|
|
|
'CONTRADICTIONS' AND 'ERRORS' IN THE BIBLE RESOLVED
1) BEFORE THE COCK CROWS ONCE OR TWICE DID PETER DENY THE LORD THREE TIMES?
Mike Scott, minister (http://www.scripturessay.com) states:
'''[Mt 26:34]:
"Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times."
[Lk 22:34]:
"And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me."
[John 13:38]:
"Jesus answered, 'Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.' "
[Mark 14:30]:
"And Jesus said to him, 'Truly I say to you, that this very night, before a rooster crows twice, you yourself will deny Me three times.' "
All the gospel writers mention that the rooster will crow before Peter denies Christ. They all mention the number of denials (the most significant numerical detail here) as being three. Mark mentions that the rooster will crow twice after the denials. Is this a discrepancy?...[Not if you go by normative rules of language] ....I don't believe so.
[Essentially Christ's words could be paraphrased as follows]:
'Peter, in the next few hours you will deny me three times, in fact, before the rooster crows!' It seems, since there is no real contradiction here, that Mark simply gives us greater details about the circumstances in this incident. Often this is the case in the gospels. One writer giving an additional detail or two to the story. Nothing contradictory, simply illuminating. One commentator has observed (Alford) that roosters are accustomed to crow twice,--at or near midnight, and not far from day-break. Since very few people hear the first crowing, the term generally denotes the second. Therefore all the gospel writers are referring to this "second" crowing.'''
2) GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNT CREATES LIGHT BEFORE THE SUN, MOON AND STARS.
[Objectors Viewpoints]:
Farrell Till, (http://www.mantis.co.uk/2biolo91.html) states:
"But as any astronomer knows, evening (night) and morning (daylight) result from the earth's rotation with respect to the sun. With no sun, there would have certainly been evening or night, but there could have been no morning."
Till, (cont.)
"On the fourth day when God created the "two great lights" (the sun and the moon), he created the stars too. This creation of the rest of the universe was treated by the Genesis writer(s) as if it were little more than an afterthought: "he made the stars also" (v:16)."
Till (cont.)
"To the prescientific mind that wrote this, it probably made sense. To him (her), the earth was undoubtedly the center of the universe, but today we know better."
Till (cont.)
"The solar system of which earth is only a tiny part is itself an infinitesimal speck in the universe. Surely, then, the creation of the stars would not have occurred so quickly and suddenly if six days were needed to create the world."
Till, (cont.)
"Scientists now know that the creation of stars is an evolutionary process that is still ongoing. Matter coalesces; stars ignite, shine, and eventually burn out or explode. From the existence of heavy elements in our solar system, astronomers generally agree that it formed from debris left over from a supernova that occurred billions of years ago. The prescientific Genesis writer knew none of this, however, and that is why he viewed the creation of the universe as an Elohistic afterthought. No modern, scientifically-educated writer would have made that mistake."
3) THE BIBLE INDICATES THAT [SIX LEGGED] INSECTS SCURRY ABOUT ON FOUR LEGS???
[Objectors Viewpoint]:
Farrell Till, (op. cit.) states:
"The Leviticus writer... was so unobservant.... that he apparently thought insects were four legged creatures....
[and that these insects were unique with legs above their feet]:
.....Now I want some enterprising inerrancy defender to give us a list of insects that don't have legs above their feet."
[Lev 11:20-23 BB]:
(v. 20) "All winged creeping things that go upon all fours are an abomination to you.
(v. 21) Yet these may you eat of all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to leap upon the earth;
(v. 22) Yet these may you eat of all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to leap upon the earth;
(v. 23) even these of them you may eat: the locust after its kind, the bald locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. But all winged creeping things, which have four feet, are an abomination to you."
6) ARE RABBITS ERRONEOUSLY CALLED RUMINANTS [I.E., THEY CHEW THE CUD] IN LEV 11:6?
7) JACOB'S SCHEME TO MULTIPLY SPOTTED SHEEP - DOES IT CONTRADICT TRUE SCIENCE?
8) ARE BATS INCORRECTLY REFERRED TO IN THE BIBLE
Greg hartman states:
http://christianhumor.moningco.com/library/weekly/aa060.htm
[Objectors Viewpoint]
"You maintain that the Bible is INERRENT; but I can point out some errors. The Bible mentions [that] the taxonomic classification of chiropterians, and it is wrong [in the way that it does]. These references do show some evidence of errors within the work."
