Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: inconsistencies in the Bible (digest of postings) Message-ID: Date: 11 Dec 89 09:30:39 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada Lines: 198 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article christian@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >... I hope combining them will encourage people to >try to generate responses to the issue as a whole and not to each >individual posting. I have chosen to begin by responding to a few of the inconsistencies which people believe they have found. Responding to all of them at once would make this posting become unmanageably large. My apologies to those whose items have been omitted on this pass. I understand our moderator's concern that this discussion not become a massive deludge of articles which he could not possibly manage. I shall respect his descretion regarding whether or not he would like me to post articles dealing with the rest of the items. I am, therefore, requesting his decision on this matter and will not post further articles resolving individual cases of perceived inconsistency until he has given his approval. I believe that perfect harmony throughout the Scriptures is absolutely essential to our faith. If we were trusting in a God who could not even give us a consistent message then we would be trusting in a flawed God. If we were trusting in a flawed God then we would be unable to be sure of exactly what His various promises and their associated conditions are. If we were unable to precisely know this sort of information then our faith would be in vain as we would be unable to be sure of our salvation. Those people who compromise by surmising that, while God is perfect, He permitted His human authors to make mistakes, not only are undermining the importance which God Himself has attached to His own Word but also are showing at least a tinge of evidence that they subconsciously suspect that God is either not really omnipotent or does not care about us very much. We can not be sure of anything at all if we do not have an irrefutable source of truthful information. The Scriptures declare themselves to be the only source of this irrefutably truthful data. If this claim of theirs is false then the entire Bible would be one great big lie. It is not acceptable for someone who professes Christianity to sit on the fence. If he is trusting in a perfect God then he must necessarily believe that that very same perfect God is not lying to him. It is impossible to believe in a God who does not lie yet has permitted lies to creep into the one and only source of information which He has declared to be reliable. It is my hope that you will be able to see from the following that even when it appears almost hopeless there always is a scenario that brings complete harmony to the Scriptures. It is such, and only such, a scenario that can be relied upon as being the absolute truth. There are two accounts of the events surrounding the death of Judas Iscariot. Matthew 27:5 says "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.". Acts 1:18 says "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.". These two passages are giving us different details about the same event. One says that Judas hanged himself and the other says that he fell headlong, split in half, and spilled his bowels all over the place. Perhaps a scenario like the following took place. Judas climbed up very high into a tree and tied one end of a rope around a branch of that tree and the other end of that rope around his neck. He then leapt out of the tree. On the way down his feet caught on another branch, causing him to flip over. As he flipped over the rope finally became fully extended and snapped (perhaps it slipped off either his neck or the branch as he tied lousy knots). He continued to fall, now with his head pointing down, until he smashed into the ground. The force of the impact caused him to break into pieces, leaving a rather big mess. This sequence of events is entirely possible because there is no evidence that Judas poseessed the skills of a professional hangman. He had become abhorred with his betrayal of Jesus and made a rather messy job of committing suicide in the midst of his misery. Matthew, a tax collector, was probably more interested in reporting the technical details of how Judas went about the act of killing himself. Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, a physician, was probably more interested in the results of what Judas had done. Perhaps Matthew talked with someone who saw Judas preparing to hang himself and then ran away as he didn't want to watch whereas Luke talked with someone who saw the mess that was left after the event took place. In any event, I believe that at least one of the reasons that God has events reported on in this way is to test our faith, i.e. do we immediately jump to the conclusion that there must be an error or do we put in the extra effort, assuming that there is no error, to find a way of relating all of the different reports together in a manner that is consistent with the author's flawlessness. There are two accounts of what those who were with Saul of Tarsus saw and heard when Saul met Christ while on his way to Damascus. Acts 9:7 says "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.". Acts 22:9 says "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.". The first appears to say that they saw nothing and heard something. The second appears to say that they saw something and heard nothing. When looking a little closer at the precise wording, however, there is really no inconsistency at all. The