More Bible “Contradictions”

It isn’t too hard to prove that the Bible contradicts itself. Just establish a standard or test and then demonstrate that the Bible fails your test! This seems to be the very thing that Bart Ehrman excels at. He demonstrates how the details among the four Gospels differ and then indicts them. Ehrman points out the varying accounts of Peter’s denial of Jesus as his second “contradiction”:

In Mark’s gospel, Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him three times “before the cock crows twice.” In Matthew’s Gospel he tells him that it will be “before the cock crows.” Well, which is it – before the cock crows once or twice?

I’ll put my money on “twice.” Mark seems to want to give more details, while Matthew is content to simply report the last crow. Does Matthew err because he neglected to mention the first crow? Did he misrepresent Jesus’ words? Does this place Scripture in error if it doesn’t represent the exact wording of what Jesus had actually said? If instead Scripture, under the inspiration of the Spirit, reproduced in this case the true intention of Jesus’ message instead of the exact wording, would this mean that Scripture contains errors? I don’t think so. This would be imposing our standards on Scripture.

We have to read Scripture according to its intentions, not ours. Demanding a wooden correspondence between the words of Scripture and what actually was said is sometimes clearly not the intention of Scripture. Let’s use an example for clarity:

Rev. 20:8: and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.

The intention of Scripture isn’t to teach that the earth has “four corners.” Instead, this idiom refers to Satan deceiving all the nations all around the world. So why didn’t Scripture just say it that way? Well, sometimes exactitude can be misleading, especially if Scripture is addressing people who believe the world is flat. They wouldn’t have understood “around the world,” while they would have understood “four corners of the earth.”

I talk about the “sun rising” at a particular time. We now know that the sun doesn’t rise. However, by using this idiom, it doesn’t mean that I’m scientifically ignorant or that I want to deceive. It just demonstrates the need to speak in a way that others will understand.

Although the Bible might use terminology that isn’t scientifically accurate, it succeeds in conveying the message it wants to convey by using anthropic language, the language of common usage.

Sometimes the use of too many details can be misleading. We observe that sometimes the Bible rounds off numbers. Does this place it in error? Of course not! Sometimes Scripture intends to give exact answers; sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it gives summary statements condensing the actual events.

We can’t impose our standards on Scripture and require that it use scientific language or exact numbers on each occasion. This brings us to Ehrman’s third contradiction – the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection:

On the third day after Jesus’ death, the women go to the tomb to anoint his body for burial. And whom do they see there? Do they see a man, as Mark says, or two men (Luke), or an angel (Matthew)?

There are several possible solutions. I’ll just mention one possibility. Angels appear as “men” in many instances of the Bible. Although there might have been two present at that one time, Mark and Matthew chose to mention just the one. Perhaps this angel was far more prominent than the other, and they thought it needless to report the second?

I do not claim to have the ultimate answer. I simply wish to show that there are possible answers. Proving that the Bible contradicts itself, as Ehrman charges, demands that he demonstrate that there are no possible solutions. This he has failed to do.

Faith and Reason

Another Letter to an Atheist:

You wrote, “There's nothing to be gained by arguing with those who conflate conviction with fact.”

However, shouldn’t conviction and fact go together? Shouldn’t we be “convicted” when the facts spell out victimization? I think that you are assuming a purist stance and throw all religions/belief systems into the same bag. Indeed, there are conflicts between religion and science when a religion adopts the dictum, “I will only entertain things of faith/spirit and not physical evidences.” Of course, there are religions like this which believe that this is a world of illusion – the physical world does not exist – and consequently not worth investigating. Other religions would have it that our main task is to transcend this physical, evil world, while postmodernism maintains that “facts” are just the product of our subjective mentalities.

On the other hand, there are belief systems that believe that there is a stable, uniform, knowable and rational world out there that welcomes investigation. Both Christianity and Atheism fall into this category.

Indeed, the Biblical faiths, especially Judaism and Christianity, which are rigorous belief systems, requiring evidences and proofs. For example, the principle of Deuteronomy 19:15 permeates Biblical thinking:

• “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”

In like manner, Jesus warned his followers to NOT believe Him without corroborating evidences (John 5:31). Therefore, from a Biblical perspective, faith is not something that is baseless, but rather a stance that is required in light of the confirming evidences. In other words, we believe because we have compelling evidences to believe – we attempt to join conviction to fact.

Bible Contradictions

Bart Ehrman, agnostic and head of the religion department at the University of North Carolina, has just written a new book, Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible. For his first alleged contradiction, he cites Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple:

“In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables” (John 2:14-15; also Mat. 21:12; Mark 11:15; Luke 19:45-46).

