So many profound truths reside in supposed paradoxes.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
This would only be a true paradox if neither was true. But as the universe (and chickenhood) had a beginning, this question has an answer. God created the chicken ex nihilo, although whether with the birds of the sky on day five or the beasts of the field on day six I'm not sure. This draws the line between us and evolutionists (assuming they admit the existence of chickenhood as distinct from the universe), who would have to say that the mother's egg first contained the mutation that created chickens.

Is the glass half empty or half full?
Obviously, it depends on whether it is currently in the process of being emptied or filled! But if you have to ask the question, it would be worth betting it was half empty,  as that is the usual state of glasses left lying around—if they're not being drunk, they're evaporating. The same is true with the world. The world is always either being emptied or filled. But its filling is a rare and magical occurrence. Entropy is universal.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?
This paradox questions the validity of definitions themselves. Sounds in the strict sense are auditory perceptions, existing in the brain of the auditor. Sound waves, on the other hand, are present anywhere there is matter and movement, whether they can be perceived or not. As long as you keep a consistent definition, you can argue either way. But if you deny the possibility of answering without test data, you are denying the existence of any meaning, not just that of the word 'sound'. For all the important things in life cannot be proved experimentally.

Hike Upstate

Purse vs. Wallet

And in a purse of silk, hung on his shirt,
He hath it put, and laid it at his heart.
—Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales.
(Usage as "woman's handbag" first recorded in 1955.)

But tell me Lady, wherefore doe you beare
This bottle thus before you with such toile,
And eeke this wallet at your backe arreare,
—Edmund Spenser, Faerie Queene.
(Usage as "flat case for carrying paper money" first recorded in 1834.)

American English is a funny thing.

Basic Interpretive Principles

Genre Awareness
Original Audience
Context
Scripture Interprets Scripture
All About Jesus

Original Language
Two Seeds Two Cities
Phenomenological Language
Hebrew Idioms
Three Creeds
Word Study
Theophany
Timeline
Various Versions
Mighty Maps
Typology
Anthropomorphism
Chiasm
Verbal Aspects
Hendiadys
Personification
Synecdoche
Metonymy
Metaphor
Irony
Hyperbole
Understatement
Exodus and Exile
From/Unto
Infinite Series
Head Crush
Bride & Groom
Total Greater than Sum of Parts
What's In a Name
Five Solas
Couples Dance
Chunky Chunks
Normative Norms
Leaky Lists
Seven Covenants
Continuity
Quest/War/Romance
Creation/Fall/Redemption/Glory
Presuppositions
Sphere Sovereignty
Memorization
Meditation
Repetition
Skimming
Major on Majors
Logic
Whole Counsel
Case Laws
General Equity
Moral Ceremonial
Active and Passive
Cross-Textual Consistency
FAT
Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics
Authorial Intent
Bias Awareness

—Rich Coffeen

Rules for Interpreting Genealogies

Biblical infallibility does not imply that interpreters of the Bible will never stumble. An easy place to do this is in its genealogies, by assuming they meet modern standards. Below I attempt to list some rules for Biblical genealogies, derived solely from internal evidence:

I.1. An individual in the Bible might have two or more names, nicknames, or spellings, just as is the case today. (Example: John 1:41-42 states and explains three names for one person.)

2. Some translations attempt to standardize these names, but this often leads only to more inconsistencies. (Example: compare translations of 2 Peter 1:1.)

3. Sometimes these differences in names are significant or add meaning, while other times there is no apparent reason. (Example: Peter means Rock; Simon and Simeon both come from the word for hearing.)

4. In the days when writing was less common and spelling was less significant, similarly-spelled alternate names were common. But sometimes they led to errors or confusions, especially when the alternate spelling was the same as another name.(Example: 2 Samuel 8:12, 13, where Aram refers to the nation of Edom, not Aram. Evidence: 2 Samuel 8:14 and 1 Chronicles 18:11-13.)

5. This tendency to differences in spelling was exacerbated by two idiosyncrasies of the Hebrew language:
a) it was originally written without vowels, with the vowels being added in 1-4 thousand years later, upon no evidence except tradition (Evidence: Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar), and
b) several pairs of consonants are almost identical, only being distinguished by the presence or absence of a serif. The English equivalent would be if a and a were different letters. (Examples: bet ב and kaf כ, gimel ג and nun נ, dalet ד and resh ר.)
Confusion due to this last pair is especially common, as they are the most similar. (Examples: Riphath Genesis 10:3 vs. Diphath 1 Chronicles 1:6; Dodanim Genesis 10:4 vs. Rodanim 1 Chronicles 1:7.) For further study of this point, see the appendix.

