Thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns (Isaiah 34)

Okay, back to Isaiah chapter 34 for another end times prophecy, and it's a pretty violent one by the look of it, or at least the SAB marks it as such. I answered whether God gets furious in Isaiah chapter 27, and the answer was yes.

So, God here has fury on the armies of all nations, and slaughters them all. It's surely hyperbolic language, but the blood of this slaughter melts away mountains. Clearly this is a massive killing unlike any other with the probable exception of Noah's flood, so yeah, it's violent, but these are armies we're talking about, so it's arguably violence begetting violence. This is likely God protecting Israel from some sort of massive invasion.

Verse four has some interesting language that the SAB marks with the "Science" icon; and indeed, what is being described here sounds very scientifically unsound. It's pretty reasonable to assume "the host of heaven" refers to the stars, so is the imagery of them falling suggestive of a meteor shower? Possibly, but there is the matter of the sky being "rolled together as a scroll" and the fact that it says "all their host", suggesting the sky is essentially obliterated. While it's entirely possible that God miraculously causes the universe to collapse (because he certainly could), and that would sort of fit this description, we're talking about stars that are tens of thousands of light years away (if we're just talking about our galaxy--unfathomably more if the whole universe) collapsing on a time scale that would supposedly be visible from earth. I don't think I have any idea what this verse could reasonably mean! (I mean, it's been suggested by astrophysics that the universe could possibly collapse in on itself in a reverse of the Big Bang, but not only does current evidence suggest that won't happen, we're talking about trillions if not quadrillions of years.)

So the chapter goes on to talk about more violence, this time specifically mentioning Idumea (also known as Edom), but while God is definitely spilling the blood of people, it's apparently also animal sacrifices, as a number of animals are mentioned in verse six. (I don't know why the mention of the fat of sacrifices leads the SAB to talk about fat people, but it does.) Verse seven mentions "unicorns", verse 13 has "dragons", and verse 14 has a "satyr" calling to others of its kind. I talked about mythological beasts in the KJV in chapter eleven, where I said that most of them are questionable translations, a "unicorn" most likely being some sort of wild horned animal, a "dragon" being some sort of large, scary beast, and "satyrs" are probably wild goats. Yes, verse 14's "screech owl" is "lilith" in the Hebrew, which is sometimes considered something mythological, but the word only appears here in the entire Bible, so who knows what is meant?

Verses nine and ten talk about the land becoming burning pitch, supposedly forever (at least it's supposed to be free of people forever), although it goes on to say that various birds will come to live there, which I assume couldn't happen if it's on fire, so this is admittedly a bit unclear.

He gave also their increase unto the caterpiller (Isaiah 33)

Isaiah chapter 33, like the last chapter, doesn't really specify a time frame, but seems to be end times prophecy, chiefly because verse 21 talks about Zion being "a place of broad rivers and streams" which it certainly isn't today, or ever has been in the past. This suggests a miraculous change in geography, which is end times stuff. The SAB has very few notes, but there were a few things that I found interesting in my reading. Verse four's "And your spoil shall be gathered like the gathering of the caterpiller" intrigued me, and I looked into it. The Hebrew word here for "caterpiller" appears six times, and the KJV always translates it the same, but looking at other translations, it seems it's not 100% clear what this word means. The thing that is clear is that it always refers to an insect that is very destructive, and many versions of the Bible often translate it "young locust". Whatever is going on here is either similar to or literally a plague of locusts.

Anyway, this chapter largely about God ruling on Mount Zion while his enemies are destroyed and his followers are exalted. Verses 12 and 14 in particular talk about God's enemies being burned up, and the SAB marks them for cruelty; this is a punishment for wrongdoing, however, and since the sin is not specified, it's hard for anyone to say if the punishment fits the crime or not. Verses 21 and 23 talk about how even though there will be "broad rivers and streams", no ships of war will approach Zion, and anyone who tries to attack in that manner will fail and be spoiled.

Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? (Isaiah 27)

Isaiah chapter 27 seems to be more end times prophecy, and may be a continuation of the last chapter. It opens with mention of Leviathan and "the dragon that is in the sea" (probably the same) just to make sure we've mentioned all mythological beasts in this one book, I guess. I don't think that anyone really knows what "Leviathan" refers to, whether it's a mythological creature or a forgotten word for a sea creature that we do know today by a different name. (Actually, studying the Hebrew, I just found something interesting; while my study guide says that the KJV always translates לִוְיָתָן as simply "Leviathan" it turns out that's not accurate, as the Hebrew word appears a seventh time in Job 3:8, where it's translated "their mourning"! Go figure. I can't find another translation that does this.) Anyway, the SAB marks this verse with absurdity and science, I suppose because Leviathan and dragons are not known to exist, but despite the description in Job 41 that includes fire breathing, it's entirely possible that Leviathan is simply something like a whale that the author of Job got hyperbolic about. Also, the Hebrew word translated "dragon" in the KJV is generally translated "monster" in modern translations, because once again, it's not really clear what it means, other than it's some kind of scary animal.

Does God ever get furious? This is an easy one; the answer is yes. I think the SAB is reading too much into verse four here; although God says, "Fury is not in me," that's him speaking "In that day" (v. 2) i.e. in the time that this prophecy is fulfilled, God will not be furious, but before that day, sure.

Verse eleven is a bit of a strange one in the midst of all the general talk of peace here. It's not real clear who is being talked about here, nor what form the lack of mercy and favor are supposed to take. The SAB paraphrases this verse as, "God created people who don't understand. Therefore he won't have mercy on them or show them favor." which is not wrong, but it makes it sound like God caused their lack of understanding, when it may be that they were intentionally ignorant (at least, that sounds likely to me). It was probably a lack of understanding of God and/or morality, I would assume. Anyway, in the end, the Jews of the world will be gathered to Jerusalem.

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake (Isaiah 26)

Isaiah chapter 26 gives us what appears to be end times prophecy, but it's mostly in the form of praise. There's not a lot of notes here, but the few there are are worth discussing. I answered whether there was ever a just person in Matthew chapter 13, where I said the answer is yes, and Solomon is essentially being hyperbolic in Ecclesiastes.

Will everyone see the majesty of God? As usual, I will point out a couple things that often come up in supposed contradictions. If this is a contradiction, it's Isaiah contradicting himself, which seems unlikely. Also I note that the verse in Isaiah chapter 40 doesn't actually say "majesty", but rather "glory"; whole these concepts are similar, I don't think they are the same. I believe there is a sense in the term "majesty" of lordship (kings and queens are referred to as "your majesty"), and while everyone will eventually see the glory of God, only some people will witness him reign over the earth in the end times.

I discussed the question of whether death is final in Joshua chapter 23, but worth noting here that if there's a contradiction here, it's not just Isaiah contradicting himself, but doing so within a few short verses. Note that in verse 19, Isaiah says, "Thy dead men," indicating that he's referring to a specific group of dead people who belong to God, while it's likely that the dead in verse 14 are "the wicked" from verse 10. While I believe the Bible teaches an afterlife for all people, it also teaches that the nature of the afterlife varies from person to person.

Get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city (Isaiah 25)

In Isaiah chapter 25, the prophet gives praise to God, although the nature of the praise seems off to the SAB. First of all, Isaiah praises God for destroying a city. This can seem cruel, but I think from the context of the next verse, we're talking about destroying a powerful city in an evil nation (no specific nation is named, this may not be about any specific city). Isaiah talks about God helping the poor and the needy after that, which is a bit more relatable. In verse six, Isaiah talks about God making a feast on a mountain; I assume this is Mount Zion, and it may be an end times prophecy. Then God will destroy--not the mountain, as the SAB misreads--some sort of veil that is covering the nations of the world. This may be a reference to the veil in the Temple which hides the room where the ark is kept, and God sometimes presents himself to the high priest, the idea being that the separation between God and mankind will be removed (this definitely sounds like end times stuff). God will "swallow up death in victory", meaning that people won't die anymore. This mention of wiping away the tears of everyone is echoed twice in the book of Revelation (7:17 and 21:4) which is considered largely end times prophecy. I don't know why Moab is singled out in the middle of all of this, but apparently it gets pretty severely trashed, and the last three verses seem to bookend this prophecy with more destruction of evil cities.

