the Bible do. One reason is because many Bible translations have unfortunately relied upon a Hebrew text of the Old Testament called the Masoretic Text, which is full of textual errors, and is inferior to other Old Testament versions such as the Greek Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Latin Vulgate, and Aramaic Peshitta. With many of those suggested contradictions where the Masoretic Text was used, I have been able to show that the Greek Septuagint did not have those errors. The Greek Septuagint is a much better and more ancient version of the Old Testament, and it was the Old Testament used by the Apostles.

Also, there are occasions when I was not interested in providing answers for certain suggested contradictions because they were more scientific than theological, which I am more bent on theology than science, but I gave a link to the answers provided by James Patrick Holding, and he answered with excellent scientific evidence as well as with humor. HERE is a link to Mr. Holding's answers to most of the suggested contradictions of Jim Meritt.

__________________________________

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

The Lord is good to all because He gives everyone a free-will and does not force anyone to be good or bad. But there are consequences for our actions. Kind of like living in a free country; we have the freedom to choose how we live our lives, but there are still the laws of the land, and if those laws are broken there is punishment for the crimes.

In the Jeremiah passage above, the context of the whole passage is a warning to Judah and the house of Israel, not a final sentence, God is giving them many chances to repent in the hopes that they will, yet another display of God's patience and mercy!

_________________________________

War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.


The Lord is a God of peace, but He is a conqueror over evil as well. Sometimes war is a necessary evil for the lives and freedom of innocent people. But looking at the context, the Greek Septuagint translators gives us an idea of the sense of Ex. 15:3, instead of "man of war" they translated it as "He shatters wars."

Just like a soldier of honor who has peace as the ultimate goal, God crushes evil to bring peace to His people.


_________________________________

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. (Duoay-Rheims reads "was of Heli")


St. Matthew traces Christ’s descent through His father Joseph, St. Luke through His mother, the Blessed Virgin; both lines are united in David. Jacob was the father of Joseph, but Heli, which is also the name for Joachim (Eliachim-Jeho-achim), was the father-in-law of Joseph, not the father. In the translation above it reads "the son of Heli," but "son" is not in the original Greek text, it has a genitive article (του) called "genitive of relationship," which can be translated as "son of" but not always and it is not required. Some translators, not all, have added "son" due to the rest of Luke's geneology has the same thing and assuming that "son of Heli" fits the context, but I beg to differ. The “who” used by Luke may refer to Joseph, thus—Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli/Joachim, because he married his daughter, the Blessed Virgin. And again the pronoun “who” may in the Greek clearly be taken with “Jesus”—Jesus was the son, i.e., the grandson of Heli/Joachim, because He was his offspring, as from a grandfather, through the Blessed Virgin. For having premised that Joseph was not the real, but only the supposed, father of Christ, there was no reason why St. Luke should immediately subjoin the genealogy of Joseph. But rather St. Luke, as well as St. Matthew, means to describe the descent of the Blessed Virgin and Christ according to the flesh, and this is the end and aim of each genealogy—so says S. Augustine (Quæst. veteris et novi Testament, bk. i. q. lvi., and bk. ii. q. vi).


References to CORNELIUS À LAPIDE commentary on the Gospel of Luke
_________________________________

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.


Just because St. John only mentions Mary Magdalene does not mean that the others were not with her, St. John chose only to mention her name. If St. John would have specifically said that Mary Magdalene was all by herself, then we would have a contradiction. As St. Augustine says: Mary Magdalene, undoubtedly the most fervent in love, of all the women that ministered to our Lord; so that John deservedly mentions her only, and says nothing of the others who were with her, as we know from the other Evangelists.

References to St. Augustine from the Catena Aurea
_________________________________

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.


One should understand the Father is greater than I, based on the meaning of I go to the Father. Now the Son does not go to the Father insofar as he is the Son of God, for as the Son of God he was with the Father from eternity: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God" (John1:1). Rather, he is said to go to the Father because of his human nature. Thus when he says, the Father is greater than I, he does not mean I, as Son of God, but as Son of man, for in this way he is not only inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit, but even to the angels: "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels" [Heb 2:9]. Again, in some things he was subject to human beings, as his parents (Lk 2:51). Consequently, he is inferior to the Father because of his human nature, but equal because of his divine nature: "He did not think it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" [Phil 2:6].

References from St. Thomas Aquinas Commentary on the Gospel of John
_________________________________

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.


The answer is the beasts were created first, Gen. 2:4-25 is just a narrative of the creation account, not to be taken chronologically. After speaking about the Sabbath rest, and how God had blessed and sanctified it, Moses returns to the narrative of the initial establishment of creation, and passing over, with only a few words, things it had already spoken of and recounting at greater length matters it had previously omitted.