II.1. Often a genealogy was not researched by the author of the book in question, but is quoted or summarized from an earlier source, who perhaps had done the same thing. This allows differences in scope, style, or intent to appear in what is apparently the same genealogy. (Examples: 1 Chronicles 8:29-38 vs. 1 Chronicles 9:35-44; 1 Chronicles 6:16-30 vs. 1 Chronicles 6:33-38).

2. This tendency goes furthest in 1 Chronicles, whose author, in describing the history of the twelve tribes, seems to have cobbled together any relevant genealogy he could lay his hands on. (Example: 1 Chronicles 4 begins with these unconnected fragments: 1-2, 3, 4, 5-7, 8, 9-10, 11-12. Evidence: 1 Chronicles 4:22; 5:17).

3. Alternatively, the author may select or restructure a genealogy with a particular purpose, thereby spotlighting one part of a tree and hiding another. (Examples: Matthew 1:1-16 goes down from Abraham to Jesus; Luke 3:23-38 goes up from Jesus to God; 1 Chronicles 2 goes down from Israel to an apparent nobody.)

III.1. The Jewish scribes copying the Biblical manuscripts were fallible and prone to error, especially in such difficult passages as genealogies. The result is a multitude of differing manuscripts which must be analyzed by textual critics in preparation of any edition or translation of the Bible. With the number of manuscripts available, almost all of these errors can be and have been caught, but (debatably), some of them remain. (Examples: misplaced serifs as mentioned above; missing names in lists—compare 1 Chronicles 8:30 with 1 Chronicles 9:36, or skipping entire lines.)

2. Furthermore, the scribes might make intentional changes for their own purposes, which results in a different genealogy. Again, these are changes in presentation which only change the meaning when read from a modern point of view. (Possible examples: Judges 18:30 reads Manasseh with a raised n, but the Torah (Bava Batra 109b., the editors of the Masoretic Text) suggests the original reading was Moses; Matthew 1:8 omits three names from 1 Chronicles 3; Luke 3:33, 36 adds Admin and Cainan.)

IV. 1. Sometimes the Hebrew word ben (son) is used where the offspring was not directly begotten, in the same way that cousin has been used in some places to signify some relative. How far this word was permitted to be stretched is debated, but it certainly included grandsons. (Evidence: Genesis 46:18, 22, 25; 1 Chronicles 2:51 vs. 1 Chronicles 4:4; Exodus 6:24 vs. 1 Chronicles 6:22-23 vs 1 Chronicles 6:37.)

2. Sometimes a man is said to have fathered someone with the name of a well-known town. It is not clear whether he merely founded that town, or whether he had a son with that name, and whether the son founded that town. (Examples: Bethlehem 1 Chronicles 2:51; 2:54; 4:4; Kiriath-jearim 1 Chronicles 2:52; Tekoa 1 Chronicles 4:5.) One could also be the firstborn of a town name (Example: Ephrathah 1 Chronicles 2:50; 4:4.)

3. We know from Luke 1:59 that it was normal for sons to be named after their fathers (compare Jubilees 11:15, Josephus' Antiquities 14.1.3 [10] and 20.9.1 [197]). But I cannot find a single instance of this in any Biblical genealogy. Sons with the same names as their grandfathers, uncles, and even brothers, but not fathers. I take this as circumstantial evidence that when a son was named after his father a genealogy might combine them.

4. Sometimes a verse listing a guy's sons is followed by a verse talking about another guy with no apparent connection to anybody. (Examples: 1 Chronicles 8:29-32; 1 Chronicles 5:4)
a) In this case the subject of the latter verse may be another son of the subject of the former verse. (Evidence: 1 Chronicles 9:35-38.)
b) However, especially when attributing men to certain tribes, this signifies a gap in records, where the forefather was remembered where the intervening fathers were forgotten. (Evidence: 1 Chronicles 5:3, 6, and 10 are datable and are hundreds of years apart.)

5. The number of the word son does not always match expectations: the Hebrew may say the son of Hanahiah were Pelatiah and Jeshaiah (1 Chronicles 3:21) and go on in the next verse to say that the sons of Shecaniah were Shemaiah (1 Chronicles 3:22). I don't know what this signifies, if anything.

6. Sometimes 'sons' describes a list of multiple generations, not of brothers (1 Chronicles 4:1), and sometimes brothers are grouped together without clarification in a list of multiple generations (1 Chronicles 1:1-4). The author assumes you will recognize the names and their corresponding pattern, but modern readers may not.

7. In addition to the words 'father' and 'son', the Hebrew word 'brother' can also have a broader significance than it does in English. (Example: 2 Samuel 20:9.)

