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.
Wednesday, 24 January 2018
Alleged contradictions in the Bible #2 - How many were slain in the plague?
Continuing on with our series of alleged contradictions in the infallible word of God we come now to one that, at first glance, looks like a glaring error but, on closer inspection, explains itself.
In Numbers 25 we read of God wiping out 24,000 people for wickedness. Being a sovereign God He is perfectly just in doing so. After all, He is the one in control, He makes the rules, and if people wilfully disobey Him, despite being repeatedly warned, then they can't complain if He deals with them.
However, the problem arises when, after having read (in Number 25 v 9) that 24,000 were killed, we come to the New Testament and read (in 1st Corinthians 10 v 8) that 23,000 were killed.
This is another "Gotcha" moment from the unsaved.
"Your Bible claims to be God's word and yet we have an obvious error" - not so fast, my friend, read the wording very carefully:
" Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day, twenty and three thousand".
Did you notice the words "in one day"?
This shows, once again, that when reading the Bible it is imperative to read every word (after all, doesn't the Bible say "every word of God is pure"?). It is quite obvious what has happened here - 23,000 died in one day, and the other 1,000 died later.
So, once again, the Bible is proved to be correct and the efforts of puny men to disprove it fail, and fail miserably.
Watch this space for the next instalment as we prove that the Bible is what it claims to be, the inspired and inerrant Word of God.
In Numbers 25 we read of God wiping out 24,000 people for wickedness. Being a sovereign God He is perfectly just in doing so. After all, He is the one in control, He makes the rules, and if people wilfully disobey Him, despite being repeatedly warned, then they can't complain if He deals with them.
However, the problem arises when, after having read (in Number 25 v 9) that 24,000 were killed, we come to the New Testament and read (in 1st Corinthians 10 v 8) that 23,000 were killed.
This is another "Gotcha" moment from the unsaved.
"Your Bible claims to be God's word and yet we have an obvious error" - not so fast, my friend, read the wording very carefully:
" Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day, twenty and three thousand".
Did you notice the words "in one day"?
This shows, once again, that when reading the Bible it is imperative to read every word (after all, doesn't the Bible say "every word of God is pure"?). It is quite obvious what has happened here - 23,000 died in one day, and the other 1,000 died later.
So, once again, the Bible is proved to be correct and the efforts of puny men to disprove it fail, and fail miserably.
Watch this space for the next instalment as we prove that the Bible is what it claims to be, the inspired and inerrant Word of God.
Wednesday, 3 January 2018
Alleged contradictions in the Bible #1 - the timing of Jesus' crucifixion.
Following on from my last blog post when I answered the question "Aren't there contradictions in the Bible?" I am intending to write a series of articles on alleged discrepancies in God's infallible word.
Of course, because the Bible is both infallible, and inerrant, there are NO discrepancies or contradictions; indeed, there has never been a proven fact of science or archaeology that has shown the Bible to be in error.
The subject I've chosen for this article is on the timing of Jesus' crucifixion. The order of events over that time was that Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, was brought before various people and, when he was brought before the governor Pilate, He was led out in front of a crowd who howled for His blood. After Pilate pronounced sentence viz. that Jesus should be crucified, He was then led through the streets to His execution. From the moment Jesus was brought before the crowd to the time He was put on the cross would have been several hours and yet there appears to be a serious problem as I will now explain:
In John 19 v 13-14 we are told that Jesus was brought out before the crowd at the 6th hour; however, in Mark 15 v 25 we are told that Jesus was crucified at the 3rd hour. How could he have been put on the cross 3 hours before being brought out to the crowd?
This seems to be a"gotcha" moment as far as the opponents of the Bible are concerned. However, there is a simple answer and it runs like this:
In Mark's Gospel the times given are all in line with the Jewish reckoning of time; that is - the day starts at 6am and the 3rd hour is 9am, the 6th hour is noon, the 9th hour is 3pm.
