What is the Bible? (2 Timothy 3:16, John 5:39-40)
The Bible is God’s love letter to humanity. It lays out His plan for our redemption. It contains absolute truth. It is the inerrant Word of the Living God. It was given to man through the Holy Spirit, in dreams and through the recording of events and teachings of the life of God’s incarnate Son Jesus Christ. It points to Jesus Christ, from the Creation and Fall, to the Exodus and the expansion and decline of the nation of Israel.
Who is God? (John 1:1-18)
God is Trinity. Three parts in One Almighty Being. He is the Great I AM, who is from everlasting to everlasting. In the beginning the triune God created all that exists. The Old Testament tells of the actions of God, the anointing of the Holy Spirit on the Prophets, and the prophecies of the life of Jesus. The New Testament tells us of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in the early Church. The Holy Spirit continues today to have an active role in preparing the Bride of Christ for the Wedding Feast of the Lamb in Heaven.
Who are we? (Romans 3:23)
Humanity is fallen in nature and bent on evil and self-destruction. We are forever tainted by sin and separated from a holy and loving God. Our ransom was paid by Christ on Calvary once and for all. He bore our sin in his body and rose again, conquering death. It is through Christ and only through Christ that we may approach the Father. We must repent of our sins and believe Jesus died in our place and rose again. We must exalt Christ as Lord of our lives above all others.
Now what? (James 1:22-27)
Believers in Christ should follow the teachings of Christ as a sign of their salvation. Salvation is in no way based upon good deeds, but is evidenced by us putting into practice (Matt. 7:24) everything that Jesus taught. Baptism is the first step in displaying outwardly our submission to Christ as Lord and Savior. We are not saved by the Law, but are taught to walk in obedience to God, submitting our will to His. Everything we are called to as Christians can be summed up in two commands: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Christians should be ever vigilant, preparing ourselves and the world around us for the return of Christ. Calling others to repentance and preaching the Gospel.
Hey Andrew,
Thanks for your website,,,, its really interesting and i hope u have many visitors. It will be helpful to all who visits your website.
Ashish.
Hi Andrew
You say, in answer to the question ‘What is the Bible? (2 Timothy 3:16)’:
The Bible is God’s love letter to humanity. It lays out His plan for our redemption. It contains absolute truth. It is the inerrant Word of the Living God. ‘
But I have NOT found it to contain absolute truth or to be inerrant.
Having surveyed the evidence of the NT, my conclusion is that the early Christians had as one of their firmest beliefs that the world would come to an end within the lifetime of the apostles. Probably the earliest document in the NT, I Thessalonians, clearly teaches that Jesus will come ‘like a thief in the night’ while some are still alive (I Thess 4.15 and 5.2). The fact is that the whole Christian gospel is founded on a mistake, the error of thinking that Jesus would return to earth in judgement within one generation.
The vast majority of contemporary theologians accept that this mistaken belief was held by many early Christians, and, according to the NT, Jesus probably believed it too!
Matthew 24.34: ‘Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place.’ What are ‘all these things’? Quite a long list is given in Matthew 24: the coming of false messiahs; wars, famines and earthquakes; the preaching of the gospel throughout the world; a great tribulation, followed by the darkening of sun and moon and the fall of the stars from heaven. ‘Then will appear the sign of the son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, see the son of man coming on the clouds of heaven; he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call and gather the elect… (vv. 29-31).
This is the familiar doctrine of the end of the world and the second coming of Jesus.
Now, we are told all these things will happen ‘in this generation’; that is, before the last person living at the time of Jesus dies. This is plainly false, and wholly undermines any claim to biblical inerrancy. Put simply: either Jesus was wrong, or the writer of this gospel was wrong in ascribing this statement to Jesus; either way, what is in the Bible has been shown to be false, as decisively as anything ever could be. It just did not happen; and the time is long past when it could have happened. This early Christian belief was a mistake.
Will fundamentalist Christians admit there is a mistake here? If not, why not?
regards
Paul
Paul,
This is a difficult passage to understand. I don’t know that I have even fully comprehended Jesus’ meaning. While many of the early Christians hoped and prayed that Jesus would return in their lifetime, I don’t think we necessarily have to say that they expected it in the sense that they were certain it would happen in a given time frame. Their expectancy is justified by Jesus’ teachings in this passage.You make the assumption that ‘genea’ the Greek used for generation is used in one specific sense as meaning the current generation of the Apostles, but this is not the only sense of the word, and may not be the best fit with the rest of Jesus’ teaching on eschatology. He goes on to say,
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only… Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
I think here he is implying that whatever is expected will not necessarily be the case. My Bible has notes on several different understandings of this passage that I think you might find helpful. It says,
Matt. 24:34 this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Several interpretations have been offered for this difficult passage: (1) Some think “this generation” refers to the disciples who were alive when Jesus was speaking, and “all these things” refers to the beginning but not the completion of the sufferings described in vv. 4–25. (2) Others see in “all these things” a prediction with multiple fulfillments, so that Jesus’ disciples will be both “this generation” that sees the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70 and also those at the end of the age who see the events surrounding the “abomination of desolation” (v. 15). (3) Since “the generation of . . .” in the OT can mean people who have a certain quality (cf. Ps. 14:5; 24:6; cf. Gk. genea in Luke 16:8), others understand “this generation” to refer either (a) to “this generation of believers” throughout the entire present age, or (b) to “this evil generation” that will remain until Christ returns to establish his kingdom (cf. Matt. 12:45; Luke 11:29). (4) Others, particularly some dispensational interpreters, understand “generation” to mean “race” (this is another sense of Gk. genea) and think it refers to the Jewish people, who will not pass away until Christ returns. (5) Others understand “this generation” to mean the generation that sees “all these things” (Matt. 24:33), namely, the generation alive when the final period of great tribulation begins. According to this view, the illustration of the fig tree (v. 32) shows that when the final events begin, Christ will come soon. Just as “all these things” in v. 33 refers to events leading up to but not including Christ’s return, so in v. 34 “all these things” refers to the same events (that is, the events described in vv. 4–25).
So there are different understandings of what generation means and what Jesus is referring to as being fulfilled. If we look at the prophecies in the Old Testament, and the way they are fulfilled in Christ, we actually find a parallel. There are two streams of prophecy: the “suffering servant” and the “coming king” prophecies. This was perhaps the main reason the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. He only literally and physically fulfilled one stream of the prophecies in his earthly ministry. But we find later in the New Testament that Jesus is exalted at the right hand of God (which implies kingship), and that all things are united in Christ (cf. Ephesians 1-4).
I think the mistake made here is not the text, but that we apply an understanding to the fulfillment of prophecy that would be foreign to Jesus and the Disciples. We also forget that 1) the Messiah had been promised for about 1500 years and foreshadowed from Genesis 3 (verse 15) on, 2) ‘a day to God is like a thousand years and a thousand years a day’ (2 Peter 3:8, Psalm 90:4), and 3) a lot of this WAS fulfilled within the lifetimes of the Apostles; the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and the appearances of false Christs had happened by the time the Apostolic generation died out (ca. AD 96).
All that said, I think the proper approach is one of humility and seeking to understand the text on its own terms. Augustine and many of the early church fathers said when it came to difficult texts that they would rather admit they did not understand than attempt to stand in judgment over the Word of God. That is the attitude that inerrantists (such as myself) seek to display. It is not one of blissful ignorance, but one of humbly recognizing that we don’t have all the answers. Where we don’t have answers, we recognize the remarkable unity of the Scriptures we do understand and its nature as God-breathed (Gk. ‘theopneustos’, from 2 Timothy 3:16). From there we seek to understand what the Scriptures say rather than dismiss them outright.