Lest I come and smite the earth with a curse (Isaiah 24)

Isaiah chapter 24 is apparently a prophecy for the whole world, as no specific nation is named. The SAB comments on the first verse that, "The earth is like a flat plate. When God turns it over, the people fall off." Once again, I don't think you can say that this is what this verse means, and this phrase is metaphorical. Interestingly, the Hebrew word translated "upside down" in the KJV appears nearly two thousand times in the Bible and is translated into all sorts of different English words and phrases depending on context (most often "before" or "face"); apparently its meaning is quite nuanced. Actually, the word translated "turn" is also nuanced and translated into a variety of English words, but seems to particularly mean something like turning in a wrong way, as it's often related to sin. Anyway, I doubt even the KJV translators thought this verse was meant literally.

Will God curse the earth? I actually touched on this in Genesis chapter eight but I either missed the Isaiah verses or they have been added since I was there. Once again, I think there's a need to point out that in all three of these contexts, there are three different Hebrew words translated "curse", and so there is probably some nuanced meaning in the original language that the KJV translators didn't convey. I suppose however that taking the KJV on its face yields a contradiction here, although I should also point out that in this passage, it doesn't say God was responsible for the curse. It may be that the sinfulness of the people of the world caused them to be cursed of their own choices; the Bible teaches in various places that sin leads to death. Also, if you look closely at Malachi 4:6, God is saying that he's not going to curse the earth, as Elijah is going to make things right.

The next section of the prophecy talks a lot about there not being wine or "strong drink". The SAB asks if this is a prophecy about prohibition, which is a strange question, I think; I'm pretty sure it's just saying there won't be an abundance of grapes. I'm not sure what all the talk of the pit and the snare is about in the next section; I suppose it's possibly literal, but it doesn't say who is responsible for these problems. Anyway, there's a lot of fire and earthquakes, which sounds a lot like the present. The end of the prophecy talks about the Lord reigning on Mount Zion, which makes me think that all of this is an end times prophecy.

I will not keep anger for ever (Matthew 25)

Matthew 25 opens with the parable of the ten virgins. I've dealt with the issue of polygamy before, but let me take a moment to reiterate the important misunderstanding involved in this passage: the ten virgins are not brides, they're bridesmaids. The man in the parable isn't coming to marry them, they're just the welcoming committee to lead him to the party. (Although polygamy was probably still pretty prevalent in Jesus' day, I think men still married one woman at a time.) This parable is about being ready for the second coming, but once again, I'm not real clear on what the oil represents.

The next parable is of a businessman with some servants. The SAB thinks it's strange that the master was glad that the servants invested the money, but I think it's loosely implied that that is what they were meant to do. The SAB marks the parable as cruel and violent, and honestly, I've tended to feel the same; why punish someone for not investing? At least he didn't lose it, right? This is a troubling parable, as most people have, as far as I've heard, interpreted this as being about Jesus entrusting his followers with the Gospel. If you don't share the Gospel, are you going to go to Hell, then? Parables like this one and the previous really can be confusing and troubling, I'll readily admit.

