Issue #138-So the Bible is Full of Contradictions?

Biblical Errancy Issue #138-So the Bible is Full of Contradictions? (Pt. 1), What Animals Entered Ark?, Egypt's Horses Died?, Is John the Baptist Elijah?, Did God Rest?, Wisdom Brings Happiness?, Will Earth Vanish?

Nov 10, '08 6:48 AM
by Loren for everyone










Issue No. 138

June 1994


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNSON'S SO THE BIBLE IS FULL OF CONTRADICTIONS? (Part 1):
One of the more prominent apologetic writings currently on the market is a 146 page paperback entitled So the Bible is Full of Contradictions by Carl Johnson. The author attempts to answer some of the most obvious biblical contradictions in as succinct and conclusive a manner as possible. Unfortunately, the following examples show that his efforts were often to no avail.
On page 13 Johnson seeks to reconcile the Noah-and-the-Ark conflict between Gen. 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 fowl also of the air by sevens, the male and the female....") and Gen. 7:8-9 ("Of clean beasts and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female...."). He states, "Noah was commanded to bring two of every kind of animal into the ark, a male and a female, then to bring seven of some animals and fowls, and then we read that the animals went in two and two.... In the first reference, God instructed Noah to bring the animals in by twos, but later, in the second reference, he was given further instructions to bring in seven of every clean animal and fowl. Clean animals and fowls are the ones acceptable for sacrifice. Exodus gives ten such beasts. The unclean animals and fowls went in by twos, the clean by sevens."
I'm always amazed at the apparent willingness of apologists to leap into a contradiction with which they are ill-prepared to cope. His "reconciliation" leads one to believe that he would have done well to have passed over this problem entirely. It's hard to believe we're reading the same verses. What does the text say? Gen. 7:2-3 says clean beasts and fowl shall go in by sevens while the unclean are to go in by twos, even though Gen. 7:8-9 says they are all to go in by twos, whether clean or not, whether fowl or not. Johnson's final statement that "the unclean animals and fowls went in by twos and the clean by sevens" ignores Gen. 7:8-9, which says clean beasts went in by twos, not sevens. His final statement also clashes with Gen. 7:2-3, which says "Of fowls also of the air by sevens." Fowls did not go in by twos; they went in by sevens.
On pages 16 and 17 of his book, Johnson confronted a different kind of problem relative to the Egyptian pursuit of the Israelites during the Exodus. He attempts to meld Exodus 9:3, 6 ("Behold the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain. And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died....") with Exodus 14:9 ("But the Egyptians pursued after them, all the horses and chariots of Pharaoh, and his horsemen, and his army, and overtook them...."). Johnson reconciles the problem by saying, "The seeming contradiction here is: how could the Egyptians pursue the Israelites with their horses and chariots if all the horses were killed earlier? If we read the two accounts closely we find that the first reference speaks of a judgment upon the cattle, horses, asses, camels, oxen, and sheep. The judgment was to be 'a very grievous murrain,' which is a contagious disease among cattle. The record does not say that all the horses died, but that all the cattle died (verse 6)...and only the 'cattle which are in the field (verse 3)." When Johnson says "the record does not say that all the horses died," he is only using the version of verse 6 that satisfies his interpretation. True, the KJV, RSV, ASV, MT, BBE, and the LB say only the "cattle" died but the NASB, JB, NIV, NAB, and NEB, say "All the livestock of Egypt died." The word "cattle" comes from the Hebrew word "miqneh" which actually means "livestock" or "live herds". If all of Egypt's livestock died, instead of cattle only, then all horses would be included as well. And if all the horses were dead, then how could the pharaoh have pursued the Israelites on horses?
As far as the defense alleging only cattle or livestock in the fields died is concerned (verse 3), that is refuted by verse 9 in the NASB and other versions, which says, "All the livestock of Egypt died." Johnson quotes Sir Gardner Wilkinson as saying that some animals were stall-fed in Egypt and survived because they weren't in the field. But whether or not livestock were fed in stalls or fields is irrelevant, since ALL the livestock of Egypt died according to verse 9.
On page 63 Johnson is asked to blend Matt. 11:13-14 ("For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John (John the Baptist--Ed.). And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come") with John 1:21 ("And they asked him (John the Baptist--Ed.), What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No"). In the former verse Jesus said John the Baptist was the Elijah who was prophesied to come, while in the latter verse John says he isn't. Johnson explains this dichotomy by saying, "John the Baptist denied that he was Elijah, while Jesus said he was. This has bothered a number of people. I have personally been asked about this.... Jesus said on at least two occasions that John (John the Baptist--Ed.) was Elijah (Matt. 11:14, l7:10-13). The answer lies in understanding 'the law of double fulfillment.' That means that a prophecy is often partially fulfilled as a type of the total fulfillment. John came in partial fulfillment of what Elijah was to do. Both John and Elijah preached against sin in Israel; both attacked the kings and religious leaders of the day; both spoke against religious corruption of the people; both were severely persecuted for offending the kings and immoral wives; and both were highly commended by God. John did come 'in the spirit and power of Elias' (Luke 1:17) but not in his reincarnated form."
