovingly and tenderly with his own hands, are denying his existence and giving more respect and honor to an inanimate object than their own Father!  To add insult to injury, the idol worshippers attribute that inanimate statue with doing the very thing that He Himself has done!

I imagine that's got to sting quite a bit: To have the children he loves so much, completely and willfully deny that he even created them. If you had sensitive feelings, wouldn't you be angry too?


Was the serpent's temptation necessary for Eve to sin? It was once said that Satan is God's Satan.  I understand Eve's act of sin plays into God's hands and His glorification, but are there not other ways this can be done without Satan's interference?  While Eve acted on free will, the serpent's temptation was catalytic, and the fact that God allowed the serpent to be there, it seems to me that God was passively hoping Eve would sin.

This question is not about free-will or the forbidden fruit, for it obvious that for free will to exist there must be choices (i.e. between obeying and disobeying God's command to not consume fruit from the forbidden tree).  However, by introducing the serpent into the picture, God seems to be caring more about his glorification than Adam and Eve's best interests (a perfect environment i.e. Garden of Eden).  If He truly wants to show that mankind would eventually sin, shouldn't He let Adam and Eve sin without foreign interference (say one day Eve decides to eat the forbidden fruit out of curiosity)?   That way, God can claim that no matter how perfect and controlled the environment is for free-will, mankind will sin.

There are some basics which you need to consider here; that change the whole precept of the question.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  God is omniscient!

God knew from before he created the Angels; exactly how all things would unfold for Eternity.

  God is Omnipotent!

God is all powerful, he has the power to alter any particular action at any particular time.

  God is omnipresent!

God is not subject to time and space, God is of the Spiritual realm and as such is everywhere at once.

So if we consider the three things above, our questions should be changed from "why does God allow " to "how does this particular incident fit into God's overall plan". The truth is we mere mortals will never be able to understand God or his ways or his thoughts.

  Isaiah 55:8 and 9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

We then, as mere mortals, must accept the fact that God is so far above us that whatever his plan to is to achieve when it reaches its final conclusion we will never know this side of heaven and possibly not even then. We can however find some clues in what has transpired since God initiated his plan. We can also possibly obtain a few clues from God's word concerning the future.

So let's go back to your original question concerning the serpent in the garden; of the fall and Eve; and all of that. In as much as I can understand: the creation came on the heels of the war in heaven.

  Revelation 12:7 through 9  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

And in order for Satan and the rebellious angels to be exiled to earth it would have to have come after Genesis chapter 1 verse 1.

  Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

As to whether the serpent who deceived Eve was only a serpent, or Satan masquerading as a serpent. We are not told, however. According to the apostle Paul in his second letter to the Corinthians, it could have been either.

  2nd Corinthians 11:13 and 14 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

It appears to me, that the real lesson we should learn from this is; that in the beginning God created both the Angels and a man with free will. And that when given the opportunity they both rebelled against God's authority. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden they introduced into mankind what I consider to the "me" concept. What I mean by that is that up until that time. Man was sublimely happy, secure, and at ease in the presence of God. Following man's initial disobedience, we find that man is no longer comfortable in the presence of God as God created him.

  Genesis 3:7 and 8 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Some of my fondest memories, are from when my children and grandchildren crawled up into my lap and felt so secure and well cared for that they just went to sleep. while at the same time some of my most hurtful memories are when those same children and grandchildren rebelled. The reasons for these reactions is because of my love for them. I cannot believe that it would be any different with God. I am sure of this; that when both the Angels and man rebelled against God it hurt him deeply because God is love. I am likewise of the opinion that God had the same feelings that I felt; before that rebellion by either the Angels or man.

However be that as it may, those are my thoughts, and you must come to your own conclusions.

We can use the same analytical logic on any passage in the Old Testament's and try and find out, the role these incidents play in the overall plan of God. For instance we can analyze the story of David and Goliath as depicted in 1st Samuel chapter 17. I will not quote it here for the sake of brevity.

Two questions arise using this type of analytical logic.

  Did God said through his omnipotence direct the stone and from David's slingshot to its final destination in Goliath's forehead?
  Or did God through his omniscience align circumstances so that David could through his own learning be able to so accurately throw the stone that it would hit the exact Mark aimed at.

Whichever of these two God chose, makes very little difference, the point here being that God fore ordained how this particular situation would play out. And the lesson for us would seem to be that man can overcome evil but not without the help of God.

Another example of using this logic in analyzing a passage is in the Story of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac.

Genesis 22:1  through 22:13. Again I will not quote them for the sake of brevity, but if you are unfamiliar with it I heartily suggest you read it.

Genesis 22:1  And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham:

Right off the bat and our first question comes up Why does God who is omniscience decide to tempt Abraham, knowing already what Abraham's reaction would be?

There are some questions to which we simply have to answer: because God is sovereign, and this may be one of them. We could on the other hand wonder if God in his great love is verifying Abraham's faith  or not. In view of the following two Scriptures this may seem more feasible.

Genesis 22:7  and 22:8 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

The significance of this passage lies in that Abraham so depended upon God that he believed that even if he were to take the life of Isaac God would replace that life somehow and Isaac would not be lost to him. This compares to the basic hope of Christianity, that being that that even though we have all sinned and come short of the Glory of God, Jesus death on the Cross will bring our Souls back into Eternal life.

So to answer your question:

Was the serpent's temptation necessary for Eve to sin?

The answer to that, in my humble opinion, whether or not the It was necessary for Eve to sin, it was necessary in order for God's plan to unfold as he intended it to.

Although this has nothing to do with the answer to your question I am adding a to help you understand my answer.

Having used this particular analogy trying to understand how God wanted his Scriptures to be understood; for nearly a decade, I have come to my own conclusion that God's overall plan is to restore heaven to it pre-rebellion state. And that Heaven which I feel is described in Revelation chapters 21 and 22 is so desirable to me that it is worth throwing away all other things, all other glories, all of the riches, and any other thing; which would prevent me from being there.

I am so enthralled with this that I'm trying with all my might, to be that little child who crawls up in God's lap and forgets about all other things;

Again those are my conclusions and you must come to your own.

While I do believe that the "Serpent" in the Garden of Eden was Satan, I believe that the "Serpent" is more than just a physical manifestation of Satan. To understand the full meaning of the Serpent, we have to look at Satan's sin, that is, pride. Pride, fundamentally, is the choice to value one's self above God; Satan preferred ruling in Hell, than serving in Heaven.

