Continuing on with our series of alleged contradictions in God's infallible word, we come, now, to one which has often been pointed to as an obvious error.
It runs as follows: In Matthew 12 v 40 Jesus made it clear that the Son of Man would be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth; this is a reference to the time between His death and resurrection. However, in Luke 24 Jesus was speaking with the 2 disciples on the Emmaus road on the first day of the week (which was Sunday) and they made mention of the fact that it was the 3rd day after His death had occurred (verse 21). Therefore, His death occurred on Friday, and the resurrection on Sunday. How can this be 3 days and 3 nights?
On the face of it the matter does look awkward for proponents of Biblical inerrancy - however, as with all such questions the answer is simple, absurdly so.
It was a principle in Bible times for people to refer to a part day/night as a whole day/night. Two examples of this are as follows:
In 1st Samuel 30 we read of David and his men arriving at Ziklag, their city of residence, and finding it ransacked. The Amalekites had raided the city and carried off the women and children. When the men gave chase they came across an Egyptian who had been a servant of the Amalekites. Verse 12 says that he had not eaten "for 3 days and 3 nights". In verse 13 he said that his master had dumped him aside "3 days ago". A clear reference to the principle of counting a part day/night as a whole day/night.
The 2nd example is in Esther. In chapter 4 v 16 she says that she will fast for 3 days, night and day, before going to make a petition to the king. In chapter 5 v 1 we read that it was "on the 3rd day" that she went before the king. Another reference to a part day/night being counted as a whole day/night.
When opponents of the Bible come up with these alleged errors the issue is not an academic one but a moral one. They know that if the Bible is true then they will have to change their way of living and stop pursuing their sinful lifestyles. Therefore, they scour the Bible in a vain and pathetic attempt to find justification for refusing to come to repentance, but such a search is futile and doomed to fail.
The best course for these poor creatures is the stop fighting and surrender to Jesus; they will then find a peace "that passes all understanding" (Phil. 4 v 7) and have assurance of eternal life.
Wednesday, 28 March 2018
Wednesday, 14 March 2018
Where is Hawking now?
News has come through informing us that Stephen Hawking has passed into eternity.
This man was a so-called "atheistic scientist". That is a contradiction in terms because true scientists believe there is a God. He was stricken by a terrible disease which ravaged his body and I wouldn't wish that upon anyone, not even atheists, (even though the Bible rightly calls such people "fools" - Psalm 53 v 1). However, what is worse than having a body racked with disease is having a crippled soul as, indeed, was the case with Hawking.
He promoted the evolution fraud and passed it off as a fact, even though there is not even enough evidence to call it a theory. It is, in truth, a Satan-inspired creed.
In addition to his follies in believing such nonsense, this poor creature also publicly ridiculed the idea of an afterlife as the stuff of "fairy stories" - he knows differently now.
Given that the Bible teaches that non-believers in Christ end up in Hell, should we say that Hawking is now there?
The answer is - we don't know if Hawking is definitely in Hell because there is always the chance that before he died he had the good sense to repent of his wickedness, and accept Christ as his personal Saviour. I truly hope he did so, I suspect we shall have surprises in Heaven.
If, however, he did not so repent then he is now facing an eternity of indescribable torment at the hands of the God whom he spent his life denying, and he is paying the price for promoting the filth of evolution (or evil-lution as I call it).
People like Hawking, and his ilk, are full of their own pride and self-promotion BUT they will one day die, then where will they be? In the words of Deuteronomy 32 v 35 - "...their foot shall slide in due time".
Our response to Hawking's death should be that we re-double our efforts to spread the Gospel in the hope, that, even people afflicted with the cruelties of atheism, may yet be given grace to repent and receive Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
This man was a so-called "atheistic scientist". That is a contradiction in terms because true scientists believe there is a God. He was stricken by a terrible disease which ravaged his body and I wouldn't wish that upon anyone, not even atheists, (even though the Bible rightly calls such people "fools" - Psalm 53 v 1). However, what is worse than having a body racked with disease is having a crippled soul as, indeed, was the case with Hawking.
He promoted the evolution fraud and passed it off as a fact, even though there is not even enough evidence to call it a theory. It is, in truth, a Satan-inspired creed.
In addition to his follies in believing such nonsense, this poor creature also publicly ridiculed the idea of an afterlife as the stuff of "fairy stories" - he knows differently now.
Given that the Bible teaches that non-believers in Christ end up in Hell, should we say that Hawking is now there?
The answer is - we don't know if Hawking is definitely in Hell because there is always the chance that before he died he had the good sense to repent of his wickedness, and accept Christ as his personal Saviour. I truly hope he did so, I suspect we shall have surprises in Heaven.
If, however, he did not so repent then he is now facing an eternity of indescribable torment at the hands of the God whom he spent his life denying, and he is paying the price for promoting the filth of evolution (or evil-lution as I call it).
People like Hawking, and his ilk, are full of their own pride and self-promotion BUT they will one day die, then where will they be? In the words of Deuteronomy 32 v 35 - "...their foot shall slide in due time".
Our response to Hawking's death should be that we re-double our efforts to spread the Gospel in the hope, that, even people afflicted with the cruelties of atheism, may yet be given grace to repent and receive Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
Thursday, 8 March 2018
Alleged contradictions in the Bible #3 - The position of the Incense Altar
Continuing on with our series of alleged contradictions in the Bible we come now to one that is often not noticed even by faithful believers in the Bible's infallibility viz.
