![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/11\/MosesAaronPharaoh.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
Dr. Steven DiMattei<\/a>\u00a0is\u00a0a biblical scholar and author, formally trained in the New Testament and early Christianity, with M.A degrees in Classics and Comparative Literature as well. Rumor has it that he is an atheist, but I haven\u2019t been able to confirm that on his site. He put up a website called\u00a0Contradictions in the Bible<\/em>.<\/a>\u00a0It seems inactive now (or he has lost interest or moved onto other things: who knows?), but the themes are things I really enjoy discussing and debating, and his articles are still online for all to see; thus fair game for critique \u2014 and stimulating food for thought, too. There is almost nothing I like to discuss and think about more than the interpretation of the Bible. Steven wrote in\u00a0a\u00a0post dated 5-7-16<\/a>:<\/p>\n One of my reasons in choosing the word \u201cdefend\u201d to describe my aims as a biblical scholar and author was in part to attract Christian apologists to my work and hopefully to get them to read these ancient texts on\u00a0their terms<\/em>\u00a0and from within their own cultural contexts and to create a conversation around the biblical texts, their authors, and their competing beliefs, messages, worldviews, theologies, etc. As you can imagine this has proven quite difficult, nay impossible. Many Christian apologists and fundamentalists just cannot read, or simply identify, the text on its own terms separate from the beliefs and assumptions\u00a0about the text<\/em>\u00a0handed-down through this collection of ancient literature\u2019s title, \u201cthe Holy Book.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Here\u00a0 I am: an apologist quite willing to engage in conversation. It takes two. So we\u2019ll see if Steven is willing to follow through on his stated desire. I have had my own long history (in almost 40 years of apologetics) of\u00a0\u201cdifficult, nay impossible\u201d\u00a0attempts to discuss matters with many people who tend to be of a few particular belief-systems, though I have no problem talking with\u00a0anyone<\/em>\u00a0who is civil and can stick to a topic.\u00a0I don\u2019t just\u00a0say<\/em>\u00a0this, I have a demonstrable record of\u00a0doing<\/em>\u00a0it, which is evident on my blog, with its 1000+ dialogues. But as I said, dialogue takes two, and I would add that it also requires a degree of at least minimal mutual respect.\u00a0Steven\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Steven makes a great deal about these alleged biblical contradictions in at least three articles:<\/p>\n #91. Moses\u2019 staff OR Aaron\u2019s staff OR God\u2019s staff? (Ex 4:2, 7:15, 17:20, 9:23, 10:13 vs Ex 7:9-12, 7:19 vs Ex 4:20, )<\/a><\/p>\n #92. Does the staff turn into a snake OR a serpent? (Ex 4:3 vs Ex 7:9-10)<\/a><\/p>\n #105. Does Moses strike the Nile with his staff for the first plague OR does Aaron with his own staff? (Ex 7:15-18 vs Ex 7:19-20)<\/a><\/p>\n I think his fundamental fallacy, spread throughout these articles and many others, is thinking in \u201ceither\/or\u201d (hyper-rationalistic) terms, as opposed to the \u201cboth\/and\u201d outlook, which typifies the biblical and ancient Hebrew outlook. We shall see how this is a wrong path and frequent source of confusion in his arguments, and indeed, massively in scores of arguments about alleged biblical contradictions from all sorts of biblical skeptics (I\u2019ve refuted these errors in particulars scores of times, myself).<\/p>\n Exodus 4:2, 7:15, 7:20, 9:23, and 10:13 all indicate that the staff or rod involved in producing Yahweh\u2019s signs was Moses\u2019 staff, perhaps even his personal shepherd\u2019s staff. Indeed 4:2, which introduces the staff in the narrative, seems to imply that it was already on Moses\u2019 person: \u201c\u2018What\u2019s this in your hand?\u2019 \u2018A staff.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n However, Ex 7:10, 7:12, 7:19, 8:1, and 8:12 refer to the same staff now as \u201cAaron\u2019s staff\u201d and, more surprisingly, depict Aaron, not Moses, performing the famous rod-to-snake, err -serpent (see #92) sign. But if that weren\u2019t enough then there is the reference in Ex 4:20 to the staff as\u2014literally\u2014\u201cthe god\u2019s staff.