Last but not least, taking into account that Jesus’ claims to his divine nature are verified by his resurrection, it seems foolish to write off anything he says. He has proven that he was “God with us” (Matthew 1:23) and “I AM” (John 8:58), and this should affect how we interpret his other claims.
Hope this was helpful!
Andrew
Thanks Andrew.
I am aware of the other attempts to get round the plain meaning of Mark 13 and Matthew 24, suggesting that ‘this generation’ does not mean the generation then living. I find these explanations strained and unconvincing.
Also, Matthew clearly gives us a chronological timetable:
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken”
So the End will happen immediately after the destruction of the Temple.
I personally do not think Jesus was in error, but the Evangelists. After all, we are still here 2000 years later talking about it!
St Paul also clearly expected the End to happen within his own lifetime as the passage I quoted demonstrates (I Thess 4.15 and 5.2).
Surely, if we are honest, we can acknowledge that the Bible contains errors? I am aware of many, especially in the OT. Indeed the Bible does not even claim to be the Word of God…
Paul
Paul,
Apply your hermeneutic to the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah and you run into a similar problem. Often the prophecies have multiple levels of meaning. For instance, Psalm 22 is David speaking, but its words ultimately find their fulfillment in Christ on the cross. You have to understand, there are drastic differences between the ways we approach interpretation and a first century Christian (or Jew) would have, especially when it comes to their understanding of prophecy and eschatology.
In this particular passage, there are two things that Christ seems to be talking about. First, he is talking about the destruction of the temple during the lifetime of the Apostles. It happened as prophesied. And second, he is talking eschatologically. When the NT speaks of end times and the kingdom of God, there is often a double meaning to it. Many call it the “already/not yet” because some of the events are already happening, but some are not yet fully realized. For instance, there are predictions of many anti-Christs, some of whom appear in the NT, and these run parallel to the singular eschatological Anti-Christ. There is also a picture of Christ ruling in the heavens and all men as his subjects, but there are texts that point toward a future time when “every knee shall bow.”
Revelation 12 is a great example of prophecy that shows this “already/not yet.” In it we see a blend of events that have already happened… the incarnation, Herod trying to kill Jesus as a baby, Mary and Joseph fleeing into the desert, the conquering of Satan in Christ’s death and resurrection… together with a sense that these are part of the eschatological vision of the Great Tribulation.
In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, Paul only says that those who are alive at the time of Christ’s return will not precede those who have died. Whether he anticipated this in his lifetime or not is not clear from this passage. It is safe to say, however, that because Christ has said (as Paul notes in 1 Thess. 5:2) that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night,” each and every Christian no matter what generation should anticipate the day of the Lord. Anticipation is not the same as knowing it will happen at a certain time. I am not aware of anywhere that suggests the Apostles were convinced it had to happen in their lifetime. I would encourage you to reread those chapters in 1 Thessalonians, because it seems like you read something into them that is not in the text.
Your timetable is not quite what Matthew says. He says “immediately after the tribulation of those days.” You are assuming that “the tribulation of those days” refers directly to the destruction of the temple in AD 70. I don’t think that is what the text is saying. If we allow the prophecy to look toward multiple events, this problem is cleared up. As I have said before, this is hardly a stretch given the many times this happens as the New Testament authors interpret and apply the Old Testament.
Mark 13 is a parallel passage to Matthew 24 and would be helpful to read. Mark seems to separate his passage a little differently, where the temple destruction is more separated from the events of the Great Tribulation in the distant future.
Another helpful passage to read would be John 21:20-23, where John clarifies a similar statement of Jesus that was obviously misunderstood by some. I think this explanation may be similar to what the Apostles might have commented on Matthew 24.
I’d be curious to see the errors you think you have found in the Old Testament. I am aware of some difficulties, but not necessarily errors. The only errors I am aware of are those that have come to us in copying the manuscripts where numbers have not been copied correctly (i.e. the Chronicler says 300 and the author of Kings or Samuel says 3000). Inerrantist will admit to as much. I don’t know any who believe the scribes were perfect, but that the original manuscript was, and what we have is extremely close to the original manuscript, especially the New Testament.
The Bible claims to be the Word of God, whether or not it specifically says “this book is the Word of God.” It is breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Peter writes in 2 Peter 3:14-16 and implies that Paul has written Scripture. The New Testament quotes extensively the Old Testament with the sense of it being authoritatively from God. Jesus uses the Old Testament in his temptation, to prove his case to the religious leaders many times, and to show that he was the Messiah and must suffer (cf. Luke 24:44). Why quote the Old Testament if he is God? 2 Peter 1:19-21 says that prophecy is men speaking from God. This alone covers a good portion of the Old Testament as the word of God.
There are examples of specific Scriptures being labeled as God speaking (usually attributed to the Holy Spirit). For instance, in Mark 12:36 Jesus said that David was speaking by the Holy Spirit when he wrote Psalm 110:1.
There’s a lot more to this and I barely have time right now to scratch the surface. If you are truly interested in inerancy and why and what we believe, a great read would be Robert Saucy’s book Scripture. Also, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy clarifies exactly what inerrancy is and what it isn’t. It can be found here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
Again, I hope I’ve been helpful and sufficiently clear. Thanks for your questions.
Andrew
Andrew
You say,
‘Your timetable is not quite what Matthew says. He says “immediately after the tribulation of those days.” You are assuming that “the tribulation of those days” refers directly to the destruction of the temple in AD 70. I don’t think that is what the text is saying. If we allow the prophecy to look toward multiple events, this problem is cleared up.’
I think you have not examined closely enough what Matthew 24 actually says.
verse 29 says, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken”
The NIV translates verse 29 as, ‘immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened…’etc
So what is ‘the distress’ that immediately precedes the second coming? Clearly it must be the events that lead up to ‘the sun darkening’ (and so forth) described in verses 4 to 28, which include the destruction of the temple in v15.
In addition, as if this did not settle the matter, Jesus says in v34 ‘truly I tell you this generation will not pass away until ALL THESE THINGS have happened’ (NIV).
Remember, this detail is given to the disciples in about AD30 when they ask Jesus when the Temple will be destroyed and what will be the sign of his coming and of the end of the age (v3). So to them Jesus’ explanation is a detailed prediction about future events, and they are told in unambiguous terms that their generation will not pass away until ALL THESE THINGS have happened.
Did you know that most NT scholars read it this way too?
______________________________________________
You say, ‘I’d be curious to see the errors you think you have found in the Old Testament.’
I do not know if you have read through the OT or not, perhaps you have not. If not can I suggest you read it carefully from beginning to end? You will then know that there are many contradictions and textual corruptions, far more than in the NT. I will not list them all here as that would be a huge task, and a rudimentary acquaintance with the text would supply that information.
Originally you claimed that the Bible “is the inerrant Word”. Now you seem to have abandoned this belief when you now claim, ‘The only errors I am aware of are those that have come to us in copying the manuscripts where numbers have not been copied correctly (i.e. the Chronicler says 300 and the author of Kings or Samuel says 3000)’.
So you admit that we do not have an inerrant Bible because of so-called copying errors. If you read through the NIV Study Bible and compare Samuel and Kings with Chronicles, which I have done, then you will see numerous contradictions between these books. And I read these in an impeccable Evangelical translation! So the NIV does not give us an inerrant text.
