Author: Papa Giorgio
God Didn’t Mean What He Said ~ Genesis DeBunked!
GOP Hopeful, Carly Fiorina, Is Looking Good!
I love how Carly handled Hillary apologist, Andrea Mitchell:
I have heard that Carly is thrilling the crowds… not with “pomp-and-circumstance,” but with answers and solutions. I hope she is on the stage in the debates!
- See more at Tammy’s site: http://tammybruce.com/
- And if you want to support Carly, go to: https://www.carlyforpresident.com/
Here is Tammy Bruce’s interview of Carly:
Spatial Prepositions in Greek New Testament ~ Helpful Charts
This is for the Greek Students, I hope these help.
- TIP: right click the mouse over the skinnier/longer graphics and choose, “open in a new tab,” to enlarge properly. From there you should be able to enlarge again with a simple click
The above comes from Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 357. The above list does not include improper prepositions, so-called because they cannot be prefixed to a verb.
(Above) Ernest Cadman Colwell and Ernest W. Tune, A Beginner’s Reader-Grammar for the New Testament (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1965), 51-53.
(Above) with thanks to Kevin Johnson (Mounce???)
(Above) David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 84-85.
(Above) Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 358.
Jesus Last Words on the Cross ~ A Supposed Contradiction Examined
I have been politely challenged by a person on one of my YouTube uploads. I responded to one challenge already. After responding to it I was challenged with another supposed contradiction in the Bible. I doubt highly the questioner is truly in search for truth in these matters as much as they are more concerned in a masochistic drive to circle the wagons around their unbelief. So I suggested two books for him to get to answer his own questions rather than ask me.
- The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation, by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe;
- and, the New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason Archer.
However, after the following challenge I said he should read one book:
- Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels, by J. Warner Wallace
But… he pushed another “contradiction.” So I am responding to it. But I am not at this person’s beckon-call.
Here is the challenge:
The different gospels clearly contradict each other on Jesus’ last words on the cross.
Matthew 27:46: Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?
(Verse 50 says he cried out again before dying, but no mention is made of spoken words.)
Luke 23:46: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.
John 19:30: It is finished
I then asked if he had seen Monty Python’s “Life of Brian.” He said “No.” I linked to the below video to make a point:
[I love the parts where they do not hear what Jesus is saying, and so substitute what they think He said: “Blessed are the Greeks,” for example.]
I respond:
Similarly, you seem to have an unrealistic view of the historical scene we know happened at Calvary. There were Roman soldiers keeping people back, gambling, talking, etc. Ambiant noises as well, horses, carts on a nearby road/trail, or the “clanging” of a blacksmith or shaking out of rugs, and the like. Likewise, people around the scene were crying, talking, some closer, others further away from the crosses.
- An after thought: The skeptic seems to think that the crucifixion scene was in a sound proof room where the disciples were all the same distance from Jesus with a Dictaphone up to His mouth. What an untenable belief!
In fact, John mentions he was close to the Cross, probably hearing things the others didn’t:
John 19:25-27 “Standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple He loved standing there, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, here is your son.’ Then He said to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.”
Combining the three accounts, we read:
“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 had cried again with a loud voice said , ‘Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:’ (notice the cry with a loud voice is separated from Jesus commending His spirit, probably quieter), then he said softly, ‘It is finished:’ and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
JUST like a police officer or insurance adjuster will do from multiple eyewitnesses to a vehicle accident. People who see the same incident — maybe from a similar viewing position or from different places [say on different corners] — have different/varying descriptions… of the same incident.
In-other-words, there is no contradiction.
IN FACT, if these descriptions were identical, I would question if they were written by different people. I would charge collusion, like two criminals getting their story straight before talking to a police officer.
He responds:
Yes, but some Christians including yourself claim that the Bible is perfect and has zero contradictions. Three people claim Jesus said three different things right before he died.