The only double involved in Johnson's answer is double-talk. Contrived phrases such as "partial fulfillment" or "double fulfillment" are nothing more than theological smokescreens. Either John the Baptist is Elijah or he isn't; there is no in between. And Jesus says he is. That should settle the matter. But when John the Baptist says he is not, and who is in a better position to know, then an irreconcilable contradiction between the words of Jesus and those of John the Baptist materializes. Johnson says John came in "partial fulfillment" of what Elijah was to do. But who cares what he came to do? That isn't even the issue. The question is: Was he or was he not Elijah? What deeds he performed or did not perform are irrelevant. Johnson is trying to redirect our focus toward extraneous considerations. When Johnson says "John did come in the spirit and power of Elias but not in reincarnated form" he is saying Jesus is a liar and John the Baptist told the truth. While later quoting the New Scofield Reference Bible Johnson says in reference to the ministry of John the Baptist "with a ministry so completely in the spirit and power of Elijah's future ministry in a typical sense, it could be said: 'Elijah is come already'." Spirit, however, has nothing to do with the issue. The question is: Is John the Baptist Elijah or isn't he? Whether he is or isn't in the spirit of Elijah is immaterial. The fact is he's not Elijah, and that's what counts.
Johnson closes out this issue by saying, "Elijah reappeared in the flesh on the Mount of Transfiguration in the days of Jesus, will come again 'before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord' (Mal. 4:5), and will probably be one of the two witnesses in the tribulation period." These comments are not only immaterial but irrelevant as well.
Johnson is one of the most prominent users of the "that's what it says but that's not what it means" approach. He repeatedly substitutes his own spin for what a verse really says. What follows are some of the more glaring examples of this ruse.
On pages 20 and 21 he addresses the clash between Ex. 31:17 ("...for in 6 days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the 7th day he rested, and was refreshed") and Isa. 40:28 ("...the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary...). Johnson states that, "Several times in the Bible we read that God rested (Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:11; 31:17; Heb. 4:4) yet the passage in Isaiah says He is not weary. We think of God as a being who is almighty, infinite, who never becomes tired. Why does He need to rest? The answer is that when we read that God rested from His work it simply means He ceased from His work. The word translated rested comes from the Hebrew word shavath, from which we get the word Sabbath, which means 'to stop' or 'cease.' He ceased because He was finished. When we read that God 'was refreshed' it means He was delighted.... Dr. J.B. Thompson said in his book, Man in Genesis and in Geology: 'To rest' here does not mean to seek repose from fatigue, but to suspend activity in a particular mode of operation, to cease from doing thus and so."
In effect, Johnson is saying that he has a more accurate rendition of Gen. 2:2 ("And God blessed the seventh day, and...rested from all his work...." than those who translated many of the most well known versions of the Bible. The KJV, RSV, ML, NASB, MT, NWT, NAB, BBE, ASV, NIV, and the JB versions use the word "rested". Their translators chose the word "rested" and, in effect, he claims they should have used the word "ceased." His resolution of this conflict is little more than an assertion that he knows Hebrew better than those who translated many of the most famous and scholarly versions on the market. He also claims that "was refreshed" means "delighted" when they are even further apart than "rested" and "ceased". And why have "re" in front of "refreshed," if he was not freshed a second time? The prefix "re" means "again." If "refreshed" means he was "delighted," then what would the word "freshed" mean? Lastly, the word "rested" is much more compatible with the word "refreshed" than the word "ceased." Johnson is trying to escape the problem by rewriting the script to his own specifications. Is he qualified to correct a whole battery of experts? I doubt it.
On pages 49 and 50 he confronts a direct contradiction between Proverb 3:13 ("Happy is the man who finds wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding") and Eccle. 1:18 ("For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increases sorrow"). He rationalizes the conflict by stating, "One verse says wisdom brings happiness, the other verse says it brings grief. Which is correct? Both. The first verse speaks of wisdom from God, the wisdom from above.... (James 3:17).... This kind of wisdom brings happiness. The wisdom that causes grief speaks of worldly wisdom, the wisdom that "descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish" (James 3:15). In effect, Johnson has arbitrarily assumed that two "wisdoms" of totally opposite character are involved because different kinds of wisdoms are referred to in the NT. Yet, no distinction of this kind is made in our original conflicting OT verses, and the disagreement stands until Johnson can provide evidence that the NT differentiation applies to this problem as well.
On page 50 he is asked to reconcile Prov. 8:17 ("I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me") with Prov. 1:28 ("Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me"). Again he resorts to the reinterpretation defense by saying, "Once again there seems to be a contradiction: If you seek God early you shall find Him, but if you seek Him early you shall not find Him. The first reference promises that those who seek God "early," that is, diligently, shall find Him.... The second reference speaks of persons who refuse to listen to God, who do not regard God, who will not heed God's counsel nor his reproof (Prov. 1:24-25). When distress and anguish come upon them, then they call upon God, but he will not answer.... There is no real contradiction here when we keep the two different classes of persons in mind."
In the first place, Johnson assumes that the word "those" in Prov 8:17 refers only to those who love God. Why couldn't it also refer to those who do not regard God or his counsel or his reproof? Prov. 8:17 does not say that only those who love me and seek me early shall find me. Just because the first part of the sentence is referring to those who love God does not mean the second half of the sentence is only referring to those who love God. It could include those who have not been heeding God's counsel or his reproof, but for some reason have decided to seek him. In simple terms, Johnson has assumed Prov. 8:17 is only referring to "good people," while Prov. 1:28 is only referring to "bad actors". When considered in context, the latter can be substantiated textually but the former cannot.