References to Ephraim the Syrian Commentary on Genesis
_________________________________

The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


The fact that God says, "by sevens" does not mean that He wants a double seven in each of the different species to be brought aboard, but only seven, or 3 pairs, from which the one that was left over from the pairs could be offered to God after the flood. He says "by sevens" on account of the many kinds of animals that were to be included in this number. As for the phrase in verse 7:9 "two and two", it simply means they all entered in the ark two at a time. There is no contradiction whatsoever.

References to St. Bede Commentary on Genesis

_________________________________

How many stalls and horsemen?

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.


These two passages have a number of different variant readings among the ancient Bible manuscripts and ancient Bible versions. Unfortunately the translation above is a translation from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which is not the best version to translate from because it is not very old compared to other ancient witnesses, even tough it is in Hebrew. There are many errors found in the Masoretic Text that are not found in better ancient witnesses such as the Greek Septuagint, Aramaic Peshitta, Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Latin Vulgate.

The Greek Septuagint was the Old Testament of the Apostles, and it was translated from a very ancient Hebrew and Aramaic text a couple of centuries before Christ came, and in it these passages above have no contradictions....

1Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty-thousand horses (ιπποι) for chariots...

2Chron. 9:25 And Solomon had four-thousand female (θηλειαι) horses for for chariots...

As you can see there are no contradictions at all; 1 Kings recorded the total amount of horses while 2 Chronicles records only the number of female horses.
_________________________________

Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."


The thing that Jim Meritt fails to do is to consider the context, especially in 1 Cor. 1:19. Because it should be noted that men, however evil, are not altogether deprived of God’s gifts; neither are God’s gifts in them destroyed. Consequently, he does not say absolutely, “I will destroy the wisdom,” because “all wisdom is from the Lord God” (Sir 1:1), but I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, which the wise of this world have invented for themselves against the true wisdom of God, because as it says in Jas (3:15): “This is not wisdom, descending from above; but earthly, sensual, devilish.”

References to St. Thomas Aquinas Commentary on 1 Cor.
_________________________________

Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

This one is over the top! In the Acts 2:30 passage, with little effort one will see that it is referring to David (verse 29), in which Jesus is a descendant. According to Jim Meritt's foolish suggestion, Mary would have had to have gotten pregnant by David who lived a 1000 years before Jesus was conceived.

Ancient tradition tells us that Mary was from the line of David, that is, evidence from the NT apocrypha as well as some of the Early Church Fathers. Here is an ARTICLE on that topic.
_________________________________

The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.


Context context context!!! The passage in Deuteronomy is an exposition of the Old Law that was for the Israelites. The passage in Isaiah is in a totally different context. The reference in Isaiah to the plural fathers in the phrase because of the guilt of their fathers shows that it is the ending of a series of oppressive rulers that is in mind. Collectively they represent Babylon itself, and the assassination of the sons is made into a picture of the permanent ending of this source of foreign domination.

References to "Isaiah Through the Ages."
_________________________________

The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.


Here I give Jim some credit, because in today's time we have classifications for all the different species, but 3600 years ago when Moses wrote Leviticus, the Hebrew word `owph, which is translated above as "bird," would be considered to be any winged creature, even a winged insect. In Deuteronomy another Hebrew word is used "tsippowr" which has a slightly different sense than `owph, but unless we want to blame Moses of an error for not looking a few millenniums down the road to the Linnean classification then we have no contradiction here.
_________________________________

Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.


This is answered very eloquently by James Patrick Holding HERE
_________________________________

Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

I'm not a bug man so I will give this LINK to the answer from James Patrick Holding.
_________________________________

Snails do not melt

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

This is a matter of a possible error in the Hebrew version of the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text reads "Shabluwl" which many scholars believe it means snail (though they are uncertain); but the Greek Septuagint and the Aramaic Peshitta both read "wax," which fits the context much better. Either the Masoretic Text has a scribal error or the Septuagint and Peshitta translators understood Shabluwl to actually mean wax and not snail. So the error that Jim Meritt claims is not an error of God's Word, though it could very well be an error of the Masoretic Text, which would not surprise me.
_________________________________

Fowl from waters or ground?

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Two phrases need to be considered before saying they are either "from waters or ground." Notice in Gen. 1:20-21 the phrases bring forth and brought forth; this has a different meaning than what is being said in Gen. 2:19 when it says that God formed every beast.... In Genesis 1:19-20 the Hebrew is telling us literally, "Let the waters swarm (sharats) with swarmers (shrtzu)...." verse 20 "which swarmed (sharats) the waters...." Genesis 2:19 uses a different Hebrew word altogether, "yatsar" which means "formed." This (2:19) is the passage that tells us where the fowl actually comes from, that is the ground. While 1:20-21 indicates that the sky is the place where the birds are to move around and exist.

