Why do some atheists claim that there are contradictions in the Bible without having read the entire text themselves? Updated just
now
Why”
Because as overall shown below, the ONLY way that they can
claim thousands of
actual contradictions (such
as dealt with by multitudes of
Christian exegetesis)
is overall thru ignoring and or neglecting context (immediate
and extended), sense, forms of speech, literary genre and other
normal interpretive principles.
The
alleged contradictions below by
AmericanAtheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions - set
forth as conclusive reasons to reject the Bible - example
such neglect or ignorance. As with:
certain covenantal
distinctions regarding
the Sabbath;
and
of grammatical aspects as regards the earth remaining “forever”;
and
of the different senses in which one can "see God" ;
and
in a book with recorded strange stories (versus laws of God) that
human sacrifice to God took place contrary to God's command ;
and
egregiously ignoring context and the actual text in confusing Israel
not being able to drive out enemies, with God - who commanded them
to do so and chastened them for not doing so -;
and
again of covenantal distinctions as well as the fuller meaning of
retribution vs. non-retaliation;
as
well as regards the requirement of circumcision;
and
of the principle of laws being expanded as necessary, as with
incest;
and
of how a promise of overall favor of God to the obedient does not
disallow testings for a time, as with Job, as well as the purpose of
this;
and
of the context (natural man vs. spiritual realm) of Solomon's
conflicting conclusions ;
and
confusing the effects of actions by fore-bearers vs. actual judicial
punishments (or rewards) upon descendants because of actions;
and
that of the contextual (in the light of teachings at issue) meaning
of temptation intended to induce one to sin, and of formation of
testing of character;
and
the relative sense of "hate" in choices versus honoring;
and
as with #10 (my numbering), that of the differentiation btwn the
natural realm verses the spiritual as in cited statements by Job,
who expressed both (14).
Since
Quora has a word limit in answers then I had to place analysis of the
last attempt, “The End of the World” in a comment. Which actually
is a difficult objection since it deals with prophecy, but which
allegation of provable contradiction fails since it examples
ignorance of the term "day of the Lord," and of the reality
of precursors before the final full-fulfillment, and the context of
the statement at issue.
1. The
Sabbath Day: Keep
the Sabbath Day vs, “One man esteemeth one day above anothe…Let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans
14:5
This
alleged contradiction juxtaposes ceremonial laws under the Old
Covenant and that of the promised New Covenant, and ignores
covenantal distinctions which
the New Testament (NT) teaches.
In
which literal observance of a certain class of laws issued under
Moses for Israel (yes, there are different classes) regarding meat,
drink, holydays, the new moon, the sabbath days,” (Colossians
2:16)
of "days, and months, and times, and years," (Galatians
4:10)
and “of ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary,”
(Hebrews
9:1)
“Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and
carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
(Hebrews
9:10)
are abrogated under the prophesied (Jer.
31:31–34)
New Covenant.
Which
was instituted by the death of the testator (Hebrews
9:16, 17)
and is distinctly “not according to the covenant that I made with
their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them
out of the land of Egypt." (Hebrews
8:9)
Which
abrogation stands in contrast to the repeated affirmation and
reinforcement in the NT of basic
universal laws (applicable
to all peoples at all times) which nations where judges for not
obeying. (Leviticus
18:27)
Thus
not only is eating all legitimate food sanctioned, (Romans
14:14; 1
Timothy 4:3-5)
but while all
the commands of the 10 commandments are repeated/reiterated under
the New Covenant, the law regarding the Sabbath nowhere is, while the
only specific day that the NT church (as a distinct assembly) is
recorded as having met together is the first day,
which
is when the risen Lord Jesus met with His disciples multiple
times.
2.
The Permanence of Earth:
… the earth abideth for ever”- Ecclesiastes 1:4 vs. “shall be
burned up.” — 2Peter
3:10
This
ignorantly imagines the word (‛ôlâm) translated “for ever”
is one that actually only can mean that, versus one that can refer to
a long but not permanent period, as Hebrew word translated “for
ever” here (H5769
- ʿôlām - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv))
basically means long duration. (Exodus
21:5-6)
]
3. Seeing
God:
No man hath seen God at any time…”– John
1:18 vs.
… I have seen God face to face, and my life is spared.” -Genesis
32:30)
This
absurdity of a contradiction ignores context and the scope of the
meaning of “seeing.” (Exodus
33:20-22;
cf. Exodus
24:11; Isaiah
6:1-6; John
12:44-45; Job
42:5; Judges
13:3, 22; 1
Corinthians 13:12; Revelation
22:3-4;
cf. 1
Jn. 3:2)
4.