Then Jesus goes on to describe the manner in which judgment is going to come at the second coming. In this case, while most of the time there does seem to be the sentiment that salvation comes by faith, here the judgment seems clearly to be based on how people treated those less fortunate than themselves (something which the SAB marks "Good stuff"). All of this leads to a lot of questions. One thing that may explain discrepancies with other concepts of eternal judgment is that it is said here that Jesus is judging nations rather than individual people. It's always been my understanding that God deals with people not just on an individual level, but in groups; what this means for said groups is a bit hard to say. If a nation was made up of mainly cruel people, but there were a few good people mixed in, then how does the judging go? I assume that the good people get accepted, but if the nation as a whole is rejected, then who or what gets judged? In case I wasn't making it clear, I'm saying that I'm a bit fuzzy on this event overall, but I'm going to go to the individual questions that the SAB raises.

When was Heaven created? I'm going with Heaven being created when (or even slightly before) the earth was created. While the verse in John says Jesus is going "to prepare a place for you" that doesn't mean that Heaven does not exist, it means that Jesus has work to do to get Heaven ready for everyone coming there. (It was probably spiritual work, not actually physically making rooms or whatever.)

How should strangers be treated? I'm going to go with "Be kind to them." I think the verses in the second column are meant for a special purpose, and that there are certain situations that were particular to the early Israelites that required them to deal mercilessly with strangers, but those were not general rules.

"What must you do to be saved?" is a question I keep glossing over because the way the SAB puts it, it's a big question to tackle, so I'm honestly procrastinating on it. However, "Has there ever been a righteous person?" is one I addressed back in Genesis.

"How long does God's anger last?" is a good question, and I see the page there has a lot of food for thought. I think there needs to be a few things said that clears away some, but not all of the issues here. First of all, not all of these verses are intended as general statements, but rather some of them may pertain to particular incidents. Secondly, "how long" is a rather subjective matter, especially when you're dealing with a being like God who is eternal; being angry for forty years might be to his mind "but a moment". Thirdly, the length of God's anger may not be commensurate with the length of the punishment. (Maybe God was angry just for a moment, but they had to wander for forty years anyway?) Just because there's an everlasting punishment doesn't mean that there was an everlasting anger to go with it. So all that being said, I would say that the only verse on this page that clearly states God will be angry at someone forever is Malachi 1:4. Does that still leave a contradiction? Maybe, but I think the rest of these verses are more vague than the SAB makes them out to be.

"Does Hell exist?" I addressed here, and while I didn't have a good definitive answer for it in the end, I think, "Is death final?" was an issue I addressed back in Joshua.

He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation (Matthew 24)

Wow, chapter 24 looks pretty intense, at least there are a ton of notes on it, so I get the feeling this is going to be a heck of a lot more work than the last chapter.

So Jesus points out the Temple, and tells his disciples that the whole of it is going to be torn down (which I know the SAB doesn't keep track of prophecies that came true, but before the end of the 1st century, the temple was destroyed, and has yet to be rebuilt), this leads to the disciples asking Jesus to tell them more about the future, and Jesus unloads a whole lot of stuff on them. Note that while the SAB says this is all talking about the end of the world, Jesus actually says in verse 6 that "the end is not yet." Still, the general thrust of Jesus' speech here is the events leading up to the second coming and thereafter the end of the world, so make of it what you will.

I'm not sure what to make of the hodge-podge of icons the SAB tosses up over this chapter, including prophecy, absurdity, science/history, injustice, cruelty/violence, contradiction, and interpretation. Women and family values get tossed in about half way through as well. Perhaps I should address this chapter by icon?

Prophecy: Yes, this is all Jesus talking about the future, and I assume that the SAB brings out the "prophecy" icon when it feels that there was a prediction made that didn't come true. I think it's not hard to see that a lot of the things that Jesus talks about here have indeed come to pass, and since the world isn't ended yet, anything that hasn't happened (there are a few, admittedly) still could. I think that the issue that the SAB has with this is the idea that "all of these things will happen within the lifespan of Jesus' contemporaries" as they seem to take verse 34 as saying. Verse 34 actually says, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." I think the interpretation hinges on what you think "This generation" means. It's not unreasonable to take the position that the SAB takes, but I've always taken the position that he was talking about the generation that sees certain things come to pass will see the end. What certain things? Some have suggested that the generation that sees the recreation of the nation of Israel is the generation talked about here, and that's a possibility. (The SAB even mentions this possibility with respect to the failed modern-day prophecy of Hal Lindsey on verse 32.) Another is the generation that sees the rebuilding of the Jewish temple, as that sets the stage for the "abomination of desolation" which is something horrible that's supposed to happen in the temple. There's a lot of room for interpretation here, and I think it's a bad idea for even (maybe especially) Christians to try to read too much specific in here. (The supposed failed prophecy of verse 14 I discussed back in Matthew 10.)