As for the meaning of the birds that are brought forth, or better yet, "exist" from the water; it does not mean that they are brought forth from the sea, but yet another source of water, the cloudy air that is saturated with water as mentioned in verses 1:7-8 And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
_________________________________

Odd genetic engineering

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

I don't feel the need to waste my time on this so here is an excellent answer by James Patrick Holding HERE
_________________________________

The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.


As Isaiah demonstrates 2700 years ago, the earth is round! But as for the language in Matthew 4:8, the Devil uses demonic imagery to show Jesus the whole world, as Theodore of Mopsuestia explains, "But as to the phrase “he showed him,” it is clear that he did not show him this in substance and reality, since it is impossible to find a mountain so high that from it someone who wishes can see the whole world. Rather it was through an imaginary image, in keeping with the demon’s usual custom, the clear identifying mark of which is the attempt to delude people of sound understanding by representing to them things that are not there as though they were there and things that have not happened as though they had happened."

References to the Ancient Christian Commentary Gospel of Matthew
_________________________________

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

The serpent is the Devil, that is Satan, in which serpent is used figuratively (see Rev. 20:2). Some great commentators have suggested that the Devil was speaking through a snake just like how an angel spoke through a donkey to Balaam in Number 22, either way Satan is the tempter here.  As Theodoret of Cyrus says, "The animal itself also became the object of the curse for the benefit of humanity.  When we see the snake crawling and slithering on the ground, we remember the original curse and understand the extent of the evil caused by sin. As the snake is born to move in this fashion, it received no harm from the curse."

As for eating dust, which is also translated "earth", this means that he does not eat soil but that the serpent's diet will no longer be within the Garden of Eden but from what comes of the earth outside of the Garden.


_________________________________

Earth supported?

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Heaven supported too

JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

Again, Jim Meritt attempts to ridicule Scripture while assuming the author was speaking literally while Job was using metaphors. Not that this deserves further explanation, here is a tidbit from St. Thomas Aquinas...


"It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things. For God provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature. Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all our knowledge originates from sense. Hence in Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness of material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." It is also befitting Holy Writ, which is proposed to all without distinction of persons — "To the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor" (Romans 1:14) — that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it....The very hiding of truth in figures is useful for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words "Give not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6). "

References to St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica
_________________________________

The hydrological cycle

ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
Storehouses are not part of the cycle

I will leave this to James Patrick Holding HERE
_________________________________

Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

As for the "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the sun was created, it does not have to be the sun in order for there to be light to exist before the sun was created, God is more than capable to provide light until He created the sun. As Dom Augustin Calmet once suggested, "Perhaps this body of light might resemble the bright cloud which accompanied the Israelites, Exodus 14:19, or the three first days might have a kind of imperfect sun, or be like one of our cloudy days. Nothing can be defined with certainty respecting the nature of this primeval light."

As for the use of Elohim and it being a plural noun, Jim Meritt must not have known enough Hebrew (if any) to know that the use of the singular verbs around Elohim suggests that it was to be understood as being One, but that One having something plural about It. The plurality of God is the fact that God is a Triune God, the Trinity. For a fuller explanation concerning the use of Elohim click HERE

References to the Haydock Bible Commentary
_________________________________


How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

As for the His creation of the human race and God's satisfaction, why not? Sure God knew that they would sin, but He was still satisfied with them and loved them. Like any good parent who has children, they are proud of them despite their faults and shortcomings they have throughout their lives. In fact God with His foreknowledge knows what the final outcome is going to be, and when we read the last chapter of the Bible we find out that everything turns out just fine.
_________________________________

Moses' personality

NUM 12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

NUM 31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

I don't see how Jim Meritt could see this as a contradiction other than he is just desperate for a contradiction. The fact that Moses was meek does not mean that he could not get angry. In fact I have found that those who are meek, soft spoken, and gentle are the ones that you don't want to push so far to anger, because once someone like that has reached their limit then look out! Meekness is a sign of humility, not weakness. Jesus refers to Himself as meek (Matt. 11:29), but out of holy anger He drove out the moneychangers Matt. 21:12.
_________________________________

Righteous live?

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Again, Jim Meritt ignores context. Jesus brings context to both passages, " Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven. For they so persecuted the prophets which were before you. (Matt. 5:12)" Isaiah points out that a follower of God will face hardships for their Faith, while the Psalmist points out the faithful will flourish eternally.
_________________________________



ACT 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

MAT 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

According to an ancient tradition from the Early Church Father Theophylact, "that while Judas did indeed hang himself, the tree upon which he put the rope bent and he survived, because God wanted to save his life - either so he could repent or to make an example of him. Then he adds, "They say Judas later became so bloated from dropsy that he could not pass through an opening a wagon could easily pass through, and then, falling face forward, he burst asunder, or ruptured, as Luke says in the acts of the Apostles."