Human Sacrifice:
“… Thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to
Molech,…” — Leviticus
18:21 vs.
“whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me,…I
will offer it up for a burnt offering” — Judges
11:30-31 .
This
conclusion of a contradiction fails on multiple counts:
presumes
that human sacrifice to God (vs. false god) by the willing (the
daughter affirmed this vow was to be carried out) is actually
unconditionally forbidden;
presumes
victory signified Divine affirmation of a rash (what was Jephthah
thinking would come thru his door to greet him?), volitional vow to
do what is presumably unconditionally forbidden, versus being a
presumptuous and unnecessary vow and a lesson against making such;
presumes
that Jephthah was required to perform a vow even though it was
forbidden by God (as is presumed), even though according to the
principle taught in Numbers
30:3–6, 13,14, if
the superior authority disallows the vow (or has), then the
requirement is null. But, consistent with the culture Jephthah was
raised and ruled in, he would likely be ignorant of this.
presumes
literal offering must be meant, which is nowhere affirmed elsewhere,
versus total dedication as a perpetual virgin in service to God is
meant, and to be childless was typically of great distress to women
(“Give me children, or else I die:” Genesis 30:1)
presumes
and that the book of Judges - with its many very “unusual”
(understatement) accounts
in the context of a habitually unfaithful people, of spiritual and
moral decline and divine chastisement, and thus by calls for mercy
and followed by rescue through certain problematic leaders, and
concluding with “In those days there was no king in Israel: every
man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25) - is
sufficient to understand the meaning and presumed sanction of this
vow.
5.
The Power of God:
“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew
19:26 vs.
The LORD was with Judah; and he [not in the original language, but
signifies Judah] drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but
could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had
chariots of iron.” — Judges
1:19
This
ignores that it was not the Lord who could not drive out enemies but
Israel due to unfaithfulness, and thus God chastened them for this
failure, while using these residual foes to test Israel as to whether
they would follow the Lord in the face of allurement to idolatry.
(See Judges
3:1–4; Joshua
7:11, 12)
6.
Personal Injury: …tooth for tooth…stripe for
stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25 vs. “…ye resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other
also.” — Matthew 5:39
Per
usual,, this ignores context, in which Exodus 21:23-25 refers to
judicial punishments (“as the judges” determine), and
which is also a restriction of punishment (not two for one) while the
Lord Jesus is referring to personal retaliation, and as the Lord who
would magnify the Law (Isaiah 42:21) the Christ expanded the
restriction on justice to non-retaliation. Conversely, the allowance
of divorce was restricted. (Matthew 5:31,32)
7.
Circumcision: Every
man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis
17:10 vs.
“…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”
— Galatians
5:2
Displays
more ignorance, of both covenantal distinctions (Col.
2:16, 27; Hebrews
8:9, 10; Hebrews
9:9, 8)
as well as context.
Circumcision
was added as part of the distinctive laws of the covenant made under
Moses, which God promised would lead to a New Covenant, (Jer.
31:31–34 in
which literal observance to the class of typological laws was
abrogated, (Colossians
2:16, Hebrews
9:10),
but not their intent. (Romans 8:4)
In
the second case, circumcision as a religious rite signifies reverting
to their former faith. (Galatians 5:2)
8.
Incest: “Cursed be he that lieth with his sister,
the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” —
Deuteronomy 27:22 vs. And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the
fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s
sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my
father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
(Genesis 20:11-12)
More
ignorance.
First,
laws against incest were not given by Moses until some 500 years
after Abraham, who could not be breaking a law that did not exist.
Which is because laws were not made arbitrarily, but (as in history
overall) as warranted by their purpose. And since the negative
effects of the Fall of man were progressive, then there was no health
need to forbid incest, which was nowhere forbidden until the
institution of the law (and covenant of it) under Moses.
And
since man lived hundreds of years, kin could be of substantially
different in age, thus reducing social closeness which might be a
factor.
Second,
the terms “sister” and “brother” are used with wide latitude
in the Bible, and as stated here,
considering
the age to which Abraham lived (75: Gen. 25:7), it is possible that
he married only a granddaughter on his father’s side, or even a
niece or grand niece.
9.
Trusting God: “A good man obtaineth favour of the
LORD…” — Proverbs 12:2 vs. the case of Job the case of Job.
“commissioning Satan to ruin Job financially and to slaughter his
shepherds and children to win a petty bet with Satan.”