Absurdity: As usual, I have a hard time figuring out what the SAB specifically finds absurd here, so I don't think I can address this one.

Science and history: I don't see any obvious historic problems with this chapter, so I'm guessing the issue here is the scientific note on verse 29? This all goes back to some similar things I said when going through the early part of Genesis. Just because the verse says "the moon shall not give her light" doesn't mean that Jesus is making a scientific statement about the nature of moonlight. The very fact that English has the word "moonlight" means that we can talk about it while being aware that it is, by nature, reflected sunlight. Now, as for stars falling from Heaven, this could just be a description of a meteor shower, which people today who know the true nature thereof still refer to as "shooting stars". In short, I think the SAB is reading way too much into this short verse.

Injustice, cruelty and violence: I'd be willing to say that there's some unjust and violent stuff happening here, but usually when the SAB calls something unjust or cruel, it's trying to say that God in particular was being unjust or cruel, which I don't see any particular basis for here. Some awful stuff happens during this time described, but I don't see any of it explicitly said to be the doing of God.

Contradiction: The SAB marks a handful of passages with contradictions. The only one I haven't covered elsewhere is Will Jesus' second coming be visible to all? to which I would say that the single verse in the "no" column is not meant to be taken as for all time.

Interpretation: Not sure how to address this one since I'm not sure which verse(s) it refers to, and I tend to find these interpretive differences uninteresting to me, since I usually care very little what the Watchtower Society or Hal Lindsey might have had to say about it.

Women, family values: I guess verse 19 is the particular verse that this issue refers to, but I think it's easily addressed. Jesus isn't saying that pregnant and nursing women are especially cursed, but only points out that when things get really difficult, it may be especially difficult for this subsection of society.

We have found the Messias (Matthew 16)

Matthew 16 has another disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees (and the Sadducees as a bonus) about showing signs. Yeah, there's some harsh language, but I think Jesus makes a good point; there have already been quite a number of signs performed by Jesus, even in front of them, and as I said back in chapter 12 when there was a similar exchange, Jesus isn't there to perform tricks for anybody.

The SAB asks of verse 17 "How did Peter find out that Jesus was the Messiah?" I can see why the SAB might consider this verse a contradiction with John 1:41, but I don't think it is. Yes, Andrew told Peter that Jesus was the Messiah, but I think Jesus is saying that Peter's finally accepting this truth was a spiritual matter. I mean, I could tell any reader of my blog that Jesus was the Messiah until the second coming, but I think there needs to be something spiritual that "reveals" the truth of this to your heart, so to speak.

Verses 18-19 are open to interpretation, but it does seem on the face of it that this may be Jesus stating that Peter is to be the leader of the church; sure, you can call him the first Pope if you'd like to put it that way, I have no problem with it. Some have suggested that "this rock" that Jesus speaks of is not Peter himself, but Peter's statement of faith that Jesus is the Messiah, and there's some wiggle room for such an interpretation. As for what "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" means, I can't say; as the SAB points out, the Catholic church has had a spotty history, so it's certainly not incorruptible. As a side note, I'd like to point out that protestants who like to wave aside such ugly history with declarations of, "Of, but that's the Catholic church!" can't really take such an easy out when it comes to history of the church before the protestant reformation, as until that point in most of Europe the Catholic church was synonymous with Christianity. Just a thought.

