Apologetics - Tumblr Posts
Debunking an age-old biblical truism of Jesus’ first coming two millennia ago.
"What most characterizes [St. Thomas's] love of truth is his attitude toward his opponents. Indeed, he seems hardly to have opponents, so well does he work with them.
St. Paul says, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." To do this, we must first be able to recognize the good when we see it, and that implies sympathy. St. Thomas loved the truth that others possessed, because, as he says, "Truth does not change with the diversity of persons, and whoever maintains it is thereby invincible."
He dealt with his opponents not out of any vindictive desire to refute them, but rather to judge them fairly and meet them halfway. He accepts what is true in them, and rejects what is false, showing where it goes wrong."
-A. G. Sertillanges, OP, Thomas Aquinas - Scholar, Poet, Mystic, Saint
Mark Lehman Strauss, an American biblical scholar and professor of the New Testament
These men were literally crucified with and in the name of Jesus. They died fighting and defending the faith. If we are real Christians, we ought to have the same conviction.
“Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.”
Matthew 16:24-25 NKJV
And yet even to this day when Christianity has spread "to the ends of the earth" from its few apostles and humble beginnings, and claims to be the largest religion (which won't be for long), it is still the most mocked and persecuted faith.
““Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”
Matthew 7:21-23 NKJV
(I live in a Muslim country where I have met some Muslims who criticize, persecute, and try to convert me.) Muslims love to use this passage to say that Christians are going to hell for worshiping Jesus, and that even Jesus in the Bible rebukes us! What they don't understand is that this passage refers to false disciples, or those who claim to be Christian ('Not everyone'), and yet do not know the Word or obey the commandments of the Lord!
So it saddens me when I find Christians who know little of the Word and say what it doesn't say (or worse, against it), and cannot defend their faith. We must be "equipped" and "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks a reason for our hope" (1 Peter 3:15 NKJV).
Whenever I am reminded of the people who died for our faith, I am blessed. It gives me strength to "continue the good fight" because I know these people did not die in vain. They believed and testified to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So we do not need to be afraid of death or persecution, because Christ has overcome it all.
“If the world hates you, remember that it hated me first.”
John 15:18 NLT
“I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
John 16:33 NIV
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”
Matthew 5:11-12 NIV
Is the Old Testament Inspired?: The Case Against Marcion
By Award-Winning Author Eli Kittim
——-
Is the Old Testament Uninspired Because it Doesn’t Mention Jesus?
Marcion of Sinope (ca. 85 – 160 CE) preached that Jesus’ teachings, especially those on love, were completely at odds with the Old Testament (OT) revelations regarding the God of the Jews, whom he saw as legalistic and punitive, with no connection at all to the essential message of the New Testament (NT). One key Marcionite objection to the authority of the Jewish Bible is that the name of Jesus is never once mentioned there. However, the exclusivity of Jesus in the NT does not preclude the inspiration of the Hebrew Bible. The notion that the father cannot be known apart from Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the OT’s canonicity. For example, Acts 4.12 says:
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is
no other name under heaven given to
mankind by which we must be saved.
The fact that the name of Jesus is not found in the OT has no bearing on whether this collection of ancient Hebrew writings is inspired or not. After all, the name of Jesus (Ιησοῦς) is found in the Septuagint’s Book of Joshua, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible: https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/?tx_buhbibelmodul_bibletext%5Bscripture%5D=Joshua+4
At any rate, these are two fundamentally different questions. The former has to do with Christology (i.e. the study of Christ), whereas the latter has to do with Biblical theology (i.e. the study of the Bible)!
The former has to to do with “Theology proper,” that is to say, with the exclusivity of Jesus as the unique preexistent Word of God (the Logos) through whom “All things came into being” (John 1.1-4), or as the “only begotten Son” (1 John 4.9) who prior to his incarnation “was in the form of God” (Phil. 2.6). Marcionites will therefore argue that Christ is the *only one* who is capable of revealing the Father, given that “He is the image of the invisible God” (Col 1.15) “through whom he [the Father] also created the worlds” (Heb. 1.1-2). For example, John 14.6 reads:
Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth
and the life. No one comes to the Father
except through me.’