\u201d So whose staff was this: Yahweh\u2019s, Moses\u2019 or Aaron\u2019s? [#91]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I would say, \u201cwhy must we necessarily choose?\u201d It could refer to one and the same. The Wikipedia article, \u201cStaff of Moses\u201d<\/a> observed:<\/p>\n Relation to Aaron\u2019s rod<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Because Aaron\u2019s rod and Moses\u2019 rod are both given similar, seemingly interchangeable, powers, Rabbinical scholars debated whether or not the two rods were one and the same. According to the\u00a0Midrash<\/a>\u00a0Yelammedenu<\/a>\u00a0(Yal\u1e33. on Ps. ex. \u00a7 869):<\/p>\n the staff with which Jacob crossed the Jordan is identical with that which Judah gave to his daughter-in-law, Tamar (Gen. xxxii. 10, xxxviii. 18). It is likewise the holy rod with which Moses worked (Ex. iv. 20, 21), with which Aaron performed wonders before Pharaoh (Ex. vii. 10), and with which, finally, David slew the giant Goliath (I Sam. xvii. 40). David left it to his descendants, . . .<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n It has to be understood also that Aaron functioned as Moses\u2019 assistant or representative:<\/p>\n Exodus 4:10-16<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0But Moses said to the LORD, \u201cOh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either heretofore or since thou hast spoken to thy servant; but I am slow of speech and of tongue.\u201d\u00a0[11] Then the LORD said to him, \u201cWho has made man\u2019s mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?\u00a0[12] Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak.\u201d\u00a0[13] But he said, \u201cOh, my Lord, send, I pray, some other person.\u201d\u00a0[14] Then the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses and he said, \u201cIs there not Aaron, your brother, the Levite? I know that he can speak well; and behold, he is coming out to meet you, and when he sees you he will be glad in his heart.\u00a0[15] And you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do.\u00a0[16] He shall speak for you to the people; and he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hence, the phrase \u201cMoses and Aaron\u201d appears 64 times<\/a> in the RSV, in the [Protestant 66 book) Old Testament: all but five of these instances in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. The great bulk of these in Exodus occur in chapters 4-12, then there are only four more instances in chapters 16, 24, and 40. Basically, then, the usage is almost confined to the first third of the book. It\u2019s as if Moses gained more confidence over time and started speaking and acting on his own as time went on. Wikipedia, \u201cAaron\u201d<\/a> comments:<\/p>\n According to the\u00a0Book of Exodus, Aaron first functioned as\u00a0Moses\u2019 assistant. Because Moses complained that he could not speak well, God appointed Aaron as Moses\u2019 \u201cprophet\u201d (Exodus 4:10-17; 7:1).<\/sup>\u00a0At the command of\u00a0Moses, he let his rod turn into a snake.<\/sup>\u00a0Then he stretched out his\u00a0rod\u00a0in order to bring on the first three plagues.\u00a0After that, Moses tended to act and speak for himself.<\/sup><\/p>\n During the journey in the wilderness, Aaron was not always prominent or active. At the\u00a0battle with Amalek, he was chosen with\u00a0Hur\u00a0to support the hand of Moses that held the \u201crod of God\u201d.\u00a0When the revelation was given to Moses at\u00a0biblical Mount Sinai, he headed the elders of Israel who accompanied Moses on the way to the summit. While\u00a0Joshua\u00a0went with Moses to the top, however, Aaron and Hur remained below to look after the people.<\/sup>\u00a0From here on in Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, Joshua appears in the role of Moses\u2019 assistant while Aaron functions instead as the first high priest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The initial relationship of Moses and Aaron\u2013 ordained by God \u2014 is typified in the following passage:<\/p>\n Exodus 4:27-30\u00a0<\/strong>The LORD said to Aaron, \u201cGo into the wilderness to meet Moses.\u201d So he went, and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him.