I respond:
It doesn’t have any real contradictions. I have written about inerrancy here. For instance, you have not shown a contradiction., Jesus said all those things before he dies, people just heard them and others did not. It is not a contradiction.
John heard His [Jesus’] last ~ QUIET ~ words (remember, he was closer);
…AND…
Matthew heard His [Jesus’] last ~ LOUD ~ words.
Again, you have not shown a contradiction that isn’t easily explained by the historical setting. Unless you reject my verse documenting John’s closeness to the Cross and accept the verses you are using as valid? A double standard?
You seems to not be distinguishing between what a contradiction is verses a difference:
First, it’s important to distinguish between contradiction and difference. Just because two passages are different, doesn’t mean they contradict each other. For example, Matthew 27:5 says that Judas hung himself, while Acts 1:18 says that he fell to the ground and burst wide open. These are two different accounts of Judas’ death, but they are not formal contradictions. A contradiction would be one passages saying, “Judas hung himself and died” and another passage saying, “Judas didn’t hang himself; rather, he threw himself from cliff and splattered on the ground.”
In the Bible, it could be that he hung himself in a high tree, and then the rope snapped and he fell headlong and burst all over the ground. Or maybe his attempt at hanging himself didn’t work (Matthew 27 doesn’t actually say he died from hanging himself), and so he went and threw himself from a cliff, as recorded in Acts.
Or maybe there are other options. The point is, many apparent contradictions aren’t really formal contradictions at all. They’re simply different accounts, different perspectives, or different versions of the story…
Some other thoughts on this are as follows. One I particularly like Youth Apologetics Training:
I would define someone’s last words as what they spoke during the last movements of their lives. The patriarch Jacob spoke many last words over his sons before he died (Gen 49). His long prophecy over his boys could all be considered his last words.
Even the idea of “last words” is being defined in a literal, wooden sense when more of an “idea” of last words is being presented. (Something, ironically, we are accused of, that is: being literal or taking the Bible as literal. Here we see the skeptic doing so, incorrectly I night add.) Or at least is an option that takes away a supposed contradiction. WIKI notes the definition:
- Last words or final words are a person’s final articulated words said prior to death or as death approaches. (emphasis added)
Apologetic Press discusses these verses a bit:
On a regular basis, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, and Bible critics write our offices at Apologetics Press. Some of the feedback we receive is simply to inform us how naïve Christians are for believing in God, Jesus, and the Bible, or how ignorant creationists are for disbelieving in macro-evolution. We also receive numerous questions from these non-believers. (Unfortunately, due to the volume of inquiries we receive, we are unable to answer all of them.) Recently, one Bible critic sent the following note:
You say the Bible does not contradict itself but I have found several contradictions in the Bible. For example, in John 10:30 Jesus says that he and his father are one then in John 14:28 he says his father is greater than he. Did he change his mind?
So what were Jesus’ last words? Well Matthew, Luke and John seem to have all heard something different. In Matthew 27:46,50 Jesus said my god my god why has thou forsaken me then died but in Luke 23:46 he claims Jesus said father unto thy hands I commit thy spirit then died and finally in John 19:30 he claims that Jesus said it is finished then died. Well which one is it? These are just a few of many. Why would someone say the Bible doesn’t contradict itself when if you have read the words in its pages it does not take a genius to see all the falsities within.
Consider how easily these questions can be answered simply by remembering two basic rules of interpretation.
First, supplementation is not equivalent to a contradiction. For example, suppose you tell a friend about your trip to Disney World. You mention that you went to Magic Kingdom on Monday. Later, you state that you went to Hollywood Studios on Monday. Have you lied? Are these two contradictory statements? Not necessarily. It could be that you visited both Magic Kingdom and Hollywood Studios on the same day. Similarly, the seven statements the gospel writers recorded that Jesus made from the cross (including the three aforementioned statements—Matthew 27:46; Luke 23:46; John 19:30) all supplement one another. Nothing is said about Jesus making only one of these statements. What’s more, silence does not negate supplementation. Simply because John wrote that our suffering Savior said, “‘It is finished!’ And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit” (John 19:30), does not mean that Jesus could not also have said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit” after He had cried out, “It is finished,” and before His death (Luke 23:46). Nothing in John 19:30, Luke 23:46, or Matthew 27:46,50 is contradictory. We simply have three different statements that Jesus made at three different moments during His crucifixion….