But this declaration is not a proof-text demonstrating that the OT is not authoritative simply because it doesn’t mention Jesus’ divinity. That has to do with progressive revelation, the idea that revelation is given a little at a time.
Holding to a high Christology has little to do with whether or not the Hebrew Bible is inspired. That’s an entirely different issue involving Biblical theology, Pneumatology, and the like. So, the fact that Jesus is not mentioned by name in the Hebrew Bible is not a sufficient reason to dismiss this collection of Books as uninspired.
——-
Is the OT Uncanonical?
If the OT is not authoritative, as some Marcionites have argued, then why would the NT writers quote extensively from an “uninspired” book? And what would be the purpose of the standard *Biblical canon* if the NT authors extensively quoted from so-called “uninspired” books? In other words, if the OT is not authoritative, it would *contradict* the “canon of scripture” principle in which only Biblically-inspired books are accepted into the canon. Not to mention that the OT is widely viewed as authoritative by the NT precisely because it is included as a source of prophetic predictions in many different places, notably in Matthew 24, and especially in the Book of Revelation!
As a matter of fact, the NT authors insist that the OT is inspired! For example, at the time of the composition of the second letter to Timothy, there was no NT Scripture as yet. So, when the Biblical writers referred to Scripture, with the exception of two instances——namely, 2 Pet. 3.16, wherein Paul’s letters are referred to as “Scripture,” and 1 Tim. 5.18, in which Luke’s gospel is referred to as “Scripture”——they always meant the Hebrew Bible. The proof that they considered the Hebrew Bible to be *inspired* is in Second Timothy 3.16, which reads:
All scripture is inspired [πᾶσα γραφὴ
Θεόπνευστος] by God and is useful for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness.
——-
Does Intertextuality Prove that the OT is Inspired?
All the books of the NT are constantly borrowing and quoting extensively from the OT, a “Book” without which the NT would be lacking a foundation. If we were to remove all those OT quotations, the NT would be insupportable, not to mention incomprehensible!
So, whoever thinks that the OT is uncanonical and uninspired is clearly not familiar with the heavy literary dependence of the NT on the OT (i.e. a process known as “intertextuality”). If you were to open up a critical edition of the NT, you’d be astounded by how much of the OT is actually quoted in the NT. Prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Daniel abound all over the place. The Book of Revelation, in particular, is mostly based on a reorganization of OT prophetic material from Zechariah, Joel, Amos, Daniel, and many others. A brief look at a *Chain-Reference-Bible* would quickly illustrate this fact: https://archive.org/details/ThompsonChainReferenceBible/page/n47/mode/2up
So, the proposal to remove this material——-suggested by Marcion of Sinope and, to a lesser extent, by some modern day preachers and closet Marcionites, such as Andy Stanley——is rather absurd as the NT would be without any foundation or justification concerning messianic, eschatological, or prophetic terminology. For example, various questions would inevitably arise: Where did the NT get the idea of the day of the Lord? Or the idea of the resurrection of the dead? Or that of the great tribulation? Or the concept of the Antichrist? Or the notion of the Messiah? All these concepts are deeply rooted in the Hebrew Bible!
If the OT is not authoritative, then the verbal agreements between the OT and the NT would equally disqualify those same statements as inauthentic NT references. For example, Paul quotes Isaiah verbatim. Many of the Jesus sayings are from the OT. If, say, a Marcionite were to claim that the OT is not inspired, then he would have to concede that some of Paul’s and Jesus’ sayings are equally uninspired, since they are derived from the OT. In other words, unbeknownst to the Marcionites, in rejecting the OT, they would also be rejecting the NT as well!