A
manifestation of multiple examples of ignorance.
First,
This was no “petty pet with satan” but that of exposing for
posterity the character of Lucifer, who is revealed from the
beginning as selfishly lusting for God’s position and prestige,
(Isaiah 14:12–14) and whose premise is that God is not worthy of
such, but that Job was devoted to Him only because of what God gave
Job. And whom satan hoped to induce to blame/curse/forsake God, and
most likely end his trial prematurely by committing suicide (which is
what his wife likely was suggesting.
Second,
while Job was an upright faithful man, his character was not without
defects, and which trials in life reveal, whether via affliction,
adversity or affluence. And God promises that before ultimate
blessing, the faithful will endure trials. “Many are the
afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them
all.” (Psalms 34:19)
Third,
contrary to the devil’s goal, Job prevailed, with protestations as
to “why,” which God answered via a multitude of rhetorical
questions, revealing that God know exactly what Job was going
through, and that God He was doing. And in the end, “A good man
obtaineth favour of the LORD…” (Proverbs 12:2) was exactly what
Job realized. Job 42:10–17.
Therefore,
rather than this account being one “a petty bet,” God is
revealing for posterity both the character of Lucifer as well as Job,
and of trials of suffering, and that of the omniscient omnipotent
God, whose eye is even on the sparrow. And who knows all, not only
all that we do and why, but what we are going thru, and what all the
effects will be, and how to make them work out for what is good, in
both justice and in mercy in the end.
And
thus, Job, as a good man, did indeed “obtain favor of the Lord,”
both before as well as after his trial, meaning that, contrary to the
atheist, there simply is no contradiction, but that of another false
dilemma.
10.
The Holy Lifestyle: “Go thy way, eat thy bread
with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart…” —
Ecclesiastes 9:7 vs. “…they that rejoice, as though they
rejoiced not…” — 1 Corinthians 7:30
Once
again the crass ignorance of the atheist is on display, which is
mainly that of ignorance of context but that of the Bible as well.
For there was more explicit contrast that could be cited in seeking
to assert a contradiction, such as.
“Then
I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun,
than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with
him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under
the sun” - Ecclesiastes 8:15) vs. “Be afflicted, and mourn, and
weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to
heaviness.” (James 4:9)
But
of course, that assertion would be that of ignorance of literary
forms, in which, as in parts of recorded history such as the actions
of the Levite towards his concubine wife in Judges 19, not all that
is recorded is teaching how man is to act - unlike the giving of
commands, in context - and neither are all the recorded reasonings of
man.
Thus
alleged contradiction here is that of the ignoring context. In which
the first text (Ecclesiastes 9:7 ) is that of Solomon, as part of his
experiment, expressing the reasoning and conclusions of the selfish
natural man under the premise that this life is all there is.
In
contrast is his conclusion:
“Let
us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his
commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring
every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be
good, or whether it be evil.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13,14)
And
the counter text of the atheist, “they that rejoice, as though they
rejoiced not…” — 1 Corinthians 7:30 is speaking, with some
hyperbole, like a coach with minutes left in the game - “the time
is short” (I suspect that, perhaps unknown to him, the most
immediate application Paul was warning of was the soon-coming
tumultuous 70AD event in Judea).
Meanwhile,
“Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a
merry heart…” is consistent with “And they, continuing daily
with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to
house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.”
(Acts 2:46)
But
which would not be the case as a careless lifestyle, as if this life
and one’s own self is what mattered most, as per Solomon’s
reasoning under that selfish premise.
Thus,
in context, there simply is no actual contradiction.
11.
Punishing Crime: “The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father…” — Ezekiel 18:20 vs. “I the LORD thy
God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation…” — Exodus 20:5
This
assertion also examples ignorance, that of grammar and of context.
The
first text in full states, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the
father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall
be upon him.’ (Ezekiel 18:20)
Which
is one of the most repeated/reiterated one in the Old testament, (Dt
24:16; 2Kings
14:6; 2Kings
22:18-20; 2Chron
25:4; Jer
31:29, 30)
flowing from “The fathers shall not be put to death for the
children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers:
every man shall be put to death for his own sin.’ (Deuteronomy
24:16) ,
And
in every instance it is referring to children not being judicially
punished (put to death/die) as if guilty of the sins of their father.
Instead, “every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
In
the second text we first have the reality of the collateral and
generational effects of disobedience that are experienced under the
system God established. In which, man, being given the ability to
make moral choices, is thus enabled to realize consequences which
affect more than himself. And indeed, every single choice we make
results in ripple effects, for evil and or good, varying in scope and
degree.