So of what use is it to say that originally there was an inerrant text if it no longer exists? Today, we only have an errant text in our hands.
_____________________________________________
You say, ‘The Bible claims to be the Word of God, whether or not it specifically says “this book is the Word of God.”’
This sounds like having it both ways. But I repeat my view that it does NOT claim to be the Word of God. Parts of it obviously do, I agree. But not all of it.
For example, the opening of Luke’s gospel begins:
‘Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. ‘
So here we have a guy, Luke, who thinks it is a good idea to write an account of recent events for another guy, Theophilus. No more and no less. He does not claim to be inspired by God, nor to speak with a spirit of prophesy, nor to be writing the inerrant Word of God. Contrast this with this statement: ‘The word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amittai: “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
See the difference?
Now where does it say that the Letter of James is inspired? (Luther dismissed it as ‘an epistle of straw’). Where does it say that the Letter to the Hebrews is inspired (and anyway who wrote it?). Where does it say that the Book of Acts is the Inerrant Word of God? Where does the anonymous author of the Gospel of Matthew claim to be writing inspired Scripture? etc etc…
btw I am familiar with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and it doesn’t answer my questions.
Paul
Paul,
You are reading into Matthew 24 the assumption that Jesus is only referring to a single event and generation. Given the nature of biblical prophecy, this is not a necessary assumption. Given this hermeneutic, you would stand with the Jews who say Jesus is not the Messiah because he did not become the king of Israel. Prophecies often refer to multiple events at once and may or may not be literal and straightforward. This is part of the difference between the modern mindset and the ancient mindset.
A good example of prophecy with multiple meanings is Daniel’s abomination of desolation. This prophecy applies to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (ca. 215-164 B.C.), but is reiterated by Christ in Matthew 24. In a sense, this prophecy has seen its fulfillment in the past, but looks forward to a greater future fulfillment; a sensus plenior if you will.
Personally, I think “most NT scholars” is a rather arbitrary notion and is not very helpful. If by it you refer to liberal scholars or conservatives, etc. it gives a false sense of consensus and agreement. My first priority is to agree with God and not with man. Remember that 500 years ago, most biblical scholars claimed the pope was Christ’s representative on earth and had the power to absolve sins and grant indulgences.
________________________________________________
I am aware of copying errors in manuscripts. However, you have largely exaggerated the extent of these errors. When 300 and 3000 are read in different accounts of the same story, it has little impact on the story itself. You might find it helpful to do some study of ancient standards of truth in reporting events and contrast these with modern standards. For instance, 3,000 years ago no one would have a problem with skipping generations in a genealogy. Some today would call that an error. It’s also helpful to understand that some authors exaggerate or use hyperbole to make a point, but we don’t consider that lying. If I told you I was walking through the city yesterday and there were a million people there, this could be a matter-of-fact statement in a medium-sized city, but would be an exaggeration for effect in a city of 100,000 people. We have to be careful to differentiate between errors, and where modern expectations differ from ancient standards.
I’m not asking for an exhaustive list, but give me some of the errors you think you have found. I think you may find they are not errors at all and can be resolved. Obviously, some humility is necessary to approach the Bible and assume it ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
________________________________________________
The Bible doesn’t have to say the words “this is the Word of God” for this to be the case. We have to do some interpreting on our own. If you’re waiting for the text to pop off the page and tell you why not getting drunk on wine excludes beer and liquor too, it’s not going to happen. Another good example of the Bible saying something without spelling it out would be Paul’s interpretation of the command ‘not to muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain’ and its application to financially supporting ministers of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9:9; 1 Timothy 5:18). You would never find his interpretation explicitly in the Old Testament, but the precedent is there.
You are making an invalid assumption in your reading of Luke’s introduction. You read that Luke has undertaken to write an account and assume that the Holy Spirit is not involved and this is not Scripture. This is not a necessary assumption. Genesis doesn’t begin with, “The word of the Lord came to Moses.” You are placing qualifiers on what Scripture is that come from your own ideas and not from Scriptural necessity. Paul writes that “all Scripture is God-breathed,” which is where the concept of inspiration comes from. Your question seems to be more why do we include these books in the canon? It is useful to establish the idea of canonicity before attempting inerrancy, since canonicity is the foundation of inerrancy. I have some class notes in a PowerPoint that may be helpful. Would you like me to e-mail them to you?
Luther’s dislike for the letter of James came from struggles in interpreting it. He assumed that James and Paul meant the same things when they used the word faith. The problem is, when Paul used the word faith he had the built in assumption that good deeds would automatically follow. James, on the other hand, makes a distinction between faith and works before showing how they come together. One thing that is helpful to notice is that even in spite of his struggles with James, Luther made no attempt to remove it from the canon.
The problem with your argument is that it doesn’t put together all the pieces. You have the murder weapon, the bloody glove, the DNA… close the case! Here’s your facts:
1) Parts of the Bible claim to be the Word of God
2) No part of the Bible claims not to be the Word of God (the Apocrypha disclaims this for itself)
3) All Scripture is God-breathed (inspired by the Holy Spirit, 2 Timothy 3:16)
4) The prophets spoke not on their own, but by God (2 Peter 1:20)
5) Jesus is the Word of God
6) As God incarnate, when Jesus speaks it is God speaking
Ultimately, the Word of God is meant to point to the Word, that is Jesus Christ. Inerrancy is never meant to be bibliolatry, but simply allowing God to speak through the text and point us to his Son.
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”
John 5:39-40
Andrew
Andrew
Re Matthew 24 and parallels.
You say that ‘Prophecies often refer to multiple events at once and may or may not be literal and straightforward.’
To determine if they are literal and straightforward or not we need to consider the context of the question asked by Jesus’ disciples about the temple. I read Jesus’ answer as straightforward and literal. Why? Because he gives his disciples tangible historical events to expect.
I have collated quotes from Jesus speaking to his disciples in Matthew 24:
YOU will hear of wars and rumours of wars; there will be famines and earthquakes; YOU will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death; YOU will see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation; Jesus advices that no-one in the fields go back and get his cloak; at that time if anyone says to YOU, “look, here is the messiah” do not believe it. See, Jesus says to his disciples, I have told YOU ahead of time; then Jesus says to his disciples: Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
So your reference to ‘Prophecies often referring to multiple events at once’ is misplaced in this particular context. You cannot use Daniel to get you out of this problem, without abusing the plain sense of Matt 24.
My factual statement that ‘most NT scholars’ exegete the passage the same way referred to so-called liberal AND conservative scholars. So it is fair point I think.
___________________________________________
Re you claim that the Bible is inerrant.
You say that ‘humility is necessary to approach the Bible and assume it ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
I assume it is neither guilty or innocent, but try to read the text as it stands warts and all without the need to anxiously harmonise contradictions. Is it not more scholarly to take the OT as it is rather than approach it with dogmatic presuppositions as you feel the need to do?
As you press me to provide evidence of contradictions I shall give you two sets, one taken from Ezra/Nehemiah and the other from the creation accounts in Genesis. They both prove beyond reasonable doubt that error exists in our Bibles (all quotes are taken from the NIV).