[Greg Hartman's Answer]
There are three references to bats in the Bible -- Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:18, and Isa. 2:20. The latter reference mentions bats by themselves, so it is probably not the "mistake" you have in mind. The first two, however, mention bats in lists with birds. I'll take a wild stab here and guess you're calling it a mistake to list bats with birds. Fair enough; I can offer two answers to that, the first of which is not satisfactory, but the second of which is:
1. In Deuteronomy the Hebrew word ôwph is used to define the list of vertebrates (KJV renders it "fowls"). This word means, literally, "to cover with wings" or "winged creature." I could argue that such a word could encompass bats as well as birds, but this is not a satisfactory argument, for two reasons:
It still makes the error you're talking about by classifying bats with birds, and ·Deuteronomy 14:18's enharmonic reference, Lev. 11:19, uses the Hebrew word tsippôn, which means "bird" in no uncertain terms. Thus we must conclude, in harmonizing the two references, that the specific term "bird" (tsippôn ) in Leviticus, by the law of harmonics and the law of first-mention, instructs us to interpret the generic term "winged creature" (ôwph ) in Deuteronomy as "bird" (and it is so rendered in the NIV and most other translations).
Therefore, we are left with the certainty that both lists should be classified as lists of birds, and not just lists of generic "winged creatures." This leads us to the second answer:
2. Since we know we are definitely talking about a list of birds, how can we account for the presence of the bat here? The word rendered "bat" is the Hebrew 'atallêph. This word, like several others in the same list, is of uncertain origin (don't take my word for it; look at the footnotes of the NIV for Lev. 11:20, which ends the list, and it will tell you that the precise identity of several animals in the list are uncertain). The Hebrew lexicon's definition for 'atallêph says the same thing ("of uncertain derivation").
What I'm saying is this: we simply do not know exactly what vertebrate is being described here, or in several other instances in the same passage.
In other words: the jury's still out and you have no solid idea whether or not this is actually a mistake -- and you won't until and unless this word can be precisely defined.
To digress a second: the KJV mentions the unicorn in several places (Num. 23:22, 24:8; Job 39:9-10; Ps. 29:6, 92:10). "Ha!" some skeptics still try to gloat, "everyone knows there's no such thing!"
Well, the word "unicorn" is the Hebrew word re'êym. In 1611, the translators working on the KJV simply did not know what animal this word referred to, so they did the same thing the translators of the NIV did with 'atallêph : they guessed. Problem was, they not only guessed the wrong animal, they picked an animal that didn't even exist (though of course at that time they thought it did).
In the intervening years, Bible scholars have learned that re'êym refers to the auerochs (L. Bos primigenius ), a now-extinct species of wild ox. Look up all the KJV references to the unicorn in the NIV and you'll see (surprise!) re'êym rendered as "wild ox." The auerochs was already extinct in 1611, and its prior existence was not known at that time (given that the science of paleontology did not really exist yet). This forced the translators to guess (there is a technical word for guesses like this -- which, BTW, are few and far between -- but it escapes me at the moment. But I'd rather call a spade a spade anyway).
But the auerochs WAS still alive in Bible times. Julius Caesar saw it and wrote about it (see Coes., Bell. Gall., iv. 29). He described it as immense in size, of great strength (cf. Num.23:22; 24:8), speed (Ps. 29:6), and ferocity, and that it was untamable (Job 39:9-10). It became extinct in Europe in the Middle Ages; somewhat earlier in Syria-Palestine, and its name transrferred to the common ox (which still exists; the Arab cognate is r'im ).
This is a great example of an assertion I've made all along: that the Bible and science have nothing to fear from one another. In this case, philology (the Akkadian cognate, rimu, describes the auerochs) and paleontology (Tristram independently corrorborated its existence in the Lebanon Mountains) helped solve a translation problem.
I said all that to say this: it is entirely possible that the Hebrew word 'atallêph refers to a species of bird we simply don't know about -- you know as well as I do that our taxonomic catalog is FAR from complete -- and which may be extinct to boot.
The bottom line is this: over 200 Hebrew scholars worked on the NIV, but they collectively felt unsure enough about the translation of 'atallêph to put in a footnote explaining that they simply aren't sure what the word means. That being the case, I'll say this: if 200 Hebrew scholars weren't sure what the word meant, it is premature to announce with any degree of certainty that you DO -- because until and unless the word is solidly defined, you'll either have to admit you don't have a leg to stand on, or you'll have to pretend you are the only person in the world who knows the precise definition of atallêph.
TO SUM IT UP
The reference to "bats" in Lev. 11:19 and Deut. 14:18 is highly uncertain. It is not a taxonomy problem; it is a translation problem. Until and unless the Hebrew word 'atallêph can be precisely and certainly identified, there are no solid grounds upon which to assume an error exists here. This does NOT prove a Bible error, therefore; it proves only that our knowledge of ancient Hebrew -- much as it has improved since 1611 -- still has room to improve.
25) IF GOD IS OMNIPOTENT HOW COME HE COULD NOT LET SINS BE FORGIVEN WITHOUT SACRIFICING HIS SON?
Om*nip"o*tent\, a. [F., fr.L. omnipotens, -entis; omnis all + potens powerful, potent. See Potent.] 1. Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in ability; all-powerful; almighty; as, the Being that can create worlds must be omnipotent."
This does not translate that one will do anything - just that one has the capacity to do anything.