first passage says that they did not see a man, i.e. they did not see Christ, whereas the second passage says that they did see a light. This would mean that, while they did see some sort of light, they did not actually see Jesus Himself. God only permitted the others to see part of the much more complete vision which Saul saw. The first passage says that they heard a voice whereas the second passage says that they did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to Saul. Taken strictly literally, this may mean that there was more than one voice but only one, that of Jesus, which they did not hear, spoke to Saul. The additional voice could have been that of Saul himself when he asked "who art thou, Lord?". Another way of interpreting these passages, the one which I believe to be more correct, is that while the others heard the voice they could not make out the actual words that were spoken. John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared {him}.". There are, however, numerous passages which appear to say exactly the opposite, i.e. that some men have seen God. Here are a few examples. Genesis 32:30 says "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.". Exodus 24:9-10 says "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and {there was} under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in {his} clearness.". Exodus 33:11 says "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.". Acts 7:55-56 says "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.". The resolution to this aparent conflict is revealed in Exodus 33:18-23 when Moses asks God if he can have a good look at Him. Note that the two passages previously quoted which appear to tell us that Moses saw God preceed this one in which Moses clearly indicates that he has not yet seen Him. It says "And he said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, {there is} a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.". While numerous people may have seen God in one form or another, no one has seen God exactly as He is and in His full glory. God appeared to Jacob as though He were a man. God showed Himself to Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders as a figurative image of what He is like. When God spoke face to face with Moses at the door of the tabernacle He was within a cloud so that Moses could not actually see Him. While Stefan did state that he could see God's glory, I think it would be safe to assume that God only let him see a little bit of it, i.e. something like the edge of HIs glory which Moses was permitted to see. We will only see God exactly as He is, i.e. in His "natural" state, when we get to heaven. 1 John 3:2 says "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.". Many people have significant trouble finding consistency between the two accounts of the childhood of Jesus given in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. These two accounts do not conflict with each other in any way. This is the actual sequence of events which took place. Luke 2:1-5 tells us of Joseph's and Mary's trip from Nazareth of Galilee to Bethlehem of Judea while she was pregnant with Jesus. Luke 2:6-20 tells us of all the events that took place on the night that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Luke 2:21 tells us that eight days after His birth, Jesus was circumcised and formally given His name. Luke 2:22-38 tell us of events that took place in the temple 40 days after Jesus was born. These events include the sacrifice that was to be given at that time for the firstborn son, the encounter with Simeon, and the encounter with Anna. We can conclusively know that these events took place 40 days after the birth of Jesus because Luke 2:23-24 refers us back to Leviticus 12:8, the whole law pertaining to a birth being described in all of Leviticus 12. Luke 2:39 (probably the most misunderstood verse in all of these two chapters) is a one verse summary of all of Matthew 2. All things according to the law had to be performed, i.e. a bunch of prophesies had to be fulfilled, and then they finally returned to their home town of Nazareth. For the first couple of years they remained in Bethlehem. The wise men eventually arrived there and found them living in a house (Matthew 2:11). Matthew 2:1-11 tell us about wise men from the east (and nowhere does it say that there were exactly 3 wise men), shortly after the birth of Jesus, began to follow a star which led them to Bethlehem where they found Jesus and presented their gifts to Him. Matthew 2:16 tells us that the wise men arrived in Bethlehem approximately two years after the birth of Jesus; this necessarily means that Joesph, Mary and Jesus remained in Bethlehem for that length of time. Matthew 2:12 tells us of God's warning of the wise men to return via a different route than they had come and not to stop in and see Herod on the way. Matthew 2:13-15 tells us of God's warning of Joseph in a dream that Herod wanted to kill Jesus and of their subsequent trip to Egypt. Matthew 2:16-18 tells us of Herod's massacre of all the children who were the approximate age of Jesus. Matthew 2:19-23 tells us of their return to Israel, their desire to live in Judea, but their decision to live in Nazareth. This brings us to the end of Matthew 2 and also to their return to Nazareth which is the final statement of Luke 2:39. Luke 2:40-41 gives us a few brief facts about the childhood of Jesus from this time until He reached the age of 12. Luke 2:42-52 tells us about their trip to the temple in Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 years old. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3