However, John’s account occurs at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, while the last three record it as happening at the end. Some interpreters suggest that this “cleansing” occurred on two occasions. So where’s the contradiction? Ehrman charges:

“But that would mean that neither Mark [nor Matthew and Luke] nor John tells the ‘true’ story, since in both accounts, he cleanses the Temple only once.” (7)

However, why would “true” reporting require that every occasion or detail be cited? No account can claim all the details regarding the people present, the clothing they wore, and their exact positions and movements.

Ehrman then objects, “If Jesus made a disruption of the Temple at the beginning of his ministry, why wasn’t he arrested by the authorities then?” Well, evidently, the sellers were doing something wrong, or Jesus wouldn’t have disrupted them. Perhaps, by arresting Him, the authorities perceived that this might place them in an unfavorable light among the people?

There are many things that we can’t say with certainty, but this doesn’t prove that there’s a contradiction. In fact, we should expect that difficult questions would arise, especially if the document is God-given. There is much about the physical world that remains uncertain. Some scientists argue that the questions are only growing. However, this should not invalidate the findings of science – nor should the uncertainties that arise from Scripture!

Let’s consider a competing option – there was only one “cleansing,” but John placed this same event at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry instead of at the end. If this is the case, Ehrman concludes, “Historically speaking, then, the accounts are not reconcilable.”

However, perhaps it wasn’t John’s intention to give a chronological accounting? Does this place his account in error? No! If someone asks me to give account of the things I did Sunday, and I don’t give them in order, this doesn’t make my account incorrect.

Throughout his book, Ehrman gleefully makes many unwarranted assertions. Why? Perhaps because bold charges sell books? Perhaps, he has an ax to grind? Attached to the sub-title of his book, Revealing the Hidden Contradictions of the Bible, he parenthetically adds “and why we don’t know about them.” This addition obtusely hints at something sinister – a cover-up. In any event, we will examine more of his allegations.

Moral Absolutes Require an Absolutely Transcendent Being

A letter to an atheist who wrote, “One can reason their way to moral absolutes without injecting a deity into the equation.”

Yes, we can reason our way to moral absolutes if there is first a basis in existence for these absolutes! Just consider these requirements for moral absolutism:

1. Immutability – if it changes, it can’t be absolute.

2. Universality – if its truth isn’t universal, then it can’t be absolute.

3. Transcendence – if it doesn’t transcend our own thinking and inclinations, then each one of us becomes the Supreme Court of our own subjective, non-absolute inclinations and thinking. There must exist something higher than us, something to which we are all subject and accountable.

In the above, moral law is similar to physical laws. However, there is one more necessary ingredient of absolute moral law that sets it apart from the physical laws – it carries transcendent authority. We can’t violate it without experiencing punishment, at least psychologically. While we can do a lot of things to violate the “demands” of gravity – getting on an elevator or plane – moral laws can’t be sidestepped so easily, at least not without painful consequences.

Conclusion: Acknowledging moral absolutes is to acknowledge a transcendent law-Giver. There is simply no one else in the picture who can fulfill these requirements.

Our Struggle for Assurance

We so desire the assurance of God’s love, but sometimes it seems as if His Scripture presents the biggest obstacles. For instance:

“Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14).

I’ve often found this verse, and many like it, very troubling. I had been trying my best to trust that salvation is a free gift, only to encounter a verse like this, which seems to suggest that there is some fine print involved in the promise of salvation as a free gift. It seems to say that I must achieve a level of holiness before I can expect to become God’s child eternally. It’s like signing up for a home-owners’ loan to later discover that the interest has skyrocketed.

How can we have a peace and joy in believing when the source of our belief – Scripture – seems to say such contradictory things? If the foundation isn’t solid, how can the house built upon it be solid? And without the assurance that comes from believing that we are safe in a God who loves us beyond comprehension (Eph. 3:17-20), we’re doomed to continual, morbid self-examination to convince and then re-convince ourselves that we have achieved an adequate level of holiness.

To compound the problem, if our own holiness is the ticket, even in part, into heaven, then we’re condemned to feverishly trying to convince myself that I have the winning ticket, that I am worthy to enter this exclusive party. Such thinking is the breeding ground of self-deception, self-righteousness, and self-absorption – not very pleasant fruit.

