Introduction: In our debate on 9-2-2010, our opponents claimed that the Bible is full of contradictions and historical and scientific errors. I will finish answering these objections today for the benefit of the Christians who read this blog. My responses are below in blue font.14. @ 32:35 - "What sort of book would we expect if it were not divinely inspired?" Our atheist opponent went on to list the following things he thought served as evidence that the Bible isn't inspired:
- A pre-scientific understanding of the universe - "We'd expect brilliant into the mechanics of creation."
Thus, not only is this a bare-naked assertion, it is also a question begging epithet since it assumes the Bible should provide such information based upon an already presupposed anti-supernaturalism that denies the dual-authorship of Scripture and anachronistically assumes that God should have described the creation of the universe to ancient Hebrews using post-enlightenment, 21st century, mathematically precise scientific language.
- "If not divinely inspired, we'd expect to see myths borrowed and evolved from contemporary culture, which we find in the Bible."
- "We'd expect to find a morality in the Bible that corresponds to the values and morality of the times and cultures in which the Bible was produced."
Do not say in your heart when the LORD your God has driven them out before you, 'Because of my righteousness the LORD has brought me in to possess this land,' but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you. 5 "It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Deut. 9:4-5 NAU)So, according to God, these nations were to be driven out for their wickedness and so that the Abrahamic covenant would be fulfilled (Gen. 12:17; 13:15; 15:7; 17:8; 26:4; 28:13). Also, there was severe consequences for not driving out the Canaanites:
Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When you cross over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 52 then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images and demolish all their high places; 53 and you shall take possession of the land and live in it, for I have given the land to you to possess it. 54 'You shall inherit the land by lot according to your families; to the larger you shall give more inheritance, and to the smaller you shall give less inheritance. Wherever the lot falls to anyone, that shall be his. You shall inherit according to the tribes of your fathers. 55 'But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live. 56 "And as I plan to do to them, so I will do to you." Numbers 33:51-56 NAUTo not drive out the Canaanites would have been to invite the curse of God since (1) God reserved that land for the Israelites and (2) to allow them to intermingle with pagans would have invited religious syncretism and endangered the Abrahamic covenant and violated the Mosaic Covenant. The Israelites eventually did succumb to syncretism via idolatry, and the covenant curses of Deuteronomy came down upon them and they eventually succumbed to the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities (Deut. 28:15-68 cf. 2 Kings 6:28-29; Jer. 19:9; Lam. 2:20; 4:10). Nevertheless, God kept for Himself an elect remnant that did not bow the knee to false gods (1 Kings 19:18; Isaiah 6:13; Romans 11:4-5).
However, I assume our opponent is referring more to things like slavery, the taking of war brides, and the destruction of the Canaanite nations. The hotlinks I have provided in the previous sentence do a great job of answering these objections Biblically and in sufficient detail for the regenerate believer. However, a few things need to be considered:
- The virgins taken in Hebrew war were war-brides. The Jewish men married them. There’s a standard provision in the Mosaic law for dealing with this type of situation (Deut. 21:10-14). Jewish wives enjoyed civil rights under the Mosaic law. And this was a great improvement over the life they would have endured had they remained in a pagan culture.
a. Suppose the Israelites never conquered the Midianites. Would women living in a heathen, ancient Near Eastern culture, have led a better life? Would they have been at liberty to marry anyone they wanted? Love at first sight?
b. Having killed the Midianite soldiers, should the Israelites have left the virgins to fend for themselves?
c. The Mosaic law is sometimes harsh by modern standards. Why is that? Because the ANE was a harsh place to live, and the Mosaic law is adapted to the socioeconomic conditions of the time. Why was the ANE such a harsh place to live? Because it was dominated by pagan cultures–like the Midianites. To the extent that you and I are better off, that’s because we live in a culture which has been influenced by Biblical ethics. If our atheistic opponents had their way, our society would eventually revert to the brutal conditions of the ANE not because they want it, but because a society without Biblical ethics eventually caves in on itself.
d. Indeed, modern secular cultures are cruel. They practice abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. And that’s even before we get around to Stalinism, Maoism, &c.