In John's Gospel the timing follows the Roman reckoning, that is - there are 2 blocks of 12 hours as in our own clocks today.
Bearing that in mind we see that Jesus was brought out before the crowd at 6am (the Roman time mentioned in John 19 v 14) and was crucified at 9am (the Jewish time mentioned in Mark 15 v 25); therefore, there is no problem, and certainly no contradiction or discrepancy.
Once again, the Bible is proved to be trustworthy and we can depend upon it as being true in every detail.
Of course, because the Bible is both infallible, and inerrant, there are NO discrepancies or contradictions; indeed, there has never been a proven fact of science or archaeology that has shown the Bible to be in error.
The subject I've chosen for this article is on the timing of Jesus' crucifixion. The order of events over that time was that Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, was brought before various people and, when he was brought before the governor Pilate, He was led out in front of a crowd who howled for His blood. After Pilate pronounced sentence viz. that Jesus should be crucified, He was then led through the streets to His execution. From the moment Jesus was brought before the crowd to the time He was put on the cross would have been several hours and yet there appears to be a serious problem as I will now explain:
In John 19 v 13-14 we are told that Jesus was brought out before the crowd at the 6th hour; however, in Mark 15 v 25 we are told that Jesus was crucified at the 3rd hour. How could he have been put on the cross 3 hours before being brought out to the crowd?
This seems to be a"gotcha" moment as far as the opponents of the Bible are concerned. However, there is a simple answer and it runs like this:
In Mark's Gospel the times given are all in line with the Jewish reckoning of time; that is - the day starts at 6am and the 3rd hour is 9am, the 6th hour is noon, the 9th hour is 3pm.
In John's Gospel the timing follows the Roman reckoning, that is - there are 2 blocks of 12 hours as in our own clocks today.
Bearing that in mind we see that Jesus was brought out before the crowd at 6am (the Roman time mentioned in John 19 v 14) and was crucified at 9am (the Jewish time mentioned in Mark 15 v 25); therefore, there is no problem, and certainly no contradiction or discrepancy.
Once again, the Bible is proved to be trustworthy and we can depend upon it as being true in every detail.
Thursday, 7 December 2017
FAQs from the unsaved #10 - Aren't there contradictions in the Bible?
We come, now, to the 10th in our series of questions most frequently asked by the unsaved and this must be one of the all-time favourites - "Aren't there contradictions in the Bible?".
After all, if everything we believe is in the Bible and it is full of errors, then we are basing our whole belief system on a document that is unreliable.
The first thing to remember is that people often ask this question, or even assert that there are errors in the Bible, because they are simply repeating what they've heard other people say, and have not bothered to check out the facts for themselves.
An example of this is a brief conversation I had with a bloke who boldly told me that the Bible must be wrong "because there aren't any apples in the area where the Garden of Eden was alleged to have been!" I quickly corrected him by pointing out that Genesis says nothing about Adam eating an apple, that is an assumption with no biblical warrant.
However, there are people who have bothered to read the Bible and if they come up with an apparent contradiction what should be our answer?
Simply this, remember the 3 Cs of Biblical analysis and study - Context, Context, Context !
Every single supposed contradiction and error in the Bible can be answered by examining the verse/passage in its context; that is, the context of the book it is in, the people it is addressed to, the person who wrote it and why, and even by going back to the original Greek/Hebrew text.
In the next few months it is my intention to write a series of articles on various supposed contradictions and errors and show how, by comparing scripture with scripture, and by keeping the relevant verses in their context, ALL of these can be answered.
We can be absolutely sure that there are NO errors in God's infallible word, and we can refute those who claim that it is "full of contradictions".
Every word of God is pure - Proverbs 30 v 5
After all, if everything we believe is in the Bible and it is full of errors, then we are basing our whole belief system on a document that is unreliable.
The first thing to remember is that people often ask this question, or even assert that there are errors in the Bible, because they are simply repeating what they've heard other people say, and have not bothered to check out the facts for themselves.