Indeed, Scripture can wound, but Scripture can also heal us from those wounds. I found great comfort in learning about the lives of the Patriarchs. Jesus affirms that they will enter the Kingdom of God (Luke 13:28). However, when we scrutinize their lives, we are appalled, at least initially, by what we find. Abraham had made his wife Sarah into a prostitute. As they journeyed the various provinces in the Promised Land, he would coerce Sarah into claiming that she was his sister so that he could derive some material benefits. On one such occasion, because of her beauty, the king of the Philistines took her as one of his wives. However, God prevented him from having sex with her and warned him to return Sarah to her husband.

When the king asked Abraham how he could have done such a despicable thing, Abraham lamely tried to justify himself:

"I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.' Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife. And when God had me wander from my father's household, I said to her, 'This is how you can show your love to me: Everywhere we go, say of me, "He is my brother." ' " (Genesis 20:11-13)

On many accounts, Abraham seemed to have failed the holiness test. Of course, his nephew Lot was no better. He fell in love with the life of Sodom, even though it was infested with rapists. He was willing to sacrifice his two virgin daughters to the raping mob, and even after that, he had to be coerced into leaving that hell-hole, and then begged permission to reside in Sodom’s sister-city. Nevertheless, he is also regarded by God as a righteous man whose heart was grieved by the sin of his beloved city (2 Peter 2:7)!

How do we make sense out of these contradictory portraits? These aren’t unusual. In fact, we find them so often, that we are forced to try to make sense out of them. Jacob was the biggest conniver. Even his name reflected this fact. He swindled his brother Esau out of his birthright, deceived his father Isaac into giving him the blessing intended for Esau, and then spent the next several years competing with uncle Laban to be the cleverest swindler. Nevertheless, Jacob remains beloved of God (Romans 9:13).

All of these examples confront us with peculiar cases of people who fell short of holiness and yet were among the blessed of God. We can add to these many more – David who committed adultery, murder and deception; Peter who denied the Lord; Isaac who also pimped his wife; Paul who persecuted the church and caused Christians to disown their faith. Yet these miscreants found mercy because they repented. We can even say that our God worked lovingly in their hearts to bring forth this repentance (2 Tim. 2:25; Acts 5:31).

So how do we deal with the Bible’s requirement for holiness? The Book of Hebrews provides the reverse illustration of Esau to help us understand. Although Esau was nobler than Jacob, he lacked a heart for the things of God. In fact, Hebrews, after asserting the need for holiness, warns us about being like Esau:

“Lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears.” (Hebrews 12:16-17, NKJV)

Esau wanted his father’s blessing – it carried certain benefits – but he wasn’t interested in God. While he fought to have the blessing and even tried to kill Jacob, he never repented or was willing to confess his sins. He never came to terms with the fact that his life was devoted to self and not to the things of God. Had he been interested in God, he would have had more esteem for his spiritual birthright.

The resolution comes across like a trumpet blast: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness!!!” (1 John 1:9). This is what had made all the difference for the Patriarchs.

I don’t think we sufficiently appreciate what our Savior has promised us. In receiving God’s pardon, the past is no longer remembered. Abraham becomes a prince, and Jesus castigates the religious leadership for not having done the works of Abraham (John 8:39)! Clearly, Jesus would now only see holiness in Abraham.

Israel had been full of rebellion and criticized Moses for taking them away from their security in Egypt, yet our mysterious God declares of them: “By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land” ( Hebrews 11:29).

Job had been dishing out many accusations against God, but after he repented of his rash speech, God declared to his judgmental friends: "My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has” ( Job 42:7-8). According to God, Job had spoken correctly. Evidently, all of Job’s railing had been obliterated, cleansed away!

We will always struggle with sin in this temptation-filled life, where our own holiness is unobtainable. However, our blessed Savior has provided a safety net – He will forgive and cleanse us as soon as we cry out to Him, even if we sin 70 x 7 times! Glory be His Name forever and ever!

I Suffer, Therefore God Doesn’t Exist

Another letter to the atheists who deny the existence of God because evil and suffering exist:

A postmodern stated, “The only truth is change itself. Therefore, there’s no objective truth!” However, if this is true, then this statement can’t stand – at least, not for long – because it too is subject to change.

This is precisely the problem you encounter when you try to deny God by pointing to the evil in the world. If there is no God, then there is no absolute moral truth upon which to base such an indictment. “Evil” then is just an arbitrary construct of our own ever-changing minds in an ever-changing universe—certainly no solid ground upon which to base any judgment against God!