Larry Elder Explains Why Crime Is Rising in Baltimore
Larry Elder has predicted this for years! With police officers in the eye of the political correctness storm, these police are obviously protecting themselves by “playing it safe.” What is known as “passive policing.”
In the neighborhoods where this is happening, there have been crowds disrupting police arrests, lawsuits threatened, and criminal charges against police have been promised. So rather than endure a career ending move, they are circling the wagons.
Rightly so.
This consequence is WHOLLY lain at the feet of Democrats. 100%
For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/ ~AND~ http://www.elderstatement.com/
Water Pulsing, Insane Policies Keeping California “Back-Woods”
….Correspondence between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Congressman Jeff Denham’s office shows the Bureau of Reclamation wants to flush as much as 15,000 acre feet of water down the Stanislaus River in order to “save” six fish.
In an email Sunny Snider of the federal fish protection agency sent to Denham Chief of Staff Jason Larrabee, it indicated a previous pulse flow in March that significantly raised water levels on the Stanislaus River through Ripon despite being in the middle of a severe drought had moved out 76 percent of the out-migrating steelhead by March 30.
The email stated that National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) only expects 29 out-migrating steelhead a year and that their plan was to release 30,000 acre feet by the end of April to help them reach the Delta.
That means there are six steelhead left that the Bureau ordered South San Joaquin Irrigation District and Oakdale Irrigation District to release water this week to help on their journey. The 15,000 acre feet of water based on a statewide per capita use average could supply 174,301 Californians with water for a year to the combined populations of Tracy and Santa Barbara. Combined with last month’s pulse flow release, the 30,000 acre feet of water is the equivalent of the combined annual water needs of the cities of Stockton, Lathrop, Ripon, and Escalon…..
I contacted FOX LA in order to try and get their video up again
But I fear this video is gone forever
MY FOX LA op-ed:
…On March 24th of this year, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, the federal Government ordered a release of 5 billion gallons of water sent down the Stanislaus River, which eventually emptied into the ocean.
The purpose of this release or “pulse” as it’s called, was to raise the level of the river, so 23 steelhead trout could spawn.
So, in effect, just to allow 23 adult fish to possibly mate, water was wasted that could have supplied 150,000 Californians — for a year.
On April 10th, the Feds sent another 5 billion gallon pulse of water (enough water for another 150,000 Californians) down the Stanislaus, for the purpose of helping six steelhead trout reach the ocean and eventually return upriver to spawn.
It all just seems unbelievable.
In this terrible drought situation California finds itself in, it seems incredible to waste this massive amount of precious water.
It deifies common sense.
Billions of gallons of water being flushed to the sea.
This unfortunately is not the only example….
It’s hard to ask Californians to save water – when government is wasting it so needlessly.
“We Supplied Most Of Iraq’s Weapons” ~ Mantra
Of course the Left charges us (the United States)with quite a few provably false, or at most, inflated charges in regards to the the United States arming Iraq.
Weaponry
A quick refutation of another familiar “mantra” we hear connected to this topic, and one most at the rally in the video above most assuredly accept, is that the U.S. supplied the bulk of weapons that Iraq has and used. This just isn’t the case, the the graphic below points out (click it to enlarge it for better viewing):
Agents of Mass Destruction
The story goes that the United States provided chemical weapons to Iraq. The proof is the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. In an excellent Yahoo Answers question:
- Did we really sell or give Iraq chemical or biological weapons, or is that something the liberals made up?
