May 21, 2020

May 21, 2020 By

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described  “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . .  I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.” Ward also wrote to me:

[M]any Bible critics (“atheists” or otherwise) will use some pretty ridiculous arguments . . . I have screened out those bogus claims that some critics make and have published my own book . . . of contradictions that I and others have found in the Bible that are clearly contradictions. (letter to National Catholic Register about one of my articles there; reproduced in my first reply)

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

213.
Proverbs 3: 13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.

Vs:

Ecclesiastes 1: 18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Q: According to Solomon (the author of both of these books), does wisdom make a person happy or sad?

***

214.
Proverbs 26: 4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Vs:

Proverbs 26: 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Q: Should one answer a fool “according to his folly”?

***

216.
Ecclesiastes 1: 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

Vs:

Ecclesiastes 5: 18 Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.

Q: Is it vanity to enjoy one’s labor?

***

217.
Ecclesiastes 8: 12 Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him

Vs:

Ecclesiastes 8: [continuing] 13 but it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God.

Q: Will sinners’ days be prolonged?

***

Ignorance reigns once again on the atheist front! Will it ever end? No, it won’t. This is not contradictory because of the nature of proverbial literature, which is a poetic form that makes “sayings” about life. Such sayings by nature are generalizations; therefore, they can admit of many exceptions, or have differential application according to situation and personal discernment. And that’s why these couplets are not contradictory. Christian writer Marty Solomon ably sums up this understanding, in his article, “Wise Sayings that Are Generally True” (3-13-14):

[T]he Proverbs are not comprehensive in their wisdom. What I mean by that is that there is very often an exception to the proverb. The proverb is not “hard and fast, black and white” — but as we’ve already looked at, this is true to life, anyway. The proverbs would have to be very limited in their scope. But this is exactly what the proverb is about. I teach our students to remember that proverbs are “wise sayings that are generally true.” . . .

*

I certainly do not mean to take away from the wisdom or the depth of the Proverbs; to the contrary, the wisdom of the Proverbs is incredibly, well, wise. They are profound, concise, and straightforward. And while they may not be all-encompassing for every situation at every time, their gutsy wisdom continues to stand the test of time. This is the wisdom and function of Proverbs.

But there are ways of understanding Proverbs 26:4-5 in particular that are not even logically contradictory, if we were to consider the statements — for the sake of argument — in a non-proverbial “absolute” manner:

Two sides of a truth. To “answer a fool according to his folly” is in Proverbs 26:4 to bandy words with him, to descend to his level of coarse anger and vile abuse; in Proverbs 26:5 it is to say the right word at the right time, to expose his unwisdom and untruth to others and to himself, not by a teaching beyond his reach, but by words that he is just able to apprehend. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

The former verse forbids to answer a fool foolishly: it is better to be silent than so to answer him. If he be in a frame plainly incapable of receiving a wise answer, do not answer him at all (Isaiah 36:21). But where he needs to be convicted of folly, lest he go away with the notion of his own superior wisdom, answer him so as to confute him. Unanswered words may be deemed unanswerable: answer, then, not in folly, but to folly-the answer which his folly requires. Compare Jesus’ silence and His answer, in conformity with both precepts, Matthew 26:62-64, before Caiaphas; John 19:9-11, before Pilate; Luke 23:9, before Herod. Regard to the difference of times and circumstances harmonizes the seeming contrariety of the two precepts. Discern the “time to keep silence, and the time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:7). So Jesus (Matthew 21:23-27; Matthew 22:46). Where it is only thine own honour that is at stake, be silent (as Moses meekly was when taunted by Aaron and Miriam, Numbers 12:2-4): when the glory of God or the good of thy neighbour is involved, speak. The reason added by Solomon draws the distinction, Do not answer when thy answer will make thee like the fool: answer when thy silence will give him a handle for self-conceit. (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)

***

219.
Isaiah 40: 28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?

Vs:

Exodus 31: 17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

Isaiah 43: 24 … thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.

Q: Does god get weary?

***

The last two verses are examples of non-literal anthropopathism, which I explained in some detail in the previous installment, whereas the first one is literal. Christian, biblical theology holds that God the Father is unchangeable and is a spirit: both of which preclude the possibility of fainting or getting weary.

***

Photo credit: King Solomon, by Simeon Solomon (1840-1905) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

 

May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020 By

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described  “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . .  I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.” Ward also wrote to me:

[M]any Bible critics (“atheists” or otherwise) will use some pretty ridiculous arguments . . . I have screened out those bogus claims that some critics make and have published my own book . . . of contradictions that I and others have found in the Bible that are clearly contradictions. (letter to National Catholic Register about one of my articles there; reproduced in my first reply)

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

207.
Proberbs 15: 3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

Vs:

Genesis 18: 21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know

Q: Does god see and know everything? Are there some things he has to research in order to learn?

*

This is once again (as in scores of biblical examples), an instance of anthropopathism, or condescending to the limited understanding of man by expressing things about God in a non-literal fashion. See my paper:  Anthropopathism and Anthropomorphism: Biblical Data (God Condescending to Human Limitations of Understanding). I wrote there:

[God expresses] many truths about himself analogically (as compared to human actions and emotions) so that we can understand Him at all. Otherwise, we would not be able to comprehend a Being so startlingly different and distinct from us and greater than we are. Thus, the passages (in this framework) that say He doesn’t and cannot change are to be interpreted literally, while the ones stating the opposite are to be interpreted figuratively or metaphorically or anthropopathically.

God is omniscient: He knows everything. This is plainly taught in many passages:

1 Chronicles 28:9 …the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every plan and thought.… (cf. 1 Ki 8:39; 2 Chr 6:30; Ps 44:21; Is 66:18; Ezek 11:5; Mt 6:8; Lk 16:15; Acts 1:24; Rom 8:27; Heb 4:13)

Psalm 147:5 Great is our LORD, and abundant in power;  his understanding is beyond measure. (cf. Job 36:4; 37:16; Is 40:28; 46:10; 48:3; Acts 15:18)

Romans 11:33 O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

1 John 3:20 …God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

These are literal passages. A passage like Genesis 18:21, however, is metaphorical. God doesn’t have to learn anything. But He expresses Himself in terms that human beings can understand, since we do have to learn about things: not being omniscient. If atheists would understand just this one thing, dozens and dozens of their proposed “contradictions” would be explained in one fell swoop, and intellectually honest atheists — having had this explained to them — would have to remove them from their ubiquitous lists.