Secondly, he quotes the first verse as saying, "those who seek God 'early'...shall find Him," and the other verse as saying those who seek God "'early'...shall not find" him. If "early" means "diligently" in the first verse as Johnson claims, then why wouldn't it mean the same in the second, absent evidence to the contrary? Thus, the contradiction would remain.
Another example of arbitrarily drawing class distinctions comes to the fore when we compare Prov. 22:15 ("Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him") and Prov. 27:22 ("Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet his foolishness will not depart from him"). Johnson's defense is, "The first verse speaks of driving foolishness away and the second verse says foolishness will not depart. The two passages refer to entirely different people. In the first reference the Bible is speaking of foolishness in the heart of a child.... The second verse speaks of a grownup fool whose folly is past cure. After long years of wilfulness, folly has become part of his very being...."
Although Johnson correctly states the first verse is referring to children only, he has no proof that the second verse is referring to adults only. It refers to "a fool" and that could apply to someone of any age. Why must the verse apply only to adults? The contradiction remains until Johnson can prove it specifically excludes children.
Another arbitrary distinction is concocted by Johnson in response to those who would like for him to reconcile Eccle. 1:4 ("One generation passes away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth forever") with Rev. 21:1 ("And I say a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea"). He responds by saying, "The first verse says the earth will abide forever, the second says it will pass away. When the Bible speaks of the earth passing away, or being burned up (2 Peter 3:10-12), we believe it means that God will renovate the earth by fire. In the past God renovated the earth by water: 'Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished' (2 Peter 3:6). When Peter said the earth 'perished,' he did not mean it was annihilated. When God renovates the heaven and the earth in the future, the earth will not be annihilated, but the fire will purge away all sin and everything that has been contaminated by sin.... when John says in Rev. 21:1 that the earth will pass away, he means it will pass from one condition to another...."
This is one of Johnson's trickiest defenses, so be wary. The sleight of hand, reminiscent of the huckster maneuvering peanuts under shells, is performed around the middle of his monologue. He deceptively equated the "passing away" in Eccle. 1:4 with the word "perished" in 2 Peter 3:6. But the words are not synonymous, because more than mere renovation is involved in Eccle 1:4. It says generation after generation "passes away" and that refers to total annihilation or extermination. They were not merely renovated. One vanished and another appeared, and there is no reason to believe that the "passing away" in Rev. 21:1 does not have the same meaning as the "passing away" in Eccle. 1:4, especially in view of the fact that the former says "there was no more sea" when the earth passed away. If the sea was gone, then it was annihilated, and not merely renovated.
To make a long story short, Johnson chose to equate the "passing away" in Rev. 21:1 with the word "perish" in 2 Peter 3:6, which does not mean total extermination, rather than with identical words in Eccle. 1:4, which do mean total eradication. He also ignored the fact that the sea was abolished when the earth passed away in Rev. 21:1. If "there was no more sea," then it was not merely renovated but annihilated. For him to say "we believe" is understandable, since that's about the only appropriate summation of his position. As this example readily demonstrates, apologetics can more accurately be called sophisticgetics, since sophistry is a key component.
Johnson's rationalization of the conflict between Isa. 45:7 ("I form the light and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things") and Psalm 5:4 ("For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee") is the standard fare foisted on the public. He states, "God is said to create evil, yet evil shall not dwell with Him. The word 'evil' has more than one meaning. In the first reference 'evil' means affliction, adversity, calamity, and in the second reference 'evil' means sin and iniquity. God is not the author of sin. He did not create iniquity, but He did create evil as an inevitable result of sin. Sometimes, because of the sin of evildoers, He permits catastrophes, earthquakes, storms, wars, and other physical calamities to come upon them to punish them or to chasten His own children...."
During one of my radio debates years ago, a fundamentalist Bible college professor used this very defense. He contended that the word "evil" in Isa. 45:7 was referring to catastropes and calamities, not evil in the sense of corrupt or degenerate. Both men fail to realize that Isa. 45:7 is only one of several verses with moral overtones, saying God is the author of evil. Lam. 3:38 in the RSV says, "Is it from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?" The words "good and evil" are set in contrast to one another which implies both are referring to morality and behavior. If the word "evil" refers to catastrophes, rather than wickedness and corruption, then why use the word evil at all, since it's misleading? The words "catastrophe" or "calamity," rather than the word "evil," would have been more applicable. And if evil means calamity, then why set it in contrast with the word "good", which also implies morality or ethics? It should have been set in opposition to either "tranquillity," or "harmony", rather than the word "good".
In Jer. 26:3 God says, "...that I may repent of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings." The second "evil" refers to corrupt or wicked behavior. Why assume the former does not? If the word "evil" always refers to catastrophes and calamities when God is the perpetrator, then scores of scholars need to improve their translating skills, because the word "evil" implies morality and ethics, not calamities and catastrophes.