8. A father could take a later-born son and give him the rights and title of the firstborn. (Example: 1 Chronicles 26:10.)

9. If a father had no sons, his daughters' children could be counted under his name. (Examples: Numbers 36; 1 Chronicles 23:22.)

10. If one branch of a family had few sons, they could be grouped with their uncle's family. (Example 1 Chronicles 23:10-11.)

V. Other Issues
1. Gender: There does not seem to be any inherent difference between boys and girls names in Hebrew. If the text does not say, it is usually safe to assume the person is male. But some cases are ambiguous. (Example: Asriel 1 Chronicles 7:14.)

2. For the Hebrew, the total number was often more important than the individual members, leading to confusion in counting. This did not imply contradiction to its authors. (Examples: lists of the twelve tribes of Israel must choose between fourteen possible individuals, because Joseph's two sons are often included; the seventy elders in Genesis 10 and in Genesis 46.)

Appendix: Variations in Biblical Names (in progress)

A Reason to Love

In her book The Harvester, Gene Stratton-Porter describes two characters who love each other, but refuse to marry until they are convinced that their love is not based merely on something the other has done, but only on who the other person is. This is presented as a noble ideal, but one that is surprisingly difficult to attain, for they have many reasons to love each other. She is beautiful and gracious, he is ruddy and handsome. He hurts her devastatingly yet accidentally, and she forgives him once he realizes it and makes reparations. She falls into a desperate state, and he rescues her and exalts above her highest dreams. They share many trials and triumphs. They love each other. But they ask themselves whether their love is pure, untarnished by material circumstances, or whether, things be different, they would have cared for each other. The book finally ends with an unconvincing 'we do'.

This ideal appears in many forms in popular culture. True love, love at first sight, affinities, the one;-all are names for a love which supposedly has no material reason except for fate. To value someone, even initially, for their material advantages, is looked down upon (Pride and Prejudice). And this applies to more situations than just love: geniuses and infant prodigies are esteemed for their natural gifts, not for their efforts. Those with the inner potential , but not the circumstances, to perform heroic acts or create great works are lamented more than the great and successful are lauded. There is something in our culture (at least) which values charity or chivalry–the idea that weaker a thing is the more it should be respected, or that force is always wrong. Let things run their course, get back to the state of nature. God forbid anyone admit an initial bias or (gasp) prejudice.

This makes its strongest appearance in our worship of freedom, independence, sovereignty, free will. What everyone wants most is to be their own master, to be able to make decisions independent of any outside influence:—that is, personal sovereignty. All significant decisions must be credited to one's free will, meaning we would have made that decision even had we no inducement in that direction. To suggest that anything can influence, direct, harden, or cleanse our wills is counted blasphemy against the god of self. Even for those few who exalt God's sovereignty over their own do so in order to protect God's freedom of will–the idea that he cannot be made to do something by his creatures. They say God must act out of his inner nature or he is not God. But to act without cause is to act without reason. How can this be an attribute of God, let alone man? Some ask, what if God had been bad instead of good? How would that make a difference? How could we even tell? Do we value what is instinctive because it is right, or do we value what is good because it is natural? Seemingly, we believe that they are necessarily the same.

I begin to ask, where does this fetish come from? Is it normal? Is it right? And already I am sucked into the same value system I am trying to question. What does it matter whether I was born with this prejudice or whether I was indoctrinated by my culture? And how can I answer that when my answer depends on the influence of personal prejudice or culture? Does this question even make sense? (Not a rhetorical question!) Does my inability to communicate it mean that it is not a material question, or is this again a misguided cultural bias? (Rhetorical again.)

Idiosyncrasies of Bible Translation

LXX

Greek does not distinguish between the verb forms 'he runs' and he is 'running' but the translator must.
Greek has a 'continuous' verb tense which is translated as '_always_ give us this bread' or 'he loved them _to the end_' or '_keep on_ loving'.

Greek pronouns are always included as a verb suffix, but they are sometimes also added separately. Too-literal translation leads to constructions such as 'the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will' = 'he he will'.

Greek words with two or more opposing meanings must be translated according to one or the other, but it is the translators' interpretation as to which. The following English words translate the same Greek word (in NASB):

sir / lord = kurios (this word is also translated Master, but there are other Greek words also translated that)
slave / servant = dulos (also the case with Hebrew eved)

Rabbi is Aramaic for teacher

 Hebrew words are more flexible than English. For example, וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֙ (wə·’ā·mar·tā) is translated 'say' or 'tell' depending on whether it is followed by the preposition 'to'.

To be continued....