Bible · Christianity · religion

Doubts demolished: more Bible errors resolved

In my previous post I tackled a few scriptures that are used to argue that the Bible is contradictory.  If the enemies of the cross of Christ can find factual errors or contradictions in the infallible word of God, then they can argue that the Bible cannot be trusted to tell us the truth and that it is unreliable.  We can rest assured that this is just the age-old tactic inspired by Satan to get those of us in the faith to doubt what God says.  Since God’s word is above his name [Psalm 138:2], we can have confidence that there aren’t any mistakes in his word.  I will now resolve other issues raised by the doubters at this website brought to my attention by a doubting commenter here at my blog.

————————-

Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

Genesis 5:5 “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.”

The argument is that Adam was told he would die physically, not spiritually, as soon as he ate from the tree, but he lived over 900 years.  The critics are so foolish that they can’t see that Genesis 5:5 fulfills what God was talking about in Genesis 2.  God was talking about both physical and spiritual death.  He let Adam know that if he would eat from the tree, he would no longer be immortal and would be susceptible to dying at some point.  Not only would his body become corruptible but his spirit man would no longer have spiritual fellowship with God, i.e. spiritual death.

Furthermore, the term “thou shalt surely die” is a term that not only speaks of the moment at which the action is taken, but also speaks continuously of what the future holds.  In other words, it was saying he would have death hanging over his head at every moment after eating the fruit. So Genesis 5 is the confirmation, not the contradiction and the whole argument is rather weak.

————————-

Matthew 1:16 “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”

Luke 3:23 “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,”

So who was really Joseph’s father?  According to Hebrew traditions, both of them were.  When a Hebrew man married, his father in law considered him as his son [see 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:21] and a son in law could be included in the genealogy of his father in law.  This is especially true when a man like Heli had only daughters [see Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12].  So one of these genealogies would be  Joseph’s line while the other is Mary’s.  The purpose of the genealogies was to show Jesus was from the line of Judah in fulfillment of Messianic prophecy and they don’t provide the names of every individual in his line.

This proves the accuracy of the writers in that they were familiar with the practices of the times and did their research thoroughly to get their facts straight so the authenticity and reliability of God’s word would be preserved.

————————-

Genesis 22:1 “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham,”

James 1:13 “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:”

So why does the Bible say God tempted Abraham when it also says he doesn’t tempt any man?  The explanation for these statements lies in the context of each scripture.  The context of Genesis 22 is that God was testing Abraham to see how loyal he would be.  It was a test for good to see if Abraham was willing to sacrifice everything for God, for as Jesus said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.  He that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me,” [Matthew 10:37].  God must be number one above everything and everyone.  This is ultimately for our own good and for his much-deserved glory.

James 1 is talking about temptation to do evil.  God is not in the business of leading man into sinning against him, so man only has himself to blame when he gives into evil temptations.

The critics got it wrong again.

————————-

Genesis 6:19-20 “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.”

Genesis 7:2-3 “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.”

Did Noah take in animals in pairs or in sevens?  Again the critics have overlooked the details.  Both accounts are accurate.  God told Noah to pair off the animals, the male and his female.  If he took in seven of one kind of animal, one of the animals doesn’t have a mate.  So obviously God wasn’t talking about taking in seven of one kind of animal.

He was telling Noah how to load the paired off animals.  The clean animals and birds were to be loaded in pairs in groups of seven pairs.  So the clean animals were loaded 14 at a time.  The unclean animals were to be loaded two groups of pairs at a time so they were loaded four animals at a time.  Duh!

————————-

1 Kings 7:23 “And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.”

Critics point out that the circumference (πd) of the molten sea would have to be greater than 30 cubits to go around it, so they claim a mathematical error is in play here.  However, the line would only have to be over 30 cubits if it is around the brim.  This scripture never says the line is around the brim, so clearly the line is somewhere below the brim where the circumference would be smaller since the molten sea gradually increased in circumference from the bottom to the top like a bowl.  So the math in the Bible is accurate.

————————-

Leviticus 11:20-21 “All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;”

The contention here is that fowls don’t creep on all four because they only have two feet.  However, the critics in a rush to tear down God’s word failed to do their etymology.  The word fowls was originally used for all winged non-insect creatures and the definition for this word used in this context is provided in v. 21 when it says “every flying creeping thing.”  So fowls included bats and they go on all fours.  Furthermore, there were fowls in existence at this time that are extinct today, and some of those extinct fowls most likely crept about on “all four.” Sorry Bible-haters, there’s no error here.