(To Be Continued Next Month)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #580 from MJ of Andover, Mass. (Part a)
Dear Dennis.
I listened to some tapes by the Christian apologist Walter Martin. He says that the most common intellectual error skeptics make is to accuse Christians of using the book's own words to substantiate its validity, in essence claiming it's the word of God because it says so. But, Martin responds, the Bible is not one book, but many! It was written by some 50 odd people from different cultures and times, so that establishes legitimate independent corroboration.
My response would be, yes, I agree it was written by some 50 odd people (pun optional) but 50 people, each from a different state, claiming an Elvis sighting doesn't constitute solid independent corroboration. Or, as Ingersoll said, "If 50,000 people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
I'd be interested in how you would respond to this issue, because I'm sure many Christians have jumped on this rationalization to support their use of the Bible's own assertions as evidence for its validity.

Editor's Response to Letter #580 (Part a)
Dear MJ.
Either the Bible is one book or a compilation of 66 books; it's either one or the other. It can't be both. And evidence leads to the conclusion that it's one book rather than many for several reasons. First, if it's merely a compilation of 66 books, then each book would have to make a separate and independent claim that it is the word of God, and many do not. Where do the Books of Esther or the Song of Solomon, for example, say they are the inspired word of God? In fact, the words "God" and "Lord" don't appear in either. Since the Bible does not claim to be God's word very often, it must be considered a unity for many of the books to be considered divinely inspired. Secondly, one need only read the Bible to see that the work is not only sequential, especially with reference to the Old Testament, but interdependent as well. If I walked into any library and took 66 books off the library shelves at random, the chance of their being as interrelated, interdependent, sequential, similarly focused and concurrently scripted as the Bible, is almost non-existent. Thirdly, if the Epistles from Romans to Hebrews were all written by Paul, as fundamentalists claim, they could hardly vouch for the authenticity of one another. Would you believe a book merely because 13 other books written by the same author testified to its reliability? Fourthly, even if the Bible were viewed as merely a compilation of 66 books and not a book itself, critics are still well within their rights to ask what evidence exists outside of these 66 books to substantiate the validity of much of that which is contained therein. Fifthly, and most important of all, what difference does it make whether or not the Bible is one book or merely a compilation of 66 separate books? If one part of a book contradicts another part of the same book, you have as strong a contradiction as you would have if something in one book contradicted something in another entirely different book. A contradiction is a contradiction, regardless of the source. I don't know what "skeptics" Martin is referring to, but if he thinks the most common intellectual error they make is to accuse Christians of using the book's own words to substantiate its validity, then apparently I am exempted, because this tactic has never been a significant ingredient in my approach. My focus has never been upon determining what part of the book or books tends to substantiate another part of the same book or books. Instead, I have tried to expose those parts which disprove the Bible's perfection by revealing one part's contradiction of another. After all, in the final analysis what is a contradiction? Essentially it is nothing more than a statement by one passage that another passage is lying. Lawyers, scientists, politicians, and everyone else concerned with the compilation and utilization of data spend a lot of time trying to find, expose, or camouflage contradictions. From media interviews and economic analyses to scientific assertions and political philosophizing, the process of detecting contradictions is central to logical thought. Comedians, for instance, would be out of business without them. They lie at the very core of their profession.