The position of the Incense Altar in the Old Testament Tabernacle.
We are, no doubt, aware of the construction of the tabernacle in the OT and how it all points to the person and work of Christ. Students of this subject will know that the main building was divided into 2 parts - The Holy Place and The Most Holy Place (aka "The Holy of Holies").
In the first part of the building was the Candlestick, the Table of Showbread and the Incense Altar, behind the veil in the 2nd part was the Ark of the Covenant and The Mercy Seat.
In Exodus 40 we are told that the Incense Altar was to be placed in the 1st part of the building before the veil BUT, in Hebrews 9 v 1-4 we are told that the Incense Altar was to be found after the veil and in the same part as the Ark of the Covenant.
People who study the Bible in an attempt to find "errors" will seize upon this as a "Gotcha" moment par excellence and, to be fair to them, it does look as if there is a clear contradiction.
However, as with all these so-called discoveries of "mistakes" in God's infallible word, this one, too, has a simple explanation.
Remembering the principle of keeping all verses in their context please note the following:
The book of Exodus contains instructions for the building of the Tabernacle and its objects and states that the High Priest was to minister at the Incense Altar on a daily basis. As he was not to enter the Holy of Holies during the course of the year this would, of necessity, be placed in the Holy Place. However, once a year, on the Day of Atonement, he was to enter the Most Holy Place and sprinkle the blood of atonement upon the Mercy Seat which was on top of the Ark and, on that day, the Incense Altar would have been employed within the veil, in the same room - how do we know this? Look again at Hebrews chapter 9 and read down to verses 6 and 7. The general arrangement of the furniture was as stated in Exodus 40 but on that one day, the Day of Atonement, the High Priest would enter the Most Holy Place. Therefore, in order to "do the job" properly he would have had to take the incense altar with him to offer incense. It is clear that the opening section of Hebrews chapter 9 was a reference to the work of the priest on the Day of Atonement.
Remember too, that the Altar of Incense is a picture of Christ's intercessory ministry for us (see 1st John 2 v 1) and on the Day of Atonement, as the High Priest sprinkles the blood upon the Mercy Seat it is a picture of Christ entering into the presence of God the Father and presenting the blood that He shed. Would it be stretching the point to believe that, just as the sprinkling of the blood on the Mercy Seat is a picture of Christ presenting His blood to the Father, so the Incense Altar is a picture of Christ representing us before the Father, and what better day than that precious Day of Atonement?
To say that the Incense Altar was not taken into the Most Holy Place would be to allow that there is a contradiction in the inerrant Word of God. As there is no such contradiction, this is the only answer, and it is a really simple one.
It is my hope to continue this series of alleged contradictions in the Bible; if any of my readers have a query, or difficulty that they would like answered, please leave a comment.
The position of the Incense Altar in the Old Testament Tabernacle.
We are, no doubt, aware of the construction of the tabernacle in the OT and how it all points to the person and work of Christ. Students of this subject will know that the main building was divided into 2 parts - The Holy Place and The Most Holy Place (aka "The Holy of Holies").
In the first part of the building was the Candlestick, the Table of Showbread and the Incense Altar, behind the veil in the 2nd part was the Ark of the Covenant and The Mercy Seat.
In Exodus 40 we are told that the Incense Altar was to be placed in the 1st part of the building before the veil BUT, in Hebrews 9 v 1-4 we are told that the Incense Altar was to be found after the veil and in the same part as the Ark of the Covenant.
People who study the Bible in an attempt to find "errors" will seize upon this as a "Gotcha" moment par excellence and, to be fair to them, it does look as if there is a clear contradiction.
However, as with all these so-called discoveries of "mistakes" in God's infallible word, this one, too, has a simple explanation.
Remembering the principle of keeping all verses in their context please note the following:
The book of Exodus contains instructions for the building of the Tabernacle and its objects and states that the High Priest was to minister at the Incense Altar on a daily basis. As he was not to enter the Holy of Holies during the course of the year this would, of necessity, be placed in the Holy Place. However, once a year, on the Day of Atonement, he was to enter the Most Holy Place and sprinkle the blood of atonement upon the Mercy Seat which was on top of the Ark and, on that day, the Incense Altar would have been employed within the veil, in the same room - how do we know this? Look again at Hebrews chapter 9 and read down to verses 6 and 7. The general arrangement of the furniture was as stated in Exodus 40 but on that one day, the Day of Atonement, the High Priest would enter the Most Holy Place. Therefore, in order to "do the job" properly he would have had to take the incense altar with him to offer incense. It is clear that the opening section of Hebrews chapter 9 was a reference to the work of the priest on the Day of Atonement.
Remember too, that the Altar of Incense is a picture of Christ's intercessory ministry for us (see 1st John 2 v 1) and on the Day of Atonement, as the High Priest sprinkles the blood upon the Mercy Seat it is a picture of Christ entering into the presence of God the Father and presenting the blood that He shed. Would it be stretching the point to believe that, just as the sprinkling of the blood on the Mercy Seat is a picture of Christ presenting His blood to the Father, so the Incense Altar is a picture of Christ representing us before the Father, and what better day than that precious Day of Atonement?
To say that the Incense Altar was not taken into the Most Holy Place would be to allow that there is a contradiction in the inerrant Word of God. As there is no such contradiction, this is the only answer, and it is a really simple one.
It is my hope to continue this series of alleged contradictions in the Bible; if any of my readers have a query, or difficulty that they would like answered, please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)