1. Why
did the Babylonians think that by building a tall ziggurat they could get to
heaven? See Gen.11:4; Jer.51:53.
2. How
are we moderns to understand the genealogies of Gen.11:10-26, where Shem, the
ante-diluvian son of Noah, outlives Abraham, his seventh-great grandson?3. In what sense could the darkness be “felt”, as in Egypt in Exodus 10:21?
4. Where did the Israelites (two million or more!) get the water at Mt. Sinai for all to wash their clothes? See Exod.19:10.
5. Is the Shroud of Turin the real shroud of Christ? Matt.27:59; John 19:40.
6. Why was Jesus not recognized by Mary Magdalene and by the two on the road to Emmaus? Mk.16:12; Lk.24:31; John 20:14.
7. How can we distinguish when “all” means “all”, and when it means “most” or “many”? Mk.1:5; Rom.3:23.
If we get some solutions, we may publish
them in later issues. If you have a similar puzzle, let us know and we’ll try
for an answer.
Excellent questions Glenn. My answers are certainly not infallible and contain some speculation, but I’ll throw in my two cents worth. At the risk of creating more questions than answers, I’ll attempt to be as brief as possible.
ReplyDelete1. The verse is probably hyperbolic. The Babylonians were probably not trying to actually reach the heavens but to make a name for themselves by building an impressive structure. In addition, their “heaven” was not the dwelling place of the true God, but the stars themselves. Stargazing and occultism were prominent features of their religion. Archaeologists have discovered the 12 signs of the zodiac inscribed in the walls of a tower at the top. Thus the structure was probably also intended as a temple for practicing astrology and worshiping the created celestial bodies rather than the Creator.
2. From Gen 11:10-26 and 25:7, we can calculate that Shem outlived Abram (Abraham) by ~35 yrs. This phenomenon can be explained by the rapidly decreasing life-spans following the flood (Shem son was born 2 years after the flood). Changing environment (thinner ozone, increased oxygen) and diet (meat) might have a minor influence, but vegetarians in a perfect environment would rarely live 100 years today. Perhaps the best answer might be genetic changes. Adam and Eve were probably created with all pure genetics so that intermarriage among close relatives for their descendents would not cause problems. At the flood, the human population was reduced from millions to eight, losing much genetic diversity and increasing the chance of mutations of children of close relatives. Similarly, we also see an additional life-span drop after the population was split up at the Tower of Babel.
3. It probably means the darkness was so thick that the Egyptians had to grope or feel their way around in the dark. The Hebrew verb translated “to be felt” is “mashash” meaning “to feel” or “to grope”. It is used elsewhere to describe someone groping in the dark (Dt 28:29, Job 5:14), the aged and blind Isaac feeling his son to identify whether he was Jacob or Esau (Gen 27:12, 21-22), and Laban searching for his household idols (Gen 31:34,37).
4. 4. The water probably came for the nearby rock (Ex 17:1-7). Enough water was supplied by God to quench the thirst of the Israelites and their livestock. The water would have to cover a fairly large area since many would have to drink simultaneously to supply water for all. Still, water would have to remain available for drinking while clothes were being washed, so quite a bit of coordination would have been required.
Looks like this is getting longer than I anticipated so I'll continue in a separate comment.
Hi Royce,
DeleteThanks for your very helpful input. I was really looking for simpler answers—ones that might be accessible to non-Bible scholars. For instance, with item 1, I believe that Biblical cosmology of that day held to a flat earth and a solid dome for the sky. This would mean that if the Babylonians built a huge tower they might be able to reach that solid dome and break through into a physical heaven. Even in Shakespeare’s day, he referred to “the floor of heaven” embellished with stars.
Item 2 probably leaves out multiple generations so that they are grandsons or great grandsons, as in other genealogies in Scripture.
