We will discuss these “errors,” gathered from various sources, by the order in which they appear in the Bible.
A. Genesis 9:3 says that all animals can be eaten while Leviticus outlines a number that can't be eaten. This isn't a contradiction since Genesis 9:3 was the covenant that God made with all mankind while the later commands were strictly for the Jews since they were to be set apart from the rest of mankind. This objection ignores the historical context.
B. There is confusion as to who brought Joseph to Egypt. Was it his brothers, Midianites or Ishmaelites?
1. Concerning Genesis 37:28, this is a complete misunderstanding of this verse, which is only quoted in part by critics. Here is how the whole thing reads, “When some Midianite traders passed by, they drew Joseph up, lifting him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver. And they took Joseph to Egypt.” Depending on who “they” refers to in the two places in the text, it can be interpreted as either (a) the Midianite traders took Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites or (b) the brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites (region of origin)/Ishmaelites (traders).
2. And, of course, Genesis 45:4 poses no problem whatsoever. It doesn't say that the brothers brought Joseph to Egypt at all, just that they sold him to those who did bring him there.
3. Actually, in Genesis 45:5, Joseph explains that it was ultimately God who sent him to Egypt.
C. In Exod. 12:12, God appears to acknowledge the existence of other gods.
But that may not be the correct meaning of this verse. As the three commentators below explain, Egypt's so-called gods were shown to be totally powerless to prevent the plagues visited on them by God, demonstrating their basic non-existence.
R. Allen Cole, Exodus: “This may refer to the way in which the plagues affected the Nile and the various animal symbols of the gods of the Egyptians, or it may refer to the defeat of the spiritual powers that stand behind these symbols.”
Bernard Ramm, His Way Out: “Yahweh again showed that He is the living God, and the gods of the Egyptians but dead pieces of stone or wood or precious metal.”
Robert Gordon, International Bible Commentary: “The gods of Egypt were also to be brought into judgment. Their ineffectualness had been demonstrated in the earlier plagues when the natural forces thought to be under their jurisdiction were seen to be in control of a higher power.”
Another approach is expressed this way: “It was only in the course of history that the belief in the superiority of Israel's God over all other gods led to the development of absolute monotheism.” New International Dictionary of OT Theology and Exegesis. One commentator has said that “the OT writers preserve their strong monotheism albeit with a hint of henotheism.” (Twelvetree, NDBT, p. 796)
Many Bible scholars feel that the Jews first believed in henotheism (one God over the other gods) rather than in monotheism, and the fuller truth was only revealed to them after the Babylonian captivity. It is actually pretty easy to demonstrate this progressive revelation of God's nature to the Jews in the Bible: God made a covenant with Abraham, revealed his personal name to Moses, henotheism is probably taught in the Ten Commandments, the prophets taught absolute monotheism, Jesus is revealed as the son of God, and finally at Pentacost the Jews experienced the Holy Spirit.
This whole progression is also demonstrated in the way the Book of Isaiah is put together.
Three-fold Structure of Isaiah
I. Indictment for Past Sins (chs. 1-35)
II. Historical Interlude (chs. 36-39)
III. Future Promise (chs. 40-66)
A. God the Father (chs. 40-48)
Short Term – Salvation from Babylon
B. God the Son (chs. 49-57)
Mid Term – The Messiah (suffering servant songs)
C. God the Holy Spirit (chs. 58-66)
Long Term – Ultimate Salvation (the term Holy Spirit only appears 3 times in the OT, two of which are found in the exact center of IIIC)
As G. L. Bray explains (in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p. 512) concerning monotheism and henotheism, “From a theological point, however, there is little or no difference between the two options. Whatever the Israelites may have thought about the gods of the nations around them, they always regarded their own God as supremely powerful and thus 'real' in a way that the others were not. We may therefore conclude that Israel practiced a de facto monotheism from earliest times, even if this was not fully clarified until the time of the exile or later.”
D. “Perhaps no biblical contradiction is more difficult to comprehend than god's (sic) refusal to frame a consistent policy concerning the punishment of children for the sins of their parents.”
PRO: Exod. 20:5; 2 Sam. 12:13-18; I Kings 13:34, 14:10, 21:25-29; II Kings 5:27
CON: Deut. 24:6; II Kings 14:6; II Chron. 25:4; Jer. 31:29-30; (Ezek. 18:2-4) (Brian Bolton)
Actually, if you look at each of these passages in their context, God is totally consistent. In the first group of Scriptures, He announces that it is His prerogative to mete out punishment on the family of any Israelite who is disobedient, but in practice God only does so directly in four cases – each of which involves a person in a very responsible position (three kings and Elisha's servant). In the second group of verses, God first makes it clear that the people are never take it on themselves to carry out such punishments, only Himself. The Ezekiel passage is addressed to the exiles who were blaming the sinfulness of their parents for their own plight, and Ezekiel tells them to quit complaining and concentrate on their own sinfulness. And finally, in Jeremiah, God announces that when the New Covenant comes into effect, even He Himself will not punish any children for their parents' offenses.