Thus, the "Serpent" not only represents Satan, but the temptation to choose one's self over God (pride). This temptation is impossible to remove since the idea of "one's self" is inseparable from that of free-will. So even if you remove the idea of the Serpent as Satan, the "Serpent" of pride's temptation would still be there. Finally, I assert this: the Serpent in the Garden of Eden represents sin itself, thus the Serpent is an invariable part of having free-will.


Where did Noah find polar bears and penguins in Palestine? The biblical account of Noah's Ark and the flood seems implausible to me due to this detail. How could animals accustomed to thriving in extreme temperatures be found in a common place for preservation aboard the ark?

First of all I live in the Middle East in the same country as Mt. Ararat where the ark landed. Note this is not in Palestine nor do we know where Noah started from. The problem could just as well have been that he was starting from the Siberian tundra and needed some African wildebeests. You're trying to solve a specific problem that you don't have enough scenario data to build a case for or against.

However back to the plausibility argument. Here in the neighborhood of Mt Ararat there is a zoo here that has penguins. They are kept out of doors and, with the exception of having free access to a small pond, cope with the same baking heat the rest of us deal with. They may not like it but they survive.

Secondly I grew up in the Southwest high desert. The zoo where I grew up had a polar bear exhibit, again out of doors. In more recent years it has acquired some shade and a larger (very fun looking) series of pools but the one I remember as a kid wasn't much more than a concrete box.

As if that wasn't enough to at least cast doubt on the argument against the plausibility of such a thing, let's consider the other implications of the flood.

Hand in hand with the flood come a host of other radical global changes. The arrangement of dry land vs ocean has likely radically changed as tectonic plates rose and fell in order for the water to cover the whole land. How high mountains were, where they were located and even the divides between contents are likely very different.

In the same vein, global climate would have been radically different. Many believe from the Genesis account that there were changes in the atmosphere and that likely post-flood earth has a lot more extremes of hot and cold in different areas than pre-flood earth.

Lastly, it's not always alleged that every variation of species we have today was on the Ark. It's possible a representative of the bear family was all that God required to cover the basis for both polar bears and black bears.

And most importantly, don't you think the God who created the animals in the first place and gives them the instincts that make them what they are could not manipulate the system in a miraculous way to lead a couple of stray bears on a long walk? Similar wild and seemingly impossible journeys by strangely motivated animals have been documented

All in all, the specific allegations you bring up are small items in the big picture. If you really have a problem with the science, you need to start at the other end of the spectrum and work backwards. Those little details sort themselves out in the big picture.

Also:

The flood was global, otherwise God most probably wouldn't have instructed Noah to build such a big vessel to accommodate just the regional animals and birds.

Ice floats on water, so the flood wouldn't affect animals and birds that live on ice.

More than 50% (or likely, more than 75%) of the animal kingdom including fish lives on water; then there is another percentage that are amphibians, all of which wouldn't be affected by the flood.

How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

How big was Noah's Ark?


What is the meaning of "anything" in Matthew 18:19-20? In Matthew 18:19-20, Jesus says:

  “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

What does Jesus mean?

From a surface understanding, it sounds like any prayer request will be granted if two people agree? However, I know from experience that is not the case - Bob and Sue agree that a new car would be a good thing, but they do not get one.

How should this directive be applied?

Another verse that supports this concept:

  Mark 11:24 (NASB)
  Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

Why doesn't this work?

Let's look at things a bit more in context (of Mark):

  Mark 11:22-24 (NASB)
  22 And Jesus answered saying to them, “Have faith in God. 23 Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. 24 Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

It's very clear that God will answer any prayer you have.  However, if you don't have faith, your prayers won't be answered.

Furthermore, we should pray continuously for something we want!  We see this in the parable of the widow and the unjust judge.  The widow constantly bothers the judge and he finally relents even though he is neither godly nor just.  He basically says "Fine, you can have it, go away."

Finally, we need to make sure that we're asking for the right motives.  James 4:1-3 shows that if we're asking for things for our own earthly pleasure, then that's the wrong motive.  Like Jesus, we should try to keep God's will in mind when we pray for something.

So, why doesn't it always work to pray for something?

Here seem to be the biblical criteria:

You must have more than one person agreeing on the need
You must believe that it will be granted
You must pray continually about it and make your prayers constant until it is granted
You must ask with the right motives

Then, you will be able to move mountains.

A word study

This isn't really necessary for the answer (once I re-read the question), but I'd already written it up, so I'll include it here:

This gets a bit more interesting in the Greek.

We see

  Again, [I-am-saying] [to-you] that [if-ever] two [of you] [should-be-agreeing] on the earth concerning [any/every] [practice/matter] which [if-ever] [theys-shoud-be-requesting] [it-shall-be-becoming] [to-them] beside the father [of-me] [the-one] in heavens

The translation in question "anything" actually comes from two words:  pantos [any/every] and pragmatos [practice/matter].

The word pantos is pretty self-explanatory, if you simply accept that it means "each thing, all, or every".  The word pragmatos is a bit more interesting, though:

Vines lexicon shows:

  From the root pragma (Strong / Vines entry)
  1. that which has been done, a deed, an accomplished fact
  2. what is done or being accomplished
      a. spec. business, a commercial transaction
  3. a matter, question, affair

So, in essence, the verse is saying that if ever two of you agree on the earth about any practice, every deed, any question that they are requesting, it will be given.

Word definition summary

Essentially, if two or more people agree to ask for any deed to be done or any question to be answered, God will do it.

It helps to have the context of the previous verse:

  18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This makes it clear that he's talking to the Apostles here (see Matthew 16:19) and not to the disciples in general.  It's because of the authority to bind in heaven what they bind on earth and loose in heaven what they loose on earth that they can make requests of God and have them granted.


What is the Biblical basis that it was was the second person of the Trinity that walked in the garden of Eden? Genesis 3:8 tells us:

  Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was
  walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the
  Lord God among the trees of the garden

And Exodus 33:20 reads

  But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and
  live.”

What is the Biblical evidence that this theophany was the second person of the trinity?

The Bible explicitly teaches that no on has seen the Father :
Verses from the bible teach clearly that no one has seen the father -

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (John 1:18).
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be
honor and glory forever and ever. Amen (1 Timothy 1:17).*

Other verses are : John 6:46, John 5:37
In addition to this, the bible teaches clearly that Jesus is the one who reveals the father -
For example John 1:18, already quoted. Colossians 1:15 says "The son is the image of the invisible God". This indicates that wherever God is seen with the naked eye in bodily form such as in the garden of Eden, the one mentioned is the second Person of the trinity, i.e Jesus.