But we rarely see that happen, do we?: because atheists don’t want to learn about Hebrew modes of thinking and literary expression in the Bible. They prefer to remain ignorant. Ignorance is bliss, right? Maybe, but as for myself, I’d rather be properly / adequately informed about anything I set out to critique (let alone trash and bash). Atheists so often are extraordinarily misinformed or uneducated about the Bible, so they step in it over and over in their misguided and wrongheaded attacks.

***

208.
Numbers 18: 17 But the firstling of a cow, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto the LORD.

Deuteronomy 12: 27 and thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the LORD thy God: and the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the LORD thy God

Vs:

Psalm 40: 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire

Psalm 51: 16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

Isaiah 1: 11 …I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats

Q: Did god desire animal sacrifices?

***

God set up the system of animal sacrifice because it was designed to analogically show that sin has a terrible consequence. Animals would be sacrificed, rather than men being punished. And they symbolically atoned for sin. At the same time, God wanted the Israelites to understand the deeper aspects of the law: love, justice, and mercy. And He wanted them to worship Him from the heart (wholehearted worship), and to follow His commands and to seek righteousness.

God often warned His people against hypocritical worship: performing of rituals without the proper attitude of heart towards Him. This is an ongoing human tendency that we all must be vigilant to avoid. God opposes deceit and hypocrisy, not formality, and rituals performed without a committed spirit and devotion, or in light of continued sin and disobedience on other grounds:

Amos 5:11-14, 21-24  Therefore because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. [12] For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins — you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate. [13] Therefore he who is prudent will keep silent in such a time; for it is an evil time. [14] Seek good, and not evil, that you may live; and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you, as you have said . . . [21] I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. [22] Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. [23] Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. [24] But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

*

Proverbs 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is his delight.

Proverbs 21:27-29  The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent. [28] A false witness will perish, but the word of a man who hears will endure. [29] A wicked man puts on a bold face, but an upright man considers his ways.

Jeremiah 6:19-20 Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not given heed to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. [20] To what purpose does frankincense come to me from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me.

Malachi 1:6-14 “A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who despise my name. You say, `How have we despised thy name?’ [7] By offering polluted food upon my altar. And you say, `How have we polluted it?’ By thinking that the LORD’s table may be despised. [8] When you offer blind animals in sacrifice, is that no evil? And when you offer those that are lame or sick, is that no evil? Present that to your governor; will he be pleased with you or show you favor? says the LORD of hosts. [9] And now entreat the favor of God, that he may be gracious to us. With such a gift from your hand, will he show favor to any of you? says the LORD of hosts. [10] Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. [11] For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. [12] But you profane it when you say that the LORD’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised. [13] `What a weariness this is,’ you say, and you sniff at me, says the LORD of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the LORD. [14] Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished; for I am a great King, says the LORD of hosts, and my name is feared among the nations.

James 1:26-27 If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain. [27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

When His people obeyed His commands, however, then God was pleased with the same sacrifices (see, e.g., Is 56:6-7: “their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar”; Jer 17:24-26: “But if you listen to me . . .”; Mal 1:11: “a pure offering”; many others).

This understood (and it is elementary in the understanding of the ongoing Old Testament cycles of following God /deserting Him / repenting and coming back to God), we grasp the meanings of the second set of verses that Ward thinks contradict the first two. We see it in the contexts of these passages. Psalm 40:6 is fully understood in conjunction with these other surrounding verses:

Psalm 40:3 . . . Many will see and fear, and put their trust in the LORD.

Psalm 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God; thy law is within my heart.

Psalm 40:10 I have not hid thy saving help within my heart, . . .

The overall passage is communicating that God wants our hearts and our trust far more than mere rituals: especially if they are undertaken with the wrong spirit and emphasis. As often in Hebrew literature, it is the extreme contrast, or hyperbole (another non-literal technique), which is a way of expressing relative importance. The context of the entire Psalm 51 further explains 51:16 in this same manner. The last three verses in particular illustrate exactly what I am contending:

Psalm 51:10-12 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me. [11] Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me. [12] Restore to me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit.

Psalm 51:17-19 The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. [18] Do good to Zion in thy good pleasure; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, [19] then wilt thou delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on thy altar.

Other portions of Isaiah 1 also make it crystal clear what God required of His followers, and His rejection of hypocritical ritual worship, from a “rote” perspective rather than from the heart, in the right spirit:

Isaiah 1:13-17 Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies — I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. [14] Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. [15] When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. [16] Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, [17] learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Conclusion: no contradiction exists here at all. Once again, the culprit is atheist ignorance of how God customarily expressed Himself in His revelation: according to the modes and ways of Hebrew thinking at that time. If these happen to be different from the way we think now (as they often are), then the atheist almost invariably misunderstands it, since he is incorrectly applying our modes of thought to the ancient Near East, when they don’t apply. The remedy is more study and intellectual humility, and atheists seem to be unwilling to do the first and appear to too often be in short supply of the latter.

***

Photo credit: Mboesch (11-6-16): modern representation of the Jewish tabernacle, where the priests sacrificed lambs [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license]

***

May 20, 2020

May 20, 2020 By

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described  “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . .  I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.” Ward also wrote to me:

[M]any Bible critics (“atheists” or otherwise) will use some pretty ridiculous arguments . . . I have screened out those bogus claims that some critics make and have published my own book . . . of contradictions that I and others have found in the Bible that are clearly contradictions. (letter to National Catholic Register about one of my articles there; reproduced in my first reply)

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

204.
Job 2: 7 So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

Vs:

Job 42: 10 And the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. 11 Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him

Q: Who brought Job’s sufferings on him?

***

This is a very clear and straightforward example of God permitting a thing (God’s permissive will, as opposed to His perfect will), while the Bible says that He did it; see also Job 2:3: “. . . you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause.” It’s the Hebraic expression of God’s providence, and (technically) of anthropomorphism, or condescending to the limited understanding of man by explaining things about God in a non-literal fashion. For more about that, see my paper:  Anthropopathism and Anthropomorphism: Biblical Data (God Condescending to Human Limitations of Understanding).

If we want to discover the literal truth of what was going on at a far deeper spiritual level, the beginning of the book explains it, in its narrative. God permitted Satan to afflict Job:

Job 1:12 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand.” . . .

Job 2:6 And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your power; only spare his life.”