E. Does God get tired? Exodus and Jeremiah say yes while Isaiah says no.
Exodus 31:17: God rested on the 7th day.
shabath = to stop working
Jeremiah 15:6: God is tired of repenting.
laah = to make one upset
Isaiah 40:28-31: God doesn't faint or become weary.
yaga = physically fatigued
(Young's Analytical Concordance)
This criticism of the Bible, as many others, is based on the mistaken belief that there is a complete overlap in meaning between English and Hebrew or between English and Greek, which is rarely true. You need to carefully consider what each word meant in the original language and especially not compare completely different original words just because they are occasionally translated by the same English word.
F. Matthew 19:26 says that God can accomplish all things, but He is apparently defeated by some chariots in Judges 1:19.
The first thing to note is that “he” in the Judges passage refers to Judah, not God. Next, the Matthew reference does not guarantee that God will do all things just because He can. Also, even though presence of chariots is given as a reason for the failure of Judah's army, there is obviously more to it considering that God has no trouble whatsoever defeating an army of chariots three chapters later in Judges 4-5. One of the Jewish targums (commentaries) added the explanatory phrase “after they had sinned” to Judges 1:19. The fourth thing to consider is that chapter and verse divisions in our modern Bible were not in the original and didn't get added until the Middle Ages. Therefore they not only are not inspired, but are sometimes quite misleading, as in this case where not only the chapter division but also the verse division is probably in error. So another answer to this so-called contradiction is found by considering the literary structure of the first part of Judges.
Literary Structure of Judges 1:1-2:5
A. God will be with Judah (1:1-2)
B. Judah-Simeon Alliance (1:3)
C. Successful Military Campaigns (1:4-16)
B'. Judah-Simeon Alliance (1:17)
A'. God was with Judah (1:18-19a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Judah was unsuccessful (after sinning) (1:19b)
B. Other tribes are partially successful (1:20-36)
A'. Because of her sin, God will not drive out the Canaanites (2:1-5)
Adapted from Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges
So the first part of verse 19 belongs with the events when God was with Judah while the second part belongs to the later time period after they had sinned.
G. Who Killed Goliath? Was it David or Elhanan (II Samuel 21:19)?
Here we must admit that there may be some problems in transmission of the text. But here are five possible ways to resolve the contradiction:
1. The parallel passage in I Chronicles 20:5 says that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother so “brother” may have dropped out of the Samuel text.
2. Elhanan may have been David's original name. Remember that Solomon had two names, and the fathers' names Jair and Jesse could have been easily confused for one another by a scribe.
3. Elhanan killed Oregim the Bethlemite who was with Goliath. This translation is possible by attaching different vowels to the consonants and looking at the grammar of the sentence in a little different way.
4. The name “Goliath” means “champion” or “strongman” so it may be just a generic designation, not an actual name.
5. This particular Goliath may have been the son of the original one. Archeology has found the name Goliath as a common one recurring over several generations. (Dictionary of the OT Historical Books, p. 356.)
G. “The word-for-word duplication between Isaiah 37 and II Kings 19, written by Jeremiah, has been called the most outrageous error in the Bible.”
Actually, I would label this The Most Outrageous Objection to the Bible for the following reasons.
1. No one knows who wrote the Book of Kings or when it was written.
2. Within I-II Kings are listed several of the earlier sources used to compose it, including The History of the Kings of Israel, The History of the Kings of Judah, The Book of the Deeds of Solomon, prophetic narratives (and these could include the Book of Isaiah) and Temple records. All historians utilize historical sources.
3. I find it hard to understand how this can be considered an error; you can't even accuse the author of Kings of plagiarism since he lists his sources.
4. You might as well complain that large portions of Samuel-Kings are duplicated word-for-word in Chronicles and that duplications appear between the four Gospel accounts. So what? It really just means an additional witness to the events being narrated.
H. Can God be found? Proverbs 8:17 says yes while Proverbs 1:28 says no.
1. These verses refer to Lady Wisdom, not God.
2. The nature of proverbs is to only state the general rule.
3. All of Proverbs 1 concerns those who persistently refuse to listen to Wisdom. This is equivalent to the hardening of hearts that appears elsewhere in the Bible, which happens when people have already hardened their own hearts.
4. By contrast, all of Proverbs 8 concerns those who love Wisdom and always seek it.
I. Do you answer a fool or not (Proverbs 26:4-5)?
I can only imagine what the author of this contradiction would have to say about this quote from Samuel Beckett found in his novel The Unnamable (“I can't go on,. I'll go on.”) Or what about one of the most famous opening line from any book written (“It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.”) Beckett is a Nobel Prize winner in Literature, and Dickens is often considered the best novelist who ever lived. Should you dismiss these as nonsensical contradictions or give the authors the benefit of the doubt and try to understand what they are saying? The problem seems to be that some atheists have never read a serious book written for adults and they don't know what to do when they run into one.