This answer comes from an LDS perspective; see the LDS Bible Dictionary for more.

The word "Lord" in Genesis 3:8 represents the name Jehovah in the original Hebrew. In some translations of the Bible it's printed in all caps to distinguish it from the generic word "Lord" (ruler). For example:

  And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8, KJV)

In other translations, it's rendered directly as Jehovah:

  And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8, ASV)

Jehovah is Jesus Christ, the second person of the trinity.


How to reconcile the number of people that went down to Egypt with Jacob? In Genesis 46 26-27 it says:

  26 All those who went to Egypt with Jacob—those who were his direct
  descendants, not counting his sons’ wives—numbered sixty-six persons.
  27 With the two sons[f] who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the
  members of Jacob’s family, which went to Egypt, were seventy[g] in
  all.

And in Acts 7:14 it says:

  14 After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family,
  seventy-five in all.

Is this a contradiction between the books or is there a way to get the extra 5?

There are a couple of possible ways to reconcile this, both within the established Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies used by Apologists.

Copyist errors.

The first comes by clarifying what "inerrancy" means, to debunk a straw-man argument that such a discrepancy in our current Bible is an issue in the first place.  For an in-depth dive into the doctrine of inerrancy, see From a Fundamentalist standpoint, what does the phrase “Inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God” mean?.

Short version:

Only the original manuscripts are considered inerrant, and we fully expect there to be copyist errors and other discrepancies in our current version.
We can overcome the "So how do we know we can trust the Bible if we know it contains copyist/translation errors" question by understanding that we have many, many, manuscripts to compare, and even though many discrepancies do exist between the manuscripts, none of them are doctrinally significant.  More at What is “Manuscript Evidence” and how is it useful?

So, the first obvious possibility is a copyist or translation error in some of the accounts somewhere along the way.  That's what's proposed at the "Contradictions in the Bible" website.

Counting differently.

Again, going back to the non-straw-man version of inerrancy, inerrancy does not mean hyper-literalism.  (See the link above for more.)

It's entirely possible that the authors were counting different sets of people.  Say you're a reporter writing about an invasion that involved 1000 infantry men and two generals.  You may record this as 1000 soldiers storming the hill, and another may record 1002.  (Yeah, that's a bad analogy, but it sets up the argument used in this Apologetics Press article on the subject.

  Similar to how a person truthfully can give different degrees for the
  boiling point of water (100° Celsius or 212° Fahrenheit), different
  figures are given in the Bible for the number of Jacob’s family
  members who traveled into Egypt. Stephen (in Acts 7:14) did not
  contradict the Old Testament passages where the number seventy is
  used; he merely computed the number differently. Precisely how Stephen
  calculated this number is a matter of speculation. Consider the
  following:

  In Genesis 46:27, neither Jacob’s wife (cf. 35:19) nor his concubines is included in the seventy figure.
  Despite the mention of Jacob’s “daughters and his son’s daughters” (46:7), it seems that the only daughter included in the “seventy” was
  Dinah (vs. 15), and the only granddaughter was Serah (vs. 17).
  The wives of Jacob’s sons are not included in the seventy (46:26).
  Finally, whereas only two descendants of Joseph are mentioned in Genesis 46 in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, in the
  Septuagint, Joseph’s descendants are calculated as being nine.

  Taking into consideration how many individuals were omitted from “the
  seventy persons” mentioned in the Old Testament, at least two possible
  solutions to this alleged contradiction may be offered. First, it is
  possible that Stephen included Jacob’s daughters-in-law in his
  calculation of seventy-five. Jacob’s children, grandchildren, and
  great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Genesis 46:8-26). If Jacob,
  Joseph, and Joseph’s two sons are added, then the total number is
  seventy (46:27). If, however, to the sixty-six Stephen added the wives
  of Jacob’s sons’, he could have legitimately reckoned Jacob’s
  household as numbering seventy-five, instead of seventy. [NOTE: Jacob
  is listed by Stephen individually.] Yet, someone might ask how
  sixty-six plus “twelve” equals seventy-five. Simple—not all of the
  wives were included. Joseph’s wife obviously would not have been
  calculated into this figure, if Joseph himself were not. And, at least
  two of the eleven remaining wives may have been deceased by the time
  the family journeyed to Egypt. We know for sure that Judah’s wife had
  already died by this time (Genesis 38:12), and it is reasonable to
  conclude that another of the wives had passed away as well. (In all
  likelihood, Simeon’s wife had already died—cf. Genesis 46:10.) Thus,
  when Stephen stated that “Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and
  all his relatives to him, seventy-five people” (Acts 7:14),
  realistically he could have included the living wives of Joseph’s
  brothers to get a different (though not a contradictory) number.

Note:

This last article also addresses the discrepancy between manuscripts, and discusses more issues with the account. It's worth a read, as is this one from Tekton Apologetics.

Sure there is all you have to do is add Joseph's wife and children and Benjamin who Joseph had kept with him.

The seventy are the ones which came to Egypt Jacob's family then you add Joseph his wife and children plus Benjamin who was already in Egypt and that gives you the seventy five Joseph's family.


What is the Biblical evidence against the day-age theory? As many of you probably know, the day-age theory is an attempt to reconcile creation and evolution, by turning the days mentioned in Genesis into long periods of time. What is the biblical evidence against this theory? How can I use Scripture to refute such a view?

The primary argument against the day age theory is from the Hebrew Grammer.  The word Yom is translated day in this passage, and in different contexts it can mean different things.

In 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." (Genesis 4:3, I Kings 11:42)
Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." (1 Kings 1:1)
Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "age." (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1, Joshua 23:1)
It is translated Day hundreds of times.

If we were to stop here in our investigation of the word we could conclude that the genesis account could include the idea of the word yom referring to an age instead of a literal day.  But as we dig deeper this view becomes less likely.

Every place we find the word Yom with the words morning or evening it always means a literal 24 hour day.  Every place we find the word Yom with a number (First Day for example) it always means a literal day.  So usage would tell us that when we find the words "So the evening and the morning were the first day." we would fully expect that this means a literal day and not an age.