Almost immediately after praising Peter, Jesus ends up having to rebuke Peter trying to rebuke him over his coming death. Harsh, but then even a Catholic will tell you that being Pope doesn't make you perfect. (Remember also that "satan" means "adversary", and Peter was certainly being adversarial at that moment.)

In verse 25, which the SAB marks as unjust and absurd, Jesus says that one should lose one's life in order truly find it. No I don't think Jesus is saying that you should kill yourself, but is suggesting that people should put aside their personal desires and seek Jesus first. Jesus goes on to speak of how God "will reward each according to his works." and asks whether salvation is by faith alone. I think I already addressed this a few chapters back, but my view is that while salvation is by faith, in the afterlife, there are different rewards according to the works that a person of faith has done.

At the end of this chapter, Jesus makes a very strange statement, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The SAB interprets this as a statement about the end of the world, which is not unreasonable, except seeing as nearly 2,000 years have passed since Jesus made the statement and now, and we don't know of any 2,000-year-olds, this would seem to be a problem. The only solution that I know of is that some have suggested the event Jesus is talking about is not the second coming, but the strange, miraculous event that Matthew talks about in the very next chapter, known as the Transfiguration.

This is the second death (Matthew 10)

So the first (substantive) issue that comes up in Matthew 10 is the matter of what the names of the apostles were. There are actually many minor issues here, as many of the apostles were known by more than one name, such as Peter a.k.a. Simon, but the SAB points out the most difficult one, this "Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus" fellow. Mark's Gospel refers to "Thaddeus" but the two times Luke refers to the apostles by name, he refers to "Judas the brother of James" which is never explained anywhere to be the same person. I think, however, that the fact that a lot of people in the New Testament have more than one name that they go by suggests that it's quite possibly what's going on here. Both Lebbaeus and Thaddaeus may have been nicknames of Judas, as both apparently mean something like "large-hearted".

Should the Gospel be preached to everyone? Well, I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that what is going on in this passage in particular is that at this time, Jesus isn't sending the Gospel outside of Israel, but that doesn't mean that it's never to be the case.

Did Jesus tell his apostles to go barefoot and without a staff? Once again, I have to hand it to the SAB for being so detail-oriented, as I doubt I would have ever noticed this oddity. I think it can be explained, though. In the matter of staves, I think what's being said here is much like what's being said about coats; it's not that they can't have a staff, but that they should refrain from bringing a spare. Going more out on a limb here, as I don't know first century customs regarding footwear, I think a distinction is being made between sandals and heavier footwear, that they can wear the former but not the latter. (I checked, and it is a different word in the Greek, at least.)

At the mention of the infamous ancient city, the SAB asks the question "What was Sodom's sin?" I don't think this question belongs here, but I'll address it nonetheless, as it's a good one. The reason I don't think it belongs is that I don't think that verse 15 or the parallel passage in Luke 10 actually say what Sodom's crime was but only hold the city up as a comparison. (The passage from Jeremiah 23 does likewise.) While homosexuality could possibly have been an issue, I don't see a lot of evidence for it. Yes, Ezekiel says they committed an "abomination", but the Hebrew word for "abomination" that Ezekiel uses shows up over 100 times in the O.T., and only once or twice is it associated with homosexuality, so that doesn't narrow it down much; I'd say it actually is more often associated with improper sacrificial practices than improper sexual practices anyway. No, I think that the passage in Ezekiel lists the real crimes of Sodom, but they are listed in a more general sense rather than a list of specific things.

The SAB puts a whole bunch of its category labels on verse 21, because yeah, it's talking about some pretty awful stuff. While I don't disagree that this is bad, I'm assuming that the SAB is trying to imply that Jesus wants this bad stuff or something, and I don't think that's the case. Intolerance, violence, and injustice are terrible things, but they happen because that's unfortunately just the way people are. The fact that Jesus knew these things would happen doesn't mean that he made them that way. When the next verse says "...he that endureth to the end shall be saved." I think the SAB is reading too much into it to say that this is like instructions on how to be saved. Rather I think it's saying that those who do not endure will not be saved, so take it as an encouragement rather than a sort of rule.