\u00a0[28] And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD with which he had sent him, and all the signs which he had charged him to do. [29] Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the people of Israel.\u00a0[30] And Aaron spoke all the words which the LORD had spoken to Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is not unbiblical or \u201cunHebraic\u201d at all for the Bible to refer to creatures as representatives of other creatures or of God Himself. I wrote in another article of mine<\/a>:<\/p>\n Another fascinating motif in Scripture is \u201cthe angel of the Lord\u201d: who is sometimes referred to as God Himself; other times as His direct representative. In one passage (Judges 13:15-22), we see reference to God (13:16, 19, 22), but also to the angel of the Lord as His direct representative (13:15-18, 20-21 and in the larger passage, 13:3, 6, 9, 13). The angel is honored (v. 17), they fall on their faces to worship (v. 20) and at length the angel is equated with God as His visible manifestation (v. 22). But the\u00a0difference<\/i>\u00a0between the angel and God is highlighted by the angel being described as a \u201cman of God\u201d (13:6, 8) and \u201cthe man\u201d (13:10-11).<\/p>\n Elsewhere, the angel of the Lord is equated with God (theophany) in Genesis 31:11-13 and Judges 2:1, but differentiated from God as well, as a representative: (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Ki 19:6-7; 2 Ki 19:35; Dan 3:25, 28; 6:23; Zech 1:8-14). Even with Moses and the burning bush, there is a reference to \u201cthe Angel of the Lord\u201d (Ex 3:2) and yet two verses later, \u201cGod called to him out of the bush.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n We also see an equation of God\u2019s work and the work of men who follow Him (\u201cboth\/and\u201d), in St. Paul and the Gospel of Mark:<\/p>\n Mark 16:20\u00a0<\/strong>And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Amen.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 3:9<\/strong>\u00a0For we are God\u2019s\u00a0<\/b>fellow workers; . . .<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:10<\/strong>\u00a0<\/b><\/span>But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was\u00a0<\/b>not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was\u00a0<\/b>not I, but the grace of God which is with me.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:58\u00a0<\/strong>Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is\u00a0<\/b>not in vain.<\/p>\n Ephesians 2:10<\/b>\u00a0For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.<\/p>\n Philippians 2:12-13<\/b>\u00a0Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Because of this sort of \u201cboth\/and\u201d thinking, the idea that the staff or rod could be both Moses\u2019 staff and God\u2019s (and\/or also Aaron\u2019s) at the same time is perfectly biblical. Steven himself acknowledges at least this possibility:<\/p>\n Granted some of these references are to be understood metaphorically (e.g. Isa 30-32; Ezek 30:24-25), but others clearly are not, such as the reference in Ex 4:20 to \u201cthe god\u2019s staff.\u201d [RSV: \u201crod of God\u201d]<\/span> There is nothing metaphorical about this; apparently it is the rod that Moses holds in his hand (4:2-5). . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Thus it is not inconceivable that Moses\u2019 rod is some sort of divine staff, or perhaps an extension of Yahweh\u2019s staff, . . .<\/span>\u00a0[#91]<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n A further related biblical passage bears this out:<\/p>\n Exodus 17:9\u00a0<\/strong>And Moses said to Joshua, \u201cChoose for us men, and go out, fight with Am\u2019alek; tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the\u00a0<\/b>rod\u00a0of God in my hand.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is simultaneously God\u2019s and it is Moses\u2019 rod or staff. In biblical thinking this is not<\/em> a contradiction, as shown by analogy above. God calls this same staff of Moses \u201cyour rod\u201d (Ex 14:16) and He also refers to \u201cthe rod of Aaron\u201d (Num 17:10; cf. 17:6, 8).<\/p>\n It is apparent what the Priestly writer is up to. Moses is relegated to the position of Yahweh\u2019s mouthpiece. And this is the traditional view. It is Moses who communicates verbally with Yahweh and it is Moses who conveys verbally Yahweh\u2019s commandments and wishes. Even in P\u2019s plague narrative Yahweh commands Moses to tell Aaron to take up his staff and perform the sign.