Well I'd like to make a clarification, having dealt with both, day age theory is not necessarily an attempt to fit evolution into the bible. Day age theory in and of it's self is only an attempt to cram billions of years into the days of genesis to agree with modern cosmological "science", and usually does not directly endorse biological evolution. Many who hold that claim still claim to take the bible seriously, and Hugh Ross even claims it's a literal interpretation.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolutionists in my experience, mostly dismiss the parts of the bible that disagree with their worldview. They'll make many claims, usually a shot gun approach to see which one can be accepted such as: The bible has many errors in it, genesis was a compiled creation account similar to other creation myths, it's allegorical not historical, I've even heard it was just poetic, the list goes on. So coming up with a biblical refutation to theistic evolution is not going to do you much good in that situation because for whatever reason you show and no matter how black and white you show it in the scripture, they'll come up with a reason why the scripture itself shouldn't be trusted.

So you first need to help them determine if they actually believe in God or just think He's a nice idea. Even if you can prove everything, at this point it won't do anybody any good if we establish that God is real, but they won't trust and obey Him.  That's how God works, He doesn't normally go around proving He's God to people who don't want to trust Him. He does all the time to those who will though, as it is written He "resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble."

If they decide that they actually do trust God but they are just unsure about the Bible really being what He said, then you need to deal with that. For most theistic evolutionists that should be enough. They usually just don't trust the bible, they know what it says, they just don't believe it. So you need to have them seek God and ask Him to revel it as His truth to them, you need to have them repent of their sin of doubting His word; and you can show them that this was in fact literally the oldest trick in the book . Satan's oldest trick was when he said to Eve "Did God really say you couldn't eat of any tree in the garden?" which did two things, first it was a distortion of what He said to make it sound ridiculous, and second it made Eve doubt God's word. Only when their heart is right should you start to show them hard evidence as to the bible's authenticity (which is another topic all together). Our job is to win people, not arguments.

We have to realize too that despite the fact that man jotted down what God said, the scripture is not an imperfect representation of mans thoughts on God, but scripture is what God said, not what man thought God said. In Timothy 3:16 it states all scripture is theopneustos (literally God breathed, not simply inspired as we used the term today). And off this topic there is evidence to support the idea that God even chose every letter.

Day Age Theory

Now to actually get to the biblical problems with Day Age theory. The rest of this assumes that the Bible is now being taken as inspired by God and we are only talking about interpretation. Again here first and foremost we need to be in agreement (us and the old earthers) to humble ourselves before God and invite the Spirit of Truth to lead us into understanding (see John 16:13), because it profits us nothing to lean on our own understanding.(see Proverbs 3:5) So they need to make a decision, is any amount of outside 'evidence' going to overthrow the scripture if you can prove what it says disagrees with their worldview? If the answer is ultimately yes then again this is pointless, there will always be a new argument or 'proof' to discredit scripture, eventually they all prove false, but if your going to be blown about by every wind of doctrine you are unstable at best.

There are entire ministries devoted to dealing with this area so I can only make a fairly basic overview, but I'll try to get as much as I can into this(I myself have started a book on this subject). One thing I don't hear people mention that I feel should be obvious is that in the Jewish Calendar the year is 5773, we have records as early as 150ad that they were reconciling this from the beginning of creation, it wasn't till much later that they started reconciling this as the creation of Adam.

Perhaps the most obvious is the fact that the days are numbered, and it makes a point of there being evening and morning. Now the jews didn't recon the days of the week like we do with names they do it by number after the pattern of creation week.(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar#Weeks ) . You'll note in Genesis 1:5 that God describes exactly what He means by day when He said: "God called the the light day and the darkness He called night and there was evening and there was morning day one". I find it interesting that instead of calling it "first day"(יום ראשון) as Sunday is called in hebrew(the other days being referred to as second day, third day ... as the rest of genesis 1 reads) He instead called it "Day one" Yom ehad(אֶחָֽד) setting it as unique not to be confused with any other first day(of the week), which is the same phrase He uses in Zechariah 14 to say there will be another "Day one" Yom Ehad in the future where there will be no more evening and no more morning, I think that's a beautiful symmetry to the start of time and the end of time. Now Hugh Ross spoke at my church and said that we could interpret evening and morning as being symbolic for the dawn of an age and the close of an age. But I checked, there is never a time in the hebrew of the Old Testament that evening and morning could mean anything like that. The other most obvious objection is the fact that God wrote in the Ten Commandments the reason for resting on the sabbath day was because In six days the Lord God made the heavens, the earth and the seas and all that is in them and on the seventh day He rested.

As well as changing the clear meaning of day in Genesis, old earthers also have to deny the flood as being a global event(if it was global all radio dating methods are automatically voided, as the strata don't represent age, taking away almost all of there "proof" the earth is old) and but what is often overlooked is the fact that they don't just have to believe the days in genesis were "Long periods of time" but they also have to have man on earth longer because of the 'evidence' that man has been around 60,000+ years. They generally do this by playing with the genealogies in Genesis 5 claiming that it's just an overview of notable generations, they are telescoped and the word begot just means that they became the patriarch of that family line. Two problems with that theory, 1. even old earth supporting Jews still recognize the creation of Adam as occurring 5773 years ago, and as I said that was no later than 150ab when they started using that, so they definitely did not interpret begat as starting family lines. and 2.  Gleason Archer(Who co-wrote with Hugh Ross supporting the day age theory) wrote "However the statistics of Genesis 5 may be handled, they can hardly end up with a date for Adam much before 10,000 B.C." in his book entitled "Biblical Difficulties".

Geneses 7 is extremely precise in it's language. The whole earth and every mountain under the heavens were covered with water, and He blotted out every living thing from the face of the land. Gleason Archer(in Biblical Difficulties) agrees it was no local flood. There are plenty of specific claims as to why this was local, but if you just look up each one you'll see most of them are fictitious or disproven else where.

One of the other Gotcha verses for and old earth view, that I never see used, is Genesis 2:5-7 . Nothing green had grown on earth yet because man wasn't there, and it hadn't rained, then God created man.

I must leave now having much more to write, but I encourage you to seek the council of the Holy Spirit and search for the term "since the beginning" in the bible and see what interesting conclusions you can gather.


What are the core differences between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christianity? I read an answer here which explained the difference between the various branches of the Eastern Church.
I was thinking as an extension, what is the difference between Eastern Christianity and Protestant Christianity, as both seem to reject the claims of supreme authority from the Catholic Church?
What are the major differences between Eastern and Western Orthodox Christianities?
Why aren't the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches in communion with each other?