References to Theophylact Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
_________________________________

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

MAT 5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

LUK 6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

These were different occasions, as St. Augustine points out, "It causes a thought how it is that Matthew relates this sermon to have been delivered by the Lord sitting on the mountain; Luke, as he stood in the plain. This diversity in their accounts would lead us to think that the occasions were different. Why should not Christ repeat once more what He said before, or do once more what he had done before? Although another method of reconciling the two may occur to us; namely, that our Lord was first with His disciples alone on some more lofty peak of the mountain when he chose the twelve; that He then descended with them not from the mountain entirely, but from the top to some expanse of level ground in the side, capable of holding a great number of people; that he stood there while the crowd was gathering around Him, and after when He had sat down, then his disciples came near to Him, and so to them and in the presence of the rest of the multitude He spoke the same sermon on which Matthew and Luke give, in a different manner, but with equal truth of facts."

References to St. Augustine from the Catena Aurea
_________________________________

Jesus' last words

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."


Christ spoke seven words on the cross, three recorded by St. John, the four others by the other Evangelists. It is not a matter of either or, Christ spoke all that is recorded, probably even more than what is recorded in the Gospels.

References by CORNELIUS À LAPIDE commentary on the Gospel of John
_________________________________

Years of famine

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

This is yet another case of an error on the part of the Masoretic Text, which is the Hebrew text that the translation above used. The Greek Septuagint, which is the Old Testament of the Apostles, has "three years of famine" for both passages. So there is no contradiction!
_________________________________

Moved David to anger?

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

That is, the Lord permitted Satan to provoke David.
_________________________________

The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?

In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. MAT 1:6-16 and LUK 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

In the time of Christ it was very well known that Mathan was the common grandfather of Joseph and the Blessed Virgin; and that Jacob, the father of Joseph, and Heli/Joachim, the father of the Blessed Virgin, were full brothers - as Francis Lucas holds - or rather, that Jacob was the brother of St. Anne, the wife of Heli/Joachim, and mother of the Blessed Virgin; hence the genealogy of one is the genealogy of the other. For the Blessed Virgin was descended, through her mother, from Jacob, Mathan, and Solomon, and, through her father, Joachim/Heli, from Mathat and Nathan.
So St. Matthew gives the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin through her mother St. Anne, while St. Luke gives it through her father Heli/Joachim, so that Christ may be shown to be descended of the seed of David in both ways.
There is no other better way than this of reconciling the genealogies given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. Moreover, it is the common opinion of St. Augustine, Denis the Carthusian, Cajetan, Jansenius, and other doctors whom Suarez quotes (pt. iii., quæst. xxvii. a. 1, disp. 3, sect. 2) that St. Luke traces the genealogy of Christ through Heli/Joachim, the father of the Blessed Virgin. Hence it must follow that St. Matthew’s genealogy is traced through St. Anne, and that she was the daughter of Mathan; for otherwise all her ancestors, whom St. Matthew recounts, belong only to Joseph, and not to the Blessed Virgin and Christ.
St. Matthew then traces Christ’s descent through His father Joseph, St. Luke through His mother, the Blessed Virgin; both lines are united in David, but after him separate through his two sons Solomon and Nathan. And again these two lines of Nathan and of Solomon unite in St. Anne, the daughter of Mathan, and sister of Jacob, Joseph’s father.

References to CORNELIUS À LAPIDE commentary on the Gospel of Luke
_________________________________

God be seen?

EXO 24:9,10; AMO 9:1; GEN 26:2; and JOH 14:9

God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)


God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)

Moses saw not the essence of God, but only a certain luminous substance assumed by an angel, in some manner representing to the eyes of Moses the glory of God. Thus St. Gregory says in the Catena: “So long as we live here in mortal flesh, God may be seen by certain manifestations or images of Him, but as He is in His own nature He cannot be seen.”

To understand it we must know that God is said to be seen in three ways. First, through a created substitute presented to the bodily sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God when he saw three [men] and adored one (Gn 18). He adored one because he recognized the mystery of the Trinity in the three, whom he first thought to be men, and later believed to be angels. In a second way, through a representation in the imagination; and in this way Isaiah saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. Many visions of this sort are recorded in the Scriptures. In a third way, he is seen through an intelligible species abstracted from material things; and in this way he is seen by those who, considering the greatness of creatures, see with their intellect the greatness of the Creator, as it is said: “From the greatness and beauty of creatures, their Creator can be seen accordingly” (Wis 13:5); “The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made,” as found in Romans (1:20). In another way, God is seen through a certain spiritual light infused by God into spiritual minds during contemplation; and this is the way Jacob saw God face to face, as it says in Genesis (32:30). According to Gregory, this vision came about through his lofty contemplation.

But the vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of the above visions: for no created species, whether it be that by which an external sense is informed, or by which the imagination is informed, or by which the intellect is informed, is representative of the divine essence as it is. Now man knows as to its essence only what the species he has in his intellect represents as it is. Therefore, the vision of the divine essence is not attained through any species.