There are two ways to interpret this pair of proverbs. One approach starts with the recognition that proverbs only express the general rule briefly and are not meant to comprehensively cover a subject under all circumstances. According to that understanding, there are times when it is appropriate to answer a fool and other times when it isn't. The second way of understanding these two proverbs relies on the second part of each verse. Don't reply to a fool in the same foolish manner that he uses, but do answer him or he will go away thinking that he is correct and proceed to spread his foolishness elsewhere.
J. Matthew 5:48 says, “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” But in Luke 18:19, Jesus bawls out a man who called him “good teacher” by replying that no one is good but God alone.
The first thing to do is check some word definitions:
Perfect (teleioi) = to bring to an end by completing or perfecting, mature, full-grown. You could say that it means reaching your individual goal or potential.
Good (agathon) = beneficial in its effect, morally honorable.
“The natural man is irretrievably in bondage to the powers of sin and death and has no right to claim the attribute 'good' for himself...But through the redemption which has taken place in Christ, goodness overflows the believer.” (DNNT, 2, 101)
But why did Jesus deny being good? Keep in mind that the questioner in Luke didn't recognize Jesus as divine but merely as a good teacher. Jesus replied to those presumptions by saying that if that's all he is, he shouldn't be called good at all.
Another wrinkle to this question appears if you consider the parallel passage in Matthew 19:17: “Why do you ask me concerning that which is good? There is One who is good.”
“If Jesus is simply Teacher, then he is calculated to know no more and no less than any other teacher as to what actions are deemed “good for” entrance into the life of the age-to-come. If he is Good Teacher (as in Mark and Luke), then Jesus will not allow the questioner to use [the] word or ascription lightly.” (W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew)
As usual, C. S. Lewis has expressed it the best: “You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool; you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
K. The next objection concerns the number of disciples the resurrected Jesus appeared to. Was it 10, 11 or 12?
First of all, the author of this gem is obviously using the general word “disciple” only in the particular sense of the original apostles since the I Corinthian passage states that Jesus also appeared to more than 500 believers (disciples) at one time.
John and Paul use “the Twelve” as the collective designation for the original apostles while Matthew uses the actual numerical count of 11. Just look at John 20:24 where Thomas is called one of the twelve even though Judas was dead at that time and his replacement hadn't yet been chosen; it does not imply that all twelve were on hand...” And then two verses later, Thomas joins them so that all three numbers 10, 11 and 12 are correct. So basically, there is absolutely no contradiction here unless you insist on pedantic, meticulous, mathematical precision instead of trying to discover the original intent. Again, the similarity in approach to the Bible by atheists and fundamentalists is striking.
L. If Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise that day, why did he tell Mary that He hadn't yet ascended to the Father?
The word “Paradise” only appears these few times in the New Testament: “In Luke 23:43, it is no doubt dependent on contemporary Jewish conceptions, and refers to the at present hidden and intermediate abode of the righteous.” ( DNNT)
In II Corinthians 12:2-4, it is equivalent to “the third heaven,” where Adam, for example, was left until the day of judgment. (Apocalypse of Moses 37:5)
In Revelation 2:7, it is one of the blessings promised to believers beginning in this life and continuing after death. ( DNNT, Vol. 2, pp. 760-764)
Details regarding our immediate fate once we die are not spelled out in detail in the Bible, but it appears that Paradise is some sort of waiting place for believers until the Final Judgment happens. Therefore we can't at all state that paradise is the same as God's heavenly throne room, to which Jesus hadn't yet ascended.
M. Is God the only one who is God holy? Revelation 15:4 says yes while Revelation 22:11 says no. The word in Revelation 15:4 is hosios, a rare NT word that usually only appears when quoting from the OT. The word means “utterly without sin and utterly pure.” The word in Revelation 22:11 is hagios, which is seldom used to describe God. It “implies a relationship with God which is expressed...through the fact that believers are led by the Holy Spirit.” In Paul's writings hoi hagioi are the saints, those sanctified. (New International Dictionary of NT Theology, Vol. 2, pp. 228-238.)
By the way, we will see in other posts that this is a common ploy also used by some Christians who twist Scriptures when they rely solely on an English translation, especially KJV, without regard to the original Hebrew or Greek word being translated. The two concepts come together in this passage, “Be ye holy as I am holy.” ( Lev. 11:44; I Peter 1:16) Our holiness (sanctification) is derived from God's unique holiness (otherness).
N. Why are unclean creatures still mentioned in Revelation 18:2 when all animals had been declared clean?
1. Akathartos refers “to the whole realm of uncleanness, ranging from menstruation to moral pollution through wrongdoing.” (DNNT, vol. 3, pp. 102-108)
2. Jesus declared all foods clean (not all animals). (Mark 7:19; I Corinthians 10)
3. Peter received the same message through a vision. (Acts 10-11)
4. But the real message of the vision was symbolic as most other visions and had to do with the relationship of Jews with Gentiles. “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.” (Acts 10:28)
5. The imagery is mainly taken from Isaiah 13:21-22 referring to scavengers such as vultures, jackals and hyenas, which were not only ritually unclean to eat but also considered as rather disgusting creatures. So even if one could eat them, they were still rather foul animals, or foul fowls in the case of vultures.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments