christian@geneva.rutgers.edu (12/07/89)
Because there were a number of postings on this topic, I have combined them into this digest. There are four postings here, plus a postscript from me. I hope combining them will encourage people to try to generate responses to the issue as a whole and not to each individual posting. I will have some comments at the end about possible replies. This sort of discussion could very easily become completely unmanagable. Please see those comments before replying. In some ways the most interesting posting of the group is last. However it's by far the longest. ------------------- From: kwan@cs.ucla.edu (Edmund Kwan) [This posting was actually written by Hal Lillywhite <hall@vice.ico.tek.com>. Edmund sent it in because of a request from a reader that responses be posted. Since it apparently was posted in this group previously, I haven't asked Hal's permission. --clh] (I posted this a few months ago, perhaps it is what you remember. My posting was in response to someone, don't remember who, who claimed nobody ever backed up a claim of Biblical errors with specific examples.) Well, I don't want to spend a lot of time looking up errors but a couple come to mind immediately. First, how did Judas die? Did he hang himself (Mat 27:5) or did he fall and all his bowels gush out (Acts 1:18)? Second, when Saul of Tarsus was on the way to Damascus and had his vision, what about those who were with him, did they hear the voice but not see the vision (Acts 9:7) or did they see the light but not hear the voice (Acts 22:9)? Admitedly these are not of great consequence but they are contradictory, so one of each pair of passages must be in error. Perhaps of more consequence, John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time." However, several OT passages describe theophanies: Gen 32:30 Jacob saw God face to fact. Ex 33:11 Moses likewise Ex 33:23 Moses would see His back parts Ex 24:9-10 Moses & 70 elders of Israel saw God >From the NT, Acts 7:56 Stephen sees Jesus on the right hand of God This list is certainly not exhaustive but only provides examples. I have also only given contradictions. There are many other Bible passages believed to be in error for various reasons. I do not want to get into an argument here over their veracity. This is intended only to illustrate that there are imperfections. Also please do not take this as an indication that I do not study and learn from the Bible, I do. I simply realize that the object of my worship is God, not the book his servants wrote. ---------------------------------------------------- From: nunes@ai.toronto.edu (Joe Nunes) Subject: Re: inconsistency in Bible Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 11:33:40 EST Message-Id: <89Dec4.113416est.4809@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> Status: RO In article <Dec.3.12.54.35.1989.23271@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >There is no such thing as an inconsistency in the Bible. There are >several passages which appear, on the surface, to be inconsistent with >one another. Further research, however, shows them to be entirely >consistent with not only each other but also all other passages too. If >anyone really believes that he has found what he feels to be an >irrefutable inconsistency then please let me know. I'll do my best to >show the consistency that is being overlooked. I may fail, but that >will be due to my own lack of understanding and not to God's inability >to give us a completely consistent message. I welcome the challenge. OK. Here's one. There are two versions of Creation. In Version 1 (Gen 1:10-31), God creates plants on the third day (before He created the sun and the moon, by the way; they were created on the fourth day), sea creatures and birds on the fifth day, and all beasts of the earth on the sixth day. After all this, God creates Man, also on the sixth day. Man is then set to rule over the rest of creation. [1:12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind ... [13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. ... [21] And God created ... every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and ... every winged fowl after its kind ... [23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. ... [25] And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind ... [26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. ... [31] ... And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. In Version 2 (Gen 2:4-24), God creates Adam before anything else. Then God creates creatures of the earth and birds to serve as his help mates. When they prove insufficient, God creates Eve. [2:5] And no plant of the field was yet on the earth, and no herb of the field had yet grown: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not man to till the ground. [6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. [7] And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground ... [18] And the Lord God said, it is not good that man should be alone: I will make him a help meet for him. [19] And out of the ground the Lord formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them ... [20] ... but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. ... [21] And the Lord ... took one of his ribs ... [22] And the rib, which the Lord had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto man. Note that the first version specifically states that *every* winged fowl was created before man, whereas the second version states that *every* fowl of the air was created after man. -------------- From: firth@sei.cmu.edu In article <Dec.3.12.54.35.1989.23271@athos.rutgers.edu> bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes: >There is no such thing as an inconsistency in the Bible. Dave, you challenge us to point to an inconsistency, for you (with God's help) to try to resolve. Here is one of the more famous ones: "And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen." [Genesis xxii:14] "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." [Exodus vi:2-3] So, did Abraham know the name 'Jehovah', or not? I believe the Documentary Hypothesis explains this inconsistency as the result of a later interpolation in the Genesis text, whose purpose was to plant evidence that the 'God of Abraham' was the same as the being that spoke to Moses. (It is perhaps inappropriate to discuss in this newsgroup the other names of either of these entities.) [This is perhaps an overinterpretation of the documentary hypothesis. I would say that the Pentateuch simply combines material from several sources which differ about when the Name was revealed. --clh] ------------------------------------ From: Joe Nunes <nunes@ai.toronto.edu> [NB: This article came from another group. It was originally forwarded by someone else. I checked with Joe that it was OK to post it here. Because of the size of this posting, I have replaced the Bible passages -- which he gave in extenso -- with citations. --clh] A few weeks ago I made the comment that the Gospels do not present a good biography of Jesus, because they are extremely contradictory. I was then told that I should read a Harmony of the Gospels, and that this would explain all the paradoxes I had found. I took this advice and am sorry to report that the result was exactly the opposite: I am now aware of more contradictions than before. It is clear that the Gospels are based on different sources. The accepted theory is that Mark was the first gospel. Matthew and Luke both use extensive portions of Mark, but both Matthew and Luke also use separate sources. John is assumed to use totally different sources. An unbiased reading of the four Gospels must lead one to the conclusion that in the majority of cases in which an evangelist uses a passage from a source not available to the others, either one of two things is true: the passage is not mentioned in the other gospels, or the passage is mentioned in the other gospels and there are grave contradictions. There are many cases of huge passages in one Gospel that have no counterpart in the other Gospels (For example: Luke 9:51-18:14, John 1:19-3:36, 5:1-47, 6:22-71, etc.) There are also numerous contradictory passages which I now discuss. The Bible which I have used is "Good News for Modern Man", American Bible Society, 3rd edition, 1972. I have used two Gospel Harmonies. The first is, "A Gospel Monogram", Sir W.J. Herschel, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1911. This Harmony actually constructs a single text out of the four Gospels and describes how the Gospels were combined. The second Harmony is, "A Harmony of the Gospels - The Standard Broadus Harmony thoroughly Revised, Rearranged and Enlarged", A.T. Robertson, New York, 1922. This Harmony presents the four Gospels side by side, with numerous explanatory footnotes. There is also a large section of notes on special points. ******************************************************************************* Jesus' Birth ------------ MATTHEW 2:1-23 LUKE 2:4-39 CONTRADICTIONS: These are two different versions. To believe that they are not contradictory we would have to believe that the phrases "left during the night for Egypt" and "they took the child to Jerusalem" refer to the same event. A family that has been warned to run away because Herod is trying to kill their son, takes him to the very city where Herod lives and shows him around the temple, where he is acclaimed as the Messiah, the very person Herod is trying to kill. Further, when Luke says "they returned to Galilee" he really means that they went to Egypt, stayed a few years, returned but were afraid of settling in Judea, and finally chose Galilee. The problem is that the two versions can't be reconciled. In Luke, Nazareth is always their home, they just go to Bethlehem to register. In Matthew, they only decide to live in Nazareth *after* they return from Egypt and decide that they can't settle in Judea. Judea, is their first choice. Why would that be if their home town is Nazareth, according to Matthew? The two versions are obviously incompatible. They both tell a story that places Jesus' birth in Bethlehem and gives him a Nazareth connection in order to fulfill prophecies. They do so in different ways, however. Matthew complicates matters by also making the story agree with another prophecy about the Messiah coming from Egypt. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: The Matthew account is tacked on the end of the Luke account without any explanation. In one sentence, they have returned to their home town of Nazareth. In the next sentence they are living in Bethlehem. This is hardly a satisfactory resolution of the problem. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He starts with Luke's account [2:1-38] up to the time where Jesus is taken to Jerusalem to be presented at the temple. He nows brings in the rest of Matthew's account [2:1-23] and makes Matthew's description of the return from Egypt [19:23] mesh with Luke's [2:39]: "When they had finished doing all that was required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their home town of Nazareth." The unstated assumption must be that Jesus' family left Jerusalem, returned to Bethlehem, ran away to Egypt, and waited until Herod died. All this not being mentioned in Luke. This is not very plausible. First of all, the implication is that Luke's account of Jesus' family departing Jerusalem to return to Nazareth, is really an account of a departure from Egypt. Luke, however, states that the departure took place after they had fulfilled the Law. This obviously refers to their trip to Jerusalem. How could a multi-year trip to Egypt be encapsulated in the phrase "when they had finished ..."?. Another problem is that Luke states that Nazareth was their home town. Why then would they go from Jerusalem back to Bethlehem, and be living in a house at the time of the arrival of the "wise men", if they had only gone to Bethlehem to register and their home was in Nazareth? Why, upon their return from Egypt, would they have considered Judea as their first choice of dwelling place if their home was in Nazareth? The two accounts simply do not mesh. ******************************************************************************* Peter called to be a disciple ----------------------------- MATTHEW 4:12-19 JOHN 1:35-43 CONTRADICTIONS: The two accounts are contradictory. In Matthew, Jesus goes to Galilee after John is arrested and there he meets Andrew and Peter who are fishermen. In John, Andrew is one of John's disciples and brings Peter to meet Jesus in the Jordan. Only then does Jesus go to Galilee (with his disciples). Only later is John arrested. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: The account by John is told first. The account of Matthew is told much later, with the implication that the event Matthew describes is *not* Peter being called to be a disciple: Jesus already knows him. This is not very plausible. Jesus' words to Peter, as told by Matthew, make little sense if Peter is already Jesus' disciple. Also, it makes no sense for Peter to have been made a disciple, then somehow become a fisherman, and then called to end his fishing career and join Jesus full time. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Same as Herschel's. Robertson notes the problem but says that Peter and Andrew must have become fishermen after having met Jesus and only later followed Jesus full time. As I noted above, this makes no sense. After Jesus makes his first disciples (including Peter and Andrew), John mentions that Jesus goes to Cana in Galilee with his disciples, [turns the water into wine, at a wedding], then to Capernaum with his disciples, then to Jerusalem with his disciples [where he cleanses the Temple], then to Judea again with his disciples, then to Samaria also with his disciples. Then he went to Galilee (his disciples are not mentioned). Are we to believe that Peter and Andrew left some time before, went ahead of Jesus to Galilee, then became fishermen, and then followed him again when he came by the sea of Galilee? This does not seem very plausible. Also, in Matthew, Mark and Luke (Mark and Luke also have the same incident in the sea of Galilee) no mention of any disciple is made before the incident at Galilee. This suggests very strongly that, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, that was the first time that Jesus made disciples. ******************************************************************************* Mary anointing Jesus with perfume --------------------------------- MATTHEW 26:7 JOHN 12:3 CONTRADICTIONS: In Matthew, the perfume is poured on his head. In John, on his feet. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He combines the two accounts: Mary pours the perfume both on Jesus' head and on his feet. This does not follow from either account. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He does not remark on the contradiction. ******************************************************************************* The meal at Bethany ------------------- MATTHEW 22:10, 17, 26:6-7 JOHN 12:1-3, 12 CONTRADICTIONS: Matthew place the incident at Bethany after Jesus' triumphant arrival to Jerusalem. John places it after. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He moves Matthew 26:6 back before Matthew 21:10 so that it refers to a trip to Bethany not mentioned anywhere else in Matthew, and matches with John's account. Then he moves Matthew 28:18-19 (the description of Jesus' return from Bethany) in between 21:11 and 21:12, so that this return refers to the hypothetical trip to Bethany not mentioned in Matthew. The trip to Bethany described in Matthew 21:10 is assumed to involve no noteworthy incidents. I am not convinced. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Unlike Herschel, Robertson moves John 12:8 *forward* so that it meshes with Matthew's account of the meal taking place after the entry into Jerusalem. He assumes that John quotes this passage out of sequence. Not a very convincing solution. ******************************************************************************* Throwing out the moneylenders from the Temple --------------------------------------------- MATTHEW 21:10-12 JOHN 2:13-14, 3:22, 7:1, 12:12 CONTRADICTIONS: In Matthew, the throwing out of the moneylenders happens a few days before Jesus' death. In John, it happens at the beginning of his ministry, before his final visit to Jerusalem. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He merges the two accounts so that are two episodes of Jesus throwing out defilers of the Temple. Does not seem plausible that Jesus would do such a momentous action twice. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Same as Herschel's. He notes the problem but claims there is no problem with having such an event occur twice. ******************************************************************************* The Last Supper --------------- LUKE 22:7-8 JOHN 13:1-2, 18:28 CONTRADICTIONS: Luke (and Matthew and Mark) places the Last Supper on Passover. John places it the day *before* Passover. The morning after Jesus' arrest the Passover meal had not yet been eaten by the Jews of Jerusalem. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: In the version of the Bible he uses, the opening of John's account is "Now before the feast of the passover ...". He makes both descriptions be about a single Passover meal. However, the later passage in John, in which the Jews are said to refuse to enter the palace so they can be clean for the passover meal is added to the account of Jesus' arrest without an explanation. He does not explain how it is possible for the meal described in John to be the Passover meal, and yet, the next day the Jews had not yet eaten the Passover meal. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He notes the problem, but claims that there is no contradiction. He says that the phrase "Now before the feast of the passover ..." (in his version of John) is not connected to the subsequent description of the meal. So that a gap of a day takes place between them. The problem of the Jews not having yet eaten the Passover the next morning (as described in John) is dealt with by claiming that they are merely referring to another meal of the Passover festival not *the* Passover meal. Once again: not very convincing. ******************************************************************************* Jesus' trial ------------ MATTHEW 26:57, 27:1-2 LUKE 22:54, 65 JOHN 18:12, 13, 24, 28 CONTRADICTIONS: In Matthew, the elders have already met that night in Caiaphas' house and they question Jesus that evening. In Luke, the elders only meet in the morning, and question Jesus then. In John, Jesus is first questioned by Annas, then he is sent to Caiaphas and questioned by him, finally he is sent to Pilate. There is no mention of the elders. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Once again, everything is merged. He has Jesus being brought to the house of Caiaphas where the elders are already gathered. He is sent to Annas and questioned. Then he is sent to Caiaphas. In the morning he is sent to the elders where he is questioned. The passage in Matthew where he is questioned by the elders, in the evening of his arrest, is moved up to the morning. Presumably, the elders gathered in Caiaphas' house in the evening and then waited until morning before interrogating him. This is not very credible. Also why is there no mention of Jesus' interrogation by the elders in John, whereas there is no mention of the interrogation by Annas in Matthew or Luke? ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Same as Herschel's. ******************************************************************************* Peter denying Jesus ------------------- MATTHEW 27:69-74 LUKE 22:56-60 JOHN 18:17, 25-27 CONTRADICTIONS: In Matthew and Luke, all those who challenge Peter accuse him of having been with Jesus. In John, they ask Peter if he was. Peter's answers differ in all three accounts. For example, his first denial: MATTHEW: "I don't know what you are talking about." LUKE: "Woman, I don't even know him!" JOHN: "No I am not." A final iron-clad contradiction is that Matthew states that the person challenging him the second time is a *woman*, while Luke states it is a *man*. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He runs all the accounts together so that there are 7 denials. He claims, however, that only three are grave enough to be considered denials. The problem is that, with this approach, in no one account does Peter deny Christ three times: we need to combine the different accounts to get 3 denials. This is not even a remotely convincing solution. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He agrees that "the details differ considerably, as must always be the case where in each narrative a few facts are selected out of many sayings and doings." He, in fact, agrees that the Gospels do not provide verbatim accounts. ******************************************************************************* The inscription on the cross ---------------------------- MATTHEW [17:37] This is Jesus, the King of the Jews MARK [15:26] The King of the Jews LUKE [23:38] This is the King of the Jews JOHN [19:19] Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews CONTRADICTIONS: They all differ. The inscription could have only said one thing. Three of them must be wrong. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He has the inscription be: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" The best this does is admit that all three evangelists omitted part of the inscription on their account. They are still wrong. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: The different inscriptions are not commented upon. ******************************************************************************* Jesus' last words ----------------- MATTHEW 27:46-50 LUKE 23:46 JOHN 19:28-30 CONTRADICTIONS: Jesus' last words differ in these three accounts. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Once again all versions are combined. Jesus cries "Eli! Eli! ..., then he says he is thirsty, then someone brings him some cheap wine, then he says "It is finished!", then he cries "Father! ...", then he dies. So when John says "Then he bowed his head and died" he really means "Then he bowed his head and cried out in a loud voice 'Father! ...' and died". It is not very believable that John would omit such an important detail as Jesus' last words on the cross. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: Same as Herschel's. ******************************************************************************* Jesus' resurrection ------------------- MATTHEW 28:1-17 MARK 16:1-19 LUKE 24:1-51 JOHN 20:1-19, 26, 21:1 CONTRADICTIONS: I hardly know where to begin; there are so many contradictions. I'll just list some of the major problems: *** First people to see the tomb early Sunday MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary MARK: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome LUKE: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, other women JOHN: Mary Magdalene *** What they see MATTHEW: An angel rolling away the stone and sitting on it, on the way back they see Jesus as they run MARK: The stone already rolled away, a young man sitting inside LUKE: The stone already rolled away, two men standing inside JOHN: The stone already rolled away, an empty tomb, they run back to get Peter and John, they also see an empty tomb then leave, Mary then sees two angels sitting inside, she then turns around and sees Jesus *** Appearances of Jesus MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary; some time later he appears to the 11 in Galilee (where Jesus said he'd meet them) MARK: Mary Magdalene; then to two disciples; then to the 11 as they are eating together; then he ascends to heaven (Note that Mark 16:1-8 and Mark 16:9-19 seem to be different accounts) LUKE: two disciples (the same day); then to the 11 in Jerusalem (the same evening), takes them to Bethany ans ascends heaven JOHN: Mary Magdalene (on her second trip to the grave); then to the 11 minus Thomas (the same evening); then to the full 11 (a week later); some time later to 7 disciples as Lake Tiberias HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: This was one problem that he did not attempt to solve simply by dumping all the accounts into a pot. He had to do some pretty vigorous stirring in order to get one single account. This may be as confusing to tell as it was to read but here it goes ... Mary M., Mary the mother of James and Salome bring spices to the grave (before the resurrection) [Mark 16:1]. Then Herschel places Matthew 28:2 before Matthew 28:1 so that the earthquake occurs before anyone reaches the tomb [looks suspiciously like cheating]. The angel comes and sits down but doesn't say anything. The account of the angel speaking to the woman [Matthew 28:5] is made to be that of another angel later on! Herschel assumes that Matthew omitted the fact that after the women arrive at the grave (without seeing an angel sitting on the rock) lots of other people come and go before anyone talks to an angel (the young man described by Mark is assumed to be the angel that talks to the women in Matthew 28:5 [with me so far?]). So Herschel now brings in John's account of Mary coming to the grave, going back to get Peter and John, Peter and John arriving at the grave and then leaving. Mary then goes inside, sees two angels sitting, talks with them then sees Jesus and talks to him, and then returns to tell the disciples. Now Herschel brings in Luke's account of Mary M., Mary mother of James, Joanna and other women coming to the grave. He makes this mesh with Mark's "they went to the grave" [16:2] even though the "they" in Mark refers to the two Marys and Salome. They see a young man sitting inside [Mark 16:5]. Herschel now makes the young man's words be the same as the words of Matthew 28:5, even though those were spoken by the angel sitting on the stone. Herschel now brings in Luke 24:3-7, so that the women are amazed to not find the body of Jesus (even though a young man has just told them Jesus has risen, and Mary has already spoken to Jesus!). They then see two men in the tomb who tell them Jesus is risen. Then Jesus appears to them as they run back to tell the disciples [Jesus appears to Mary for the 2nd time] and tells them he'll see the disciples in Galilee. They tell the others but are disbelieved. Jesus then appears the same day to two disciples. They tell the others but are disbelieved. Then Jesus appears to them that evening. Mark says that he appeared to the 11, while John says he appeared to the 11 minus Thomas. Herschel states that Jesus appears to the 11, and after a while says that Thomas wasn't there [so obviously he did not appear to the 11, but to the 10]. Then he breaks off Mark's and Luke's account and follows John's. Jesus comes back after a week [even though Mark states that the above-mentioned appearance was his last] and this time Thomas is there. Then he appears at the sea of Tiberias. Now Herschel brings in Matthew's account of the 11 going to Galilee and worshipping Jesus, though some doubted [even though they've already seen him; 10 of them twice; 7 of them three times!] Herschel brings in the account of Acts which says Jesus stayed on earth for 40 days [Acts 1:3] Now he continues Luke's account which was set on the evening of the resurrection and continues Jesus' words as if they take place at this later time! Jesus then takes them to Bethany and ascends to heaven. I don't think that any more comments are necessary! ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He places the accounts side by side without too many comments. I really don't want to go into a thorough analysis again. Robertson's account is equally unsatisfactory. I will just give the beginning of his outline. Matthew and Mark's account of the first visit to the grave is placed late Saturday. The angel rolling away the stone, early Sunday, is assumed to do so unobserved [Mat 28:2-4]. Then all four accounts are given side by side (up to the time that the women arrive to tell the disciples). One of the problems with this is that Matthew [28:5] now has an angel talking to a group of unspecified women (since the two Mary's came Saturday night, we have to assume that Matthew starts talking about "the women" without having previously mentioned any group coming to the grave on Sunday). Robertson makes no attempt to explain the discrepancies between the accounts (e.g. Mark has two men, Luke has two men, Matthew has an angel, John has no one at all (the two men are only present on the second trip to the grave). ******************************************************************************* Judas' death ------------ MATTHEW 27:5-8 ACTS 1:18-19 CONTRADICTIONS: In Matthew Judas hangs himself. In Acts he falls to his death. In Matthew the chief priests buy the field. In Acts Judas buys the field. In Matthew the field is called "Field of Blood" because it is a cemetery for foreigners. In Acts, because Judas' spilled his blood there. HERSCHEL'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: He does not bring in the conflicting passage from Acts - even though he does bring in other passages from Acts in other places. ROBERTSON'S PROPOSED SOLUTION: The two conflicting passages are place side by side without comment. ******************************************************************************* Some final points: The usual way that a believer attempts to disprove that two passages are contradictory is by merging the problematic accounts. For instance, let us say that Matthew has the passage, "Jesus said X and then he died", whereas John has the passage, "Jesus said Y and then he died." Since Matthew does not state "Jesus said X and then said nothing else before he died", it can be claimed that in reality Jesus said X then said Y and then he died. Such a hypothesis is not impossible. It is, however, extremely unlikely. Anyone reading these accounts with an unbiased mind will have to reach the conclusion that the two passages were contradictory. This is especially true when the conflicting passages are of the form, "Jesus did X then Z", and "Jesus did X then Y1 then ... then Yn then Z". There are many such contradictions and their cumulative effect is, to my mind, conclusive. A believer would, of course, argue that, since he has such positive evidence from other sources that the Gospels are the literal word of God, even a .001% probability that the Gospels are not contradictory would be good enough for him. I cannot argue with such a stand, nor would I wish to. The problem, however, is that there are many passages which *are* 100% contradictory. Particularly important passages which cannot be resolved are the accounts of Jesus' birth and resurrection. I have not gone through all this trouble to attempt to destroy anyone's beliefs (I doubt that I could succeed even if I wished to). I did this because I very much resent being told that the only reason I have not found Jesus is because I have refused to open my eyes. Well, as a matter of fact I have opened my eyes and read the Gospels and that has led to me to the conclusion that they are not the literal word of God and that a great portion of their accounts of the life and death of Jesus is fictional. I can accept that you have an absolute certainty that Jesus is the son of God, that he died for our sins, etc. Why can't you accept that I have the opposite certainty, and that I have come by it honestly? In conclusion, I challenge anyone to resolve *all* the contradictions presented in this posting. ------------------ A concluding unscientific postscript from your moderator: I would very much appreciate it if we did not get into detailed discussions of every individual passage. I'm sure people are going to want to give detailed responses, but please pick some representative cases. I'm not going to accept any more articles pointing out inconsistencies, simply because I think the sample above is more than we need as a basis for discussion. In some ways it might be more useful to see general responses on the subject of what people think about inconsistencies of this sort. Of course many Christians will say "what inconsistencies?" They will attempt to show that the passages can be understood in a manner that is consistent. However there are also a number of Christians who do not see inconsistency as a threat. (Indeed for much of the scholarly community, these differences are an important tool. Only by comparing different accounts of the same event can we try to see the perspectives of the different authors/editors.) I happen to believe that the editors knew they had a variety of source material, and intentionally preserved that variety for us to see. Many Christians find it sufficient to accept the Bible as reasonably accurate history, which can be judged the same way as any other historical document. In other settings, we do not expect multiple witnesses to give identical accounts.
usenet@paris.ics.uci.edu (12/11/89)
I'm afraid I'm not able to resolve the incosistancies presented in the digest recently. Nor do I have much to add to what OFM already mentioned in his closing notes for that digest. I would like to add an illustration that helps me live with contradictions in many areas of life. I do not claim that this illustration applies to all contradictions presented in the recent posting. Imagine that I am in a field facing two blind persons and there is a water fountain between them. If the one to my left asks me which direction the fountain is I would say "to your left". Both start moving left and I say to the other, "no, it is to your right". On a separate issue, I suppose that the concern over contradictions is the "infallible word of God" thing. Well, I don't know about all that but I do know that none of the contradictions are of the sort, "Jesus said 'do to others as you would have them do to you'" in Matt, and "Jesus said, 'do to others as they do to you'" in Luke, or better yet, "Jesus died for our sins" in Romans, and "Jesus did not die for our sins" in Hebrews. My opinion is that God placed redundancy checks on all the really important stuff He wanted us to get because He knows what a bunch of goofs we are. --wayne (iba@ics.uci.edu) "All men will know that you are my disciples if you love one another" Jn 13.35
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (12/11/89)
>From: Joe Nunes <nunes@ai.toronto.edu> [Many examples of inconsistencies deleted, some I regard as phoney but most are real] >Some final points: > I have not gone through all this trouble to attempt to destroy anyone's >beliefs (I doubt that I could succeed even if I wished to). I did this because >I very much resent being told that the only reason I have not found Jesus is >because I have refused to open my eyes. Well, as a matter of fact I have opened >my eyes and read the Gospels and that has led to me to the conclusion that >they are not the literal word of God and that a great portion of their accounts >of the life and death of Jesus is fictional. I can accept that you have an >absolute certainty that Jesus is the son of God, that he died for our sins, >etc. Why can't you accept that I have the opposite certainty, and that I have >come by it honestly? I'm not sure but Joe almost seems to be saying that he cannot be a Christian because he cannot accept Biblical inerrancy. If so I hope he will reconsider. Many Christians reject inerrancy. I think this may be an example of the mischief which can be done by insisting that all who believe in Jesus must believe exactly the same way someone else does. We may drive people away over differences which are not really central to Christianity. It seems to me that there are 4 possible positions a Christian can take with respect to Biblical inerrancy: 1. The Bible is totally inerrant and all must believe this to be saved. 2. The Bible is totally inerrant but belief in this is not a condition of salvation. 3. The Bible is not inerrant and all must believe this. 4. The Bible is not inerrant but those who believe otherwise can still be saved. I suspect that very few would agree with position 1. After all the New Testament indicates we must believe in Jesus to be saved but I can't think of any indication that a belief in Biblical inerrancy is necessary. In fact through the ages the Bible has had little relevance for many illiterate Christians and I suspect few people would call literacy a requirement for salvation. Likewise, position 3 is unlikely to be widely accepted. Those who reject inerrancy are probably unlikely to think that salvation requires all to believe as they do. Again the central required belief is of Jesus Christ and differing beliefs will be allowed in other areas. This leaves us with 2 positions which I suspect between them attract the great majority of Christians: The Bible may or may not be inerrant but salvation does not depend upon which of these beliefs a person has. Certainly there are many in each camp but I would like to see the disagreement kept at least civilized. My own view is that inerrancy is neither necessary to a belief in Jesus nor a very tenable position. Men (and women) are not perfect and that includes the prophets who recorded the scriptures. While I recognize that some claim that these prophets and the people who copied and translated the scriptures down through the ages were given some special ability to avoid error, I do not agree with this claim. The various translations of the Bible available today are abundant proof that at the very least some regard certain versions as unclear. In fact the Christian world does not even agree on which books should be included in the Bible. One thing which I admit disturbs me about the inerrantists is that at least all those I've talked to seem start from a belief that it must be inerrant because God is perfect and therefore the book he gave us must also be perfect. Yet these same people seem to have no difficulty with the idea that a perfect God could create man who then became imperfect. If he allows us enough freedom to sin why would he not allow us enough to make mistakes (or maybe even deliberate changes) in the Bible. Even if it's not perfect God can work through it for our salvation.
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (12/11/89)
In article <Dec.7.04.58.23.1989.925@athos.rutgers.edu> christian@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >... I hope combining them will encourage people to >try to generate responses to the issue as a whole and not to each >individual posting. I have chosen to begin by responding to a few of the inconsistencies which people believe they have found. Responding to all of them at once would make this posting become unmanageably large. My apologies to those whose items have been omitted on this pass. I understand our moderator's concern that this discussion not become a massive deludge of articles which he could not possibly manage. I shall respect his descretion regarding whether or not he would like me to post articles dealing with the rest of the items. I am, therefore, requesting his decision on this matter and will not post further articles resolving individual cases of perceived inconsistency until he has given his approval. I believe that perfect harmony throughout the Scriptures is absolutely essential to our faith. If we were trusting in a God who could not even give us a consistent message then we would be trusting in a flawed God. If we were trusting in a flawed God then we would be unable to be sure of exactly what His various promises and their associated conditions are. If we were unable to precisely know this sort of information then our faith would be in vain as we would be unable to be sure of our salvation. Those people who compromise by surmising that, while God is perfect, He permitted His human authors to make mistakes, not only are undermining the importance which God Himself has attached to His own Word but also are showing at least a tinge of evidence that they subconsciously suspect that God is either not really omnipotent or does not care about us very much. We can not be sure of anything at all if we do not have an irrefutable source of truthful information. The Scriptures declare themselves to be the only source of this irrefutably truthful data. If this claim of theirs is false then the entire Bible would be one great big lie. It is not acceptable for someone who professes Christianity to sit on the fence. If he is trusting in a perfect God then he must necessarily believe that that very same perfect God is not lying to him. It is impossible to believe in a God who does not lie yet has permitted lies to creep into the one and only source of information which He has declared to be reliable. It is my hope that you will be able to see from the following that even when it appears almost hopeless there always is a scenario that brings complete harmony to the Scriptures. It is such, and only such, a scenario that can be relied upon as being the absolute truth. There are two accounts of the events surrounding the death of Judas Iscariot. Matthew 27:5 says "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.". Acts 1:18 says "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.". These two passages are giving us different details about the same event. One says that Judas hanged himself and the other says that he fell headlong, split in half, and spilled his bowels all over the place. Perhaps a scenario like the following took place. Judas climbed up very high into a tree and tied one end of a rope around a branch of that tree and the other end of that rope around his neck. He then leapt out of the tree. On the way down his feet caught on another branch, causing him to flip over. As he flipped over the rope finally became fully extended and snapped (perhaps it slipped off either his neck or the branch as he tied lousy knots). He continued to fall, now with his head pointing down, until he smashed into the ground. The force of the impact caused him to break into pieces, leaving a rather big mess. This sequence of events is entirely possible because there is no evidence that Judas poseessed the skills of a professional hangman. He had become abhorred with his betrayal of Jesus and made a rather messy job of committing suicide in the midst of his misery. Matthew, a tax collector, was probably more interested in reporting the technical details of how Judas went about the act of killing himself. Luke, who wrote the book of Acts, a physician, was probably more interested in the results of what Judas had done. Perhaps Matthew talked with someone who saw Judas preparing to hang himself and then ran away as he didn't want to watch whereas Luke talked with someone who saw the mess that was left after the event took place. In any event, I believe that at least one of the reasons that God has events reported on in this way is to test our faith, i.e. do we immediately jump to the conclusion that there must be an error or do we put in the extra effort, assuming that there is no error, to find a way of relating all of the different reports together in a manner that is consistent with the author's flawlessness. There are two accounts of what those who were with Saul of Tarsus saw and heard when Saul met Christ while on his way to Damascus. Acts 9:7 says "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.". Acts 22:9 says "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.". The first appears to say that they saw nothing and heard something. The second appears to say that they saw something and heard nothing. When looking a little closer at the precise wording, however, there is really no inconsistency at all. The first passage says that they did not see a man, i.e. they did not see Christ, whereas the second passage says that they did see a light. This would mean that, while they did see some sort of light, they did not actually see Jesus Himself. God only permitted the others to see part of the much more complete vision which Saul saw. The first passage says that they heard a voice whereas the second passage says that they did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to Saul. Taken strictly literally, this may mean that there was more than one voice but only one, that of Jesus, which they did not hear, spoke to Saul. The additional voice could have been that of Saul himself when he asked "who art thou, Lord?". Another way of interpreting these passages, the one which I believe to be more correct, is that while the others heard the voice they could not make out the actual words that were spoken. John 1:18 says "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared {him}.". There are, however, numerous passages which appear to say exactly the opposite, i.e. that some men have seen God. Here are a few examples. Genesis 32:30 says "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.". Exodus 24:9-10 says "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and {there was} under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in {his} clearness.". Exodus 33:11 says "And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.". Acts 7:55-56 says "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.". The resolution to this aparent conflict is revealed in Exodus 33:18-23 when Moses asks God if he can have a good look at Him. Note that the two passages previously quoted which appear to tell us that Moses saw God preceed this one in which Moses clearly indicates that he has not yet seen Him. It says "And he said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. And the LORD said, Behold, {there is} a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.". While numerous people may have seen God in one form or another, no one has seen God exactly as He is and in His full glory. God appeared to Jacob as though He were a man. God showed Himself to Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders as a figurative image of what He is like. When God spoke face to face with Moses at the door of the tabernacle He was within a cloud so that Moses could not actually see Him. While Stefan did state that he could see God's glory, I think it would be safe to assume that God only let him see a little bit of it, i.e. something like the edge of HIs glory which Moses was permitted to see. We will only see God exactly as He is, i.e. in His "natural" state, when we get to heaven. 1 John 3:2 says "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.". Many people have significant trouble finding consistency between the two accounts of the childhood of Jesus given in Matthew 2 and Luke 2. These two accounts do not conflict with each other in any way. This is the actual sequence of events which took place. Luke 2:1-5 tells us of Joseph's and Mary's trip from Nazareth of Galilee to Bethlehem of Judea while she was pregnant with Jesus. Luke 2:6-20 tells us of all the events that took place on the night that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Luke 2:21 tells us that eight days after His birth, Jesus was circumcised and formally given His name. Luke 2:22-38 tell us of events that took place in the temple 40 days after Jesus was born. These events include the sacrifice that was to be given at that time for the firstborn son, the encounter with Simeon, and the encounter with Anna. We can conclusively know that these events took place 40 days after the birth of Jesus because Luke 2:23-24 refers us back to Leviticus 12:8, the whole law pertaining to a birth being described in all of Leviticus 12. Luke 2:39 (probably the most misunderstood verse in all of these two chapters) is a one verse summary of all of Matthew 2. All things according to the law had to be performed, i.e. a bunch of prophesies had to be fulfilled, and then they finally returned to their home town of Nazareth. For the first couple of years they remained in Bethlehem. The wise men eventually arrived there and found them living in a house (Matthew 2:11). Matthew 2:1-11 tell us about wise men from the east (and nowhere does it say that there were exactly 3 wise men), shortly after the birth of Jesus, began to follow a star which led them to Bethlehem where they found Jesus and presented their gifts to Him. Matthew 2:16 tells us that the wise men arrived in Bethlehem approximately two years after the birth of Jesus; this necessarily means that Joesph, Mary and Jesus remained in Bethlehem for that length of time. Matthew 2:12 tells us of God's warning of the wise men to return via a different route than they had come and not to stop in and see Herod on the way. Matthew 2:13-15 tells us of God's warning of Joseph in a dream that Herod wanted to kill Jesus and of their subsequent trip to Egypt. Matthew 2:16-18 tells us of Herod's massacre of all the children who were the approximate age of Jesus. Matthew 2:19-23 tells us of their return to Israel, their desire to live in Judea, but their decision to live in Nazareth. This brings us to the end of Matthew 2 and also to their return to Nazareth which is the final statement of Luke 2:39. Luke 2:40-41 gives us a few brief facts about the childhood of Jesus from this time until He reached the age of 12. Luke 2:42-52 tells us about their trip to the temple in Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 years old. Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) (12/15/89)
[In article <Dec.11.03.53.41.1989.23684@athos.rutgers.edu>
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) lists a range of positions
related in inerrancy. --clh]
I'd go rather further than this. I defy you to come up with a definition of
"inerrant" that makes any sense at all. The question is not "is the Bible
inerrant", but "What on earth could these people possibly mean when they say
'inerrant'".