The reason why no created species can represent the divine essence is plain: for nothing finite can represent the infinite as it is; but every created species is finite; therefore [it cannot represent the infinite as it is]. Further, God is his own esse; and therefore his wisdom and greatness and anything else are the same. But all those cannot be represented through one created thing. Therefore, the knowledge by which God is seen through creatures is not a knowledge of his essence, but a knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar.

References to St. Thomas Aquinas and CORNELIUS À LAPIDE commentaries on the Gospel of John
_________________________________

CRUEL, UNMERCIFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, and FEROCIOUS or KIND, MERCIFUL, and GOOD:

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14)
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."(1Sam. 15:3)
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)

As I stated above in the very first explanation...
The Lord is good to all because He gives everyone a free-will and does not force anyone to be good or bad. But there are consequences for our actions. Kind of like living in a free country; we have the freedom to choose how we live our lives, but there are still the laws of the land, and if those laws are broken there is punishment for the crimes.

In the Jeremiah passage above, the context of the whole passage is a warning to Judah and the house of Israel, not a final decision, God is giving them many chances to repent in the hopes that they will, yet another display of God's patience and mercy!
_________________________________

Tempts?

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (GEN 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)

By temptation in this context, James meant the bad sort by which we are deceived and subjected to the Devil. There is another kind of temptation mentioned in Deuteronomy 13:3 which is really a kind of testing that comes from God.

And Abraham did not enter into temptation, neither did God lead him into temptation, but He tried him; yet He did not drive him into temptation. The Lord Himself, moreover, tempted (tried) the disciples. And thus the Devil, when he tempts us, draws us into the temptations, as dealing himself with the temptations of evil; but God, when He tempts (tries), adduces the temptations as one untempted of evil. For God, it is said, “cannot be tempted of evil.” The devil, therefore, drives us on by violence, drawing us to destruction; but God leads us by the hand, training us for our salvation.

References to St. Augustine and St. Dionysius
_________________________________

Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)

According to an ancient tradition from the Early Church Father Theophylact, "that while Judas did indeed hang himself, the tree upon which he put the rope bent and he survived, because God wanted to save his life - either so he could repent or to make an example of him. Then he adds, "They say Judas later became so bloated from dropsy that he could not pass through an opening a wagon could easily pass through, and then, falling face forward, he burst asunder, or ruptured, as Luke says in the acts of the Apostles."

References to Theophylact Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
_________________________________

Ascend to heaven

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2KI 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (JOH 3:13)

I answer that no one goes up into heaven except Christ and his members, i.e., and those believers who are just, such as Elijah.

References to St. Thomas Aquinas Commentary on the Gospel of John
_________________________________

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?

Before the cock crow - MAT 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - MAR 14:30

Though all the Evangelists say that the Lord foretold that Peter was to deny before the cock crew, Mark alone has related it more minutely, wherefore some from inattention suppose that he does not agree with the others. For the whole of Peter's denial is threefold; if it had begun altogether after the cock crew, the other three Evangelists would seem to have spoken falsely, in saying, that before the cock crew, he would deny him thrice. Again, if he had finished the entire threefold denial before the cock began to crow, Mark would in the person of the Lord seem to have said needlessly, Before the cock crow twice, you shall deny me thrice. But because that threefold denial began before the first cock-crowing, the other three did not notice when Peter was to finish it, but how great it was to be, that is, threefold, and when it was to begin, that is, before the cock crew, although the whole was conceived in his mind, even before the first cock crew; but Mark has related more plainly the interval between his words themselves.

We are to understand that it happened thus; Peter denied once, then the cock crew, but after he had made two more denials, then the cock crew for the second time.

References to St. Augustine and Theophylact from the Catena Aurea
_________________________________

How many times did the cock crow?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.
MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.
LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.
JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.


Though all the Evangelists say that the Lord foretold that Peter was to deny before the cock crew, Mark alone has related it more minutely, wherefore some from inattention suppose that he does not agree with the others. For the whole of Peter's denial is threefold; if it had begun altogether after the cock crew, the other three Evangelists would seem to have spoken falsely, in saying, that before the cock crew, he would deny him thrice. Again, if he had finished the entire threefold denial before the cock began to crow, Mark would in the person of the Lord seem to have said needlessly, Before the cock crow twice, you shall deny me thrice. But because that threefold denial began before the first cock-crowing, the other three did not notice when Peter was to finish it, but how great it was to be, that is, threefold, and when it was to begin, that is, before the cock crew, although the whole was conceived in his mind, even before the first cock crew; but Mark has related more plainly the interval between his words themselves.

We are to understand that it happened thus; Peter denied once, then the cock crew, but after he had made two more denials, then the cock crew for the second time.