Letter # 580 from PC of Donalsonville, Georgia
Greetings...
My son is a fundamentalist Baptist minister. I have now shaken his position due to your publication, mostly. His deceased mother misguided his education and endeavors. I was traveling abroad at the time. He is now 51 years old. It isn't easy to endure a change in his life's pursuits, since there is his livelihood. ...You are indeed an unusual person who ventures forth with the sword of truth against odds approaching the incredible.

Letter #581 from SC of La Honda, California
Dear Dennis.
We ordered your publication kind of like a kid sending in a boxtop for a plastic slingshot; imagine our delight when we received instead a high-quality, fully loaded bazooka! Great information to fuel anti-biblical debating. So, we'd like to get some more ammunition, please.

Letter #582 from JT of Williamsport, Penn.
Dennis....
I continue to be amazed at the work you've put into your tapes! I've never run across their equal anywhere else....

Letter #583 from KB of Santa Barbara, California
Dear Mr. McKinsey ...
You have been an inspiration to many freethinkers, including myself. You have the ability to put into words the thoughts and beliefs that I've had all my life....

Letter #584 from BW of Shreveport, Louisiana
Dear Dennis.
Don't let my subscription expire!.... Your publication is a valuable resource for freethinkers. I mention it every chance I get. Keep up the good work.

Editor's Response to Letter #584
Dear BW.
We are only too happy to be of service. Your accolades, like those of PC, SC, JT, and KB, are received with heartfelt thanks. Without the support of people like you, our efforts would be all but fruitless. After all we can't do it alone, and see little potential in trying.