Ezra 2:2-42 states:
The list of the men of the people of Israel:
3 the descendants of Parosh 2,172
4 of Shephatiah 372
5 of Arah 775
6 of Pahath-Moab (through the line of Jeshua and Joab) 2,812
7 of Elam 1,254
8 of Zattu 945
9 of Zaccai 760
10 of Bani 642
11 of Bebai 623
12 of Azgad 1,222
13 of Adonikam 666
14 of Bigvai 2,056
15 of Adin 454
16 of Ater (through Hezekiah) 98
17 of Bezai 323
18 of Jorah 112
19 of Hashum 223
20 of Gibbar 95
21 the men of Bethlehem 123
22 of Netophah 56
23 of Anathoth 128
24 of Azmaveth 42
25 of Kiriath Jearim, [a] Kephirah and Beeroth 743
26 of Ramah and Geba 621
27 of Micmash 122
28 of Bethel and Ai 223
29 of Nebo 52
30 of Magbish 156
31 of the other Elam 1,254
32 of Harim 320
33 of Lod, Hadid and Ono 725
34 of Jericho 345
35 of Senaah 3,630
36 The priests:
the descendants of Jedaiah (through the family of Jeshua) 973
37 of Immer 1,052
38 of Pashhur 1,247
39 of Harim 1,017
40 The Levites:
the descendants of Jeshua and Kadmiel (through the line of Hodaviah) 74
41 The singers:
the descendants of Asaph 128
42 The gatekeepers of the temple:
the descendants of
Shallum, Ater, Talmon,
Akkub, Hatita and Shobai 139
Nehemiah 6:7-45 states:
The list of the men of Israel:
8 the descendants of Parosh 2,172
9 of Shephatiah 372
10 of Arah 652
11 of Pahath-Moab (through the line of Jeshua and Joab) 2,818
12 of Elam 1,254
13 of Zattu 845
14 of Zaccai 760
15 of Binnui 648
16 of Bebai 628
17 of Azgad 2,322
18 of Adonikam 667
19 of Bigvai 2,067
20 of Adin 655
21 of Ater (through Hezekiah) 98
22 of Hashum 328
23 of Bezai 324
24 of Hariph 112
25 of Gibeon 95
26 the men of Bethlehem and Netophah 188
27 of Anathoth 128
28 of Beth Azmaveth 42
29 of Kiriath Jearim, Kephirah and Beeroth 743
30 of Ramah and Geba 621
31 of Micmash 122
32 of Bethel and Ai 123
33 of the other Nebo 52
34 of the other Elam 1,254
35 of Harim 320
36 of Jericho 345
37 of Lod, Hadid and Ono 721
38 of Senaah 3,930
39 The priests:
the descendants of Jedaiah (through the family of Jeshua) 973
40 of Immer 1,052
41 of Pashhur 1,247
42 of Harim 1,017
43 The Levites:
the descendants of Jeshua (through Kadmiel through the line of Hodaviah) 74
44 The singers:
the descendants of Asaph 148
45 The gatekeepers:
the descendants of
Shallum, Ater, Talmon, Akkub, Hatita and Shobai 138
Compare the totals for the men of the people of Israel in Ezra and Nehemiah and you will see many numerical contradictions. There are plenty other numerical contradictions to be found in the OT.
My second example of an OT contradiction is not numerical but literary.
The Bible begins with two distinct stores of creation. I will not quote them both as I am sure you are familiar with them. From Genesis 1 to 2:4 God creates the world in six days and rests on the seventh (why does God need a rest?!). From the second part of 2:4 the author gives a second account which goes on to tell us about Adam and Eve.
However the second account flatly contradicts the first. The world exists, we are now told, but as yet there are no plants or herbs or rain (2:5). God takes the earth and fashions man. Unlike the creation at Genesis 1:27 this creation is specifically male; here man exists before vegetation, but at 1:12 the grass, herbs and trees had been created on the third day and mankind had to wait until the sixth.
So the two stories tell of two different creations both of which cannot be true because their details contradict each other. Man, beasts and plants are created in two different sequences, and man and woman in two different ways.
____________________________________________
Re, Does the Bible claim to be the Word of God?
You cite that favourite evangelical proof text, “all Scripture is God-breathed,” from 2 Tim 3:16. However if you read the whole of chapter 3 you will soon realise that ‘Paul’ (there are good textual reasons to doubt Pauline authorship), is referring to the OT (v15) not the whole Christian Bible. So this proof text cannot be used to support your belief that all the NT is inspired by God. No such proof text exists, which is my point.
You say, ‘You are making an invalid assumption in your reading of Luke’s introduction. You read that Luke has undertaken to write an account and assume that the Holy Spirit is not involved and this is not Scripture.’
No. I make no assumptions either way. If anything your belief that Luke was inspired by God is a belief unsupported by anything Luke writes, he simply makes no mention of inspiration at all. Which is my point: it does not claim inspiration. Your view would appear to be a later belief unauthorised by anything Luke himself claims. His motives are quite prosaic.
So my point still stands: where does God tell me that the Letter of James is ‘God breathed’; where does God say that the Letter to the Hebrews is inspired? On what grounds must I believe that the Book of Acts is the Inerrant Word of God? Where does the anonymous author of the Gospel of Matthew claim to be writing under inspiration from the Creator of the Universe?
Nowhere.
Paul
Paul,
I’ll have to get back to this later. In the meantime, is the Greek word ‘humas’ used for ‘you’ specific as you have assumed? It seems more likely that it is not. I’ll have to look it up. If we say it is specific, then the warnings of persecutions were only to those listening. If that is the case, why write it down for the Church to read? Just something to think on.
Andrew
Andrew
I’m currently reading a fascinating book, which I do recommend to you, entitled,
‘The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible’ by Robin Lane Fox
I mention this because it has a relevance to our discussion of the Bible’s alleged inerrancy. He refers to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and what these manuscripts tell us about the OT. Wikipedia has a quote from another book which I think conveniently sums up Robin Lane Fox’s own analysis,
‘According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, “The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.”
The discovery of the DDS therefore makes it impossible to hold to a belief in a single uniform canonical text of much of the OT. No such textual uniformity existed. Therefore a belief in textual inerrancy is misplaced
Paul
Andrew, you asked,
‘is the Greek word ‘humas’ used for ‘you’ specific as you have assumed? It seems more likely that it is not. I’ll have to look it up. If we say it is specific, then the warnings of persecutions were only to those listening. If that is the case, why write it down for the Church to read? Just something to think on.’
I’ll need to consult my Novum Testamentum Graece, but I do not see how it has a bearing on our discussion. To my mind the original and therefore primary context for Jesus’ words is his reply to the disciples. It was they to whom Jesus’ words were addressed. Any other audience (such as you and I, 2000 years later) MUST read these words in their original historical context first: that is, we must do exegesis rather than eisegesis.
If we accept these parameters for our exegesis of the text, then we stand a better chance of hearing what Jesus was saying to his disciples. A further reading, which looks to how we interpret this passage TODAY is a separate matter and quite legitimate. But I am anxious that we maintain a clear distinction between the two approaches.
I hope we can agree on this
Paul
Paul,
Sorry it has taken me a while to get back to this. I’ve been traveling and sick the past few days.
Your first example of contradiction is numerical and as such should be approached carefully. If you have ever dealt with genealogies and censuses you know that the standards of truth are somewhat different than we would expect. This is true even in the US in the 19th century, where I have found divergent listings, names, spellings, and even races in my own family. We have to be careful not to apply modern truth standards to the data.
The first thing to notice is that several numbers are exactly the same.
The second thing to notice is that some of the numbers are only a digit or two off and may have simply been copied wrong, where we have Pahath-Moab listed as 2,812 and 2,818. This may be as simple as someone transcribing the wrong number when Ezra or Nehemiah was copied. It could have happened before one of the books was written, but would not defy the truth standards expected.