For example, most of the Matthew-24 prophetic material is based on the OT: from the abomination of desolation (Mt. 24.15; cf. Dan. 9.27) to the time when “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light” (Mt.24.29; cf. Joel 3:15). If these OT prophecies were not inspired or authoritative, then they would certainly not have been used in the NT prophetic literature!
The explicit approval of OT passages as authoritative by the NT writers, and especially by Paul and Jesus——as well as the explicit message that “All scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim. 3.16), which obviously includes the OT, given that It has been heavily employed in the NT——argues for the inspiration of the OT!
——-
As for Marcionism, it really involves a syncretism of Christianity and Gnosticism, with all the extra-biblical distortions that this fusion entails, such as the assumed existence of two deities (a lesser and a higher one), and the evil inherent in the material world. These are two diametrically opposed belief-systems between the monotheism of the NT and the polytheism of the Gnostics!
——-
Conclusion
Thus, Marcion, who was an anti-Semite, not only rejected Yahweh as a lesser, evil god, but he went on to dismiss the entire OT as if it were completely uninspired. He felt that it lacked the extravagant love story of the NT, which was ultimately derived from the Supreme God and father of Jesus Christ. He thought that these two testaments pertained to two fundamentally different gods. And so he urged Christians to steer clear of the OT because he considered it to be the product of an inferior deity. However, this is not the view of the NT authors, nor is it part of mainstream NT theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, or eschatology.
What is more, Marcion obviously did not critically assess both testaments to fully explore the extent to which *intertextuality* was involved within these manuscripts (i.e. the literary dependence of one testament on the other) and how inextricably linked they really were! Therefore, a rejection of the entire OT is simultaneously a rejection of many portions of the NT, including many of Jesus’ sayings. Such a separation would render the NT completely useless both theologically and Christologically, if not also eschatologically. Marcion’s claims would therefore undermine Christianity’s overall integrity, and this is probably why Marcion was denounced as a heretic and was excommunicated by the church of Rome ca. 144 CE.
To be fair, Marcion had the right idea, but the wrong approach. It’s true that there’s a radical shift in the NT from an active obedience to the 10-commandments to a passive acceptance of God’s Grace; from an external circumcision of the flesh to an internal circumcision of the heart (and the consequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit). Contrary to the Aleph and Tav in the Hebrew Scriptures, we are suddenly introduced to the NT revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega (using the first and last letters of the Greek rather than the Hebrew alphabet). After all, the NT is written exclusively in Greek, by Greeks, and written predominantly to Greek communities within the Roman empire. Paul himself maintains that we are “justified by faith in Christ, and not by doing the works of the law” (e.g. Gal. 2.16). So, there is very little here that is Jewish!
But although the NT is a uniquely Greek “Book,” in which the name of Yahweh is never once mentioned, nevertheless the Hebrew Bible is still its foundation, without which the former would lose not only its historical lineage and theological context but also its reliability, validity, and, ultimately, its credibility!
The Heresy of Modalistic Monarchianism is Alive and Well
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
What is Modalistic Monarchianism?
Modalistic Monarchianism (aka *Oneness Theology* or Modalism) is a late 2nd and 3rd century theological doctrine that maintains the deity of Christ while emphasising the *oneness* of God. In contrast to Trinitarianism, which depicts the Godhead as three distinct persons coexisting in one being, modalistic monarchianism defines God as a single person. This theological position is related to “patripassianism” and “Sabellianism,” which hold similar views. It has been considered a doctrinal heresy since the early period of the Christian Church.
The term “Modalistic Monarchianism” means that God is not three but *one* person who operates under various “manifestations” or “modes,” such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. According to this theological position, the complete Godhead dwells in Jesus insofar as his incarnation is concerned. This view therefore ascribes the actions of the *Father* and the *Son* to various *modes*, such as the differences that exist between God’s “transcendence” (which is completely independent of the material universe, beyond being and nonbeing) and God’s incarnation or immanence (i.e. his manifestation in the physical world). Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is not viewed as a distinct entity but rather as a mode of operation of the spirit of God.