The Bible gives a rationale for its laws of warfare. The problem is that many a modern reader simply disapproves of the stated rationale.
a. Due to their impiety and immorality, the Canaanites forfeited the right to inhabit the land (e.g. Deut. 9:5).
b. If allowed to cohabit with the Israelites, they would corrupt the Israelites (e.g. Deut. 4:3-4; 9:7-24).
c. Holy war was a preemptive war of national defense. In the wilderness, on their march to the Promised Land, Israel had already been subject to attacks by Amalek, the king of Arad, Sihon and the Amorites, as well as the king of Og. Likewise, the faithful were persecuted under the regimes of Jezebel and Athaliah. So peaceful coexistence was not a live option.
d. Apropos (c), how do you deal with a hostile warrior culture? You can’t simply treat them as discrete individuals, for they have a national character, and they behave accordingly. For instance, little boys will grow up to be warriors.
e. At the same time, let’s not forget the paradigm case of Rahab (Joshua 2).
Since God isn’t human, I don’t think he expects us to feel the same way he does about certain events involving our fellow man. That’s like expecting a cat to feel the same way about a dog that it feels about another cat.
a. Different people can feel differently about the same event, yet all those feelings may be appropriate in their place. Suppose my son commits murder. I will feel differently about my son than the judge and jury, much less the family of the victim. All the interested parties will have different feelings about my son, and all those different feelings will be appropriate. I have a different relationship to the assailant than they do, and vice versa. They have a different relationship to the victim than I do, and vice versa.
b. It is also important to distinguish between appropriate feelings and appropriate evaluations. At a purely emotional level, it’s appropriate for me to feel ambivalent about my murderous son. On the one hand, I should feel profound disapproval. On the other hand, I’m emotionally invested in him.
But at an intellectual level, I should also acknowledge that his punishment is just. He deserves to be executed for his heinous crime.
Obviously, too, we ought to make allowance for the reaction of individuals who are sick or grieving. Job is a classic example. People in that condition may make intemperate statements. Grief and illness clouds their judgment. But that’s part of being human.
You and I may wince at some of these injunctions, but suppose we were reading this text through the eyes of a warrior culture like the Assyrians, Aztecs, Cossacks, Huns, jihadis, Iroquois, Kshatriyas, Mongols, Plains Indians, Samurai, Vikings, or Zulus (to name a few). Would they feel revulsion?
Likewise, many readers who find these Biblical injunctions offensive also defend the right of parents to kill their children (abortion, infanticide) and euthanize their elderly parents. Some of them also support antinatalism, which is global genocide. We also have street gangs who shoot rival members without batting an eyelash. Not to mention textbooks atrocities like the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, Bataan Death March, Cultural Revolution, Nanking Massacre, Stalinist purges, Rwandan Genocide, etc.
So what makes you and me different from them? Do you and I have different innate moral intuitions than they do? Does it owe something to different social conditioning? As well as the Christian subculture to which we both belong?
a. Due to their impiety and immorality, the Canaanites forfeited the right to inhabit the land (e.g. Deut. 9:5).
b. If allowed to cohabit with the Israelites, they would corrupt the Israelites (e.g. Deut. 4:3-4; 9:7-24).
c. Holy war was a preemptive war of national defense. In the wilderness, on their march to the Promised Land, Israel had already been subject to attacks by Amalek, the king of Arad, Sihon and the Amorites, as well as the king of Og. Likewise, the faithful were persecuted under the regimes of Jezebel and Athaliah. So peaceful coexistence was not a live option.
d. Apropos (c), how do you deal with a hostile warrior culture? You can’t simply treat them as discrete individuals, for they have a national character, and they behave accordingly. For instance, little boys will grow up to be warriors.
e. At the same time, let’s not forget the paradigm case of Rahab (Joshua 2).