To limit the massive territory of how Protestants differ from Orthodox, I'm going to filter it down a couple times.
First, I'm not going to include points that the Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree on that Protestants (typically) disagree with: that the Eucharist is the body, soul, and divinity of Christ; that Mary is the Mother of God; Apostolic Succession; iconography; sacraments; communion of the saints; rejection of the Protestant solas; contemplative prayer & mystical theology; etc. The reason for this is that you can learn about all these points just from reviewing the Catholic-Protestant debate.
Second, I'm not going to include points that Protestantism and Catholicism agree on that Orthodox disagree with or don't share: original sin, the entire Augustinian framework, the strong emphasis on scholastic theology, a general emphasis on the sacrifice of Jesus' crucifixion rather than the Incarnation as the locus of salvation, some degree of reticience around hesychasm & Palamian theology, filioque, etc.
I could be wrong, but once you cross out all that stuff, I think all you're left with is the Pope, in Catholic understanding the principle of unity of the Church. Of course, Orthodox and Protestants "agree" on this in completely different ways, since Protestants reject the Orthodox understanding of apostolic succession that the Catholic papal ecclesiology requires, so I would be hard pressed to call this a point of true agreement.

Neither Orthodox nor Protestant Churches are all the same. The most significant difference is the origin: Orthodox Churches have the same age as the Roman church, whereas Protestant churches have split off the Roman church.
Most Protestant churches do not have any dogmas except the Bible. Protestants do not pray in front of pictures and to intermediates like saints or Mary; only some pray to Jesus en lieu to God.


Is interpreting Noah's flood as a civilization-wide event compatible with Roman Catholicism? I heard an idea a while back that perhaps the flood described in the Old Testament wasn't necessarily a global, worldwide flood, but that it was a worldwide flood in a human civilization sense. In other words, it wouldn't have been necessary to flood the whole world in order to accomplish God's purpose of destroying corrupt humanity because humanity hadn't yet covered the whole world.

Is such a view compatible with the Catholic Church's teachings on Genesis?

The Catechism divides Scripture, according to intent of the writers, in the following ways:

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

As to the specific intention of the story of the flood, and thus the mode of interpretation under which the story would fall, like most other accounts of specific descriptions and verses in the bible, there is no 'official' doctrine regarding such matters. What is ascertained is that in any case the stories and the details as they were intended to be are true in such capacities. This means that in any one of the previous ways one wishes to interpret the flood story, it must in any way be true, rather than partially true or false.
Much of the beginnings of Genesis have been traditionally allegorically interpreted. To name only one example, St. Augustine thought of the 'light' that God made and divided from the 'darkness' could be meaningfully interpreted as the creation of angels. The allegorical approach to Genesis has the benefit of avoiding some problems that come with the more literal interpretations seen in many Protestant groups (which invariably leads to conflict between what appear to be inherent contradictions, and contradictions in science). But what is more important is that this approach also seems to garner greater meaning. Instead of being concerned with the literalness of whether God created the stars before 'light' or 'light' before the stars, we can focus more so on the meaning of these events, not simply as events in themselves but as potential symbols or phrases that carry greater theological weight. At the same time, the nature of the interpretation in such matters is existentially neutral to the fact of its existence. So whether or not the flood truly occurred, as in a sequence of events, need not deter our understanding of the story's meaning in an allegorical interpretation. This applies to all modes of interpretation. The Church is clear however that there are specific cases (the New Testament for example) in which our mode of interpretation must necessarily include the literalness of the specific events described. This also applies to the monogenism present in the Adam and Eve story, where the Church states it is necessary to recognize all human life essentially originates in its nature in two persons, who were created with original justice but who fell into sin, and who thereafter transposed such a fallen nature to mankind.
Thus, to answer more specifically the question, as to whether or not your specific understanding of the flood is aligned with the Catholic Church's stance on the story is somewhat of an arbitrary desire (though by no means unwarranted). The answer is that there isn't necessarily an answer. At most we can state that your interpretation must not deny the essential truth of the story, which is that God is both merciful and just, and enacts both essences in the deprived and sinful state of humanity. Furthermore, your interpretation must not deny that God speaks and breathes in His human creation through a covenant language, in which He is perfectly loving and just. These are the essential and primary purposes for which the story has been written, and as such it is these details that must not be left to individual interpretation, lest the perfect spiritual wisdom of Scripture be tainted by individual failures. In any such case of interpreting Scripture, the essential meaning and primary purpose of such Scriptures must be referred to the Church's Apostolic ministry for greater wisdom and authority, be such wisdom found in the present members or members of the past (there is a reason St. Augustine is so popular, and it's not due only to his cool name). And it is under canon law and the living Spirit that such ministers must be guided into wisdom.

Is such a view compatible with the Catholic Church's teachings on Genesis?

It appears that this question is not about what the Church teaches, nor about what most Catholics are likely to believe, but merely whether it is compatible with Catholicism to believe that the biblical Flood was not a worldwide event.

The Catholic encyclopedia states that, among others, several Catholic scholars believe the Flood story preserves, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. The Catholic encyclopedia says this view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic. The encyclopedia goes on to state that it has the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable, compared to the  age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian. Although the Catholic encyclopedia is not an official organ of the Church and although the encyclopedia lends no support to the hypothesis, it does mean at least two things: that some Catholic scholars already believe that the story is based on memory of an ancient flood, coloured by poetic licence; that this view could be  accepted by a Catholic.

Ian Wilson, in Before the Flood: The Biblical Flood as a Real Event and How It Changed the Course of Civilization proposes that the story is actually based on the inundation of the Black Sea, formerly a rich agricultural area, at the end of the Ice Ages and provides detailed archaeological, historical and literary research to back up his thesis. This theory is undergoing further evaluation by archaeologists and others. Perhaps what Wilson describes was not a 'civilization-wide' flood but, should it be proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Catholic Church appears able to accept interpretations of the biblical Flood as a local event.


Reading the Bible Literally Which denominations believe that the bible should be read "literally?" Do they believe that all of the text should be read this way? Why?

Context: It seems like most of these people would still read parable/poetry as metaphor. But I still hear the argument that the text should "always be taken literally."

Wiki gives us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

Look in there, lots of links which will lead you to various denominational groups.

That also clarifies it as a form of biblical hermeneutics aka biblical interpretation.

So then, as this is the Christian exchange, I'll assume you want the
Christian denominations that use it.