————————-

Leviticus 11:6 “And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.”

Critics argue that the hare doesn’t chew the cud and it divides the hoof.  They assume chewing the cud means an animal must have several stomachs and regurgitates its food.  But chewing the cud actually means an animal has to send partially digested food more than once through its digestive system.  Hares do exactly this with a process called refection, or coprophagia.  When it consumes food, it can only partially digest it so the hare excretes it out its back end and eats the partially digested food in its feces.  Sounds gross, but its chewing the cud nonetheless.

Hares don’t actually divide the hoof all the way through to form separated toes.  Their hoofs are only partially divided, so partially divided wasn’t good enough to make God’s cut and the Bible remains accurate.

————————-

Matthew 13:31-32 “Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.”

Didn’t Jesus know there are several seeds smaller than mustard seed and the mustard plant stays small?  But context determines what he meant.  Jesus is talking about mustard seed being the smallest crop seed that a farmer in his region planted at that time, not the smallest seed ever on Earth.  Additionally, mustard plants have been known to grow up to 12 feet tall.  That would definitely make it the greatest of herbs where Jesus lived and birds could nest in them.

————————-

Jonah 1:17 “Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.”

Matthew 12:40 “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

Why would Jonah call a whale a fish when a whale isn’t a fish?  This has to do with the word usage at the time Jonah was written.  Just like fowls were any creature that flew, a fish was considered anything that lived in water.  So Jonah used the general term while Jesus used the more specific term.  They were both correct.

————————-

Matthew 4:8 “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them”

The criticism for this one is that it is impossible to see all the kingdoms on Earth even if you go to the highest mountain.  But Luke’s account of this incident gives us more details.  He said Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms “in a moment of time.” So the devil used his supernatural power to show all of the kingdoms of the world in a format similar to our movie screens or holographs to give Jesus a quick glimpse of them, as if Jesus didn’t already know what they looked like.  If one understands that even fallen angels have supernatural abilities, then it isn’t farfetched to realize that Satan used them in this instance and the account of what happened is accurate.

(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; [2 Corinthians 10:4-5]

–posted by Harry A. Gaylord–

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Doubts demolished: more Bible errors resolved

  1. One of my hobbies since retiring 2 years ago is looking into and studying the bible translation/controversey, since I was fed so much silly misinformation in the Baptist Church I was attending. I looked into the following earlier this week and was even surprised myself, you will be too Harry. (looking fwd to your refutation)

    The phrase “God forbid” is used 24 times in the KJV translation, 9 times in the OT and 15 times in the NT. Now see if you can find a Strong’s concordance # for “God” in the OT. Know why you can’t? Because the Hebrew word for “God” was not in the manuscripts that the KJV translators were using!! Now try looking it up in the NT, what you have now are two Strong’s #’s, neither of which is the Greek word for “God” Talk about dynamic equivalence!! The KJV translators inserted the word “God” where the Holy Spirit did not inspire the original authors to write God’s name. Btw, they did the same thing on the OT phrase “God save the King”

    It’s a fairly simple explanation why the translators did this, the phrases “God save the King” and “God forbid” were very common phrases during the time of the translation work and they were persuaded to use this common language, unfortunately. Btw, usually the KJV translators put non-manuscript, uninspired words in italics, but note they didn’t do that here.

    Usually the KJV only controversey revolves around manuscripts used, but in this unique case, we have the KJV translators using perfectly good manuscripts, yet failing to follow them.

    Like

    1. For clarification purposes. You are obviously looking for “God” in the phrase “God forbid” that may not have been completely clear in the “above” post.

      Like

      1. Greg, the last time you left a comment (a comment I deleted) you gave the impression that you would take your discussions elsewhere to another forum, so I’m sorry to see that you’re back here again with more of your lies.

        In a previous comment you defended Westcott & Hort, who were occultists and gathered Alexandrian manuscripts to conjure up counterfeits of God’s word. In the same comment you criticized those who hold to the kjv as an infallible English Bible, stating we “love to slam Catholics and homosexuals.” You also said in that comment the “kjv doesn’t record properly” and that it is “imperfect.”