Some reasonable parameters were added to this original question. Here they are:
- Update: If you’re going to tell me that we did, show me some proof of it. Don’t just make more baseless accusations and repeating what you heard from other ignorant people and bogus sources.
- Update 2: Shaking hands with our allies does not mean we provided them with biological or chemical weapons! Iraq was our ally back before the gulf war.
- Update 3: If you’re going to include links to your research, make sure somewhere on there it says that we gave or sold Iraq the WMDs. I’m not even going to bother looking at the “propaganda” websites. Show me something from a legitimate source.
- Update 4: Connie G, I don’t see anything relevant to my question on your links. Did you not understand the question?
- Update 5: The Iran Chamber Society is not as far as I’m concerned a legitamate source. This is a country that hates the United States and isn’t known for their honesty and fairness. Is this where you get your info, Connie G.?
- Update 6: How about citing some legitimate sources like CNN, 60 minutes, or FoxNews. I don’t trust obscure websites that I’ve never heard of before. Who knows what their agenda is
When these requests are added, the best answer certainly is the best answer: 
- I have never seen one present any sort of proof what so ever. They just parrot it. Notice how they just declare it true but offer nothing of proof at all.
This comes from my afterword of my WMD Page:
… A similar myth, that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Nerve gas doesn’t require technical help, it’s a variant of common insecticides. European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas.
Here is some on-depth info on the hand-shake:
Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984
….His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish “direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein,” while emphasizing “his close relationship” with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.’s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq’s oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran’s ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].
Rumsfeld also met with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, and the two agreed, “the U.S. and Iraq shared many common interests.” Rumsfeld affirmed the Reagan administration’s “willingness to do more” regarding the Iran-Iraq war, but “made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights.” He then moved on to other U.S. concerns [Document 32]. Later, Rumsfeld was assured by the U.S. interests section that Iraq’s leadership had been “extremely pleased” with the visit, and that “Tariq Aziz had gone out of his way to praise Rumsfeld as a person” [Document 36 and Document 37].
Rumsfeld returned to Baghdad in late March 1984. By this time, the U.S. had publicly condemned Iraq’s chemical weapons use, stating, “The United States has concluded that the available evidence substantiates Iran’s charges that Iraq used chemical weapons” [Document 47]. Briefings for Rumsfeld’s meetings noted that atmospherics in Iraq had deteriorated since his December visit because of Iraqi military reverses and because “bilateral relations were sharply set back by our March 5 condemnation of Iraq for CW use, despite our repeated warnings that this issue would emerge sooner or later” [Document 48]. Rumsfeld was to discuss with Iraqi officials the Reagan administration’s hope that it could obtain Export-Import Bank credits for Iraq, the Aqaba pipeline, and its vigorous efforts to cut off arms exports to Iran. According to an affidavit prepared by one of Rumsfeld’s companions during his Mideast travels, former NSC staff member Howard Teicher, Rumsfeld also conveyed to Iraq an offer from Israel to provide assistance, which was rejected [Document 61].
Although official U.S. policy still barred the export of U.S. military equipment to Iraq, some was evidently provided on a “don’t ask – don’t tell” basis. In April 1984, the Baghdad interests section asked to be kept apprised of Bell Helicopter Textron’s negotiations to sell helicopters to Iraq, which were not to be “in any way configured for military use” [Document 55]. The purchaser was the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. In December 1982, Bell Textron’s Italian subsidiary had informed the U.S. embassy in Rome that it turned down a request from Iraq to militarize recently purchased Hughes helicopters. An allied government, South Korea, informed the State Department that it had received a similar request in June 1983 (when a congressional aide asked in March 1983 whether heavy trucks recently sold to Iraq were intended for military purposes, a State Department official replied “we presumed that this was Iraq’s intention, and had not asked.”) [Document 44]
During the spring of 1984 the U.S. reconsidered policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq’s nuclear program, and its “preliminary results favor[ed] expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities” [Document 57]. Several months later, a Defense Intelligence Agency analysis said that even after the war ended, Iraq was likely to “continue to develop its formidable conventional and chemical capability, and probably pursue nuclear weapons” [Document 58]. (Iraq is situated in a dangerous neighborhood, and Israel had stockpiled a large nuclear weapons arsenal without international censure. Nuclear nonproliferation was not a high priority of the Reagan administration – throughout the 1980s it downplayed Pakistan’s nuclear program, though its intelligence indicated that a weapons capability was being pursued, in order to avert congressionally mandated sanctions. Sanctions would have impeded the administration’s massive military assistance to Pakistan provided in return for its support of the mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.)