All your Christian Fundamentalists use that form. However, not all who are called "fundamentalists" are so. Many Pentecostals are anything but literalist and get called fundamentals all the time. A lot of Evangelicals are in the literalist camp but again, not all. I do know GARBC (the General Assembly Regular Baptist Church denomination) are literalist.

Too many Christian groups are not denominational, or are non-denominational.
Consider John Hagee's groups and ministries. Non-denominational, yet, huge.

Many people consider (and some Hebraic's consider) the Hebraic Roots folks to be in the Christian camp, thus a sort of "denomination" in it. However, they all do not fit nicely, or not, into any particular group, instead running the whole length and breath of Christian beliefs. Some are literalists, some not. Messianics (Jewish believers in Y'shua) run the length and breath, likewise, of Judaism instead, also encompassing Charismatic and Pentecostal as well.

One could perhaps compile such a list by looking at the affiliations of the 200 or so evangelical Christians who signed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.  I personally am not an evangelical, so I don't recognize many of the names, but perhaps others do.  John MacArthur and Wayne Grudem are a couple of the more prominent signatories.

Article XII of the Statement reads:

  WE AFFIRM  that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from
  all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

  WE DENY  that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to
  spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in
  the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific
  hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the
  teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

This and some of the supporting articles I think imply that the signers believed that the Bible should be read "literally".

There is a somewhat paradoxical article, however - Article X - that qualifies the Statement overall as referring to the "autographic text" of Scriptures, which are admittedly absent.


What was the charge levied against Jesus in the courts? I read that Jesus was charged with the allegation that he claimed to be the "King of Jews". What is the evidence of this and other charges, if any, on Jesus?  I am only interested in the charges leveled against him in the (Roman) court, and if he pled guilty or not.

For the civil trial, Luke's account gives the most detail about the charges, Luke 23:2 (NIV):

  And they began to accuse him, saying "We have found this man subverting our nation.  He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."

and Luke 23:5 (NIV):

  But they insisted, "He stirs up the people all over Judea by his teaching.  He started in Galilee and has come all the way here."

The "subverting our nation" charge may be a religious charge, in which Pilate is, of course, not concerned except with how it interferes with ruling the region.  The statement in Luke 23:5 seems to be the religious leaders pointing out that this is causing trouble about which the Romans should be concerned.  Anyone that could draw crowds of thousands of people in relatively remote places would naturally be a concern for established authorities, especially given the Jewish history of rebellion (e.g., see Esther 3:8--even after the Babylonian scattering, they were recognized as being non-conformists--and Ezra 4:12-16, speaking of Jerusalem as historically a rebellious city).

The payment of taxes charge is clearly a false charge.  Jesus' famous "render unto Caesar" statement (Matt. 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25) makes that clear.

On the charge of being King of the Jews, Jesus states that this charge is effectively true (Matt. 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, John 18:37), but his statement recorded in John 18:36 points out that he is not a threat to Roman rule in the traditional political/military sense:

  Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.  But now my kingdom is from another place." (John 18:36, NIV)

As Affable Geek points out, Pilate knew that Jesus was not guilty but chose political expediency over truth (after all, "What is truth?").

He was charged with treason and confessed to it.
Read the book "The death and trial of Jesus." by
Haim Cohn: Attorney General for Israel, appointed to the Supreme Court of Israel and a member of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. He was very familiar with law in Jerusalem in the 1st. cent.

By the way, in case you didn't know: the character Barabbas was named "Jesus Bar Abbas" in the NT of the 3rd cent. which means "Jesus, son of the Father." Origen the Church theologian in AD 250 in Alexandria, recommended that the NT be edited to remove the name Jesus, as he felt it was sacrilegious to have two people with the name and title Jesus Son of the Father.

So what do you think now, about the crowd calling for the release of "jesus, son of the Father?" The writer was trying to tell us something wasn't he?


Is the Pentecostal concept of "praying in the Spirit" consistent with any pre-Pentecostal teachings? In a recent small group Bible study sponsored by a local Pentecostal church, attendees were encouraged to "pray in the Spirit." The study leader cited these verses:

So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 1 Corinthians 14:15 (NIV)
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people. Ephesians 6:18 (NIV)
But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Jude 20-21 (NIV)

The leader then continued to teach that "praying in the Spirit" meant to pray in "tongues"—a spiritual language that can only be spoken and interpreted miraculously. Is this interpretation of these passages consistent with any church doctrines or writings that predate Pentecostalism?

Praying in the Spirit is a concept that was put forth by Paul in the book of Romans.

  Romans 8:26 and 27  Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27  And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

The underlying thought appears to be that since God is Spirit that communication between our spirit and Spirit God so to speak have their own language as indicated by intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

And in verse 27 he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, appears that the Spirit itself has a mental process foreign to ours, and that God looks at our hearts rather than our entreaties.

Hope this helps.

I agree with Bye's answer that praying in the Spirit can mean what is spoken of in Romans 8:26-27 about the Spirit offering up groanings on our behalf when we can't find the words.  But there is another passage I think needs to be mentioned as well.  Paul himself dealt with those who interpreted praying in the Spirit as meaning speaking in tongues, and he absolutely disagreed with them.
1st Corinthians 14:13-20

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

Praying in an unknown tongue is not praying in the Spirit, and praying in an unknown tongue in public worship doesn't edify anyone, since they don't understand what was said and therefore cannot say "Amen" to the prayer, so Paul says stick with a language everyone can understand in public prayer.
Edit:--
I will add the "the spirit" here seems not to even be the Holy Spirit but the human spirit.  The idea behind praying in or with the spirit seems to be to pray with sincerity, i.e. from the heart.  Even when it comes to tongues, Paul here attributes it to the human spirit, in verse 14, "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."  The important thing in praying "in the spirit" is praying sincerely, from the heart.   But when people pray in an unknown tongue, their heart may be in it apart from the intellect, which is what Paul is saying should not be done.


If justification is an event, when does it happen? Lutherans, Methodists, and Calvinists believe that justification is an event (as opposed to the Roman Catholic church and the Orthodox church who believe it is a process). If justification is an event, when does it happen? Is it at the moment of conversion, at baptism, or at some other time?

According to most independent, fundamentalist Baptists, (and to the best of my knowledge, the groups that you mentioned) justification is a one-time event that happens at the moment of conversion, when a sinner repents on his or her sins and puts their faith in Christ for salvation.

This would be in line with a Calvinist view.  Justification is a result of salvation, and is something granted freely as the gift of salvation, apart from any works of man.