Just as one has the power to kill one’s own child, most sane parents cannot. That does not mean they don’t have the power.
In the same way God has to power to solve the sin problem in a number of ways, but that does not mean He can violate His holiness and permit sin to exist or deal with it in an unrighteous way. So although God indeed has the power to do anything, He is limited in the expression of that power by His holiness.
A) FIRST CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY
1) [Compare Jn 2:13-19]:
(v. 13) When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
(v. 14) In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
(v. 15) So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
(v. 16) To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
(v. 17) His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
(v. 18) Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
(v. 19) Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." '''
B) SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE REPORTED IN SCRIPTURE
1) [Mt 21:12-19]:
(v. 12) '''Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.
(v. 13) "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.' "
(v. 14) The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them.
(v. 15) But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.
(v. 16) "Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him. "Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read, " 'From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise' ?"
(v. 17) And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.
(v. 18) Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry.
(v. 19) Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.'''
2) [Compare Mk 11:12-24]:
(v. 12) '''The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. (v. 13) Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.
(v. 14) Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.
(v. 15) On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,
(v. 16) and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.
(v. 17) And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written: " `My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations' ? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.' "
(v. 18) The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
(v. 19) When evening came, they went out of the city.
(v. 20) In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.
(v. 21) Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"
(v. 22) "Have faith in God," Jesus answered.
(v. 23) "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.
(v. 24) Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.'''
3) [Luke 19:45-47]:
(v. 45) '''Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling.
(v. 46) "It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer' ; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'
(v. 47) Every day he was teaching at the temple. But the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the leaders among the people were trying to kill him.'''
C) COMMENTARY
Notice that the account in John is at the beginning of our Lord's ministry and the Matthew, Mark and Luke accounts are at the end. Evidently our Lord cleansed the temple more than once.
[Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, 'When Critics Ask, Victor Books, USA, 1992, pp. 354-5]:
"Problem:
Matthew places the cursing of the fig tree after the cleansing of the temple. But Mark places the cursing before the temple was cleansed. But, it cannot be both. Did one Gospel writer make a mistake?
Solution:
Jesus actually cursed the fig tree on His way to the temple as Mark said, but this does not mean that Matthew's account is mistaken. Christ made two trips tot he temple, and He cursed the fig tree on His second trip.
Mark 11:11 says that Christ entered the temple the day of His triumphal entry. When Christ enters the temple, Mark does not mention Christ making any proclamations against any wrongdoing. Verse 12 says 'Now the next day,' referring to the trip to the fig tree on the way to the temple on the second day. On this day, Chrsit threw out those buying and selling in the temple. Matthew, however, addresses the two trips of Christ to the temple as though they were one event. This gives the impression tha the first day Christ entered the temple He drove out the buyers and sellers as well. Mark's account, however, gives more detail to the events, revealing that there were actually two trips to the temple. In view of this, we have no reason to believe that there is a discrepancy in the accounts."
[The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Walvoord & Zuck Editors, Victor Books, USA, p. 279]:
"Jesus protested the turning of His Father's house into a market. He did not protest the sacrificial system itself. The purpose of the sacrifices was in danger of being lost. In the second cleansing of the temple [reported in Scripture] toward the end of His ministry [Mt 21:12-19; cf Mk 11:15-18; Lk 19:45-47] Jesus' attack was sharper. Then He called the temple area 'a den of robbers' (Luke 19:46; cf. Jer 7:11)."
[2 Samuel 24:13]:
"So Gad went to David and said to him, "Shall there come upon you three [seven in the MT] years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me."
[1 Chronicles 21:11-13]:
(v. 11) "So Gad went to David and said to him, "This is what the LORD says: 'Take your choice:
(v. 12) three years of famine, three months of being swept away before your enemies, with their swords overtaking you, or three days of the sword of the LORD -days of plague in the land, with the angel of the LORD ravaging every part of Israel.' Now then, decide how I should answer the one who sent me."
Hebrew manuscripts and the Masoretic [Hebrew] Text offer seven years of famine in 2 Sam 24:13. Other Hebrew manuscript evidence more recently discovered having three, the 1 Chronicle text being considered as better preserved, the Septuagint which has three, the symmetry of the three punishments all being three years and the easy possibility of mistaking the Hebrew character 3 for 7 lead to the resolution of this alleged contradiction as three instead of seven years in 2 Sam 24:13. This is reflected in some well received translations such as the NIV.
34) IF GOD IS OMNIPOTENT, COULD HE CREATE A ROCK HE COULD NOT LIFT?
Ans: If He could, He wouldn't be God. And since only God can create out of nothing - such as a rock - then only God could create a rock. But since God cannot do that which violates His character or is outside of His capacity, such as creating a rock that He cannot lift, i.e., doing something that which reflects less than omnipotency, then the question is not logical and by virtue of that, cannot be posed. Certainly God, being almighty, cannot prove that He isn't almighty, which is the implication with the nonsensical question in the first place.