Since God isn’t human, I don’t think he expects us to feel the same way he does about certain events involving our fellow man. That’s like expecting a cat to feel the same way about a dog that it feels about another cat.
a. Different people can feel differently about the same event, yet all those feelings may be appropriate in their place. Suppose my son commits murder. I will feel differently about my son than the judge and jury, much less the family of the victim. All the interested parties will have different feelings about my son, and all those different feelings will be appropriate. I have a different relationship to the assailant than they do, and vice versa. They have a different relationship to the victim than I do, and vice versa.
b. It is also important to distinguish between appropriate feelings and appropriate evaluations. At a purely emotional level, it’s appropriate for me to feel ambivalent about my murderous son. On the one hand, I should feel profound disapproval. On the other hand, I’m emotionally invested in him.
But at an intellectual level, I should also acknowledge that his punishment is just. He deserves to be executed for his heinous crime.
Obviously, too, we ought to make allowance for the reaction of individuals who are sick or grieving. Job is a classic example. People in that condition may make intemperate statements. Grief and illness clouds their judgment. But that’s part of being human.
You and I may wince at some of these injunctions, but suppose we were reading this text through the eyes of a warrior culture like the Assyrians, Aztecs, Cossacks, Huns, jihadis, Iroquois, Kshatriyas, Mongols, Plains Indians, Samurai, Vikings, or Zulus (to name a few). Would they feel revulsion?
Likewise, many readers who find these Biblical injunctions offensive also defend the right of parents to kill their children (abortion, infanticide) and euthanize their elderly parents. Some of them also support antinatalism, which is global genocide. We also have street gangs who shoot rival members without batting an eyelash. Not to mention textbooks atrocities like the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, Bataan Death March, Cultural Revolution, Nanking Massacre, Stalinist purges, Rwandan Genocide, etc.
So what makes you and me different from them? Do you and I have different innate moral intuitions than they do? Does it owe something to different social conditioning? As well as the Christian subculture to which we both belong?
15. @ 34:22ff - "Diseases and mental illnesses caused by demons, a talking snake, a talking donkey, humans living for hundreds of years, a woman being turned into a pillar of salt, the sun standing still in the sky, axeheads floating on water, a star shining down on one tiny building, the acquisition of foreign languages, storms being caused by sin, long hair as the source of an individual's super-human strength, etc. These stories would be received skeptically by my opponents tonight if one claimed they happened today, regardless of their worldview."
Aside from the fact that the Bible never states that sin causes storms (God causes storms) and that Samson's strength came directly from his long hair (God gave him supernatural physical strength based on his obedience to a part of the Nazarite vow he was committed to from his birth - cf. Judges 13:5; 6:17, 20), all of this begs the question by assuming that miracles can't happen.
After all, I could just as easily reject naturalism because naturalists teach that intelligent people came from pondscum, big lizards turned into birds, and that morality comes from amorality, and that all of that is ridiculous on the face of it. But that wouldn't do anything to forward the discussion now would it?
Finally, while I do test all claims of the miraculous via the word of God (1 Thess. 5:21), I am not skeptical of all miracle claims since the word of God also teaches that sometimes miracles occur. I have personally experienced miracles as part of specific answers to prayer in my own pastoral ministry. As Dr. Dan Wallace says, an ounce of evidence is worth more than a pound of presumption. I've seen more than an "ounce of evidence" of the miraculous through answered prayer and this is clear evidence of the existence of the God of the Bible (Matt. 7:7-8).
16. @ 35:00ff - "Why didn't God do His magic before the printing press, photography, internet, video, etc.? It's strange that God would demonstrate His power and authority to an ancient, superstitious, and largely illiterate people, but leave subsequent generations without a means to verify their testimony."
Aside from the fact that God's miracles are not "magic", He did leave an infallible way to verify it historically; it's called the Bible. There is no higher authority than God's word to verify God's word (Heb. 6:13). Thus, you must start with God's word as your ultimate standard of revelational authority if you want to know whether or not the miraculous is legitimate and historical.