It seems as if the Modalistic Monarchians were trying to reconcile the trinitarian concept of the New Testament (NT) with the monotheistic Shema creed in the Torah, which states that “God, the LORD is one" (Deut. 6.4). Modalistic Monarchians accept the inspiration of the Old Testament and therefore believe that Jesus is the manifestation of Yahweh on earth. But they do not worship the Father or the Holy Spirit; only Jesus Christ.
Three modern adherents of this view are Oneness Pentecostalism (aka Jesus Only movement or Apostolic, Jesus' Name Pentecostalism), the World Mission Society Church of God (the relatively new South Korean religious movement), and T. D. Jakes, the bishop of The Potter's House Church (a non-denominational American megachurch).
——-
Is Jesus really God the Father and God the Holy Spirit?
Given that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered to be titles of the one God, not depictions of distinct persons, *Oneness Pentecostals*, for example, maintain that they fulfil Christ’s commandment in Mt. 28.19 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by doing so *only* in the name of Jesus. In their defence, they cite Acts 4.12 in which Jesus is the *only* name given in the NT “by which we must be saved.” Acts 4.11-12 reads:
This Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by
you, the builders; it has become the
cornerstone. There is salvation in no one
else, for there is no other name under
heaven given among mortals by which we
must be saved.’
However, just because “there is no other name . . . by which we must be saved” does not mean that the Father and the Holy Spirit do not exist! That directly contradicts the grammatical “point of view” of the first person, second person, and third person *personal pronouns* in the NT text.
For example, Jesus is NOT the name of the Father or of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, Jesus repeatedly refers to the Holy Spirit not in the first person but in the *3rd person*. He calls the Holy Spirit ἐκεῖνος——meaning “He” (Jn. 16.13-14)——as another person that is totally DISTINCT from himself. Jesus says:
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he
will guide you into all the truth” (John
16.13).
Obviously Jesus is not talking about himself but about a separate entity that is called the “Holy Spirit.”
Jesus also repeatedly speaks of the Father in the *3rd person* as a separate and distinct person from himself. Jesus says:
For I did not speak on my own, but the
Father who sent me commanded me to say
all that I have spoken (John 12.49).
Obviously Jesus is NOT the Father, otherwise this modalistic theology would have us believe that Jesus sent himself, commands himself, prays to himself, and talks to himself, while baldly lying to his disciples about an imaginary father (whom he calls “Abba” [Mark 14.36]) who doesn’t really exist. According to this view, Jesus is psychotic or worse. In other words, Jesus is either a lunatic or a liar. So, Modalistic Monarchianism directly contradicts and distorts the NT authors' original language and intended meanings. Therefore, Oneness Theology is completely bogus and misinformed!
1 Jn. 2.22 condemns modalism as an aberration:
This is the antichrist, the one who denies
the Father and the Son.
Isaiah 53: Why God’s Suffering Servant is Not Israel
By Author Eli Kittim
——-
The Bible sometimes uses metaphorical language that often involves multiple layers of meaning. Here’s a case in point. Isaiah 49.3 does mention the suffering servant as “Israel.” But four verses later the servant begins to take on unique individual qualities and characteristics that decidedly distinguish him from the earlier collective qualities of the nation of Israel. In fact, he is later contrasted with the nations, described with a masculine pronoun as an individual person who is “deeply despised” and rejected. Isa. 49.7 reads as follows:
Thus says the Lord, the
Redeemer of Israel and
his Holy One, to one
deeply despised,
abhorred by the nations,
the slave of rulers, ‘Kings
shall see and stand up,
princes, and they shall
prostrate themselves,
because of the Lord, who
is faithful, the Holy One
of Israel, who has chosen
you.’ [1]
This rejection is given more full treatment in chapter 53. So, the question arises: How can he be both a human being and the nation of *Israel* at the same time? Answer: He cannot!