Consequently, when you deny the existence of God, you do so without any rational basis. It’s like the atheist who asserts, “I can be good without God!” If there is no ontological and objective “good,” then all talk about “goodness” is arbitrary, subjective and therefore meaningless. Hence, the atheist’s denial of God is also meaningless.

The postmodern stance not only precludes the existence of moral truth, which you illogically use to deny God’s existence, but it also precludes the existence of any unchanging laws in the midst of our expanding universe.

But more personally, your indictment – “suffering proves there’s no God” – is also overwhelmed by many other considerations:

1. The good in the world overwhelms the evil or painful. Therefore, the vast majority of people value life. (If life is so evil, why are you still here?) Therefore also, it is illegitimate to discount God’s existence by the presence of suffering.

2. Our needs are met so perfectly: we hunger and there is food; we thirst and God provides water; we tire and there is sleep…. I’m amazed by the correspondence between my needs and the way God fulfills my needs.

3. Even more fundamentally, the universe is fine-tuned for my existence and comfort.

4. As Christians, even though there remain questions that trouble us, we find assurance in our Lord that we will blissfully be with Him for eternity, and that He will right every wrong. We also find comfort and assurance in the fact that He judges justly and mercifully, and will give everyone what they deserve and even better. Although we might not know how it will all pay out, we have come to trust in our God and therefore can be at peace regarding the outcome.

5. On the contrary, we can point to the fact that suffering and death is proof of God’s goodness. Just look at what happens to people for whom there is little suffering! They become arrogant and insensitive. Instead, I find that I need the prospect of death in order to value what I do have, while I have it. Eternal life in this corrupted world would make us indifferent to all the things that require sensitivity and thoughtfulness.

6. Also is also essential to prepare us for what follows: “We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body.” 2 Cor. 4:10-11

Wahhabism, Koran, Israel and Fundamentalism

Are all fundamentalists made of the same wool? The Jewish Voice (Jan. 2010) reports about a Sheik Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi who teaches that “the land of Israel belongs to the Jews.” How refreshing! Instead of equating Israel with Satan, Palazzi claims that the real culprit behind the hatred and warfare is Saudi Arabia, which has “funneled huge sums of money to extremist Islamist institutions”:

• “The Saudi brand of Wahhabi Islam has distorted the real Islam and must be stopped.”

• “Wahhabism is a totalitarian cult which stands for terror, the massacre of civilians, the permanent war against Jews, Christians, and non-Wahhabi Muslims. The influence of Wahhabism in the contemporary Arab world is such that many Arab Muslims are wrongly convinced that, in order to be a good Muslim, one must hate Israel and hope for its destruction.”

• “Israel exists by Divine Right, confirmed in both Bible and Koran.”

• “As a Muslim who abides by the Qu’ran, I believe that opposing the existence of the State of Israel means opposing a Divine decree.”

Palazzi cites Sura 5.21 in support of his position:

• “O my people [Israel]! enter the holy land which Allah has prescribed for you and turn not on your backs for then you will turn back losers.” (He also cites Sura 17:104, which he claims teaches that Allah will bring the Jews back to their rightful home!)

How popular is Palazzi’s message in the Muslim world? Let’s not be blind to the fact that there is another, less irenic side to Koranic teaching that seems to always trump the peaceable Suras:

• [47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

• [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

• [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

• [4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

If only Muslims would take these Suras figuratively, but it is clear that many don’t! For instance, the highly esteemed The Khan Noble Koran comments on Sura 47:4:

• “Then Allah revealed the order to discard the obligations [imposed by earlier Suras] and commanded Muslims to fight against the Mushrikun (Polytheists and Trinitarians) as well as against the people of the Scriptures of they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizya (tax) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. At first the fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory against them that start the fight against you and against all those who worship others along with Allah (Trinitarians).”

Even in view of these chilling revelations, many modern commentators throw all fundamentalists into the same Jihadist bag, citing the Biblical mass annihilations ordered by Jehovah. However, there are critical differences between what we encounter in the Bible and what we find in the Koran. While the Koran issues standing orders to fight “against all those who worship others along with Allah,” in the Bible, God orders specific instructions for a particular time and place – for the protection of the theocratic State of Israel. Nowhere had Israel been given a blank check to annihilate unbelievers. Instead, these battles were ordered as God’s holy judgment, and not according to our human assessment of who deserves it. It is like the difference between a court of law and a lynch mob.

Now, in Christ and His New Covenant, we no longer need to remove the heathens from our midst in order to protect our faith. Instead, we are directed to lovingly go out among them, for our God is with us! This is Christian fundamentalism – light-years away from other brands!