Again: sometimes the Bible states that “God did x,” but what it really means at a deeper level is that “God in His providence did not will x, but rather, permitted it in His omniscient providence, for a deeper purpose.”

I have explained the same sort of (analogous) thing in the case of the Bible saying that “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” which — when closely analyzed — is really Pharaoh hardening his own heart, and God permitting it in His providence. Thus the Bible says (in this specific sense) that God did it rather than Pharaoh. See: God “Hardening Hearts”: How Do We Interpret That? For example:

God “Causing” Pharaoh’s Heart to be Hardened

*

Exodus 4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, . . . (cf. 7:13-14, 22)

Exodus 9:12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them; as the LORD had spoken to Moses. (cf. 10:20, 27; 11:10

Exodus 14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, . . . (cf. 14:8)

Pharaoh Hardening His Own Heart

Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he hardened his heart, . . . (cf. 8:19)

Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart this time also, and did not let the people go.

Exodus 9:34 But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again, and hardened his heart, he and his servants. (cf. 9:7, 35)

In other words, when Scripture describes God as hardening Pharaoh’s heart, it is non-literal, and means that He permitted him to harden himself, in his own will. But when it describes Pharaoah as the cause, it’s literal; hence, no logical contradiction, because they are different senses.

A second analogous example is God being described as killing King Saul, when in fact Saul committed suicide:

1 Samuel 31:4 Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and make sport of me.” But his armor-bearer would not; for he feared greatly. Therefore Saul took his own sword, and fell upon it.

1 Chronicles 10:13-14 So Saul died for his unfaithfulness; he was unfaithful to the LORD in that he did not keep the command of the LORD, and also consulted a medium, seeking guidance, [14] and did not seek guidance from the LORD. Therefore the LORD slew him, and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

The (real) prophet Samuel had appeared to Saul after he sought a medium, and proclaimed to him God’s judgment and impending death:

1 Samuel 28:16-19 And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has turned from you and become your enemy? [17] The LORD has done to you as he spoke by me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand, and given it to your neighbor, David. [18] Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD, and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Am’alek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. [19] Moreover the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines; and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me; the LORD will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.”

In other words, the Lord had withdrawn His usual protection of the Israelites in battle (metaphorically described as “the LORD will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines”). Protection only applied when the king and his followers were obedient to God’s commands. If they weren’t, they were on their own and were usually defeated. So in this way, yes: God in a sense “killed” Saul. But in a more literal sense, on the human level, he was severely (perhaps mortally) wounded by the Philistine archers (1 Sam 31:3), then decided to fall on his own sword. The most immediate causes were the archers and Saul himself. In any event, its not a contradiction once the different senses intended are understood.

As a third analogy, St. Paul in Romans 1 talks about people rebelling against God and becoming more and more “senseless” and of a “base mind”. The text goes back and forth between asserting that people did so in their free, obstinate wills, and also that God “gave them up.” Again, it’s the language of God’s permissive will and providence. But the primary cause and fault clearly lies with the wicked human beings, who chose to be so:

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

Romans 1:21  for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.

Romans 1:24-26 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, [25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. [26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. . . .

Romans 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.

Romans 1:32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

This is biblical thought. But not one in a thousand anti-theist atheist Bible bashers would have ever become familiar with this particular type of ancient Near Eastern Hebrew thinking. Nor would (sadly) one in a hundred Christians (if even that many). This is why we apologists do what we do! We’re here to educate and assist believers in better understanding the Bible and their Christian faith, and to demonstrate to atheists that their estimate of the ancient Hebrews as clueless idiot-troglodytes is infinitely far off the mark.

***

Photo credit: The sufferings of Job, by Silvetsro Chiesa (1623-1657) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020 By

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described  “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . .  I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.” Ward also wrote to me:

[M]any Bible critics (“atheists” or otherwise) will use some pretty ridiculous arguments . . . I have screened out those bogus claims that some critics make and have published my own book . . . of contradictions that I and others have found in the Bible that are clearly contradictions. (letter to National Catholic Register about one of my articles there; reproduced in my first reply)

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

106.
1 Samuel 17: 50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

Vs:

1 Samuel 17: 51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.

Q: With which weapon did David kill Goliath?

***

This alleged difficulty is satisfactorily resolved, I think, by one of the apologists at the Domain for Truth website: “Bible Contradiction? How did David kill Goliath?” (9-20-16):

[W]orking with the Hebrew language is important because we must ask in what sense are the Hebrew verbs “kill” being used in both verse 50 and verse 51.  . . .

In verse 50 the verb וַיְמִיתֵ֑הוּ for “kill” is in the Hiphil form.  For those who know Hebrew it is common knowledge that Hiphil  forms often convey the causative idea.  Thus what the verb in verse 50 is telling us is that David caused Goliath’s death.  The means that David used which began Goliath’s death is of course the slingshot.

In verse 51 the verb  וַיְמֹ֣תְתֵ֔הוּ for “kill” is in the Polel form.  It appears less frequently than the other verbal forms of מוּת.  According to Old Testament scholar Robert Chisholm this verbal form has “a specialized shade of meaning, referring to finishing off someone who is already mortally wounded” (Chisholm, Interpreting the Historical Books, 172).

In light of the above understanding of the Hebrew verbal forms, we don’t have a contradiction.  Again the Hiphil form of the verb “kill” in verse 50 tells us that David began the cause of Goliath’s death by means of the slingshot.  Then in verse 51 the Polel form of the verb “kill” tells us how David finished off an already mortally wounded Goliath, namely with the sword. [my links to article about the two verb forms added]

The article also provides parallel verses. 2 Samuel 1:9-10 is about the death of Saul, who was mortally wounded in battle and then asked a soldier to kill him, to put him out of his misery. The two instances of “kill” in the passage also use the Polel form in the same sense as in the David and Goliath situation. Further verses that utilize the Polel form with regard to killing are 1 Samuel 14:13 and Judges 9:54. In the latter instance, a man’s skull was crushed with a big millstone (9:53), but someone thrust a sword into him to kill him.

Moreover, the scholarly work, 4QSamuela and the Text of Samuel (Jason Driesbach, 2016) verifies the above argument and the use of Polel form in 1 Samuel 17:51 and cites (in agreement with the above) further examples (on p. 84) of its use in 1 Samuel 4:13 and 2 Samuel 1:9-10, 16. Compare another biblical commentary (footnote 9a) on this very question.