<\/span>\u00a0[#91]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n If Moses can be God<\/em>\u2018s \u201cmouthpiece\u201d then by the same token and by analogy, Aaron could be Moses\u2019 <\/em>mouthpiece and act on his behalf<\/em> as a representative, with his rod. No problem. No \u201ccontradiction.\u201d Nor is it a contradiction later on when Moses habitually acts on his own, with the staff, or rod (Ex 9:23; 10:13; 14:16 cf. 14:21, 26-27). The important thing is that God is in control of the whole thing and His will is accomplished through the words and actions of Moses and Aaron, as His representatives (and Aaron as Moses\u2019 spokesman or mouthpiece or representative \/ assistant). Where Steven and others see supposed \u201ccontradictions\u201d we see men of God working together in concert with God, to do His will, because God was at work in them, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13).<\/p>\n Steven doesn\u2019t fully understand this, so he attempts to create yet another of his innumerable proposed \u201cbiblical contradictions\u201d in his piece #105<\/a> (see above). Here is the complete passage that he thinks is self-contradictory:<\/p>\n Exodus 7:14-20\u00a0<\/strong>Then the LORD said to Moses, \u201cPharaoh\u2019s heart is hardened, he refuses to let the people go.\u00a0[15] Go to Pharaoh in the morning, as he is going out to the water; wait for him by the river\u2019s brink, and take in your hand the rod which was turned into a serpent.\u00a0[16] And you shall say to him, `The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, sent me to you, saying, \u201cLet my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness; and behold, you have not yet obeyed.\u201d\u00a0[17] Thus says the LORD, \u201cBy this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the rod that is in my hand, and it shall be turned to blood,\u00a0[18] and the fish in the Nile shall die, and the Nile shall become foul, and the Egyptians will loathe to drink water from the Nile.\u201d\u201d\u00a0[19] And the LORD said to Moses, \u201cSay to Aaron, `Take your rod and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, their canals, and their ponds, and all their pools of water, that they may become blood; and there shall be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'\u201d\u00a0[20]\u00a0Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded; in the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of his servants, he lifted up the rod and struck the water that was in the Nile, and all the water that was in the Nile turned to blood.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s quite obvious (the \u201cboth\/and\u201d biblical \/ Hebraic thinking that I have explained, being understood prior to interpreting this passage), that Aaron is Moses\u2019 representative. This was already fully explained three chapters earlier. I reiterate the key part of it:<\/p>\n Exodus 4:15-16<\/strong> And you shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do.\u00a0[16] He shall speak for you to the people; and he shall be a mouth for you, . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n With this interpretative \/ exegetical \/ cross-referenced understanding and background, the meaning of Exodus 7:14-20 is quite clear. When God says to Moses, \u201cyou shall say to him . . .\u201d (7:16), it\u2019s understood that this could or would include Aaron as his spokesman (4:15-16). In case anyone misses this aspect, God specifically tells Moses to \u201cSay to Aaron\u201d [the same stuff God told him to do] (7:19). Then the text summarizes that they worked in concert (\u201cMoses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded . . .\u201d: 7:20). It\u2019s fascinating that after mentioning both, the text states, \u201che<\/em> lifted up the rod . . \u201d We can\u2019t immediately<\/em> tell which one did it.\u00a0 But the context of 7:19 strongly suggests that Aaron did: according to his role as assistant. There simply is no difficulty. Steven will have to strike this off of his long \u201cdirty laundry list\u201d of alleged biblical \u201ccontradictions\u201d (or else explain to us how what I have argued is incorrect and false).