Also, you ought to read books like "The Autobiography of George Muller". Muller was a mid to late 19th century Calvinistic Baptist pastor that ministered to, fed, clothed, and provided shelter for 25,000 orphans during his career without ever asking any mortal man for a penny. Instead, he took Jesus Christ at His word in Matthew 7:7-8 and prayed that God would provide the financial means for him to do his work. Muller documented over 50,000 specific answers to prayer throughout his ministry. In his autobiography, he recounts how many of his prayers were answered in miraculous, supernatural ways; thus refuting our opponent's claim that miracle claims are things that are relegated to the pre-modern era.
By the way, the atheist objector faces the same problem. He has no "printing press, photography, internet, video" of the Big Bang, millions of years, evolution of life, etc. Therefore, given his own logic, those things must have never happened either!
17. @ 35:25ff - "No evidence of the Exodus . . . would've decimated Egyptian society . . . no evidence of drowning in the Red Sea . . . no evidence for the conquest of Canaan."
1. All of this is wrong as it contradicts Scripture which is the highest revelational authority for mankind (Heb. 6:13).
2. Since God can never lie (Titus 1:2) and the Bible is God's word (2 Tim. 3:16-17), God tells the truth about history and His word is to be the corrective lens through which we make sense out of ancient historical records.
3. There is archaeological evidence for the Exodus and the Canaan conquest. This web page is good place to start. Biblical archaeologist Dr. Bryant Wood summarizes it quite well,
The date of the Biblical exodus-conquest is clear. 1 Kgs 6:1 and 1 Chr 6:33–37 converge on a date of 1446 BC for the exodus and the Jubilees data and Judg 11:26 independently converge on a date of 1406 BC for the beginning of the conquest. The 1406 BC date is further confirmed by archaeological data from Jericho, Ai (Kh. el-Maqatir) and Hazor. [http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/03/30/The-Biblical-Date-for-the-Exodus-is-1446-BC-A-Response-to-James-Hoffmeier.aspx]18. @ 36:00ff - "What about the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem? No author, Christian or otherwise gives us any account of this?
Here's one reliable Christian account that you forgot about: Matthew 2:16-18. Besides, such behavior was completely consistent with King Herod's maniacal rule. Also, it is ridiculous to expect Josephus to exhaustively document every evil action that Herod took against the Jews since it would have made Josephus' works significantly larger and unbalanced as a historical document. Also, given the many atrocities that Herod committed, no one is really going to remember the killing of a few babies in a backwater town like Bethlehem @ 5 B.C.
19. @ 37:00ff - Biblical morality is irrelevant today. God commanded the death penalty for Sabbath violation, violation of the 5th commandment, and worshiping other gods. . . . This is Taliban morality. . . . Deuteronomy 22:23-24 has a situation where a woman pledged to be married is raped [by someone other than the man whom she's betrothed to] and the woman is stoned.
1. I agree that the Mosaic law as a unit is irrelevant today. The Mosaic law was a covenant document that was specifically made with the nation of Israel alone and it served to govern that theocratic nation until the time of Messiah and the New Covenant. When Messiah Jesus died on the cross, the New Covenant was ratified in His blood and the Law of Moses was rendered null and void (Matt. 5:17-18; Eph. 2:14-15; Col. 2:16-17; Hebrews 7:12; 18-19; 8:13; 9:16-17).
2. The man who was caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath day was immediately stoned to death because he knowingly and defiantly violated the Sabbath command (Num. 15:30-36). The Old Covenant Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant (Ex. 31:13-18) and so to violate the sabbath was to imply disobedience to the entire covenant signifying a fist-shaking disobedience to God. Also, the Old Covenant Sabbath was a physical picture of the spiritual rest that we have in Christ in the New Covenant. To physically work on the Sabbath under the Old Covenant destroyed the meaning of what the day was pointing to, which was the spiritual rest that would come in Messiah Jesus (Hebrews 4:1-11).