***

Photo credit: David Slaying Goliath (1616), by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

May 19, 2020

May 19, 2020 By

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described  “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . .  I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.” Ward also wrote to me:

[M]any Bible critics (“atheists” or otherwise) will use some pretty ridiculous arguments . . . I have screened out those bogus claims that some critics make and have published my own book . . . of contradictions that I and others have found in the Bible that are clearly contradictions. (letter to National Catholic Register about one of my articles there; reproduced in my first reply)

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

46.
Exodus 20: 13 Thou shalt not kill.

Vs:

Exodus 32: 27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

Vs:

Deuteronomy 7: 1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 and when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them

Q: Did god forbid killing?

***

This is my nomination for the most unfortunate Bible translation of one verse of all time: when the King James Version decided to translate the Hebrew ratsach (Strong’s word #7523) as “kill” rather than “murder” in Exodus 20:13. Thus, I give atheists and others a lot more slack with regard to this charge. Even the KJV in other places translates this word as “murderer” or “murder” 17 times out of its 47 appearances in the OT (36% of the time). When a word can have different meanings, it has to be determined by context which one is more accurate. Almost all modern Bible translations have “murder” in this passage (Young’s Literal Translation, ESV, NCV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV, NIV, etc.).

The killing described in the other passages is simply judgment, which is God’s prerogative to command and to do. It always seems to be poorly understood by atheists, but is perfectly sensible, compared to human analogies (ones that they themselves fully accept). Hence, I wrote in my first long response to Ward:

It’s not difficult to find many human analogies to judging and punishing: human judges passing sentences on criminals, the Allies “judging” and defeating the Nazis in World War II, our superiority over animals; parents’ chastising and punishing of children (an analogy to God that the Bible itself makes), police exercising lethal force as the situation warrants. Failing this understanding leads you to conclude that God is engaged in evil, wicked acts of “violence” when He is justly judging. It’s like saying we were “evil” and “ruthless” and “bloodthirsty” when we wiped out the Nazis.

See many more papers on God’s judgment on the Trinitarianism and Christology web page on my blog (word-search “God as Judge” for the section).

***

50.
Exodus 34: 1 And the LORD said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

Deuteronomy 10: 1 At that time the LORD said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, …. 4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments,

Vs:

Exodus 34: 27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. 28 And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Q: Who inscribed the tablets? (Does god lie?)

***

God wrote on both sets of tablets, according to the Bible: after the relevant considerations are taken into account. Apologist Eric Lyons (“Who Wrote on the Second Pair of Tablets?”, Apologetics Press, 2004), provides the solution:

The words that God instructed Moses to write were “these words,” which He spoke in the preceding verses (i.e., 34:10-26—the ceremonial and judicial injunctions, not the ten “words” of Exodus 20:2-17). The rewriting of the Ten Commandments on the newly prepared slabs was done by God’s own hand. God specifically stated in the first verse of Exodus 34 that He (not Moses) would write the same words that had been written on the first tablets of stone that Moses broke. In verse 28 of that chapter, we have it on record that God did what He said He would do in verse one (cf. Deuteronomy 10:2-4). The only thing verse 27 teaches is that Moses wrote the list of regulations given in verses 10-26.

It seems rather obvious that it is the portion before Exodus 34:27 (instructions from God) that God is referring to, in saying “Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” He’s talking about the covenant, which involves a lot more than just the Ten Commandments. Hence, He started off in verse 10 saying, “Behold, I make a covenant.” Then after detailing many rules and laws, He ends by saying, “write these words” and mentioning the covenant: details of which He had just given.

The only remaining question, then, is who is referenced in the final clause of Exodus 34:28: “And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” It does seem in context to refer to Moses, since the earlier part of the passage was about him. This is at least a plausible Bible difficulty (unlike most I have been examining in this series). But pronouns in the Bible (as in literature generally) sometimes refer to persons a bit earlier in the text:

He wrote, not Moses, but the Lord, as appears from Exodus 24:1, and from Deu[teronomy] 10, the relative pronoun being here referred to the remoter antecedent, of which there are many instances, as Genesis 10:12 1 Samuel 21:14 27:8 Psalm 99:6. (Matthew Poole’s Commentary; see an old Greek lexicon also making mention of this)

Here are two other examples of pronouns or nouns referencing a non-immediate antecedent in Scripture:

Acts 4:10-11 be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well. [11] This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. [“This is the stone” refers to Christ, not the healed man who was mentioned right before it]

Acts 7:37-38 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, `God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up.’ [38] This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living oracles to give to us. [“This is he” refers to Moses, not Christ, Who was alluded to right before it]

Doug Ward wrote a article about this very thing (“Watch Your Antecedents!”). He wrote:

Keeping track of possible antecedents of pronouns can shed new light on some puzzling passages from the book of Genesis.

Handbooks of English composition admonish aspiring writers to be very careful in using pronouns. In particular, a writer should make sure that there is no possibility of mistaking the identity of a pronoun’s intended antecedent. As an example of what to avoid, consider this sentence:

“He told his father he would soon get a letter.”

Here it is not clear which of the two-the son or the father-will be the recipient of a letter. The sentence should be rewritten to remove this ambiguity. . . .

Modern writers of English are not the only ones whose use of pronouns has resulted in questions and controversy. The ancient writers of the Hebrew scriptures have left us with a few ambiguities in the biblical text as well. When we encounter one of them, it is instructive to look at all the options and consider their possible interpretations in order to maximize our chances of grasping the intended meaning. In this article I will discuss three examples, all taken from the book of Genesis.

He proceeded to analyze Genesis 9:27; 35:4; and 37:28.  That gives us nine total biblical passages in which reference to a remote antecedent occurs: precisely as I am claiming is the case with Exodus 34:28. By understanding that this sort of linguistic device is used in the Bible, we can understand some passages that are wrongly set forth as examples of contradictions. And our interpretation in this instance is bolstered by the clear cross-references of Exodus 34:1 and Deuteronomy 10:1.

***

Photo credit: Moses and the Ten Commandments, by James Jacques Joseph Tissot (1836-1902) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

May 18, 2020

May 18, 2020 By

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described  “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . .  I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.” Ward also wrote to me:

[M]any Bible critics (“atheists” or otherwise) will use some pretty ridiculous arguments . . . I have screened out those bogus claims that some critics make and have published my own book . . . of contradictions that I and others have found in the Bible that are clearly contradictions. (letter to National Catholic Register about one of my articles there; reproduced in my first reply)

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

42.
Exodus 12: 43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof

Vs:

Numbers 9: 14 And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the LORD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land

Q: Were “strangers” (foreigners) allowed to eat the Passover?