Verse 23 is an odd one, and I suppose it does sound a bit like it's talking about the timing of end of the world. I don't know that it is, though. For one thing, it may be talking about how the apostles in particular will not manage to preach in every city of Israel, although the Gospel may eventually be preached by others nonetheless. For another thing, there may be another meaning to "till the Son of man be come." I think the bigger issue in comparing it to Matthew 24:14 is that that verse says the Gospel would be preached to "all nations" which doesn't imply necessarily "all cities". As it happens, there are Christians in every one of the world's 200-odd countries (it's hard to say how many there are as it changes, and it's hard to say what counts as a country) but certainly not in every city, so the gospel has in a sense come to "all nations" while it very well may have never been preached in numerous cities of Israel.

The SAB asks if we should fear God, a question I addressed at length back here in what I think was one of my better posts. The SAB also asks whether or not Hell exists, which I'm certain I have not addressed. It's actually a difficult question, though, at least in the way that the SAB frames it. That is to say, I'm pretty well certain that the Bible teaches that Hell is a real place, but I will readily admit that it's a place of questionable nature. (I have some reflections on the nature of Hell in my other blog here.) There are those who, no doubt in part due to many of the verses in the second part of the linked page, believe that Hell is a place where the ungodly go after death to be destroyed rather than eternally punished as is the common understanding among mainstream Christians. It may be that some of this is a matter of a sort of poetic use of the term "death" as I've heard many say; when the Bible talks of the "death" of a soul, it may be referring to the eternal torment of Hell as a sort of death. I'm going to set that issue aside as a deeper bit of theology that I feel may be out of my scope and address the "everyone goes to heaven" section of the page (although it may be too deep as well, just shorter).

There is a doctrine that's part of strict Calvinism that suggests that when Jesus died for our sins, he didn't die for the sins of unbelievers, only those who would eventually come to faith. I think that 1John 2:2 suggests that this is not the case, but note that while that verse says that Jesus "is the propitiation...for the sins of the whole world" it does not say that the whole world will go to Heaven. Now when 1Timothy 4:10 says "...specially of those that believe", I think it's approaching the nature of the real truth. The metaphor that I've always gone with is that when Jesus died on the cross, it was like he signed a blank check to pay for the sins of each and every person in the world. The problem of faith is that a blank check is only worth something if you believe in it: everyone has this spiritual blank check, but are you going to sign the back and cash it out? I'm sure it sounds weird, but it works for me, and I hope it clarified a bit where my belief is anyway.

I'm not sure what the SAB is on about with sparrows (marked with the "science" icon), so I'm not sure whether I can address it. As the SAB says, God thinks human beings are worth much more than sparrows, and I'm inclined to agree. If there's scientific evidence that this is not so, I'd probably find it interesting.

I know that the SAB is interpreting verses 32-33 more strictly than I would, and I'm guessing that most Christians would also take this as more of a guideline than a strict rule. In particular, as is pointed out, Peter denied knowing Jesus at the time of his crucifixion, but later in life was a powerful, outspoken evangelist, so I don't think he lost his salvation over it.

Verses 34-37 have a lot of the same issues that verse 21 had, but there may be a few more things to say about these verses. As for whether Jesus is peaceful, it's a bit complicated, and I addressed that issue at the end of this post. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the meaning of verse 37 in particular, as it sounds pretty bad (although not as bad as some similar verses). Jesus is simply saying that in the end, our love of God should be our strongest love. Does that mean that we should be cruel to our family in any way? I don't believe so.

Most of the rest of the chapter is flowery poetic talk that I don't know I fully follow the meaning of so well, to be honest, although I can say that I addressed the question of whether there was ever a righteous person in this post.