The third thing to notice is that some of the names are only listed in one account and not in the other. These people may have been counted under other families and caused more of our divergent numbers.
All of these solutions fall within the standards of inerrancy and sound exegesis by understanding what we are looking for and conventions of truth in the pre-modern world.
_______________________________________________
The Genesis Creation accounts are different types of accounts. One is straightforward and the other more theological. You pointed out the difference in the plants and the accounts of mans creation. The first chapter says the seeds were on the earth and vegetation was brought forth, and the second says that the plants had not grown yet. Judging by the combination of the two, I would say that the plants did not grow in a day (or three), but that God planted them on the third day and then He watered them so that they begun to grow.
The accounts of man’s creation are not contradictions. They are different kinds of accounts. God created the man first and then the woman in the second account. In the first account, He created them both. I’m not really seeing your argument here. It’s like one person seeing a car crash and saying there was a man in the car and another saying there was a man and woman. Unless you’re pressing the question of exact number of people and where they were sitting, both witnesses would be correct in their statements.
________________________________________________
Your argument regarding individual books neglects the evidence for the whole. Paul says “all Scripture,” but whether or not he is referring to the OT specifically is irrelevant once we take into account the canonization of the NT. Peter recognizes that Paul has written Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). At this point we have to turn to the process of canonization and the role of the Holy Spirit. I believe there is reason to conclude that the Holy Spirit played an active role in the process, while your view is man-centered.
It is all too convenient that the same people who have a low view of the nature and canonization of Scripture are many of the same who argue for pseudonymous authorship. There is nothing to suggest that the early church would have embraced a book and distributed it widely if it had lied about its authorship.
We must again return to the Holy Spirit’s involvement in the creation of the canon. In your view, I don’t see any room for the Spirit. In my view, the Spirit moves a man to write and guides his words to produce the intended product, while using the man’s personality, vocabulary, and style. The Spirit then guides the covenant body to recognize such writings as Scripture and leads them into all truth regarding their meaning.
When it comes to the nature of the NT Scripture and even Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24, you are missing something vital. Jesus promised the Spirit of truth to his followers (John 16:13). Would it be safe for us to assume that Jesus may have intended his followers to preserve his teachings for coming generations? If Jesus is who he claims to be, as he has validated by the resurrection, it is safe to say that he would see to it that his teachings were preserved accurately. This happened by the Holy Spirit using followers of Christ. This view allows us to approach the Scriptures to receive life from Christ, the one whom they testify to (John 5:39-40) by knowing that the Scriptures are truthful and trustworthy.
Andrew
Hi Andrew
Sorry for the delay in replying, I’m back in England now and have much less time for debate
Re your claim that the Bible is inerrant i.e. without error or contradiction AS IT STANDS.
I think intellectual integrity and honesty are foundational for a life lived before God. I wonder if you let your personal beliefs about what you think the Bible is put you in danger of intellectual dishonesty? There are clear indications that it does I am afraid.
I provided evidence of contradictions from Ezra/Nehemiah. An honest jury of 12 good men (and women) if asked to compare and contrast these two lists would, I am certain, reach the verdict that the numbers often contradict each other.
But you disagree?! Can I challenge you on your honesty here? Honesty is, in part, about facing and acknowledging the truth about a given reality when it comes across our paths. Also, God is Truth.
Ezra 2 states in verse 5: ‘of Arah 775’. Nehemiah 6 states the figure ‘of Arah is 652’. This is a numerical contradiction, Andrew. Blame it on copyist error if you wish, but the error is in your Bible nonetheless. Which is the true figure: 775 or 652? There are multiple examples of this sort of thing. I won’t labour the point. Honesty and integrity demand we face reality, if we wish to walk with God with a clear conscience, even if this means facing up to the reality of the nature of the Bible as it really is.
The same goes for the Genesis accounts: are your intellectual gymnastics to avoid the clear contradiction in Genesis really honoring to God? Or is God more honored by our acceptance of the Bible as it is, not as we think it must be.
——————————————————————-
Re, Does the Bible claim to be the Word of God?
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
I do not think it ‘irrelevant’ what Paul meant when he referred to ‘all scripture’. As a favorite proof text this verse is often abused by evangelicals to refer to the whole Bible we have today, when in its Pauline context it MUST have referred to the Torah. The cannon of scripture was not finalized for most Christians till the 4th century, long after Peter and Paul left the scene. Some books, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, got into the cannon because of the erroneous belief that St Paul wrote it. No scholar thinks this today.
You implicitly concede my original point that the Bible, as a whole, does not claim to be the Word of God, when you shift your position to the new argument about ‘Holy Spirit’s’ alleged activity in forming the cannon of the Bible over the following centuries. This is impossible to verify one way or another as the Holy Spirit is invisible. But the result of this canonical process are less than perfect. Read St Augustine’s definitive list of canonical books in his work ‘On Christian Teaching’: it is NOT the same list of books you’ll read in your NIV/ESV! He wrote in the 5th century. Also, come and see the Codex Sinaiticus in the British library, London, the oldest complete NT in existence. For this 4th century Bible, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas are the Word of God.
What was the ‘Holy Spirit’ doing through St Augustine, through the Codex Sinaiticus? Augustine’s cannon was accepted as the authoritative cannon for Christians until the Reformation when Luther chucked out some of the books in the OT and the NT. Was the Holy Spirit asleep for 1,600 years till Luther woke him up?
———————————————-
Lastly, I am afraid to say that you fail completely to address my arguments about the failed prophesy in Matthew 24/Mark 13.
I proposed the we could agree on the standard scholarly method for understanding the meaning of this passage, but you apparently choose to ignored it.
So here it is again:
“To my mind the original and therefore primary context for Jesus’ words is his reply to the disciples. It was they to whom Jesus’ words were addressed. Any other audience (such as you and I, 2000 years later) MUST read these words in their original historical context first: that is, we must do exegesis rather than eisegesis.
If we accept these parameters for our exegesis of the text, then we stand a better chance of hearing what Jesus was saying to his disciples. A further reading, which looks to how we interpret this passage TODAY is a separate matter and quite legitimate. But I am anxious that we maintain a clear distinction between the two approaches. I hope we can agree on this.”
Will you accept this standard academic approach to the Bible? I do hope so. I think our integrity demands it of us as students of the Bible
Best wishes
Paul
Paul,
I will attempt to address several things in your reply in order below. I may only get to a few things tonight.
First, you said: “I think intellectual integrity and honesty are foundational for a life lived before God. I wonder if you let your personal beliefs about what you think the Bible is put you in danger of intellectual dishonesty? There are clear indications that it does I am afraid.”
Intellectual integrity and honesty are secondary concerns. The Bible is not an academic book for ivory tower intellectuals. It is a book about faith pointing to the object of our faith, Jesus Christ. The Bible points to Christ as a testimony of the human condition and God’s ultimate and loving solution. My first priority in interpreting the Bible is what it says about Christ and what it is attempting to convey. By assuming that it is in error, interpretation is completely undermined.
Next you said, “I provided evidence of contradictions from Ezra/Nehemiah. An honest jury of 12 good men (and women) if asked to compare and contrast these two lists would, I am certain, reach the verdict that the numbers often contradict each other.”
This hypothetical jury would have to hear two sides of the story. Ezra and Nehemiah should get an opportunity to make a defense. Their defense should include obvious ways that Ezra and Nehemiah could both give different numbers and be truthful. For starters, we have to ask a few questions. What (or who) were Ezra and Nehemiah counting? Were slaves and servants counted in some families? Where Ezra records a lower number is it possible that he excluded some sons and possibly counted them under different families?