Thus,
while negative choices of the disobedient are “visited” upon
others, esp. those closest to the actor, so also, “And shewing
mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
(Exo 20:6)
Thus,
the sense in which the children suffer due to the actions of parents
and others is not that of children being judged and punished for what
their fathers did, and which repeated statements ar against, but the
reality is that sins have a residual, if decreasing, effect under the
system God ordained. Of choices and consequences, positive and
negative, and, and blessings and punishments.
However,
another aspect relative to this is that of a form of unmeritted
tribal favor collectively shown to decendants
of Abraham due to God’s promise to him,
but which favor also renders one more accountable, in judgment, and
in which the system described above is yet operative.
Let
me add to this something else that atheists often charge God with,
which is that of God being “jealous,” as if needing worship for
His ego, which, as with many other moral arguments they try to make
against God, they see as wrong since they actually morally agree with
the Bible on many things. Such as that selfishly seeking devotion is
wrong.
However,
God needs nothing, (Acts 17:25) and what He actually “gets” from
man is mostly morally grievous, which He endures one who knows the
end from the beginning and how to make all such to ultimately work
out for what is Good, while to make an omniscient, omnipotent
unfailing perfect Being your “God” - your ultimate source of
security, object of spiritual affection and allegiance - is what is
right and beneficial for man, since all created things are finite,
fallible and ultimately will fail.
And
in the Bible “jealousy” as by the God of Israel which entered
into a covenant with Him is not the same as “envy,” for the
former is a claim based upon what is rightfully due, whereas envy is
a desire for what belongs to another. A coach can be jealous the
devotion a player with much potential gives to wasteful activities,
but to be envious of his popularity would be wrong. And as God needs
nothing, and is not driven by an ego that they needs devotion, then
His claim to faithfulness is actually what is only right and
beneficial to man. In a word, benevolent.
12.
Temptation: “Let no man say when he is tempted, I
am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither
tempteth he any man.” — James 1:13 vs. “And it came to pass
after these things, that God did tempt Abraham…” — Genesis
22:1
Which
allegation of contradiction fails to consider the sense in which
“temptation” can take place, and the meaning of the word, and how
this is revealed in others parts of the Bible. In context, it is the
use of temptation and the reason why it can work to bring one to sin
that is in view, in which “every man is tempted, when he is drawn
away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it
bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth
death.” (James 1:14-15)
Thus,
temptation can induce one to sin, yet the actual cause is that of
one’s own lust and yielding to it . But life itself a test of
character as it includes facing situations in which one can be
tempted to morally compromise (which can include leaving home for
college, and or a position of responsibility at work, as well as
facing combat in the military, etc.), yet this does not mean that the
person placing a person in that environment is seeking to bring that
person to compromise, but is can be to see if one is worthy of
responsibility.
And the
word translated “tempt” (nāsâ) is
the same word most often translated “prove” in the Bible, as in
the chastisement of Israel in failing to drive out the nations that
God commanded Israel to do (which atheists actually imagine means God
could not!), this God stated, “I also will not henceforth drive out
any from before them of the nations which Joshua left when he died:
That through them I may prove [nāsâ] Israel,
whether they will keep the way of the LORD to walk therein, as their
fathers did keep it, or not.” (Jdg 2:21-22)
Which
was NOT that of God actually intending to seduce Israel to sin out of
lust, but to manifest to them and posterity whether or not they would
be faithful in the face of temptation. A test of character, which we
all can daily face.
For
while antitheists irrationally rail against God for allowing evil and
suffering, this is one of the consequences of enabling and allowing
man (and angels) to make choices, which have consequences. However
choice is meaningless unless there are alternatives to choose btwn.
Thus a “perfect being” is not an infallible robot, or spouse, but
one who has the capability to make choices which can render him/her
morally imperfect.
A
perfect spouse in this sense would be able to choose to be
unfaithful. Enter Lucifer, who without any need, merit, or request,
selfishly presumed to elevate himself to God’s position, (Isaiah
14:12-14)
and in turn, Lucifer provides the basic alternative for man to
faithfulness to God.
And
thus, as see in Judges
2:21-22 and
many other places, God “tempted” as meaning allowing temptation
as a test of character.
And
while this is usually thru allowing evil to tempt people, yet God can
also try the heart of persons in commanding a person to do something.
In the case of Abraham referred to in the atheist’s counter verse,
this was that of “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.