An example of this is a brief conversation I had with a bloke who boldly told me that the Bible must be wrong "because there aren't any apples in the area where the Garden of Eden was alleged to have been!" I quickly corrected him by pointing out that Genesis says nothing about Adam eating an apple, that is an assumption with no biblical warrant.
However, there are people who have bothered to read the Bible and if they come up with an apparent contradiction what should be our answer?
Simply this, remember the 3 Cs of Biblical analysis and study - Context, Context, Context !
Every single supposed contradiction and error in the Bible can be answered by examining the verse/passage in its context; that is, the context of the book it is in, the people it is addressed to, the person who wrote it and why, and even by going back to the original Greek/Hebrew text.
In the next few months it is my intention to write a series of articles on various supposed contradictions and errors and show how, by comparing scripture with scripture, and by keeping the relevant verses in their context, ALL of these can be answered.
We can be absolutely sure that there are NO errors in God's infallible word, and we can refute those who claim that it is "full of contradictions".
Every word of God is pure - Proverbs 30 v 5
Thursday, 23 November 2017
FAQs from the unsaved #9 - Why did Jesus have to die?
As we continue our series of questions most frequently asked by the unsaved we come to one which has intrigued many, including myself as a young Catholic lad growing up in the 1960s -
"Why did Jesus have to die?"
Given that the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most indisputable facts of history, and given that, despite being acquitted as innocent by Pilate the governor, Jesus was crucified as a common criminal, this remains one of the most puzzling questions of all time; and the answer is simple - Jesus died because God is both Holy and Merciful.
Because God is holy, He must punish sin. That is bad news as we have all fallen short of His standard, we have all sinned in His sight, and deserve eternal condemnation.
However, because God is merciful and loving He doesn't issue a blanket "death penalty" upon all mankind, and leave us to our fate (even though we deserve it) but provides a way for us to be put right with Him, while not compromising His holiness - and that is where the cross of Christ comes in.
When Jesus died God, the Father took our sins and laid them upon His own dear Son, thus punishing Him in our place As the prophet Isaiah put it ".....the Lord has laid on Him, the iniquity of us all" - Isa. 53 v 6.
However, He didn't only die, but rose again 3 days later thus showing that His sacrifice upon the cross was an acceptable sin-offering. This is made clear in Romans 4 v 25 where we are told that Jesus was "given for our offences, and raised again for our justification".
At first, it may be a wonder to us why this should be so - but rather than simply ponder this question we need to avail ourselves of the only way God has provided for us to be right with Him, and be assured of an eternal Heaven.
Next time we will look at the question "Are there contradictions in the Bible?"
"Why did Jesus have to die?"
Given that the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is one of the most indisputable facts of history, and given that, despite being acquitted as innocent by Pilate the governor, Jesus was crucified as a common criminal, this remains one of the most puzzling questions of all time; and the answer is simple - Jesus died because God is both Holy and Merciful.
Because God is holy, He must punish sin. That is bad news as we have all fallen short of His standard, we have all sinned in His sight, and deserve eternal condemnation.
However, because God is merciful and loving He doesn't issue a blanket "death penalty" upon all mankind, and leave us to our fate (even though we deserve it) but provides a way for us to be put right with Him, while not compromising His holiness - and that is where the cross of Christ comes in.
When Jesus died God, the Father took our sins and laid them upon His own dear Son, thus punishing Him in our place As the prophet Isaiah put it ".....the Lord has laid on Him, the iniquity of us all" - Isa. 53 v 6.
However, He didn't only die, but rose again 3 days later thus showing that His sacrifice upon the cross was an acceptable sin-offering. This is made clear in Romans 4 v 25 where we are told that Jesus was "given for our offences, and raised again for our justification".
At first, it may be a wonder to us why this should be so - but rather than simply ponder this question we need to avail ourselves of the only way God has provided for us to be right with Him, and be assured of an eternal Heaven.
Next time we will look at the question "Are there contradictions in the Bible?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)