***

This is easily resolved, and is no contradiction at all (remember, I predicted that there would be many like this — indeed, virtually all of the ones I refute: and so I am a prophet). Again, context is the solution and key. It’s quite clear that the overall thought on this issue is: “a stranger / foreigner who does not abide by our laws may not partake of the Passover, which is specifically our Hebrew / Jewish ritual.

On the other hand, any stranger / foreigner who decides to join us and abide by our laws and requirements (including circumcision for males), is welcome to partake.” It’s exactly analogous to a non-Catholic not being allowed to receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church unless he or she has accepted all that the Catholic Church requires them to accept, to be a Catholic. Then they are more than welcome to the Table.

Ward (who likely found this in another atheist list that may have been around for hundreds of years) paid no attention to context once again. It’s explained in the immediate surrounding text, with words similar to the Numbers passage above:

Exodus 12:48-49 “And when a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. [49] There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”

Obviously, it’s saying that strangers / foreigners who have no intention of abiding by Jewish law and custom, cannot eat the Passover meal, but those who do that (essentially, converts to the Jewish faith) may, and will be treated no differently. This is utterly evident in the texts. So why is this force-fit into a trumped-up supposed “contradiction”? These things are embarrassing and should make any atheist who “reasons” in such a manner blush with shame. Yet it keeps happening. Hey, if atheists want to make these dumb allegedly rational “arguments” I’m more than happy as an apologist to shoot them down. No skin off of my back . . .  I was bored and looking for a new project. Man, did I find it!

For more about how the ancient Jews and the Old Testament viewed foreigners, and when and how they accepted them into their fold, see these excellent articles:

“What the Bible Says About Our Illegal Immigration Problem” (Ralph Drollinger, 9-27-16)

“A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy” (James R. Edwards, Jr., 9-16-09)

“Stranger and Sojourner (in the Old Testament)” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online)

***

43.
Exodus 14: 21 And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

Vs:

Exodus 17: 5 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee of the elders of Israel; and thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go.

Q: Did Moses stretch his hand over the Red Sea or did he hit it with a stick?

***

Oh boy! I feel like a professor of mathematics, forced to go and teach third-graders the times tables. You gotta have fun with this stuff to keep from crying or going nuts . . . What it does definitely show over and over (and this is very valuable from the Christian apologetic standpoint) is how very desperate atheists are to shoot down the Bible. Anything goes, no matter how asinine or ludicrous. These two that I deal with in this article are among those that Ward considers (like all 421 he has selected) “clearly contradictions.” Me: I consider them “ridiculous.” You be the judge. We simply go to context for the exceptionally simple solution:

Exodus 14:15-16 The LORD said to Moses, “Why do you cry to me? Tell the people of Israel to go forward. [16] Lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go on dry ground through the sea.

Exodus 14:21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.

We see then, that Moses, rod in hand (just like in the old 50s movie with Charlton Heston that we recently watched), lifted his hand up over the sea, causing it (by God’s power, of course) to divide. 14:21 simply mentions that he raised his hand, without mentioning the rod again (because this was done five verses before). It’s not a logical contradiction. It would be like saying:

“The reporter at the press conference raised his hand to ask a question.”

“The reporter at the press conference raised his hand (with a pen in it) to ask a question.”

I’ve often seen reporters do that, because they are taking notes with their right hand (if they are right-handed) and then they raise their hands to be recognized: still holding the pen in it. Thus, the two statements do not contradict. Neither do Exodus 14:16 and 14:21: only in the fertile mind of desperately special pleading atheists who treat the Bible like a butcher treats a hog.

Exodus 14:21 is already understood as Moses holding his hand up with the rod in it, before we even get to another stupid alleged “contradiction.” All Ward or any atheist who finds this slop compelling had to do was read the passage in context (a thing elementary to all research whatever). Now, some reader may think I am “angry.” I’m not (I’m very cool-headed at almost all times). I’m what I would call “intellectually disgusted” at these unworthy atheist tactics. It’s an embarrassment to all thinkers of any stripe, to have to point out how silly these things are. Atheists know better than this.

But because the first passage hasn’t been read in context and understood, now we get an equally dumb suggestion that Exodus 17:5 “contradicts” it. Wonders never cease (no pun intended). This passage has nothing to do with the other, and is referring to something completely different. It occurred after the time of the parting of the Red Sea: in the “wilderness.” God, in talking to Moses, makes reference to “the rod with which you struck the Nile” (“river” in the KJV above).

Is a “river” or, specifically, the Nile River, the same thing as the Red Sea now in an atheist’s mind? Basic geography and landscape details are up for grabs, too, in the rush to make fools of Christians? Who‘s the fool here? God was referring to what was described in the following passage:

Exodus 7:19-21 And the LORD said to Moses, “Say 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.'” [20] Moses 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. [21] And the fish in the Nile died; and the Nile became foul, so that the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.

Ward ought to plead for mercy, retract and unpublish his book, and repent in dust and ashes (hopefully becoming a Christian again, too), so I can stop this series (as an act of charity). Otherwise, it’s only going to get uglier and more laughable as we go on, with dozens more examples of “contradictions” like the two above.

***

Photo credit: amboo who? (6-23-12) [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]

***

May 18, 2020

May 18, 2020 By

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described  “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . .  I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.”

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

37.
Exodus 3: 4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5 And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. 6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Vs:

Luke 20: 37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

Q: Who made the statement that god was the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

***

I guess, for Ward, if two say the same thing (the second saying what the first told him to say), it is somehow a “contradiction.” Luke tells us that Moses used this phrase, and that he did because God used it of Himself (Ex 3:6; cf. 4:5). How is this contradictory? Nine verses later we see the solution to this bogus alleged “contradiction”:

Exodus 3:15-16 God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, `The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. [16] Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, `The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me, saying, “I have observed you and what has been done to you in Egypt;

So both God and Moses said it. So did Elijah (1 Kgs 18:36), King David (1 Chr 29:18), couriers in Israel and Judah (2 Chr 30:6), Jesus (Mt 22:32; Mk 12:26), St. Peter (Acts 3:13), and St. Stephen (Acts 7:32).