References to St. Augustine and Theophylact from the Catena Aurea
_________________________________

How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount

MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

This diversity in their accounts would lead us to think that the occasions were different. Why should not Christ repeat once more what He said before, or do once more what he had done before? Although another method of reconciling the two may occur to us; namely, that our Lord was first with His disciples alone on some more lofty peak of the mountain when he chose the twelve; that He then descended with them not from the mountain entirely, but from the top to some expanse of level ground in the side, capable of holding a great number of people; that he stood there while the crowd was gathering around Him, and after when He had sat down, then his disciples came near to Him, and so to them and in the presence of the rest of the multitude He spoke the same sermon on which Matthew and Luke give, in a different manner, but with equal truth of facts."

References to St. Augustine from the Catena Aurea
_________________________________

Does every man sin?

1KI 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;
2CH 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;
PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?
ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

In 1 John 3:9, clearly St. John does not mean that a Christian is incapable of sinning: at the start of the letter he said, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” (1:18). What he wants to make quite clear is that no one can justify his own sin by the device of claiming to be a child of God: the righteousness of the children of God reflects itself in their actions, whereas “he who commits sin is of the devil” (v.8), for sin cuts one off from God and means one has submitted to the slavery of the Devil.

References to the Navarre Bible I John
_________________________________

Who bought potter's field

ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.


MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.



Judas bought the field, indirectly that is, since Judas returned the betrayal money to the Temple and the Jerusalem priests purchased the burial site. However, in accordance with the custom of sacred writings, "he came into possession" is said for "he caused it to be purchased." In the same way, the blessed Job said (9:31), "and my garments will detest me", that is to say, my corruptible members will make me destable.

Judas did not possess the potter's field, but he furnished the price to buy it, giving back the thirty pieces of silver. see Mt 27:6-10 (John Stephen Menochius) We often say in common, that we have done what happens in consequence of any action of ours, though it was not in our first intention. (Augustin Calmet)

References to the Ignatius Study Bible and St. Bede Commentary on Acts and Aquinas Study Bible.
_________________________________

Who prophesied the potter's field?

MAT 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13

According to ancient tradition (St. Papias, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, etc.), the Gospel of Matthew was originally written by St. Matthew into Aramaic. And the Aramaic texts that exists have neither Jeremiah nor Zechariah, but "of the prophet", which is the correct reading. Even some Aramaic manuscripts (Harclean) have Zechariah written in the margin. As for the Jeremiah addition, it was probably added in by an early scribe sometime after the Aramaic text was translated into Greek. So there is no contradiction according to the Word of God, only the fallible works of some men in the translation and transmission process.
_________________________________

Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

A foolish suggestion on the part of Jim Meritt that this would be a contradiction. It seems obvious that we are to do both, not either/or. Had one of the verses above said to "bear his own burdens only" or to "bear one another's burdens only", then we would have a contradiction.
_________________________________

Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

I will leave this one to be answered by James Patrick Holding who answers it very nicely as well with humor HERE
_________________________________

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

There are some ancient Bible manuscripts which have 2 Samuel 21:8 having a different person (Merob) other than Michal as having five sons. This is a possibility, but I believe that the more likely explanation is that it is actually Michal but that those five sons were adopted, not actually hers by birth.

References to the Haydock Bible Commentary
_________________________________

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

2KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
2CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

2 Chronicles 36:9 actually reads "eighteen years old" in the Greek Septuagint and the Aramaic Peshitta. Those versions are much more superior than the Hebrew Masoretic Text, which is the version that the translation above is translated from. The Masoretic Text is not near as old as the Septuagint, and it also has many errors such as this that make it unreliable. The Greek Septuagint was the Old Testament of the Apostles!
_________________________________

Marriage?

Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)

Not quite sure what Jim Meritt's point is. James Patrick holding assumes that this is simply an unfinished suggestion.
_________________________________

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

They heard the sound of a garbled voice, but they did not hear the distinct words. The one standpoint is of the noise, the other standpoint is of true speech.

References to St. Bede and Arator from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Acts
_________________________________

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
(various traipsings)

Jim Meritt must not have taken time to read the first chapter of John to know what it says. There is no contradiction to be found because the baptism is only mentioned by John!
_________________________________

How many apostles were in office between the resurrection and ascension?

1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
MAT 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
ACT 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)
MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.


St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:5, "and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." That does appear to contradict since Judas was dead and only eleven remained at that time. But this number 12 is to be taken in a corporate sense, St. Augustine (Quæst. Evangel lib. i. qu. 117) says there that, though Judas was dead, “the twelve” were still so called as by a corporate name. So the Decemvirs are said to assemble if only seven or eight are present.

References to CORNELIUS À LAPIDE commentary on the 1 Cor.
_________________________________

Judging

1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)
1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

Context is the key here. 1 Cor. 4:5 is about judging the secrets of hearts, of itself belongs to God alone; while 1 Cor. 2:15 is concerning the judging of all things according to the Divine rules.