“ (Genesis
22:2)
Which
itself I am sure atheists imagine as being contrary to “Thou shalt
not kill,” (Exodus
20:13)
though the word for “kill” is that of murder,” and refers to
commands for man, who, not being the creator and giver of life, and
being ignorant of what all the single and collective effects of every
action and inactions will be, nor able to ultimately make them work
out for what is Good, with both justice as well as mercy, has no
right to even terminate his own life nor unjustly, unlawfully take
that of another.
Moreover,
in context, the child (estimated to be btwn 12 and 25 was
one whose conception was miraculous, and which Abraham was able to
obey this command since he thus believed that God was able to raise
up his slain son, which was required in order for God to keep His
promise to Abraham to provide innumerable descendants thru him.
And
yet, Abraham’s willingness to obey God in this being manifest, God
intervened to prevent it, manifesting to Abraham himself and to
posterity his exceptional character of this “father of faith.”
And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said,
Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine
hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know
that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine
only son from me. (Genesis
22:11-12)
(Of
course, I am sure atheists imagine this to be a contradiction of
God’s omniscience, even though there actually is no “I” before
“ know” in the original, and denotes what has been revealed). In
contrast is the meaning of the statement in the counter verse of the
atheist, that “God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he
any man” — James
1:13,
which in context is “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am
tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth
he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his
own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth
forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”
(James
1:13-15)
And
lust can be that of revenge, but as was told the first murderer, “And
the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy
countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee
shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” (Genesis
4:6-7)
Thus
in such a case it is lust which lead to sin causes one to be
vulnerable to deception, while an condemned agent of such refers to
one actually intending to seduce a person to sin, as the devil sought
to bring Eve to do, which is not the intent of God when a person is
faced with temptation, but that of manifesting character.
Even
in the case of Pharaohs heart being hardened by God, (Exodus
4:21)
that was actually by God doing such supernatural acts that would have
moved a rational man to admit this was of God and submit, but as with
the Pharisees when faced with the merciful miraculous of Christ, in
reprobation Pharaoh hardened his own heart. (Exodus
8:15)
Likewise, we ourselves can harden the hearts of others by telling
them what they do not want to hear.
But
then we have the case of just war, in which the victim of unjust
aggression man can use deception in order to thwart an enemy for the
just purpose of defeat of evil, if not to knowingly sin but to
deceive. Which is not what James
1:13 is
addressing, but applies to God employing agents acting according to
their nature in order to justly punish lying evil men. (1
Kings 22:19–24)
Those who choose deception will receive the same, while those who
follow the revelation God gives will be provided with more of the
same. (John
12:35, 36;
cf. 2
Thessalonians 2:7–12)
13.
Family Relationships: “Honor
thy father and thy mother…”– Exodus
20:12 vs.
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke
14:26
Again,
context is king, as well as grammar. The first command relates to
honor of parents, which flows from honor of the Creator, God, who
also requires honor of those in authority, basically due to their
office, (Exodus
22:28; Mt.
23:2; 1
Peter 2:17)
yet which is not opposed to warranted reproof of occupiers of such
office by genuine men of God. (Exodus
7:16)
In the second case the word “hate” is comparative, as in meaning
choosing one over the other, and in Biblical language then extremes
of one over another were used. Thus,by way of effect, He that is void
of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth
his peace. (Proverbs
11:12)
He
that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth
reproof getteth understanding. (Proverbs
15:32)
Likewise,
, the “hate” in the text at issue extends to one’s own life:
“If any man come to me, and hate not…his own life also,” he
cannot be my disciple.” (Luke
14:26)
Which
does not mean caring for one’s own life, as no man overall “hated
his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the
church.” (Ephesians
5:29)
Yet
consistent with such Biblical usage as cited, when it comes to
choices then to choose the Lord’s call to service for His kingdom
is “hate” his life in this world as not being in that service,
likewise it would be to “hate” parents if the opposed the same.
Likewise,
a soldier in classic boot camp was essentially told that his supreme
loyalty, dedication, and service was to the Marine CO and service,
which was under the premise that such was necessary to save parents
and family. And the Lord’s last act was to enlist care for His
mother as concerns the flesh, though He had reminded her that His own
ultimate overriding allegiance was to His heavenly Father. (Luke
2:49; John
2:4)
14. Resurrection
of the Dead: “…he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no
more. ” — Job
7:9 vs. “…the
hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his
voice, and shall come forth….” — John
5:28-29
Which,
akin to objection #11, fails to consider the context, as to whether
the source is expressing his own reasoning as Solomon was in much of
Ecclesiastics, and or whether one is expressing Truth as limited to
one realm due to a partial degree of revelation, versus that of
speaking/writing Divine Truth as from God like a prophet or a law
giver as Moses. Which the context of statements would reveal, and in
this case is that of expressing Truth as limited to one realm due to
a partial degree of revelation.