The very same Wikipedia article that you linked to outlines the relationship between Justification and Sola Fide, for those denominations that subscribe to the view that salvation is by faith alone.

This article covers more groups independently, rather than lumping protestants entirely into a group, and may provide more clarity on how different denominations view the topic.

Justification, if it is an event, probably happened that weekend when Jesus was crucified, died and was buried.

However, since God exists outside of time, from His perspective there may not be a "moment" when justification happened.

I think the better question is why does it matter when justification happened?


Does Ezekiel 28 speak of Satan (as "king of Tyre")? Ezekiel 28 speaks of the king of Tyre. I've heard it both taught and refuted that this refers to Satan. I also just recently saw an answer making this assumption.

Does the passage refer to Satan?

It's actually both. Bear with me; I'll explain.

In the first half of Ezekiel 28:1-19, Ezekiel seems to be referring to a human man.

  Ezekiel 28:1-10 (ESV)

   1The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, Thus says the Lord GOD:

      "Because your heart is proud,
     and you have said, 'I am a god,
  I sit in the seat of the gods,
     in the heart of the seas,'
  yet you are but a man, and no god,
      though you make your heart like the heart of a god—
   3 you are indeed wiser than Daniel;
     no secret is hidden from you;
   4by your wisdom and your understanding
      you have made wealth for yourself,
  and have gathered gold and silver
     into your treasuries;
   5by your great wisdom in your trade
     you have increased your wealth,
     and your heart has become proud in your wealth—
   6therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Because you make your heart
     like the heart of a god,
   7therefore, behold, I will bring foreigners upon you,
     the most ruthless of the nations;
  and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom
     and defile your splendor.
   8 They shall thrust you down into the pit,
      and you shall die the death of the slain
     in the heart of the seas.
   9 Will you still say, 'I am a god,'
     in the presence of those who kill you,
  though you are but a man, and no god,
     in the hands of those who slay you?
   10 You shall die the death of the uncircumcised
     by the hand of foreigners;
      for I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD."

[Emphasis mine.]

I doubt that Satan (Lucifer) would be called a man or would he be able to die at the hands of humans.

But...the second half seems to refer to a spiritual being.

  Ezekiel 28:11-19 (ESV)

   11Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me: 12 "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD:

     "You were the signet of perfection,
      full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
   13You were in Eden, the garden of God;
      every precious stone was your covering,
   sardius, topaz, and diamond,
     beryl, onyx, and jasper,
  sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
     and crafted in gold were your settings
     and your engravings.
  On the day that you were created
     they were prepared.
   14You were an anointed guardian cherub.
     I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
     in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
   15You were blameless in your ways
      from the day you were created,
     till unrighteousness was found in you.
   16In the abundance of your trade
     you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
  so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
     and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
     from the midst of the stones of fire.
   17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
     you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
  I cast you to the ground;
     I exposed you before kings,
     to feast their eyes on you.
   18By the multitude of your iniquities,
     in the unrighteousness of your trade
     you profaned your sanctuaries;
  so I brought fire out from your midst;
     it consumed you,
  and I turned you to ashes on the earth
      in the sight of all who saw you.
   19All who know you among the peoples
     are appalled at you;
   you have come to a dreadful end
     and shall be no more forever."

[Emphasis mine.]

The third line of verse 16 in particular is similar to a verse in Revelation:

  Revelation 12:9 (ESV)

  9And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world— he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

[Emphasis mine.]

So, we have here two passages referring to the king of Tyre that seem to be contradictory as to whether this king is a man or Satan. I'll bet that this is similar to when Jesus rebukes Peter:

  Matthew 16:23 (ESV)

  23But he turned and said to Peter,  "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

  Mark 8:33 (ESV)

  33But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said,  "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."

Obviously, Peter is not Lucifer, but he certainly could have been greatly influenced by Satan. Similarly, the king of Tyre may have been a man AND been possessed or greatly influenced by Satan. Thus, the "king of Tyre" just might be both a regular human king and Satan.

Indeed we need remember there was both a King and a Prince of Tyre! Satan was indeed as indicated verses 11-19, the King!  However, you earthly humans need understand that Cain was indeed the Prince of Tyre and the Ancestor of Ham, Cush, Nimrod, and Queen Dido! They are both likened to their unique "black skin" as the Heritage given each by GOD---- Satan when he was thrown from Heaven. [But also you earthly humans need understand there was never an Archangel named Lucifer]...that was a "plant" by Constantine...Lucifer was the god of light of Rome---GOD originally named the Archangels Gabriel, Michael, and Satanel...

....But also, Cain, when he was given the "MARK OF CAIN" which is the black skin that was given when GOD changed the name from Satanel to Satan...and described in both the books of Enoch and Moses but were also refused to be put in the BIBLE by Constantine---

Likewise, there is a very good chance the first woman created with Adam on day 6 was also given the "black skin" when she deserted Adam....and later became the wife of Cain...

Likewise, as the descendant Queen of Tyre was Queen Elissa [Black Skin Queen Dido} who wandered away from Tyre and began the Roman line of descendants with her lover Aeneas because Rome was a mixed "black skin" nation in descendants from Aeneas and Dido and Constantine wanted it kept a secret from the world and refused putting in the Bible the books of Moses and Enoch who clearly described Cain and his descendants as "black skin"

Interestingly enough the war against Rome by Hannibal and his Dad before him was declared by "black Skin" Dido when Aeneas deserted her---

MC HIZEDEK Author A WOMAN'S NATION ...OR SATAN'S DECEIT---
www.godsprophecyofsatansfinaldeceit.com


Does Jesus contradict Himself in these verses? Just to state, I don't necessarily believe Jesus contradicted Himself. But these parts of Scripture sound like a contradiction, and I would like to hear any thoughts on how this can be reconciled.
I thought of this question after reading this post and these verses:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.

Luke 22:36-38
But then when they come to seize Jesus, after Judas betrays Him with a kiss, this happens:

51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and, striking the body servant of the high priest, cut off his ear.
52 Then Jesus said to him, Put your sword back into its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Matt. 26:51-52
As per the answers in the linked post, Jesus had them get swords so the prophecies could be fulfilled: That He would be counted amongst the transgressors, and His arrest would be certain. But then why would Jesus reprove Peter of using his sword the way he did in the latter verses, when that is what He wanted to happen? Perhaps "contradiction" wasn't the best choice of wording, feel free to edit if you can word it better for me :)

I should preface my answer by saying this is entirely educated guesswork, as is any answer to this question. Don't take it as divine revelation, but as just one of many views on the events of the time.