3. It is simply a lie to state that Deuteronomy 22:23-24 is saying that a raped woman is stoned to death for being raped. Had you read the entirety of the passage to the audience it would have been clear what the original meaning was,
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 25 "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26 "But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27 "When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. Deut. 22:23-27 NAUIn v. 24 the engaged woman is stoned because she didn't cry out, i.e., she was complicit in the sexual act; thus indicating that she was an adulteress. However, in vv. 25-27, we see that if a man rapes an engaged woman, he will be stoned to death and the woman goes free because she was not complicit in the act. Thus, our opponents clearly misrepresented this text on purpose, or they borrowed this faulty argument from someone else without first checking to see if it had any merit.
4. The penalty for idolatry indeed was severe and was a picturesque example of what theologians call an "eschatological intrusion of the Kingdom of God"; i.e., what is coming to all idolaters at the end of the age (Rev. 21:8). Idolatry under the Old Covenant endangered the covenant community as it enticed them after other gods and potentially brought the covenant curses down upon them (Deut. 28:15-68). Thus, it was punished quickly and severely so as to protect the nation of Israel so as to prepare the way for Messiah.
5. The death penalty for disobedience to parents was required when a rebellious young man was continually rejecting the God-ordained authority of one's parents and engaging in drunkenness and gluttony, thereby rejecting the authority of God (cf. Deut 21:18-21). Such high-handed sin warranted the death penalty because, like the command against idolatry, it endangered the covenant community and brought down the covenant curses upon the nation. Ezekiel 22:7, 15 shows that one of the reasons the Jews were sent into the Babylonian captivity was because of a failure to honor their parents, thus fulfilling Deuteronomy 28:15-68.
20. @ 38:20ff - Problem of Evil/Eutyphro's Dilemma/Why doesn't God heal children with cancer or people with mental disabilities since it seems that he regularly intervenes in history to execute His purposes? (i.e., regular miracles), killed all firstborn in Egypt was did nothing to stop African slavery, Indonesian Tsunamis in 2004 killed 1/4 million yet God easily parted the Red Sea for the Hebrews, manna in wilderness vs. starvation of hungry children. Fish and loves made by Jesus to feed the five thousand yet hungry people. God added another 15 years to Hezekiah's life yet children with cancer get no healing. Nebuchadnezzar's insanity was removed yet mental patients continue to struggle with their affliction. Apostles and Christ healed with a touch or even with being in Peter's shadow yet we have a continued AIDS pandemic.
1. This contradicts the claim addressed earlier (# 16 above) that there is no modern evidence for miracles yet it conveniently assumes miracles in order to argue against a miracle working God. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
2. As documented in # 16 above, miracles do happen, but by definition they are non-normative. That's why we call them miracles. If they happened all the time, we'd call them natural laws.
3. Christ and the Apostles didn't go around healing everybody. There were thousands of people that saw Christ, walked by Him, and heard Him teach yet neither He nor any of the Apostles ever healed them nor did they feel as if they were obligated to heal everyone. Jesus even commanded the twelve not to heal everyone when they were sent out on a short missionary journey, but only to go to the Jews (cf. Matt. 10:5-8; John 5:3ff).
4. This supposes that God both is obligated to perform miracles now to whomever the skeptic wants. People don't demand anything of God, for God does as He pleases and that includes healing some and killing others (1 Sam. 2:6).
5. Answer to Eutyphro's Dilemma.
6. Why Won't God Heal Amputees answers why God doesn't always heal.
Evil exists because we live in a cursed and fallen world. Because our first parents told God to shove off, a separation now exists between God and all of Adam's descendants (Genesis 3:1-19). That spiritual separation is only restored in Christ, who through His death on the cross purchased salvation for all who will come to Him in repentance and faith. All who are burdened with a feeling of guilt over their sins can have peace with God through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1). The peace and spiritual reconciliation that one has now will eventually give way to full physical and emotional healing in the resurrection and New Heaven and New Earth (Rev. 21-22). All else is sinking sand (Matthew 7:26-27).
In conclusion, it is my prayer that this series answering the supposed Biblical contradictions offered by our debate opponents will be helpful to Christians who are interested in better understanding their Bibles and how to live their Christian lives with a greater degree of confidence that their faith is firmly placed on the firm foundation of Christ's rock-word (Matt. 7:24-25).