Item 3 may have a simple answer too. A volcano, for example in Sicily, may have spewed huge quantities of ash into the atmosphere (as happened recently in Iceland). The prevailing winds are in the right direction to send it over Israel and Egypt. The grit in the darkness could then most certainly be “felt”.
Item 4. I think your answer is correct. It would be interesting to know if there is any basin in that area that could hold a large amount of water for a period of weeks, or longer.
Continued from previous comment:
ReplyDelete5. I haven’t studied or read much about the Shroud, but there are respected scholars on both sides of the issue. Gary Habermas, one of the foremost authorities on the Resurrection, is among those who are convinced that it’s authentic, but others reject its authenticity. Typical arguments for are the cloth’s weave being compatible with that used in the first century, the pollen on the cloth is unique to Palestine, the lack of composition suggests that the enclosed body exited quickly, and the coin image over the eye appears similar to those minted during Pilates reign. In addition, there is no known natural way of explaining its unique images (perhaps a burst of radiation from a dead body returning to life?). Those who argue against its legitimacy point out that a natural explanation of the image might be found in the future, the weave could be a later duplication, and the coin image isn’t clear enough to make a definite claim. In addition, the Bible states the Jesus’ body was wrapped with strips of cloth along with spices, but this could have been exterior to the Shroud. Dating methods have not been conclusive.
In my opinion, there’s a good possibility that the Shroud is authentic, but since there is already overwhelming evidence for the resurrection, the authenticity of Shroud is not necessary for proving the historicity of the event.
6. In Mary’s case, she had been weeping, so the explanation could be a simple as her eyes were blurred by tears. For those on the road, we’re told that they were kept from recognizing Him (by God), perhaps to allow Jesus to teach them the necessity of the events that happened to fulfill Scripture (Lk 24:25-27).
7. I suggest a couple of methods to deal with “all” (and various forms of similar expressions such as “every”, “whosoever”, “the whole” etc). First, do a quick word study of the Greek or Hebrew, along with noting the presence or absence of a definite article. Second, and more important, use the Analogy of Scripture (aka Rule of Faith or Analogy of Faith) principle, which basically means that Scripture interprets Scripture. In other words, we should interpret each passage in the context of the whole because Scripture will never contradict itself.
To demonstrate on the subject verses, we know Mark 1:5 (The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him [John the Baptist]. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River) contains hyperbole since we know of many in Jerusalem that followed other religious leaders. Speaking of, upon witnessing Jesus’ growing popularity, the Pharisees give us a similar example of hyperbole by saying in frustration to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world has gone after him!” (Jn 12:19).
By contrast, the literal interpretation of Romans 3:23 that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” is confirmed in multiple other verses (1Kg 8:46, 2Chr 6:36, Job 15:14, Ps 14:1-3, 53:1-3, Pr 20:9, Eccl 7:20, Rom 3:10-12). In fact, the Apostle John writes that anyone who claims to be without sin is a liar (1Jn 1:8). So, by examining these cases in the whole context of Scripture, almost all are easily resolved.
Thanks again for the great questions and God bless. I hope this helps to get the conversation started.
Hello again, Royce,
DeleteThanks for your further input. Regarding Item 5, the Shroud, I believe it cannot be the shroud of Christ, although it could certainly be that of a crucified man. You covered most of the relevant points but it would seem that the spices would be against the body, not on the outside, and there is no evidence of 75 pounds of spices in the Turin Shroud—specifically they would have interfered with and messed up the image. If the burial was similar to Lazarus’, he came out “bound hand and foot”, so he was still able to walk. And the head covering was totally separate from the body covering. There is a lot more that could be said!
Item 6. Good point. The Lord may also have been back-lighted by the sun. On top of that, Jesus was beaten till he was “hardly recognizable as a man”. In resurrection, he kept the scars in hands, feet and side, and may have been disfigured in other ways as well, although we can hardly bear the thought of that!
Item 7. Your explanation of the word “all” seems to be exactly how I would understand it. Basically, the context decides the meaning.