Now, I don’t think anyone is silly enough to make an issue of the “when” in Luke 20:37. Ward could have made an issue of it, but he didn’t. Both in Hebrew usage and in English it can have a very wide latitude: “at that general time” or (in this case) “in the time following God’s appearance in the burning bush” or “when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai after seeing God” being three of them.

41.
Exodus 12: 25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. 26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? 27 that ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD’S Passover

Vs:

Numbers 9: 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying, 2 Let the children of Israel also keep the passover at his appointed season. 3 In the fourteenth day of this month, at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it. 4 And
Moses spake unto the children of Israel, that they should keep the passover. 5 And they kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at even in the wilderness of Sinai

Q: When were the Israelites to begin observing the Passover?

***

The answer is: when they were in Egypt, at the time that Moses declared that “all the first-born in the land of Egypt shall die” (Ex 11:5); shortly before the exodus out of Egypt. The Exodus 12 passage above is right after that. Moses states:

Exodus 12:2, 6, 14 “This month shall be for you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year for you. . . . [6] and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill their lambs in the evening. . . . [14] “This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance for ever.”

So that was both the beginning of the observance of it, and also the beginning of the command to perpetually observe it every year. Numbers 9 is simply Moses reiterating what he had taught (repetition being a great teaching tool). He taught it in Egypt, and then when the time of Passover came around in the second year, as they were in the wilderness, he emphasized it again; in effect, saying, “hey guys, remember that Passover thing we did in Egypt? We’re gonna do it every year, even while we are in the wilderness.”

Ward is insinuating that Exodus 12 teaches that the holy day would be observed when they got to the promised land, which was forty years later. But that makes no sense because earlier in the chapter he implemented it while they were still in Egypt. All Exodus 12:25 is saying is that they should continue to observe the holy day when they get to Israel or (at that time) Canaan: the promised land. Where’s the beef? Does Ward wish to argue that “keep” in Exodus 12:25 means “initiate” / “begin” / “commence” or suchlike?

The word for “keep” in Hebrew is shamar (Strong’s word #8104). It has a wide latitude of meaning, including “guard, protect, attend to, observe, preserve, retain, protect, and reserve”: many of which are perfectly harmonious with what I just explained: a continued observance of Passover in Israel: not the beginning of it.

Context is almost everything in Bible interpretation. So atheists wanna claim that Exodus 12:25 “proves” that a yearly observance of Passover was to begin in Israel: 40 years after the first observance of it occurred in Egypt? Okay, then what sense does it make that the previous verse states: “You shall observe this rite as an ordinance for you and for your sons for ever”?

Moses taught his people this in the land of Egypt, as God had commanded him (Ex 12:1), instructed “all the elders of Israel” (Ex 12:21-27), and “Then the people of Israel went and did so; as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did” (Ex 12:28). And then in the next verse he is supposedly saying that it would begin in Israel? I don’t think so. That’s insane asylum exegesis.

Three reputable Bible translations particularly bring out the precise meaning of “keep” / shamar in Exodus 12:25:

Moffatt And when you come to the land that the Eternal will give you, as he has promised, you must keep up this worship;

New American Bible Thus, you must also observe this rite when you have entered the land which the LORD will give you as he promised.

Knox’s Revised Vulgate When you reach the land which the Lord will give you in accordance with his promise, you are to keep these ceremonies alive;

Thus collapses one of the dumbest, stupidest alleged biblical contradictions that I’ve seen yet, and it’s a lot that I have already dealt with, believe me. Where do these people get off thinking they are so vastly intellectually superior to us Christians, when they repeatedly show themselves unable to read simple English, in context, with a logical, common sense application (not to mention even the slightest acquaintance with the Hebrew and Greek words involved, and Hebrew thinking)? It’s embarrassing to observe. I truly pity and feel sorry for them.

Only a “senseless” and “darkened” mind (Rom 1:21) can engage in such shoddy pseudo-“reasoning” in the service of spreading falsehoods about and tearing down God’s holy and inspired revelation. I don’t claim it is deliberate lying (I want to always remain as charitable as I can), but it’s analysis so sullied by hostility and the irrational “hardening” of continued undue skepticism, that the result is the same.

***

Photo credit: The Angel of Death and the First Passover: Illustration from the 1897 Bible Pictures and What They Teach Us: Containing 400 Illustrations from the Old and New Testaments: With brief descriptions by Charles Foster [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

 

May 18, 2020

May 18, 2020 By

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described  “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . .  I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.”

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

21.
Genesis 22: 14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

Vs:

Exodus 6: 2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3 and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

Q: Did Abraham know god’s name, Jehovah?

***

Apologist Eric Lyons explains the seeming contradiction (“Clearing-Up ‘Contradictions’ about Jehovah in Genesis”, Apologetics Press, 2012):

[T]he name “Jehovah” (Hebrew Yahweh; translated LORD in most modern versions) appears approximately 160 times in the book of Genesis. Furthermore, “Jehovah” is used between Genesis chapters 12-50 . . . more than 100 times. . . .

There is no denying the fact that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were aware of God’s name, Jehovah (Yahweh) [cf. Genesis 15:7; 22:14,24-35,40,42,48,56; 24:50,51; 26:22; 27:20; 49:18; etc.]. . . . So what is the answer to this alleged problem? . . .

The expressions “to know the name of Jehovah” or simply “to know Jehovah” frequently mean more than a mere awareness of His name and existence. Rather, “to know” (from the Hebrew word yada) often means to learn by experience. When Samuel was a boy, the Bible reveals that he “ministered before/unto Jehovah” (1 Samuel 2:18; 3:1), and “increased in favor both with Jehovah, and also with men” (2:26). Later, however, we learn that “Samuel did not yet know Jehovah, neither was the word of Jehovah yet revealed unto him” (1 Samuel 3:7, emp. added). In one sense, Samuel “knew” Jehovah early on, but beginning in 1 Samuel 3:7 his relationship with God changed. From this point forward he began receiving direct revelations from God (cf. 1 Samuel 3:11-14; 8:7-10,22; 9:15-17; 16:1-3; etc.). Comparing this new relationship with God to his previous relationship and knowledge of Him, the author of 1 Samuel could reasonably say that beforehand “Samuel did not yet know Jehovah” (3:7).

According to Gleason Archer, the phrase “to know that I am Jehovah” (or “to know the name of Jehovah”) appears in the Old Testament at least 26 times, and “in every instance it signifies to learn by actual experience that God is Yahweh” ([An Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan] 1982, pp. 66-67). . . .