In
which Job is enduring a perplexing trial, that of a good man with a
loathsome debilitating disease, and protesting by expressing the
finite temporary reality of man - which pertains to this life: As the
cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the
grave shall come up no more. He shall return no more to his house,
neither shall his place know him any more. (Job
7:9-10)
Which
expression of common knowledge is true as regards this life, in which
the dead (aside the temporary status of resuscitation miracles) do
not come back to resume their life as before.
What
Job was ignorant of what the physical reign the Messiah on earth,
with believers in super-natural bodies as that of the resurrected
Christ, which is not that which Job describes, or could. Thus the
contradiction is not between two Truths, as one is limited to this
life and knowledge from it.
However,
as Job later affirms, "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and
that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though
after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see
God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not
another; though my reins be consumed within me." (Job
19:25-27)
And as said, since
Quora states that my answer is too long, I will add the rest of my
responses to American Atheists, Inc., in a comment, by the grace of
God.
Note
that while the Bible provides a complimentary and pregoressive
revelation of God, and of man, and of obedience, and the provision of
salvation, and of eternity, it is also an approx. 800,000 word
book of
66 books,
consisting of multiple literary forms and of expression, penned over
about 1600 years thru about 40 different persons, and translated from
manuscripts (mainly from 2 languages), besides imagining that changes
in spelling, sentence structure between multitudes of manuscripts,
and translator’s preferences, which attackers of the Bible also
count as actual “contradictions.”
Such
also seek to negate its authority by typically engaging in
superficial careless isolationist eisegesis, imagining actual
contradictions that sound consideration reveal to be specious at
best, while there are only a minute percentage of the Bible that
apologists (the word means to give an explanation) typically
attribute to copyist mistakes among existing manuscripts.
And
yet which are doctrinally insignificant (unless one holds that every
word in every existing manuscript copies must be unchanged in any
way, and in every translation - and only word for word types as the
KJV should be the first source) and the main message and meaning of
texts being overall readily present to honest seekers of God, and or
if needed, which further examination provides (the free E-sword and
or The
Word software
can help in, as well as here),
with comparative analysis, following interpretive
principles.
Footnotes
[1] LAWVSGRACE2.html
[2] Genesis
20:12—If incest is condemned, why did Abraham marry his sister?
Daniel
Hamilton
· Apr
7
15.1. The
End of the World: “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man
coming in his kingdom. ” — Matthew
16:28 vs.
history.
Ignorance
of or carelessness regarding original language. The Greek word for
"some" (tis) - an enclitic indefinite pronoun - most often
is translated (KJV) "certain," 104 times (as in Mat 9:3),
and "one" 34 times (as in Mat 12:47) and as "man"
including "a certain man" and some man" 45 times, and
is not definitively plural. In addition, their is no word in the
Greek for "they" in the verse, which was added by the
translators.
Thus,
the promise can easily refer to John, who did indeed see the Lord
coming in His kingdom in the astounding vision while left to die on
the island of Patmos:
And
I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon
him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge
and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were
many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he
himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his
name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven
followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and
clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he
should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron:
and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty
God. (Revelation
19:11-15)
15.2. “Verily
I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be
fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not
pass away. ” — Luke
21:32-33 vs.
history.
Finally
a case with some legitimate weight. Prophecy is not like a newspaper
report but is most like a vision, in which events are described but
can describe different time frames, and which can see precursors of a
final fulfillment. They key word here is "This" as in "This
generation" of the previous verse, "when ye see these
things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at
hand." (Luke
21:31)
The
question then is, "what things," which is preceded and by
"many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time
draweth near," and of "wars and commotions, be not
terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is
not by and by." (Luke
21:8, 9)
Then
said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom
against kingdom: And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and
famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall
there be from heaven. (Luke
21:10-11)
So
all these would be what "this generation" would see. Yet in
addition,
But
before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute
you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being
brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake. And it shall
turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not
to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth
and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay
nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren,
and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be
put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.
