Wrested Scriptures – Part six

Orders for the book “Wrested Scriptures” have been coming in continuously and as a result of this response the book is almost ready to go to press. We urge those who have not yet responded to do so immediately so that we will have an indication of how many books should be printed. We especially request Ecclesial Librarians to send us their orders for the number they will require. The soft cover will run about $3.00 each and the hard covers $4.00 each. Please send check with your order. We are printing part of another section dealing with alleged contradictions and inaccuracies. Space only permits us to print a very small portion but it will give you an idea how valuable this book will he in aiding you to answer those objections given by those we desire to teach. Surely this book should be in the home of every Christadelphian family. In many instances, each member will want their own individual copy so now is the time to place your orders so that you will not be left out.

Alleged Contradictions And Inaccuracies

Preliminary Points

1. Many of the alleged contradictions in the Bible do not qualify as such since a contradiction requires an affirmation and denial of the same proposition. The inscriptions on the “cross” are often cited as contradictory. Upon an examination of the accounts in the Gospels, it will be seen that none of the writers denies, what one of the other gospel writers affirms. The claim that the accounts are contradictory is a spurious one, since the evidence does not satisfy the definition of a contradiction¹. If, however, one talks about a sun that is always light, yet dark, contradictory statements are made. By definition that which is always light cannot be dark. Nor can one talk about a square circle, since by definition a circle is round and not square. The property of squareness precludes the possibility of a square being a circle.

2. Many of the alleged inaccuracies (between parallel narratives in the Gospels, for example) which are argued against belief in the verbal and infallible inspiration of Scripture, indicate a misunderstanding of the nature of verbal inspiration. Divine penmen were not obliged to record all details of an event. For the purposes of his Gospel, Mark only refers to the healing of one blind man as Jesus left Jericho (Mk. 10:46-52), where Matthew includes the healing of two blind men. (Matt. 20:29-34). All writers are selective in the information which they record. John commented: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” (Jn. 21:25). Similarly, a contemporary “uninspired” historian may choose to ignore certain data and include others which are relevant to his purpose and classification.
3. Most apparent contradictions are easily resolved by a careful reading of the passages in question in their contexts, and by clearly defining what is, and what is not, said. For example, it is written of both Hezekiah and Josiah that “after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him”, (2 Kings 18:5; 23:25). As these statements read, they appear contradictory until it is noted in what respect “after him was none like him . . nor any that were before him”. It will be seen that Hezekiah is commended because he trusted, and Josiah because he turned to the LORD. Since mutually exclusive statements are not made, the two statements are not contradictory. The problem is resolved by merely noting precisely what the records do say.

4. In certain instances not all problems may be resolved by a careful reading of the contexts and a clarification of what is, and what is not, claimed by the narratives. Such ought not to be the source of undue embarrassment. The fact that no resolution of a problem is immediately possible is not proof that the right solution is not available. Humility is required that one does not confine the divine inspiration of Scripture to the level of one’s intellectual attainments.

Sam. 15:35 “And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death . . .”

1 Sam. 19:24 “[Saul] . . . prophesied before Samuel . . .”

Problem: if the Bible is an inspired record from God, how are these two passages (apparently contradictory) to be explained ?

Solution:

1. A contradiction requires an affirmation and denial of the same proposition. The two passages are not the same proposition. One says Samuel came no more to see Saul, but this is not the same as saying Samuel saw Saul no more.
2. When Saul prophesied before Samuel, the narrative makes it clear that it was Saul who went to Ra­mah where Samuel lived (1 Sam. 19:22,23, (and not Samuel who went to see Saul.

James 1:13 “. . . God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.”

Gen. 22:1 “. . . God did tempt Abraham . . .”

Problem: Apparently contradictory statements are made since James says God tempts no man, and yet in Genesis God is said to have tempted Abraham.

Solution:

1. The Greek word “peirazo” and its Hebrew equivalent, “nasah” carry the meaning of “to try, prove”,¹ as well as to “tempt”. The R.S.V. translators preserve the distinction between “test” and “tempt”, thereby removing the confusion: ‘After these things God teited Abraham . . (Gen. 22: 1, R.S.V.).
2. The R.S.V. also makes a distinction in James 1:2,3 between “trial” and “temptation”: “Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials [temptations, A.V.], for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness.” This translation is in harmony with a similar point made by Peter. (cf. I Pet. 1:6,7).
3. Similarly, an apparent contradiction exists between James 1:13 and Psa. 78:18,56; 95:9; 106:14, but in each of these O.T. references the R.S.V. renders the Hebrew word “nasah” by “tested” rather than “tempted”, (as does the A.V.).

1. Contradiction: ^“The act of denying the truth of something, or stating the opposite of something . ” … Webster’s Illustrated Dictionary.). (New York: Books, Inc.: 1955).