In other words, as these chapters begin to unfold, the image of the *suffering servant* evolves considerably, so much so that he’s later described with a masculine personal pronoun and depicted as an individual *man,* indeed a male: “He” (Hb. הוּא hu, which is the equivalent of the Greek αὐτὸς).[2] Therefore, it behooves us to read the Isaian passage (53.3-8) in its entirety:
He was despised and rejected by others; a
man of suffering and acquainted with
infirmity; and as one from whom others hide
their faces he was despised, and we held
him of no account. Surely he has borne our
infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we
accounted him stricken, struck down by
God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for
our transgressions, crushed for our
iniquities; upon him was the punishment
that made us whole, and by his bruises we
are healed. All we like sheep have gone
astray; we have all turned to our own way,
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of
us all. He was oppressed, and he was
afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like
a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like
a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so
he did not open his mouth. By a perversion
of justice he was taken away. Who could
have imagined his future? For he was cut
off from the land of the living, stricken for
the transgression of my people.
Does this sound like a characterization of a nation, let alone that of Israel? On the contrary, the suffering servant is described in the third-person singular with the masculine personal pronoun “he,” in the sense that it is he who “is led to the slaughter” (Isa. 53.7), not the nation of Israel! He is also described as “a man.” The third-person masculine pronoun “he” is then reiterated in v. 8 in order to establish not only the male identity of the suffering servant but also his personal demise:
For he was cut off from the land of the living
[slain], stricken for the transgression of my
people.
In this particular context, it cannot be a nation that is “cut off from the land of the living . . . for the transgression of” the people. That would strain the contextual meaning to give it a rather absurd interpretation. This is Atonement language regarding a specific man who is slain, and who dies as a sin offering! Isaiah 53.5 adds that his punishment “made us whole,” and “by his bruises we are healed”:
He was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the
punishment that made us whole, and by his
bruises we are healed.
We would normally expect to find this type of language——describing an explicit sacrifice as an atonement for sin——in the New Testament, not in the Hebrew Bible. For the aforementioned reasons, this passage does not square well with the so-called “nation of Israel” philological exegesis. This Hebraic insistence on the nation of Israel is therefore utterly disingenuous and dishonest!
——-
Past Tenses Do Not Imply Past Actions
——-
Insofar as the New Testament is concerned, verbal aspect theory, which is at the cutting edge of Hellenistic Greek linguistics, demonstrates that tense-forms do not have any temporal implications. According to Stanley E Porter, a leading authority on New Testament linguistics, past tenses are not necessarily references to past history:
Temporal values (past, present, future) are
not established in Greek by use of the
verbal aspects (or tense-forms) alone. This
may come as a surprise to those who, like
most students of Greek, were taught at an
elementary level that certain tense-forms
automatically refer to certain times when an
action occurs. [3]
In other words, past tenses do not necessarily imply past history! Similarly, Biblical Hebrew doesn’t have tenses. It’s an “aspectual” language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future! In fact, prophecies are sometimes written in the past tense. Bottom line, one cannot use the past-tense argument to demonstrate that the authorial intent precludes prophetic material.
Conclusion
Isaiah is seemingly writing about prophecy, and the suffering servant is clearly not the nation of Israel but rather a male individual (cf. Rev. 12.5) whose sin offering (Isa. 53.6) is described as a sacrifice for the sins of the people (cf. Rom. 3.23-25; Heb. 9.26b)! He is also described as “a lamb that is led to the slaughter,” reminiscent of the “lamb without . . . blemish” (1 Pet. 1.19; cf. Lev. 4.32), the so-called sin offering sacrifice according to the Mosaic Law! Upon further scrutiny, Isaiah 49 ff. and, especially, Isaiah 53 are explicit references that are more in line with New Testament Soteriology than with the Judaic interpretation of the nation of Israel!