Some have mentioned that maybe he was being metaphorical, and that the disciples were having one of their (quite frequent) blond moments in taking him literally. You think they would learn... anyway, this is very possible.

If you prefer to take it literally, my guess would be that Jesus wanted them to have swords for a short time. My reasoning is that Jesus has prefaced this with a comparison. Previously, they had gone out, preaching love, repentance and righteousness under the authority of their rabbi, their teacher / mentor / religious authority.

Having a rabbi was quite common. Many rabbis were radical, hard-hitting, slightly nutty and often very wrong (just read some of their recorded theories. One I read recently: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/hl/index.htm). While Jesus was "just another rabbi", they had little to fear.

Yet for the next few weeks, "Jesus" was synonymous with "criminal". People who wanted to get in the good books with the religious leaders might want to present the head of one of his disciples, and people who might have once given them free stuff as a thank you for their wisdom and guidance would now be treating them as scum.

This crowd that came with the temple guards might consider it a good idea to take Jesus' collaborators as well - but when they arrive they are faced with a dillema. They could take an unarmed and willing Jesus without any fuss - which is all they really came for - or they could try and take an armed and unwilling 12 disciples. It's a no-brainer.

P.S: I find it interesting that Jesus doesn't say "You shouldn't have done that", but instead says, "That's enough of that, you won't actually need to draw the sword unless you want to be killed by it" (paraphrased and liberties taken!). I imagine he was secretly glad they cut off the guard's ear, because it showed the crowd that the disciples meant business.

Also, to counter any potential arguments that God could have protected the disciples without resorting to swords, yes, you are correct. But that doesn't mean that the disciples were not more confident knowing that they had swords with them, and it meant that the legacy of focus was solely on Jesus. Remember that "the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed." Isaiah 53:5

A simple message for all Christians to abide by. The war of spirit cannot be won by force - you will surely be identified as an enemy. Patience understanding and teaching are our arsenal wielded with our love.


How could Jesus be descended from the royal line of David if he was born of the Virgin Birth? The first chapter of  Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through his father Joseph back to King David through something like 18 generations. But as we know, Jesus was born through the agency of the Holy Spirit meaning that Joseph did not impregnate his mother, the Virgin Mary.

How would Jesus have a bloodline back to King David?  Was Mary a cousin (of some degree) to Joseph with similar bloodlines?  If not, what doctrine would cause Jesus to be considered descended from King David?  Or put another way, are there any sources that describe what bloodline Jesus actually had through Mary?

The Old Testament has two distinct methods of claiming kingship. One is by descent from David, and the other is by prophetic or divine appointment. Where did David himself get his kingship? It was by prophetic appointment, through Samuel.

One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David’s throne unless he was a member of the house of David. So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:2-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to failure (Isaiah 8:9-15).

Now, Matthew’s genealogy traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus. Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah (see Matthew 1, verses 6-16). Now here, we have a big problem, because Jeremiah 22:24-30 says,

  “As I live,” says the Lord, “though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off; and I will give you into the hand of those who seek your life, and into the hand of those whose face you fear—the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the hand of the Chaldeans. So I will cast you out, and your mother who bore you, into another country where you were not born; and there you shall die. But to the land to which they desire to return, there they shall not return. “Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol—a vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, and cast into a land which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord! Thus says the Lord: ‘Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah.’ ”

This passage says that no descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. So not only must the Messiah come from the line of David, He must also be apart from Jeconiah. But, as we read in Matthew’s genealogy, Joseph is of the lineage of Jeconiah—meaning, none of his descendants could sit on David’s throne. So then, one must beg the question: how could Jesus be the Messiah, if the Messiah must come from the line of David, but also not be of the line of Jeconiah?

This is where the Virgin Birth comes into play. Remember, Jesus is not Joseph’s biological son, so the Jeconiah curse doesn’t apply to Him. He is, however, Mary’s biological son per the Virgin Birth. But this still doesn’t explain how Jesus is the descendant of David. To answer this, we must discuss Luke’s genealogy.

Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband (possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63). That would raise the second question: if someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy was that of the husband or that of the wife since in either case the husband’s name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.

In English, it is not good grammar to use a definite article (“the”) before a proper name (“the” Matthew, “the” Luke, and “the” Mary). However, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article “the” with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph’s name that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, but his wife Mary’s.

Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: “…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…” because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: “Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…” In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Jesus was “supposed” or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, He was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Mary. Ultimately, Joseph was Heli’s “son-in-law.”

Next, remember King David had more than one son. One of them was Nathan. None of Nathan's descendants had any "Jeconiah-like" curses. Mary was a descendant of Nathan (Luke 3:23 and verse 31—remember, as explained above, although the English text says “the son of Joseph, the son of Heli…” since the original Greek says Heli is the father-in-law of Joseph, logically, Heli is the biological father of Mary). Now, Jesus is completely safe from the problem of the Jeconiah curse, all while being from the line of David, and of the Tribe of Judah.

Here are few thoughts. You can figure the answer for yourselves.

There are obvious discrepancies between the Genealogies in Matthew
(Matt 1:1-17) and Luke (Luke 3:23-38), both trying to prove Jesus'
Davidic lineage, though. The most immediately evident one is that
Joseph, the putative father of Jesus, is affirmed to be the son of
Jacob in Matt 1:16, but the son of Heli in Luke 3:23.
There are various theories on how to reconcile the two genealogies, from affirming that Heli and Jacob refer to the same person, to affirming that Matthew's and Luke's genealogies refer, respectively to Joseph and to Mary.
The almost desperate need to reconcile the obvious discrepancies
in Matthew and Luke's genealogies is particularly felt in Protestant
Christianity, where the total, verbatim inerrance of Scripture is
considered absolutely essential and indisputable.
Paul, in his epistles, recommended not to "give heed to fables and endless genealogies" (1 Tim 1:4) and to "avoid foolish questions, and genealogies" (Titus 3:9). While Paul does not explicitly refer to genealogies of Jesus, and even if some try to preempt the very possibility that Paul could have in mind genealogies of Jesus, nevertheless Paul certainly affirms that genealogies (including by implication those proposed for Jesus) are not worth delving into.
Perhaps Matthew and Luke didn't even realize that when they were quoting Jesus' question to the Pharisees (“If David then calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he [the Christ] be his son?” - Matt 22:45; cp. Luke 20:44), they were relativizing the importance of their own genealogies.