(Luke
21:12-17)
Which
so far is a lot for the present generation and to see in perhaps the
next 50 or so years, though to some degree the second part of the
first century did. However, the next verse specifically applies to
the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem, yet as a precursor of the final
fulfillment: And
when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the
desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judæa flee to
the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out;
and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these
be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be
fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that
give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the
land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of
the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and
Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of
the Gentiles be fulfilled. (Luke
21:20-24)
The
last sentence. "led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem
shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the
Gentiles be fulfilled" does not correspond to a return of Christ
in 70 AD but awaits a future realization.
"Over
the next 1,900 years, Jerusalem would change hands at least eight
different times in continual cycle of war and conquest. In the end of
the 7th century, Muslim conquers built the Dome of the Rock on the
Temple Mount, where it remains to this day. The words of Yeshua had
become a stark reality: Jerusalem was trodden by the Gentiles."
(Jerusalem
70 AD: Not One Stone Left upon Another - Hope for Israel)
After
the destruction of the temple in 70AD, in partial fulfillment of
answer to the first of 2 questions asked of Jesus by His disciples,
( Mt
24:3;
Mr 13:3,4; Luke
21:7)
then or the next 1,900 the Jewish people would be scattered into the
four corners of the earth, until a progressive regathering.
(Deuteronomy
32:26; Isaiah
11:12)
And
which "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" and
future events after that point is the era the proceeding section
belongs to:
And
there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars;
and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and
the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for
looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the
powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of
man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these
things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads;
for your redemption draweth nigh. And he spake to them a parable;
Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye
see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So
likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the
kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This
generation shall not pass away, till all be
fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not
pass away. (Luke
21:25-33)
It
is this culminating description which "when ye see these things
come to pass" includes, and which simply has not been realized.
And this "generation" can
refer to the people group that see these culminating things.
Likewise, a type of generation, as in "A wicked and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign" (Mat 12:39)
15.3:
“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time
to awake out of sleep: for now is our
salvation
nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at
hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put
on the armour of light.” — Romans
13:11-12
“Be
ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord
draweth nigh.” — James
5:8
“Little
children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist
shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that
it is the last time.” — 1
John 2:18
“But
the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch
unto prayer.” — 1
Peter 4:7
vs.
history.
This
also requires knowledge of Biblical themes and words. The "the
day is at hand" refers to "the
day of the Lord" which flows from in the Old Testament (24
times), usually prophetically, concerning
which in prophecy there are precursors to a yet final fulfillment.
For instance, prophecies
(Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11) that concern 2nd century B.C. Antiochus
Epiphanes saw substantial realization in that time,
yet not fully, and Jesus Himself foretold that the Abomination of
Desolation would yet come. (Matthew
24:15–16; Mark
13:14; Luke
21:20–21)
which Epiphanes was a precursor of.
Precursors
of various prophecies of the day of the Lord can include Assyria
conquering the Northern Kingdom of Israel 722 BC, and the Babylonian
army defeating Egypt in 605 BC, and when the Babylonian army
conquered Jerusalem in 586 BC, when the Babylonians destroyed Edom in
583 BC
This
does not change the fact that the cited texts indicate imminent
realization, and in preterism (often held by Calvinist "Reformed")
Christians hold that this day of the Lord and fulfillment
of the prophetic texts referred to above,
being a day of judgment, referred to the calamitous
end of the Jewish world in 70AD,
with them no longer having any homeland, but scattered into the four
sections of the earth,as foretold, which is followed by an epoch of
time before the final judgement.
As
a "futurist" I do not hold to 70AD being the final
fulfill-ment, but affirm that "it is the last time [age/times],"
"the end of all things is at hand" "The night is far
spent, the day is at hand," "the coming of the Lord draweth
nigh," "our salvation is nearer than when we believed"
expresses a terminal state of the present time as a expectation of
soon realization of the day of the Lord and deliverance thereof. And
this did see "the end of" temple Judaism, as the temple and
Levitical genealogical records were destroyed, and with validation of
priests, and their homeland. However, despite profound judgment it
did not see the realization of the day of the Lord and His literal
coming, but that of more persecution and yet exponential growth.
Yet,
the church was also told,
Now
we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in
mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter
as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive
you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a
falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of
perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple
of God, shewing himself that he is God." (2
Thessalonians 2:1-4)
And
which the book of Revelation more fully describes, and which the
profound judgment of 70AD did not fulfill (for instance, see "no
more" in Revelation
18:14, 21-23),
but once again the destruction of the temple and events proceeding
from it were yet another partial fulfillment as a precursor.
However,
these conditions could have occurred, and can in short order.