<\/p>\n In case anyone missed the \u201carrangement\u201d the same thing happens in the next chapter. God told Moses to warn Pharaoh of the plague of frogs (8:1-4). Then God tells Moses to tell Aaron to stretch out his hand, to cause the plague to start (8:5-6). It\u2019s a joint effort. Even Pharaoh knows this, since it is reported, \u201cPharaoh called Moses and Aaron\u201d (8:8). He addressed both of them. Moses alone answered (8:9-11). Yet the text says that Pharaoh \u201cwould not listen to them<\/em>\u201d (8:15). Then God tells Moses to tell Aaron to cause the plague of gnats (8:16), and again\u00a0the narrative notes that Pharaoh \u201cwould not listen to them<\/em>\u201d (8:19). They\u2019re workin\u2019 together to do God\u2019s will. It\u2019s no \u201ccontradiction\u201d at all. Even Pharaoh<\/em>\u00a0(in effect serving as a \u201chostile witness\u201d) knows it, but our beloved biblical skeptics do not.<\/p>\n Exodus 9 continues the notice of joint effort. God sometimes says what He says to Moses alone (9:1, 12-13, 22), and also sometimes to \u201cMoses and Aaron\u201d (9:8). When God speaks to only one of them; it\u2019s almost always to Moses, as the leader. Then it\u2019s reported that \u201cMoses said to Aaron\u201d (16:9, 33; 32:21). The only time God speaks directly to Aaron alone in the book of Exodus, He says, \u201cGo into the wilderness to meet Moses\u201d (4:27). The same pattern holds in Leviticus. It\u2019s always Moses telling Aaron what God told him, except one time, where God is instructing Aaron of his duties as high priest, which is a different function altogether: one that he alone does, and not Moses (see Ex 10:8-11). Even then, Moses informs Aaron of additional instructions (10:12-15).<\/p>\n [W]hat Yahweh had commanded in Exodus 7:14-18 was not done. Moses did not strike the Nile with his staff. Aaron did, and with his own staff!<\/span> [#105]<\/p>\n But Steven doesn\u2019t comprehend what has just been explained. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s rocket science. It\u2019s simply taking the Bible at face value, on its own terms. But prior (overly \u201ccritical\u201d) bias interferes with that goal. He goes on to indulge in great speculation about how all this is supposedly designed, and is contradictory. But he never considers the factors that I bring to bear above, which are all (I think) plausible exegetical arguments as to how the text can be plausibly harmonized and synthesized. I think he needs to.<\/p>\n Lastly, Steven (using fallacious documentary hypothesis<\/a> categories and analysis) wants to make an issue of whether the staff was turned into a snake or serpent, in his piece #92<\/a> (see above):<\/p>\n Not only do the Elohist and Priestly sources disagree on whose staff we\u2019re talking about: Moses\u2019 or Aaron\u2019s (#91<\/a>), but they also use different terms when it comes to describing the serpent or snake it turns into. In E (4:3) the staff becomes a snake (nahash<\/em>)\u00a0[Strong\u2019s word #5175<\/a>],<\/span> but in P (7:10) it becomes a serpent (tann\u00een<\/em>) [Strong\u2019s word #8577<\/a>]<\/span>. Each author chose a different term, and the Priestly writer might have even had a reason for changing\u00a0nahash<\/em>\u00a0to\u00a0tannin<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n Gill\u2019s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/em> comments on Exodus 7:10<\/a>:<\/p>\n and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and it became a serpent: or a \u201cdragon\u201d, as the Septuagint version; this word is sometimes used of great whales,\u00a0Genesis 1:21<\/a>\u00a0and of the crocodile,\u00a0Ezekiel 29:3<\/a>\u00a0and it is very likely the crocodile is meant here, as Dr. Lightfoot thinks; since this was frequent in the Nile, the river of Egypt, where the Hebrew infants had been cast, and into whose devouring jaws they fell, and which also was an Egyptian deity.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Barnes\u2019 Notes on the Bible<\/em> adds<\/a>:<\/p>\n Here a more general term, \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05df tann\u0131\u0302yn<\/em>, is employed, which in other passages includes all sea or river monsters, and is more specially applied to the crocodile as a symbol of Egypt. It occurs in the Egyptian ritual, nearly in the same form, \u201cTanem<\/em>,\u201d as a synonym of the monster serpent which represents the principle of antagonism to light and life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/em> interprets Exodus 4:3<\/a>:<\/p>\n (3)\u00a0A serpent.