References to St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica
_________________________________

Good deeds

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)
Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

Matt. 5:16 is about allowing God to be glorified by your good deeds, while Matt. 6:3-4 is a warning to not try to glorify yourself through deeds.
_________________________________

For or against?

MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)
MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)
LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)

Here is a great answer from James Patrick Holding HERE
_________________________________

Whom did they see at the tomb?

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

Matthew (28:2) and Mark (16:5) say that Mary and the other women saw one angel on the right side of the tomb, while here we have two angels and they are inside. Each one is correct, for Matthew and Mark tell what occurred first, when the women first came, and believing that Christ was taken, returned to the disciples. But John recounts what happened after Mary returned with the disciples and remained after they had left.

References to St. Thomas Aquinas Commentary on the Gospel of John
_________________________________

God change?

MAL 3:6- "For I the LORD do not change;
JAS 1:17- ...from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
1SA 15:29- And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent."
JON 3:10- God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them;
GEN 6:6- And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

By nature God does not change. The passage in Jonah is a beautiful display of God making a threat to destroy only to bring the Ninevites to repentance, so that He would not have to destroy them. In other words God changed His sentence because they changed their ways. As for Gen. 6:6, it is simply a manner of expression that scripture can make its many kinds of readers whom it wants to help to feel, as it were, at home.

References to Theodoret commentaries on Malachi and Jonah; St. Augustine City of God
_________________________________

Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)

MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
ZEC 11:11-13 (Note: There is nothing in Jeremiah remotely like this.)

According to ancient tradition (St. Papias, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, etc.), the Gospel of Matthew was originally written by St. Matthew into Aramaic. And the Aramaic texts that exists have neither Jeremiah nor Zechariah, but "of the prophet", which is the correct reading. Even some Aramaic manucripts (Harclean) have Zechariah written in the margin. As for the Jeremiah addition, it was probably added in by an early scribe sometime after the Aramaic text was translated into Greek. So there is no contradiction according to the Word of God, only the fallible works of some men in the translation ansd transmission process.
_________________________________

Who's sepulchers

ACT 7:16- and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.

GEN 23:17,18- So the field of Ephron in Mach-pelah, which was to the east of Mamre, the field with the cave which was in it and all the trees that were in the field, throughout its whole area, was made over 18 to Abraham as a possession in the presence of the Hittites, before all who went in at the gate of his city.


This is truly a difficult one to reconcile, but I do believe that it is not a contradiction, there is a reasonable answer.
These two accounts do not conflict; rather, they only differ. Consider all the facts as we know them: (1) Abraham bought a field and a cave in Hebron (Genesis 23:17); (2) Abraham bought a sepulcher in Shechem (Acts 7:16); (3) Later, Jacob bought a parcel of ground or a field (Joshua 24:32) also in Shechem (Genesis 33:19).(3) Later, Jacob bought a parcel of ground or a field (Joshua 24:32) also in Shechem (Genesis 33:19). It could be that Jacob merely bought the land whereupon the sepulcher of his grandfather stood. Click HERE for a full explanation of the how passage.

References to Apologetics Press by Alden Bass and Kyle Butt, M.A.
_________________________________

Strong drink?

PRO 31:6,7- Give strong drink to them that are sad: and wine to them that are grieved in mind: 7 Let them drink, and forget their want, and remember their sorrow no more.

JOH 2:11-11 (Jim proably meant verse 10)- And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now.

I don't see a contradiction here.
_________________________________

When second coming?

MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
(See also 1TH 4:15-18)


Some take the Gospel passages to mean that since Jesus had already described the end of the world, then the passage is saying "this generation" is stretched to mean the entire age of Jesus until His 2nd coming. But that is not what it means. This passage is answered in the Greek word γένηται, which is an indefinite aorist. Being an ingressive aorist we can understand it to have a nuance that would make the passage to be understood like this, “I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things begin to come to pass (γένηται).”

This nuance of the same aorist form may also be seen in the angel Gabriel’s words to Zechariah (Luke 1:20): “And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day these things happen (γένηται ταῦτα)." Not only the birth but the adult ministry of John the Baptist is prophesied in vv. 13-17, yet Zechariah recovers his speech as soon as he writes the name of his infant son John on a tablet (vv. 62-64). Accordingly, v. 20 should be understood as, “And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day these things begin to happen.”

References to the Basics to Bible Greek by William Mounce
_________________________________

Solomon's overseers

1KI 9:23 550
2CH 8:10 250

I think I see why Jim Meritt did not give the passages along with the numbers, because it appears that 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles have given different details. 1 Kings 9:23 says that there were 550 chief officers set over all the works of Solomon" while 2 Chron. 8:10 says that "all the chief captains of king Solomon's army were two hundred and fifty, who taught the people." So there are different numbers for different details.
_________________________________

The mother of Abijah:

2CH 11:20 Maachah the daughter of Absalom
2CH 13:2 Michaiah the daughter of Uriel

Her father had also two names; Absalom or Abessalom, and Uriel. Many had two names.