As an example of what I am explaining, I have 3 siblings; an older half-sister, a younger brother, and a younger sister. If I told you I had 1 sister, this would not be a false statement, unless you pressed me and asked if I had other sisters. In that case I could still say no, that I had only 1 sister, and it be a truthful statement. If you pressed further and asked if I had a half-sister, it would then be dishonest to continue to state that I had only 1 sister. In the same way, I could state that I have 2 siblings. Then, depending on what I was questions I was asked, I could clarify that I have a total of 3 siblings, one of which is a half-sister. The problem is, we can’t ask Ezra or Nehemiah to clarify what/who he was counting. To accuse him of dishonesty is really quite silly without allowing him to defend himself.
Taking this example further, if the United States was to do a census today, my father would be listed as having 2 children, my younger brother and sister, who he still claims as dependents. My older sister and I would be listed separately. We could read this census data the way you have read Ezra and Nehemiah. We may come to the conclusion, knowing that my dad has 4 children, that the census was inaccurate. That would be an unnecessary and false conclusion.
While you have already concluded that I am being academically dishonest, the fact is, you have overstated your case and made accusations against men who cannot defend themselves, without allowing for opportunities for harmonization. This is in actuality the more academically dishonest approach. Can you imagine if the police took this approach when interviewing witnesses after an automobile accident? If you said you saw a man in the car, and I said I saw a man and a woman, what if they accused you of what you have accused Ezra and Nehemiah of? Wouldn’t that be a rush to judgment?
What it comes down to is that we don’t fully know why the numbers don’t match. It may be that Nehemiah counted less sons of Arah because he separated one of Arah’s descendants and counted them separately. Perhaps some of these descendants were the same that he beat and pulled the beards from in chapter 13, and when they refused to repent he didn’t count them among the nation of Israel. I won’t belabor the point anymore, because I hope you can fully grasp what I am getting at.
I will attempt to get back to this later. In the meantime, feel free to respond.
Andrew
Paul,
Your asked, “The same goes for the Genesis accounts: are your intellectual gymnastics to avoid the clear contradiction in Genesis really honoring to God? Or is God more honored by our acceptance of the Bible as it is, not as we think it must be.”
I think it may be useful to discuss what we mean when we speak about honoring God. In your terms, it seems, honoring God is an intellectual and academic notion. I would argue honoring God has to do with accepting by faith what God has said and done as communicated to us in the Scriptures. I believe we should honor God as Abraham did. “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
God speaks through the Scriptures, and He is truth. He is most honored when we take Him at His word. To “accept the Bible as it is” can be done only when we seek what it says and not when we use it as evidence against itself. Pitting two witnesses (i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah) against each other is far from accepting their statements as they stand.
In my judgment, Genesis 1 & 2 are only contradictions if we are accusatory and searching for contradictions. It has more to do with how we approach them than with what they actually say.
_________________________________________________
While Paul’s “all Scripture” may have had the OT in mind, it does not follow that it does not encompass the NT as well. The question then becomes, is the NT Scripture? For over 1900 years, the Church has considered the NT Scripture. It would take a lot of evidence to change this belief and outweigh the first century use of the NT and its recognition as Scripture. I realize that we do not have the complete canon listed prior to Athanasius’ Easter Letter of 367, but we do have other evidence that predates this that the NT was already in wide circulation. This includes evidence of a common editor having arranged the New Testament books (such as titling the Gospels “The Gospel According to ____”). We also have the Muratorian fragment (ca. AD 200) that lists 22 of the 27 NT books (Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, 3 John, and James are not included) which are for ‘the whole Church’ . . . and which are deemed ‘apostolic’, and may therefore be ‘publicly read in the church.’
As to other books, we need to look at them on a case by case basis. Hebrews does not claim to be written by Paul, although it was likely written by someone who knew his theology well (perhaps Barnabas, Timothy, or Epaphroditus?). Although some church fathers may have attributed this book to Paul, this should show that the book was already accepted as Scripture, regardless of uncertainty about its authorship.
The Apocrypha was not considered Scripture in Judaism, is not Scripture, and makes no claims to be. In fact, in several places it gives us obvious reasons why it is not… the silence of the prophetic voice in Israel (1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41; 2 Maccabees 15:38; 2 Baruch 85:1-3).
The Apocryphal books that Luther took out of the Bible were not part of the canon until the Roman Catholic Church granted them canonical status during the Reformation. They were included in many codices as useful for historical context, but were not considered Scripture. The RCC used these books because they included such teachings as prayers for the dead that contradicted other biblical teachings, but were dogmas of Rome.
_________________________________________________
I understand the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Sound exegesis seeks to interpret the Bible on its own terms, following how the Bible interprets itself. OT prophecy is interpreted in the NT using a pattern in which part of the prophecy is fulfilled, but the fuller sense is yet to be fulfilled. When Messiah came he was to be the suffering servant AND the conquering king. Obviously, in the literal (or earthly) sense, he was not the conquering king, but in heaven he reigns as king over his people and will return to reign on earth.
Utilizing this same pattern of interpretation, it is possible for us to say that the prophecies of Christ in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 were fulfilled before the generation of his followers passed away. The Temple was destroyed within 40 years of his death, and in a sense, Christ came in judgment on the nation of Israel. We can also say that these prophecies will be fulfilled in a fuller sense (sensus plenior) in the future, (i.e. a rebuilt Temple and the Second Coming).
Andrew
Hi Andrew
You say that ‘Intellectual integrity and honesty are secondary concerns’. I was surprised to read this. Secondary? Integrity and honesty are absolutely primary and foundational in our relationship with God and our approach to the Bible. If we let integrity and honesty play second fiddle to our theology then we are in serious trouble. I think your statement illustrates exactly what I am saying about the slide towards dishonestly in inerrantist views of scripture: the fundamentalist reading of the Bible trumps all other concerns and subordinates honest readings to this overarching agenda. Clear contradictions and discrepancies are a great embarrassment, and at all costs must be explained away. For even if just ONE itsy bitsy contradiction were to be admitted then the whole fundamentalist world view would come tumbling down and the fundamentalist would find his faith destroyed – even over a little contradiction! Unfortunately this can become a self-fulfilling prophesy and people have thrown the baby out with the bath water and become unbelievers. What a terrible burden fundamentalists bear.
You see the Bible is not JUST ‘a book about faith pointing to the object of our faith, Jesus Christ’. No, it is a book about many other things too. It contains laws, commands, chronicles and narratives, history, visions, myth, letters and poetry. An intelligent person can and should read all these genres according to the intention of the original author.
So Ezra 2:41 clearly intends to list the number of singers which is 128. This number is a statistical fact: not 127 singers or 129 singers but 128, precisely. That is the intention of the original author. Nehemiah 7:44 refers to the same group of singers and says they are 148 in number. This number is intended to be a statistical fact too, not 147 singers or 149 singers but 148, precisely. That is the intention of the original author.
Ezra 2:42 tells us with numerical precision that there were 139 gatekeepers. Nehemiah 7 tells us that there were 138.
Inerrancy is shattered by these statistical contradictions. I submit that it is intellectually dishonest and spiritually disastrous to avoid this truth.
So I am not, as you claim, ‘pitting two witnesses (i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah) against each other’; I am simply reading the text as it stands with my eyes open. I did not invent the problems. They leaped out of the page when I was reading these books last month.