<\/span>\u2014The word here used (nakhash<\/span><\/em>) is a generic one for a snake of any kind, and tells us nothing as to the species. A different word (tannin<\/span><\/em>) is used in\u00a0Exodus 7:10<\/a>, while\u00a0nakhash\u00a0<\/span><\/em>recurs in\u00a0Exodus 7:15<\/a>.\u00a0Tannin\u00a0<\/span>is, like\u00a0nakhash<\/em>,\u00a0<\/span>a generic term.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The third comment above provides, I think, the best answer to the false conundrum raised by Steven. A generic term doesn\u2019t contradict a more specific term. It would be like references to the same item as \u201cbook\u201d and \u201cromance novel paperback\u201d. They don\u2019t contradict, since \u201cpaperback\u201d is a species of \u201cbook\u201d and \u201cromance novel\u201d is a type of literature in a book (whether hardback or not). Strong\u2019s Concordance<\/em> defines nahash<\/em> as \u201cserpent\u201d<\/a> and tannin<\/em> as \u201cserpent, dragon, sea monster.\u201d<\/a> We see, then, that an acceptable translation of both is \u201cserpent\u201d: and thus RSV renders\u00a0all five of the Exodus passages<\/a> in question as \u201cserpent.\u201d<\/p>\n The Amplified Bible, which was designed to bring out the literal meanings of words in context, is fascinating in this regard:<\/p>\n Exodus 4:3<\/strong> . . . a serpent [the symbol of royal and divine power worn on the crown of the Pharaohs] . . .\u00a0 ][\u201cserpent\u201d used for 7:9-10, 12, 15]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The second point made is as important and instructive as the first.\u00a0The author of Exodus clearly uses the terms as synonyms<\/em>\u00a0in some sense (whether generic or not), since he utilizes nahash<\/em> at 4:3 and 7:15 and tannin<\/em> at 7:9-10, 12: all (except 4:3, in which God gives a \u201csneak preview\u201d) referring to exactly the same incident. Thus, within three verses of each other (7:12 and 7:15), the author uses two Hebrew words for the same object. And this is supposed to be a \u201ccontradiction\u201d? It\u2019s not. It would be like saying \u201cpaperback\u201d and \u201cbook.\u201d I could say, for example, about my own books: \u201cmy first book is a paperback.\u201d The two words refer to the same thing.<\/p>\n Taking a look at the many Bible translations in my library, I see that the RSV practice of using \u201cserpent\u201d for both 7:12 and 7:15 is followed by at least six major versions (Knox, Douay\/Rheims, NASB, KJV, ASV, Jewish 1917; while NRSV uses \u201csnake\u201d twice). In other instances where there are different terms, they can clearly be harmonized with each other as referring to the same thing in different ways:<\/p>\n snake<\/em>\u00a0\/ serpent<\/em>: Confraternity, NAB<\/p>\n serpent<\/em> \/ snake<\/em>: NEB, REB<\/p>\n reptile<\/em> \/ snake<\/em>: Moffatt, Goodspeed<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In none of these instances is there the slightest contradiction. If we look up serpent<\/em> at Dictionary.com<\/em><\/a>, the very first definition it gives is \u201csnake.\u201d Merriam-Webster Online<\/em> <\/a>states first: \u201c1a\u00a0<\/span><\/span>archaic<\/em>\u00a0<\/span>:\u00a0<\/strong>a noxious creature that creeps, hisses, or stings\u201d and then \u201csnake.\u201d Snake in the same source<\/a> is first defined as \u201cany of numerous limbless scaled reptiles (suborder Serpentes . . .\u201d and in Dictionary.com<\/em><\/a> first, similarly, as \u201cany of numerous limbless, scaly, elongate reptiles of the suborder Serpentes . . .\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s all much ado about nothing. These are the absurd lengths biblical skeptics will go to find a (or any<\/em>!) zealously sought-after, notorious \u201cbiblical contradiction.\u201d It\u2019s a case study in misguided zeal blinding one. Straining at gnats, Steven thinks he is milking this \u201crod motif\u201d for all it\u2019s worth and comes up with another of his so-called \u201ccontradictions\u201d:<\/p>\n\n
\n