In fact, according to “The Dying Messiah Redux” article, by atheist historian Richard Carrier, the notion of a dying messiah predates Christianity and can also be found in the Talmud: “b.Sanhedrin 98b explicitly says the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the messiah.” What is more, “b.Sanhedrin 93b says the messiah will endure great suffering . . . and b.Sukkah 52a-b likewise has a dying-and-rising ‘Christ son of Joseph’ ideology in it . . . even saying (quoting Zechariah 12:10) that this messiah will be ‘pierced’ to death.” Carrier concludes:
there is no plausible way later Jews would
invent interpretations of their scripture that
supported and vindicated Christians. They
would not invent a Messiah with a father
named Joseph who dies and is resurrected.
They would not proclaim Isaiah 53 to be
about the messiah and admit that Isaiah
there predicted the messiah would die and
be resurrected. That was the very chapter
Christians were using to prove their case
(and which scholars like Bart Ehrman keep
insisting only Christians saw as messianic).
So we have evidence here of a Jewish belief
that predates Christian evangelizing, even if
the evidence survives only in later sources.
——-
Notes
1 All Scripture quotes are from Michael D. Coogan (ed.), “The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha”: New Revised Standard Version (4th rev. edn; New York: Oxford U., 2010).
2 The Hebrew text is from Karl Elliger and Wilhelm Rudolph (eds.), “Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia” (4th rev. edn; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1967-77).
3 Stanley E. Porter, “Idioms of the Greek New Testament” (2nd edn; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), p. 25.
——-
How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?
By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓
The Apparent Contradiction
There’s a seeming contradiction in the Bible concerning Abraham’s age when he left Haran. The apparent contradiction is as follows. If Terah died when he was 205 years old, but fathered Abram when he was 70, then Abram must have been 135 years old when his father Terah died (as Gen. 11.26, 32 suggest), not 75, as Gen. 12.4 indicates. For the story to work without any discrepancies, Terah would literally have to be 130 years old when he fathered Abram. But it seemed as if he were only 70 years old. Hence the apparent contradiction. Below are the relevant citations that appear to contradict each other.
—-
Genesis 12.4 (ESV):
So Abram went, as the LORD had told him,
and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-
five years old when he departed from
Haran.
Acts 7.2:
And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers,
hear me. The God of glory appeared to our
father Abraham when he was in
Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.’
Acts 7.4:
Then he went out from the land of the
Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his
father died, God removed him from there
into this land in which you are now living.
Genesis 11.26:
When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered
Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Genesis 11.32:
The days of Terah were 205 years, and
Terah died in Haran.
—————
Apologetic Exegesis
The key passage is Gen. 11.26. The Hebrew text doesn’t explicitly say that *when* Terah was 70 years old he begat Abram. Rather, it puts it thusly (Gen. 11.26 KJV):
And Terah lived seventy years, and begat
Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that Terah had all 3 children when he was 70 years old. Nor is there any direct evidence that these children were triplets, or that they were born on the exact same date, month, or year. The verse in Gen. 11.26 merely indicates that after Terah reached a certain age——namely, 70 years old——he began to father children. But exactly when these children were actually born is unknown. The only thing that’s clear from Gen. 11.26 is that they were born after Terah had reached a certain age.
It’s quite possible, for example, that some of his children could have been born when Terah was 130 years old. Nothing in the text would contradict the timing of such a birth. As long as Terah fathered at least one child after he was 70, the rest could have been born anytime between Terah’s 70th and 205th birthday.
The order in which the names of Terah’s sons are listed may not reflect the precise chronological order in which the children were actually born. The text is simply indicating their order of importance. Given that Abram is a key figure in the Old Testament and the common patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, he’s obviously mentioned first:
there is yet a question whether Abram was
born first as listed, or perhaps he is listed
first because he was the wisest similar to
Shem, Ham, and Jafeth where Shem was
not the oldest, but was the wisest. … the
Talmud leaves the above question open.
(Wikipedia)
—————
Conclusion
Actually, Abram could have been 75 years old when he left Haran, as the text indicates (Gen. 12.4). And maybe he did leave Haran “after his father died” (Acts 7.4) at the age of 205 (Gen. 11.32). There is no contradiction with regard to the dates. The assumed contradiction is actually based on fallacious reasoning and speculation. It’s based on an eisegesis, that is, a misinterpretation of the text. Readers often assume that the text is telling us that Abram was born *when* Terah was 70 years old. But that’s a conjecture. The text doesn’t say that at all. All the text says is that once Terah reached a certain age, he began fathering sons. But exactly when each and every son was born is unknown.