Therefore, I will posit that what is expressed is not that of a
promise of the Lord's return in the lifetime of the immediate
hearers, but a desired waiting expectation by them. Yet Scriptural
prophecy is also written for all generations, each of which in every
age after 40AD could also express this "salvation is nearer than
when we believed" expectation. For at any time the conditions
necessary for Lord's return can be realized in relative short order.
In
conclusion, this last (#15 as I number them) is indeed challenging,
and I am not immersed in end time prophecy as much as others, but I
do not see this expectation of imminent return of the Lord as being a
promise to the first generation, but that of prophecy contingent upon
accompanying events taking place, and written to all generations, and
with "soon" being applicable to all age since, for it
literally can and believers are to be ready.
Many
more alleged contradictions are dealt with by multitudes of
Christian exegetes.
Overall,
what is exampled in such is that of atheists carelessly treating the
Bible as it was all - or least wherever they imagine
they have found a actual contradiction - to be understood by a prima
facie reading by subjects who are quite ignorant of it, ignoring
context, grammatical aspects, etc., in a document of almost 800,000
words, from about 40 different writers of various occupations,
covering two basic covenants, and using two languages (with a third
being very limited), and many literary genres (including Law,
History, Wisdom, Poetry, Epistles, Prophecy, etc.).
And (as with
communication in a literary society) along with and usually within literal speech, employing multitude figures of
speech including euphemism, circumlocution, metaphor, allegory,
allusion hyperbole, understatement, idiom, sarcasm, personification,
pun, simile, synecdoche, etc.), within a vast number of contexts, and
compiled over a period of approx. 1600 years while covering vast
expanses of time (and existing in thousands of manuscripts of copies
of copies of varying qualities)
And
yet, despite such a vast wealth of material and manuscripts (which
provides much for antitheists to assert contradictions of), the Bible
provide an amazingly cohesive, complementary message (in context, and
other normal interpretive principles), most importantly that of a
salvation by the one true holy omniscient, omnipotent, infallible
eternal being, who gave us both good things and good laws.
Which
good things and good laws we have abused and broken, with
consequences. For rather than perfect robots, man was provided with
the ability to make choices (and moral choices reveals character, and
what a man wants), with alternatives to choose between, good or evil.
And thereby affecting others, varying in scope and degree with
immediate and ripple effects in this life, in which no man is an
island unto himself. In addition to these are judicial judgments, and
which, as eternal beings, man will also realize in the afterlife.
For
rather than removing choice, or making man without any moral sense,
or allowing unrestrained evil (so the whole world becomes a N.
Korea), or preventing every deleterious effect of which, and or
without an infinity to worship His unseen creator (unique among
earthly creations) and to do what His right, then God gave men a
moral sense, (Romans 2) while allowing with much long-suffering the
abuse of His creation, with all its immediate and collateral effects.
If not without final reckoning judgments (plural), and with
punishment relative to accountability.
Which
God allows as being the only omniscient, omnipotent, infallible
eternal being - who knows what all the effects will be of every
action, and will make all to ultimately work out for what is Good,
with justice as well as mercy, in contrast to mere finite, fallible,
and failing man or any created being, who are not fit to serve as
man's ultimate god.
In
the light of which man is in need of a salvation, which only God
could provide. And which He did, at His own expense, sparing not His
own Son to save sinners - even though God has no need of anything
from man. (Acts
17:25)
And which Son Himself choose to become the prophesied
scapegoat and
perfect atonement for man. Taking upon flesh and doing every thing
Right, and then taking responsibility for every thing we have done
wrong, and paying the price for our forgiveness with His own sinless
shed blood, dying for us as our sin-bearer. IS. 53)
And
having done all in that regard ("It is finished" - Jn.
19:30).
He arose and appeared to many, then ascended back to His Father in
Heaven, but as mankind's present savior and future judge. (1
Peter 2:24;
3:18)
Thus
the response of man is what is required, to decide before God who
sees all, knows all, and what you did and do and why, to honestly
come before Him in repentance, and asking the risen Lord Jesus to
save you, a sinner, and thus follow Him.
For
The redeemed are those who have been spiritually born of the Spirit
(Jn.
3:2-7)
by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the
Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world,
(1
Jn. 4:14)
who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, on His account.
And
which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans
4:5)
and which is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts
2:38-47; Jn.
10:27, 28)
whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil
1:23; 2Cor.
5:8 [“we”]; Heb.
12:22, 23; 1Cor.
15:51ff'; 1Thess.
4:17)
In
contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally
fall away. (Gal.
5:1-4; Heb.
3:12; Heb.
10:25-39)