Notice also what Isaiah prophesied centuries after the time of Moses.

Now therefore, what do I here, saith Jehovah, seeing that my people is taken away for nought? They that rule over them do howl, saith Jehovah, and my name continually all the day is blasphemed. Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore (they shall know) in that day that I am he that doth speak; behold, it is I (Isaiah 52:5-6, emp. added).

More than 100 years later, following Judah’s entrance into Babylonian captivity, God foretold of their return to Judea and spoke to them through the prophet Jeremiah. He said: “Therefore, behold, I will cause them to know, this once will I cause them to know my hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is Jehovah” (Jeremiah 16:21, emp. added). Are we to gather from these statements that Israel and Judah were not aware of God’s name (Jehovah) before this time in their history? Certainly not.

So (as so often) “know my name” (referring to God) turns out to be a non-literal figure of speech. The Hebrews / Israelites clearly knew what God’s name was, early on. These passages refer, rather, to this deeper meaning of knowing Him in a much deeper, experiential way (“know I am YHWH / the LORD” etc.). The Bible expresses the latter phenomenon over and over in the later books of the Old Testament:

1 Kings 20:13 . . . you shall know that I am the LORD. (same at 20:28; Ezek 6:7, 13; 11:10, 12; 12:20; 13:9, 14, 21; 14:8; 16:62; many more in Ezekiel; Joel 3:17)

Isaiah 49:23 . . . Then you will know that I am the LORD; . . . (same at Ezek 7:4, 9; 13:23; 15:7; many more in Ezekiel)

Jeremiah 24:7 I will give them a heart to know that I am the LORD; and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.

Ezekiel 6:10 And they shall know that I am the LORD;  . . . (same at 7:27; 12:15; 28:22; 30:25; 34:27; 39:6, 28)

Ezekiel 6:14 . . . Then they will know that I am the LORD. (same at 25:11, 17; 26:6, many more in Ezekiel)

If the atheists would ever spend time actually reading and trying to fairly understand biblical genre and idiom before lashing out with their endless accusations of “contradiction!” I think they could have understood this and removed this item from their farcical “lists” that I and other apologists and biblical commentators have to spend time debunking.

But ultimately (despite more than a few frustrating moments) it’s fun. I confess that I do enjoy exposing the never-ending, wrongheaded accusatory folly and turning the tables . . .

***

Photo credit: Prophet Isaiah predicts the return of the Jews from exile (c. 1565), by Maarten van Heemskerck (1498-1574) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

May 18, 2020

May 18, 2020 By

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described  “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . .  I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.”

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

17. **
Genesis 16: 15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. 1 Chronicles 1: 28 The sons of Abraham; Isaac, and Ishmael.

Vs:

Genesis 22: 1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Hebrews 11: 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son

Q: Was Isaac Abraham’s only son or did he have another one? (Note: Ishmael was born before Isaac.)

***

Apologist Kyle Butt (“One Little Word,” Apologetics Press, 2002) observed:

Abraham fathered Ishmael by Hagar (Genesis 16:16) more than a decade before the birth of Isaac. And following the death of Sarah, Abraham took Keturah as a wife, by which he begat at least six more sons (Genesis 25:1-2). . . .

In the Greek text of Hebrews 11:17, the word translated as “only begotten son” is monogenes. While this word could possibly be used to refer to an only child, that certainly was not its sole use. Josephus used the word monogenes to refer to Izates, who had an older brother and several younger brothers (Antiquities, 20.2.1). The well-respected Greek-English Lexicon by Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker explains that the word can be used to denote something that is “unique (in kind), of something that is the only example of its category” (1979, p.527). This meaning fits perfectly the passage in Hebrews 11, where the writer was explaining that Abraham offered up his “only promised son.” Abraham had no other children that fit in the category of being promised by God. Isaac was the only “example of a category”—that category being a son who was promised to Abraham and Sarah.

But what to make of Genesis 22:1? I think it is plausible to hold that it was referring to his only son from a non-concubine wife, or the only promised son; or the only legal heir (“through Isaac shall your descendants be named”: Gen 21:12; cf. Jud 11:2; Rom 9:7; Gal 4:30); possibly even (though I think it’s much less likely) “the only son at the time of writing after he was called Abraham rather than Abram.”

The Hebrew usage of “first-born” is also perhaps analogous and instructive, and illustrates that such phrases about family members are not always intended or understood as absolutely literal (certainly, not nearly as much as we are literal about such terms in our culture). The primary meaning of “first-born” was “preeminent.”

Hence, David is called “first-born” in Psalm 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. Likewise, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the “first-born,” whereas Manasseh was actually the first child born (Gen 41:50-52).

As a second example of such acceptable ancient Hebrew “looseness” of “family terminology,” we might look at how “brother” was not infrequently used in a way other than “sibling”:

1) By comparing Genesis 14:14 with 11:26-27, we find that Lot, called Abraham’s “brother”, is actually his nephew.

2) Likewise, Jacob is called the “brother” of his Uncle Laban (Gen 29:10, 15).

3) Cis and Eleazar are described as “brethren”, whereas they are literally cousins (1 Chr 23:21-2).

4) By comparing Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40; and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph – mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus’ “brethren” – are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. Thus in this usage it apparently means “cousins” or more distant relative; but it cannot logically mean “siblings.”

Thus “brother” could mean (literally) “nephew” or “cousin.” Given all these evidences of the Hebrew understanding of descriptions of relatives, “only son” in Genesis 22:1 quite plausibly could mean something other than “absolutely only biological son of Abraham.” The meaning — all these things considered — is most likely “preeminent son” or “heir” or “son of the promise” (see Rom 9:8-9; Gal 4:22-23, 28).

***

Photo credit: The banishment of Hagar and Ishmael (c. 1697), by Adriaen van der Werff (1659-1722) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

May 17, 2020

May 17, 2020 By

Ward Ricker is an atheist who (as so often) was formerly a self-described  “fundamentalist”. He likes to poke holes in the Bible and “prove” that it is a terrible and “evil” book, not inspired, hopelessly contradictory, etc. He put together a 222-page book called Unholy Bible (2019): available for free as a pdf file. It contains 421 couplets of passages that he considers literally contradictory, and 256 more couplets of not technically contradictory but “problem” passages (according to him). Ward wrote in his book: “I . . . am including here only what I consider to be the more firm examples of contradictions. . . .  I do not want to include examples that are ‘weak’ and will be easily refuted. I have made my best judgment.”