In February 1984, Iraq’s military, expecting a major Iranian attack, issued a warning that “the invaders should know that for every harmful insect there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it whatever the number and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide” [Document 41]. On March 3, the State Department intervened to prevent a U.S. company from shipping 22,000 pounds of phosphorous fluoride, a chemical weapons precursor, to Iraq. Washington instructed the U.S. interests section to protest to the Iraqi government, and to inform the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that “we anticipate making a public condemnation of Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the near future,” and that “we are adamantly opposed to Iraq’s attempting to acquire the raw materials, equipment, or expertise to manufacture chemical weapons from the United States. When we become aware of attempts to do so, we will act to prevent their export to Iraq” [Document 42].
The public condemnation was issued on March 5. It said, “While condemning Iraq’s chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime’s intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims” [Document 43].
Later in the month, the State Department briefed the press on its decision to strengthen controls on the export of chemical weapons precursors to Iran and Iraq, in response to intelligence and media reports that precursors supplied to Iraq originated in Western countries. When asked whether the U.S.’s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have “any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations,” the department’s spokesperson said “No. I’m not aware of any change in our position. We’re interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq” [Document 52]….
Fans Filled In the National Anthem At 3rd NCAA Softball Game
(Link in pic)
I don’t normally post anything else today other than my “Memorial Day” post, but this is fitting, and Patriot. It comes by way of Libertarian Republican:
Before the NCAA Softball Regional game between the University of Louisiana-Lafayette and Baylor University (May 19), it was announced that there would be no playing of the National Anthem. (This was the third game of the day, and the National Anthem had been played prior to the first two.)
The fans had another idea. They sang the national anthem.
Larry Elder Is Coerced To Rant Historically On False Democratic History
Caroline Crocker On Scientific Integrity, Freedom, and Faith (3-Audios)
On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin interviews Caroline Crocker, who shares about her experience during the filming of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” and how she first became interested in the debate over origins. What was it like for Dr. Crocker when she was expelled for questioning Darwinian evolution (and having Ben Stein write the Foreword for her new book, Free to Think)? Listen in and find out. Buy her book: Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters
The Real Story of How Caroline Crocker Was Expelled from George Mason University. Are scientists free to think and follow the evidence wherever it leads? On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews Caroline Crocker, president of the American Institute for Technology and Science Education and author of Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters. Dr. Crocker was famously expelled from her job at George Mason University. Listen in as she shares stories about her inspiring student and reveals details in her case for the first time.
On this episode of ID the Future, Caroline Crocker is interviewed by Casey Luskin about the principles of academic freedom in education. Listen in as Dr. Crocker shares from her experience in the classroom at George Mason University and how all the problems she navigated there had a common thread: the lack of integrity in science.
What Does It Mean To Be a “Super Mexican”? SooperMexican Tells Us
Not via amnesty Mexicans, or La Raza Mexicans, or Lazy Mexicans. Via SOOPERMEXICAN!
Sooper says: “We’ll be rolling out new videos with Dinesh D’Souza, so if there’s anything you want to be sooper-esplained let me know in the comments, and for your mexy reparations I demand you share and tweet this video!”