        Then in a follow-up comment you left after I tore down your arguments, you attempted to backtrack by saying you thought the kjv was a “wonderful, beautiful translation.” Then you attacked the kjv again in another comment by calling into question the use of the word “Lucifer” that’s in the kjv. And when I rebuked you for the comment your reply was “I’m no enemy whatsoever of the KJV… I also love and fully support anyone that uses and can understand this ancient translation…”

        Yet here you are again trying to cast aspersions about the kjv. You are double minded and wrest the scriptures. “A double minded man is unstable in all his ways,” [James 1:8] and “they that are unlearned and unstable wrest…scriptures unto their own destruction,” [2 Peter 3:16]. So “purify your hearts, ye double minded,” [James 4:8].

        The only “silly misinformation” that you’re being fed is the misinformation you choose to accept in your so-called study of the Bible translations controversy. You have not approached your research with an open mind to follow the real evidence and are as blind as the Casey Anthony jurors, choosing to ignore the genuine evidence that would lead you to draw a correct conclusion. You formed an opinion ahead of your so-called research, then looked for resources to shore up your mistaken assumptions. Your arguments about phrases you don’t like that appear in the kjv are arguments that have been promoted by Jesuits since King James commissioned the kjv. The Vatican was so enraged at the idea of the common people having the word of God that they made up all kinds of lies to tear down the kjv after it was complete. Before it was complete, the filthy Jesuits even attempted to stop
        King James and his translators in an assassination attempt known as the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

        The history of the Catholic Church is full of the blood of the saints they’ve slaughtered since Constantine the Great started his false church. And you’ve bought into their revisionist history. You have a Jesuit-corrupted mind and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if it came to light that you are in reality a Jesuit posing as someone concerned about God’s word. If you had done your research correctly, you would know the word “God” is not “inserted” by kjv translators. The phrase “God save” in the phrase “God save the king” is “chayah” in Hebrew. The word contains God’s name in it–the Hebrew word “Yah” or “Jah”, the contracted form of the name “Jehovah.” So thank you for showing how foolish you are in wresting the scriptures.

        The time has come when you have not endured sound doctrine, but after your own lusts you have heaped to yourself teachers, having itching ears [2 Timothy 4:3]. You are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” You are as Jannes and Jambres who withstood Moses and resisted the truth– a man of a corrupt mind, reprobate concerning the faith. Having a form of godliness, you have denied the power thereof, denying God’s power to preserve his perfect word on Earth through his chosen vessels, so now I am turning away from you [2 Timothy 3:5, 7-8].

        Like

    2. hello .to whoever it may concern i request you to clear this doubt of mine . i m a new believer of christ , i cannot help but notice many believers say that if u dont accept christ as your saviour you go to the eternal lake of fire . my doubt is this .imagine this a young man in a rural area of an islamic country . the village he lives in is filled with poverty . there is hardly any means of communication . the guy lived for 23 years .during his lifetime he never heard of christ . but the guy was righteous, moral,ethical and lived a good life. will he go to hell? is it his fault he never came across the gospel ? is it his fault nobody preached him? somehow i find this difficult to digest that this man will go to hell inspite of living a RIGHTEOUS LIFE .and he never knew who was christ ..pls help . this comes a a major hurdle which i need to clear. pls reply to my following email

      Like

      1. It has been my observation that people who have such questions deal with hypotheticals and not realities. It’s great you’re a believer, but we must remember that Jehovah created the universe and he’s the one who sets the rules for what is acceptable and unacceptable. No one can get into heaven by their own good works. Believers in the Old Testament were saved by their belief in a future Messiah who would save them from their sins. New Testament believers are saved based on their belief that Jesus the Lord, who rose from the dead, is the only one who can save us from sin.

        Your questions are simply no longer reality in our time. The gospel has been preached everywhere in the world. God has sent his message of the gospel in all kinds of ways. Satellite TV, short wave radio, the internet, missionaries, print publications, and dreams or visions where Jesus appears personally or sends heavenly angels to people in the remotest corners of the earth to tell the good news. Everyone in today’s world has had a chance or will have a chance to accept Jesus as Lord before they die. No one is righteous without Jesus. No one gets into heaven without surrendering to Jesus. So your concerns are moot at this point.

        If you are asking questions out of concern for the lost in some remote part of the globe, then why not try matching your concerns with actions such as becoming a missionary to foreign lands, supporting financially missionaries that are already sent out, or starting a ministry that will send out the gospel using some form of media? These would be more productive than raising questions based on doubts that are unfounded. And I say all of this in love.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s