If our theology and our intellectual integrity are in fundamental conflict then this is a sign from God that something is badly wrong and something needs to change. God is a God of Truth, so we need to look again at our theology.
I am glad that you finally accept that Paul is referring to the Torah and not the whole Christian Bible. But then you go and spoilt it all by saying ‘it does not follow that it does not encompass the NT as well’. Yes it does! The NT had not been written when Paul (or much more likely pseudo-Paul, as the consensus of NT scholarship argues) spoke of ‘all Scripture’. We need to be historically disciplined in our reading of the NT.
You are of course right when you say ‘For over 1900 years, the Church has considered the NT Scripture’. But the church did not and does not agree about which books make up the canon. You original point was about the Holy Spirit’s alleged activity in forming the canon of the Bible over the following centuries. But this is not a trouble free hypothesis. I said that the results of this canonical process are less than perfect. You did not refer to my citation of the great Christian bishop and scholar Augustine’s list of canonical books in his work On Christian Teaching: it is NOT the same list of books you’ll read in your NIV! He wrote in the 5th century. What you call the Apocrypha was accepted by Augustine and the church as Holy Scripture. They were accepted as such for a 1000 years afterwards until Luther had other ideas. So your view that they are ‘not Scripture’ goes against the teaching of the Church for the first 1600 years of its existence. And today MOST Christians accept this larger canon as inspired and authoritative. You do not accept them, which is fine, but it is a minority Christian view today.
You did not respond to the problem raised by the Codex Sinaiticus in the British library, the oldest complete NT in existence. For this 4th century Bible, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas are the Word of God.
So my argument is this: having failed to cite a single verse from the Bible to back up your claim that the Bible itself (Torah/NT) claims to be the Word of God, you then invoke the Holy Spirit’s formation of the canon of scripture. But the great irony here is that you do not accept this canon! You reject (!) the canon of the OT of the first one thousand six hundred years of the Church! And you reject the canon of the earliest complete NT in existence, the Codex Sinaiticus.
So your claim that ‘The Apocryphal books that Luther took out of the Bible were NOT part of the canon until the Roman Catholic Church granted them canonical status during the Reformation’ is completely false and unfortunately highlights an area of study that you need to read up on. If you want a reading list of good scholarly texts to get you started I can give you one.
Re Matthew 24 and Mark 13. I can see we are not going to agree here. For me the plain sense of the prediction given to the disciple’s includes the destruction of the Temple and the end of the world all within the generation then living.
I won’t belabor the argument further, but just one final point. In Matthew 24, Jesus describes the destruction of the Temple, then he says this:
29″IMMEDIATELY after the distress of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. AT THAT TIME the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. “
You see the problem?
‘IMMEDIATELY’ after the distress of those days (Temple’s destruction etc)…
‘AT THAT TIME’ the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky…
And ‘I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.;
Imagine yourself in the shoes of Peter, James and John: they have been given a clear chronological timetable: first this, then IMMEDIATELY that, and AT THAT TIME, all these things will happen within their generation.
The problems just will not go way…
Paul
Paul,
You completely miss what I am saying about academic integrity. The Bible is not an academic book and studying it is not an academic exercise. While we should preach and teach with integrity to what the Scriptures say, this is wholly different from academic integrity. Academic integrity is often used as a disguise for arrogance… for speculation, falsehood, and heresy.
Our goal should be to read the Scriptures as Jesus and the Apostles would have read them. We have no indication that Jesus read through Ezra/Nehemiah and pointed out numerical differences, and it’s not because he’d never read Ezra/Nehemiah. While it is OK to ask questions and wonder why the differences are there, assuming errors is going a step too far.
Not to mention, if the numerical differences and so-called ‘contradictions’ had been troublesome to the Jews, would there not have been an effort to correct them? Yet we still have these differences today.
Jesus himself says that the Scriptures testify of him, and this is why we should search them (John 5:39-40). He says nothing of academic exercise here, so that is not and should not be a primary concern. Jesus doesn’t call men to be theologians or scholars, he calls them to come and follow him. Are you following Christ or studying a book?
_________________________________________________
You divide the Bible into genres, and that does in some ways affect how we read it. That does not mean we are reading for literary analysis. It is far too easy for us to project our own understandings and ideas as we read.
If you’ve ever sat through a literary analysis class at a university, you should be able to attest to the wacky ideas that are often discussed -how authors hundreds of years ago were addressing modern issues and were closet homosexuals, etc. -that have nothing to do with the author or the words on the page and everything to do with the reader and interpretation.
_________________________________________________
Again, I cannot emphasize enough that your method of interpreting prophecy as you apply it to Matthew 24 is a product of modern understanding. What you take to be a literal and straightforward reading to you is not what would be literal and straightforward to a first century Apostle. The NT establishes patterns for interpreting the OT prophecies. The same patterns should be followed in interpreting NT prophecies.
Andrew
Andrew
I never mentioned ‘academic’ integrity, I was referring to your (and mine) PERSONAL integrity when we read a text and interpret it. Of course our honesty must inform our academic endeavours too, but is not limited to this specialised area.
You say, ‘Academic integrity is often used as a disguise for arrogance… for speculation, falsehood, and heresy’. Whereas virtue can be a disguise for vice, I stubbornly maintain that integrity in the face of unpleasant facts requires us as HUMAN BEINGS (not just academics) to face up to the truth when we see it. Unfortunately, our discussion has disclosed your willingness to sacrifice intellectual integrity to theological dogma. That, in a nut-shell, is why I am NOT a fundamentalist: I do not want to subordinate my God-given conscience to beliefs which are demonstrably false, vis, the alleged inerrancy of the Bible.
So I can conclude from our discussion so far that you choose to hold on to a made ideology, ‘inerrantism’, in the face of clear and undisputed facts to the contrary: i.e. the manifest contractions betweenm Ezra/Nehemiah.
It is not the case that I am ‘assuming errors’. I did not invent the problems when I came across them in honest reading of the Torah. Any child could see they are there!
You challenge me by asking ‘Are you following Christ or studying a book?’ It is not either-or, but both-and. I too believe Jesus was the Messiah, but I believe that God is calling me to honesty and integrity in my reading of the Bible. I believe he is calling YOU to honesty too, Andrew. Will you accept the God-given challenge?
If we want to engage with realty in our lives, then if our beliefs are challenged by new evidence, then we are morally obliged to amend or abandon our views, or else we are not living honorably before God.
I gave you evidence of clear, unambiguous contradictions in the Torah, and you have not even attempted to solve them. You will need to do this or else you have given up the attempt to defend you belief that the Bible is perfect and error free.
‘Ezra 2:41 clearly intends to list the number of singers which is 128. This number is a statistical fact: not 127 singers or 129 singers but 128, precisely. That is the intention of the original author. Nehemiah 7:44 refers to the same group of singers and says they are 148 in number. This number is intended to be a statistical fact too, not 147 singers or 149 singers but 148, precisely. That is the intention of the original author. Ezra 2:42 tells us with numerical precision that there were 139 gatekeepers. Nehemiah 7 tells us that there were 138.’
Inerrancy is shattered by these statistical contradictions. I submit that it is intellectually dishonest and spiritually disastrous to avoid this truth.
——————————————————————–
Re the Error in Matthew 24
You say, ‘Again, I cannot emphasize enough that your method of interpreting prophecy as you apply it to Matthew 24 is a product of modern understanding.’