—
Both Iris & Toxon mean Rainbow in the Bible
By Eli Kittim 🎓
All the Evidence Points to a Christ-Like Figure in Rev. 6.2
In this study I want to focus primarily on two words, iris & toxon, in order to show how they completely change our understanding of Revelation 6.2. But before I do this, I would first like to show you some proofs concerning the implied benevolence of the White horseman of the Apocalypse. That the white horse is a symbol of purity and righteousness is multiply attested by its linguistic usage patterns. For example, the phrase “and behold, a white horse,” in Rev. 19.11, is identical to the one used in Revelation 6.2. In other words, the two white horses of Revelation 19 & 6 represent the exact same figure who “is called Faithful and True” (Rev. 19.11)! That’s why Irenaeus, a second century theologian, held the same view, namely, that the first rider of the white horse who is depicted as a peacemaker represents Jesus Christ (Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], p. 141).
This is also confirmed by the type of crown the rider of the white horse wears. Stephanos “crowns” are typically worn by believers and victors in Christ (see e.g. the Greek text of Matthew 27.29; James 1.12; 2 Timothy 4.8; 1 Peter 5.4; Revelation 2.10; 4.4; 14.14)! All these proofs clearly show that the white horseman of Rev. 6.2 is neither deceptive nor evil, as many Bible commentators would have us believe!
The Hebrew Bible Uses the Word Bow for Rainbow
In the New Testament, the Greek noun ἶρις (iris) means “rainbow” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/2463.htm). Curiously enough, the Greek noun τόξον (toxon), which we find in Rev. 6.2, means “bow” but——as we shall see——it also means “rainbow” (see https://biblehub.com/greek/5115.htm). Τόξον can be seen as a contraction for ουράνιον τόξον (rainbow), from Ancient Greek οὐρανός ("heaven") + τόξον ("bow").
Given that the Greek noun “iris” is the most widely used term for “rainbow” in the New Testament, some commentators argue that since the word in Rev. 6.2 is “toxon,” not “iris,” it means that “toxon” (τόξον) cannot possibly refer to a rainbow. However, many notable Bible commentators, such as Chuck Missler, have said that the “bow” (toxon) in Rev. 6.2 appears to represent the “rainbow” of Genesis 9.13. In other words, the bow (toxon) represents the peace-covenant of Genesis 9.13. The actual verse in Genesis 9.13 (NRSV) reads:
“I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.”
Bear in mind that Genesis 9.13 uses the Hebrew phrase qaš·tî (קַשְׁתִּ֕י), which means “my bow.” It comes from the Hebrew noun קֶשֶׁת (qesheth), which means——wait for it——a bow (https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7198.htm).
The Septuagint (LXX) Translates the Hebrew Word for Rainbow with the Greek Word Toxon
Further evidence that “toxon” (bow) can mean “rainbow” comes from the Septuagint, an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Lo and behold, the Septuagint translates “rainbow” as τόξον (toxon) in Genesis 9.13!
Thus, this brief study illustrates my point, namely, that “iris” and “toxon” are interchangeable in the Bible! The Septuagint (LXX) translation of Genesis 9.13 by L.C.L. Brenton reads as follows:
τὸ τόξον μου τίθημι ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ, καὶ ἔσται εἰς σημεῖον διαθήκης ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς.
Translation:
“I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of covenant between me and the earth.”
Conclusion
Therefore, both “iris” and “toxon” mean “rainbow” in the Bible! They are interchangeable terms. This means that the rider of the “white horse … [who] had a bow” (τόξον), in Rev. 6.2, is symbolically holding the “rainbow,” which represents the covenant of peace between God & man in Genesis 9.13!