He issued a challenge for anyone to take on his alleged contradictions. After my first reply, he wrote a 5 1/2 page article suggesting in-depth dialogue. I responded, explaining in depth why I thought dialogue between us would be unfruitful, for many reasons. He then accused me (among other things in his two replies) of “hypocrisy” that “knows no bounds.” This is, of course, against my discussion rules, which forbids such rank insults, so he was promptly banned from my blog, and I replied: “I was exactly right in my judgment that no dialogue was possible. It never takes long for the fangs to come out if they are there.”

But I had already stated: “I may still take on several of your proposed contradictions, just so I can have opportunity to show how very wrong atheist contentions are (which is one thing Christian apologists do).” This series represents that effort. Mr. Ricker can respond on his page as he sees fit. He can still see my posts. His words will be in blue. To search any of this series on my blog, paste “Ward’s Whoppers #” in the search bar on the top right of my blog page. He uses the King James Version for his Bible verses. I will use RSV in my replies.

*****

1.
Genesis 1: 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.… 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.… 31 And the evening and the morning were the sixth day

Vs:

Genesis 2: 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Q: Which did god create first, plants or humans?

***

2.
Genesis 1: 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Vs:

Genesis 2: 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 

Q: Which did god create first, animals or humans?

***

Genesis 1 is chronological, whereas Genesis 2 is topical and provides more “supplementary” information about the creation of Genesis 1. I wrote a review of a book dealing with silly alleged Bible contradictions. The author, Phillip Campbell, commented on the alleged “contradiction” of Genesis 1 and 2:

[T]he events in chapter 2 are not meant to happen after the events in chapter 1. Rather, chapter 1 presents a broad picture, followed by a kind of “zoomed in” perspective in chapter 2, which re-presents certain events from chapter 1 but in greater detail. This method is common throughout Genesis; for example, Genesis 11 tells of the various families descended from Shem and then Genesis 12 goes on to “zoom in” on a specific family – that of Abram.

I wrote an entire paper in May 2017 in reply to an atheist who claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 contradicted each other: “Genesis Contradictory (?) Creation Accounts & Hebrew Time.” Here is a good chunk of it:

First of all, you take the Genesis accounts as both:

1) absolutely literal in all respects, and

2) chronological.

Neither is necessarily the case at all. Almost all serious Bible commentators (Protestant or Catholic) have held that the nature of the Genesis literature has strong poetic elements, while at bottom preserving actual historical events, too.

For example, most commentators have not thought that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and its fruit, were to be taken literally. They pictorially represent an idea. The rebellion of the human race was quite real and literal, but the images with which it was portrayed are not.

As for chronology, a book such as Hebrew for Theologians: A Textbook for the Study of Biblical Hebrew in Relation to Hebrew Thinking (Jacques Doukhan, University Press of America, 1993) notes that in the Hebrew mind, “the content of time prevails over chronology. Events which are distant in time can, if their content is similar, be regarded as simultaneous.” (p. 206)

Likewise, Thorleif Boman, in his book, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1960), devotes 61 pages to the topic of “Time and Space.” He noted that for the Hebrews, “time is determined by its content, and since light is authoritative and decisive, the light was called day and the darkness night even before the creation of the heavenly luminaries (Gen. 1.5).” (p. 131)

He notes also:

[W]e, too, characterize time by its content. We speak of wartime, peacetime, hard times, time of mourning, feast time, favourable time, office hours, bad year, etc. . . .

Thus, in part, the chronological times were named and characterized in accordance with their content in the Old Testament; day is the time of light and night is darkness (Gen. 1.5; Ps. 104.20). (p. 140)

Boman analyzes also how the Greeks and Hebrews variously pondered the planets and stars:

The Greeks, therefore, first consider the form of the heavenly bodies; they observe where they are in the heavens and in that way they (and the other Indo-Europeans) determine time. . . . The Hebrews call the heavenly bodies lamps, me’oroth (Gen. 1.14 ff.), or lights, ‘orim (Ps. 136.7); both names refer to their function. Lamps and lights help us to see; they illuminate and warm. (p. 131)

Ironically, Boman notes that Plato, in his Timaeus, gives an account of creation that is also non-chronological, just as in Genesis 1 and 2, and even provides two different accounts, with different emphases, as in Genesis also:

[T]he chronology and the sequence of the act of creation play no role in the Timaeus. Thus he sees himself compelled to report the creation of the celestial bodies before the world-soul, although he knows that this sequence is quite incorrect, and later he begins anew to describe the origin of the world in order to be able to express new ideas and qualities. (p. 175)

Thus, between the poetic + historical nature of these chapters, and the very different Hebrew conception of chronology and time, any seeming contradictions are amply explained as not necessarily so at all.

3.
Genesis 1: 20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Vs:

Genesis 2: 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.

Q: Out of what did god create the fowls?

Genesis 1:20 in KJV might be reasonably interpreted as saying that birds were created from or out of the water but it is an imprecise and inaccurate translation. “Bring forth” in Hebrew (sharats: Strong’s word #8317) means, literally, “swarm” or “abound” or “breed” or “increase”; not “create.” Hence the same word is used in Exodus 8:3: “the Nile shall swarm with frogs . . . ” (RSV; cf. Ps 105:30). More precise translations are the following:

RSV: And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.

NRSV: And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.”

ASV: And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

NKJV: Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

NASB: Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”

[The above five translations are all revisions — to varying degrees — of the KJV, and we see how they all render the text significantly differently, compared to the KJV.]

NIV: And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

These make it abundantly clear that the text is not saying that God created birds from the water: in contradiction of Genesis 2:19.

The King James Version was produced in 1611. Sometimes it has mistakes from faulty manuscripts (not as old as ones we possess now), or poor translation. This is clearly one of them.

***

Photo credit: Suus Wansink (11-19-11) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

***

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
We Should Take Hell Seriously
A Little Bit of Nothing
2
What Religion Does Taylor Swift Practice?
Sticking the Corners
3
Have You Ever Wanted to Hear...
Beloved
4
Does God Make People Suffer?
Reflections in the Knight
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
Be Authentic Fathers: Pope Francis' Letter To Parish...
Augsburg Confession Dialogues: Justification
New Age Movement and Being Spiritual But Not...
Eschatology, Eucharist And Institution
A Good Start to May
Dear Newly Confirmed People
view all Catholic blogs