I reject this. I am using the standard exegetical tools I learnt at university whilst studying for my theology degree (at a top British University). It so happens that my analysis and conclusion is shared by most NT scholars, for example, Professors JDG Dunn, Graham Stanton, Leslie Holden et al, all distinguished world-class scholars (and Christians too). I do not think there is an error because these scholars say so, but because I have learnt how to read the NT, in Greek, within the cultural, religious and biblical context of Second Temple Judaism. You may disagree with my conclusions, but your dismissal of my (and their) analysis as anachronistic is a cheap shot Andrew.
———————————————————–
Finally I note you have still not come back to me about the following problems:
‘You did not reply to my citation of the great Christian bishop and scholar Augustine’s list of canonical books in his work On Christian Teaching: it is NOT the same list of books you’ll read in your NIV’
‘You did not respond to the problem raised by the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete NT in existence. For this 4th century Bible, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas are the Word of God.’
Nor did you respond to this: ‘So your claim that ‘The Apocryphal books that Luther took out of the Bible were NOT part of the canon until the Roman Catholic Church granted them canonical status during the Reformation’ is completely false and unfortunately highlights an area of study that you need to read up on.’
Nor did you reply to this: ‘What you call the Apocrypha was accepted by Augustine and the church as Holy Scripture. They were accepted as such for a 1000 years afterwards until Luther had other ideas. So your view that they are ‘not Scripture’ goes against the teaching of the Church for the first 1600 years of its existence. And today MOST Christians accept this larger canon as inspired and authoritative. You do not accept them, which is fine, but it is a minority view today.’
Paul
[...] http://seekingtheface.wordpress.com/what-i-believe/#comment-314 ▶ Comment /* 0) { jQuery(‘#comments’).show(”, change_location()); jQuery(‘#showcomments a .closed’).css(‘display’, ‘none’); jQuery(‘#showcomments a .open’).css(‘display’, ‘inline’); return true; } else { jQuery(‘#comments’).hide(”); jQuery(‘#showcomments a .closed’).css(‘display’, ‘inline’); jQuery(‘#showcomments a .open’).css(‘display’, ‘none’); return false; } } jQuery(‘#showcomments a’).click(function(){ if(jQuery(‘#comments’).css(‘display’) == ‘none’) { self.location.href = ‘#comments’; check_location(); } else { check_location(‘hide’); } }); function change_location() { self.location.href = ‘#comments’; } }); /* ]]> */ [...]
Andrew
I’ve put a post on my blog about our discussion…
http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/
Paul,
Your exact words were “intellectual integrity” (which I don’t differentiate from academic integrity). I am a follower of Christ before I am an intellectual. Therefore, my personal integrity takes precedence over how I am perceived by intellectuals. “Intellectual integrity” is too often judged by agreement or disagreement with ones findings more so than on the truthfulness of their findings and the methods of research.
_________________________________________________
You throw around the fundamentalist label as if it is a straight jacket in which I must continue to believe certain propositions in spite of the evidence. This is just not the case.
I could use labels for your beliefs to fit you neatly in a category as well but have refrained from doing so. I don’t find them helpful in our discussion. You make far too many assumptions when calling someone you have never met a fundamentalist. The fact of the matter is, your beliefs are more to do with your interpretation of the evidence than with the evidence itself.
What I know about the Bible, and what I don’t and perhaps can’t know causes me to withhold judgment on the numerical differences of Nehemiah 7 & Ezra 2. The footnote in my Bible for Nehemiah 7 says:
Neh. 7:6–73 This list is virtually identical to the one in Ezra 2 (see notes there). Therefore, its purpose is not to give new information but to highlight Nehemiah’s next concern after completing the walls, namely, to repopulate Jerusalem (see Neh. 7:4). He may have had in mind such prophecies as Isaiah 62. Regarding the discrepancies in exact numbers between the list of returning exiles in Ezra 2:1–67 and Neh. 7:6–66, various solutions have been proposed, and several factors may have contributed to the differences. Since Nehemiah was reading from a copy of an older list (either the list in Ezra or an official list that both of them consulted), the list may have been updated and corrected to allow for a number of births and deaths that occurred shortly after the exiles returned, and perhaps in some cases people were counted or grouped differently or in different categories. Either or both lists may also have been corrected and supplemented by a number of relatives who had been delayed on the journey by illness or for other reasons, and were added later. Some of the differences may also be due to copying errors.
It makes some interesting points about updating certain numbers, and as I have previously mentioned, the possibility that numbers were altered later by scribes. These differences are not overly concerning to me for two reasons.
1) I trust Ezra & Nehemiah and have no reason to doubt their honesty.
2) These differences don’t create any theological difficulties in how I read the rest of the Bible.
________________________________________________
You stated that my dismissal of scholarship on Matthew 24 is a cheap shot, but I don’t think this is the case at all. I am under no obligation to accept the opinions of men based on their worldly credentials. Jesus did not accept the opinions of the religious teachers of his day, and I don’t necessarily follow the opinions of the religious teachers today. I have stated that I don’t follow the majority opinion, and with good reason. The truth is not up for a vote.
The fact of the matter is, there really isn’t a majority opinion. There are conservative opinions, moderate opinions, revisionist opinions, critical opinions, and a myriad of opinions within each school of thought. You have not addressed any conservative opinions in your posts. Have you investigated the other side? Who have you read that is conservative?
________________________________________________
Your final list of problems I have not responded to:
1) Augustine was wrong on his list of OT books. The Jews did not accept the Apocrypha according to the list we have from Josephus. In a footnote of On Christian Doctrine it is noted that Augustine withdrew some of these statements in his Retractions, but I’m having difficulty finding a copy of Retractions online to find exactly what he said.
2) I don’t know much about the Codex Sinaiticus and to address it would be disingenuous.
3) The Council of Trent dealt with the canonical status of the Apocrypha. They were declared as having the same weight as the rest of the Scriptures by the council. This was in response to the Reformation, and Luther’s Bible which placed the deuterocanonical books in the Apocrypha.
4) The Apocrypha was not so widely accepted as you intimate. Origen differentiated it from the Scriptures (Commentaries on Matthew, X. 18, XIII. 57). Many other church fathers did as well. The Jewish Scriptures, the Tanakh, include only what Protestants today call the OT. These are the books Jesus would have read from in the Temple (as noted by his referral to the Law, Prophets, and Writings in Luke 24).
_________________________________________________
You have some responding to do as well. You have not addressed any of my possibilities for the harmonization of Ezra 2 with Nehemiah 7 and reject my suggestion to read NT prophecy in light of the interpretation of OT prophecy. You do so without giving any reasoning beyond what the university taught you. That sounds to me like you are sticking with ideology over what an honest look at the text might reveal. I find it frustrating that you demand responses from me while not offering me the same courtesy.
Andrew
Paul,
I noticed a couple interesting things as I was re-reading Nehemiah 7. I was wondering if there was anything indicating that the census Nehemiah referred to was the same one Ezra referred to. What I found was that Nehemiah refers in 7:5 to a book of genealogy, while Ezra refers to the actual count. I also noticed that the lists of who brought people back from captivity (Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, etc.) were not exactly the same. It may be possible that Nehemiah was referring to a census conducted by Ezra, and then making his own count. This would explain some discrepancies in numbers. What we may have is two separate censuses!
Andrew
Hi Andrew
I’ll get back to you shortly, but in the meantime, just to demonstrate that the contradictions in the Bible are not confined to the few we are discussing, here’s a link to a fine site which lists ‘101 clear contradictions in the Bible’.
Enjoy!
http://www.islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.htm