References to the Haydock Bible Commentary
_________________________________

When did Baasha die?

1KI 16:6-8 26th year of the reign of Asa
2CH 16:1 36th year of the reign of Asa

This is a matter of a scribal error from the Masoretic Text. The Greek Septuagint does not list a year in 1 Kings 16:8, "And Ela son of Baasa reigned over Israel two years in Thersa.", while the 2 Ch. 16:1 the Septuagint reads, "And in the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Asa."

References to the Codex Vaticanus Greek Septuagint and Brenton's English translation
_________________________________

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

2KI 8:26 22
2CH 22:2 42

This is another error on the part of the Masoretic Text, no contradiction. All the original versions, and many copies of the Septuagint read "twenty-two" in both passages;

References to the Haydock Bible Commentary
_________________________________

Who was Josiah's successor?

2CH 36:1 Jehoahaz
JER 22:11 Shallum


Shallum is another name for Jehoahaz; Shallum assumed the crown under the name of Jehoahaz.

References to the Navarre Bible and Dictionary.com
_________________________________

The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.


Firstly the fact that the numbers given in both the Ezra and Nehemiah census don’t add up to the total of 42,360 is a clue, that the “numbers given” aren’t the ENTIRE congregation! The numbers in the census of both books are only the amount of MEN that returned to Judah (see Neh 7:7 and Ezra 2:2) while the total of 42,360 includes the whole congregation (Neh 7:66, Ezra 2:64). There is no error in addition. The rebuilding of the city would attract many more men than women, and especially single men who didn’t have livelihoods back in Babylon. Many of the men that returned to Judah married non-Jewish wives (see Neh 13:23 and Ezra 9:2). On the second point, Nehemiah’s census gives different numbers to Ezra’s census for over 20 clans, which rules out the possibility of the whole thing being an unintentional mistake (keep in mind Nehemiah was written after Ezra). Clearly when Nehemiah found the census (see Neh 7:5), which he proceeds to copy out through the rest of ch7, the records had been changed since the time that Ezra made his original census (the one of Ezra 2). Not only are many numbers different in Nehemiah’s census but also the order of the families listed is different. So Nehemiah merely copied out faithfully the census that he found in Neh 7:5. The only thing left to speculate is why there were differences between that census and Ezra’s census. There are many explanations for the changes. The most plausible answer is that the census that Nehemiah found in Neh 7:5 was an update to Ezra’s first census (which may have been merely a count of all the people that left or planned to leave Babylon for Israel, made in Babylon). The update was made in Israel after a recount (carried out after Ezra’s arrival in Israel) of all the men that had actually arrived in Israel from Babylon. More men from various families came after Ezra’s first census was made, and not everyone on Ezra’s first census made it to Israel or had died by the time the update was made. Despite the other changes, the total of 42,360 was kept in the census that Nehemiah found, which may be because the 42,360 of Ezra 2:64 actually took into account the updates already (while the numbers of the separate families didn’t) or otherwise the updater of the census decided to leave the figure of 42,360 because only the total number of men had been recounted and updated and as we have said the TOTAL included women. References found HERE
_________________________________

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

MAT 27:28 scarlet
JOH 19:2 purple

There are a few different possibilities for the different colors, scarlet and purple, such as the fact that the two colors are used
synonymously by many ancient writers St. Augustine gives some possibilities....

"While Matthew tells us how they put on Him a scarlet robe, Mark speaks of purple, with which He was clothed. The explanation may be that the said scarlet robe was employed instead of the royal purple by these scoffers. There is also a certain red-coloured purple which resembles scarlet very closely. And it may also be the case that Mark has noticed the purple which the robe contained, although it was properly scarlet. Luke has left this without mention."

References to St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels Bk. 3
_________________________________

What did they give him to drink?

MAT 27:34 vinegar
MAR 15:23 wine with myrrh

Some Greek manuscript, translate vinegar; but the more ancient Greek copies have wine. And in St. Mark all copies, without exception, have wine mixed with myrrh: perhaps myrrh, from its bitterness, is here called gall.

References to the Haydock Bible Commentary
_________________________________

How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Depends where you look; MAT 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and MAR 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again." As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days," but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day."

St. Augustine clarifies it by commenting on Matt. 12:40

"For that the three days were not three full and entire days, Scripture witnesses; the first day is reckoned because the latter end of it comes in; and the third day is likewise reckoned, because the first part of it is included; while the day between, that is the second day, appears in all its twenty-four hours, twelve of the night and twelve of the day. For the succeeding night up to the dawn when the Lord's resurrection was made known, belongs to the third day."

References to St. Augustine Catena Aurea