Before you leap in and say "containing no errors", stop and think: what is an
error? Is an error something contrary to historical fact? What about parables,
then? If there never was a Prodigal Son, does that make the Bible "errant"?
What about metaphor? When Jesus says "You are the salt of the earth", is he
lying, because we know we're not really salt? If Eve was actually made from
Adam's zyphoid process, and not an actual 'rib', does that make the Bible
untrustworthy?
Think about it.
--
David M. Tate | DISCLAIMER:
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | "Hey, that's *my* dis!"
_____________________________________________________________________________
Statistics is the science of inferring the obvious and the false.
[Inerrancy is normally based on the original autographs, interpreted
as intended by the author. The original autographs are specified
because it is not claimed that tranmission of the text is without
error, though usually inerrantists believe that the errors have been
quite few, and they often adopt fairly conservative positions in
matters of textual criticism. By interpreted as intended by the
authors I mean that one has to take metaphors into account. If for a
definition you require an effective procedure (in the computer science
sense) for deciding when there is a metaphor, you're obviously right
that one is not likely to be forthcoming. But I'm not convinced that
this is a serious problem. Few issues issues turn on a question of
what is and is not metaphor. This is generally pretty clear to
everybody. "This is my body" is probably one of the few (maybe
only?). Although there are rough edges here and there, I don't think
there's any serious problem knowing what implications inerrancy has
for Biblical interpretation. It doesn't solve all problems, as there
are serious disagreements among those who accept it. But it certainly
rules out quite a large number of possible interpretations, and
narrows the range of disagreement quite significantly. --clh]phys-bb@garnet.berkeley.edu (12/15/89)
I just want to put in my 2 cents worth into this discussion. It doesn't matter to me if the Bible has little warts on it here and there. It's better to take book as an organic whole, not as some type of computer code where if one little comma is left out you get major screwups. My faith rests on the historical fact of the resurrection and emanates from that. All this having been said, I think a lot of people are too quick to say that there are inconsistencies in the Bible. They don't think deeply enough about the specific passages in question. Also, part of the problem is that we can't precisely reconstruct the contexts in which these various passages were written. I applaud Dave Mielke's comments on specific problem passages (sorry, I forgot to include his article), like the two accounts of the early life of Jesus, the 'no man has seen God. . .' passage, etc. Here is another 'contradictory' pair. Let no one say these are contradictory passages without considering these thoughts. Matthew and Luke give two different genealogies for Jesus. The discrepancy sticks out like a sore thumb; thus the Bible compilers must have known about it, and they don't seem to have been too troubled by it. The standard answer to this 'inconsistency' is to say that one list is Jesus' ancestry through Joseph and the other through Mary. But both go through a man named Joseph. So what do we think. Well, there were more than one Joseph around in Jesus's day. In fact, ancient traditions have Joseph, Mary's husband, dying early in Jesus's life, so that Jesus came under the care of Joseph of Arimathea, who was Mary's uncle. This is why Luke says that 'it was supposed' that Jesus was the son of Joseph; it's talking of Joe of A. Matthew can only say that Joseph was the husband of Mary, since Jesus had no physical father. So Luke actually does go through Mary's bloodline. phys-bb@garnet.berkeley.edu ". . .into the narrow lanes, (John Warren) I can't stumble or stay put. . ."
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (12/15/89)
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: >It seems to me that there are 4 possible positions a Christian can >take with respect to Biblical inerrancy: > 1. The Bible is totally inerrant and all must believe this to be saved. > 2. The Bible is totally inerrant but belief in this is not > a condition of salvation. > 3. The Bible is not inerrant and all must believe this. > 4. The Bible is not inerrant but those who believe > otherwise can still be saved. There are also two different views on the definition of `inerrancy': 1. The Bible as we know it is totally without error. 2. The Bible as it was originally written was without error, but that does not mean that the extant manuscripts are without error. I hold to position 2. -- Geoff Allen \ Wise men still seek Him. {uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ ----- ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \
dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu (David M Tate) (12/17/89)
Our longsuffering moderator writes: > >[Inerrancy is normally based on the original autographs, interpreted >as intended by the author. The original autographs are specified >because it is not claimed that tranmission of the text is without >error, That's funny; most inerrantists I know seem to think that God spoke in early seventeenth century English... :-) though usually inerrantists believe that the errors have been >quite few, and they often adopt fairly conservative positions in >matters of textual criticism. By interpreted as intended by the >authors I mean that one has to take metaphors into account. If for a >definition you require an effective procedure (in the computer science >sense) for deciding when there is a metaphor, you're obviously right >that one is not likely to be forthcoming. But I'm not convinced that >this is a serious problem. Few issues issues turn on a question of >what is and is not metaphor. This is generally pretty clear to >everybody. "This is my body" is probably one of the few (maybe >only?). I have to disagree here. I think that it makes a huge difference whether it is really, literally, easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, for example. But most of the examples are much more subtle than that. *All* languages are necessarily highly figurative; how many of us are qualified to decide on exactly how much literalness to ascribe to a (possibly garbled) translation of a (problematic) passage written in an extinct dialect of a language we don't speak? Right. So which expert opinion do we trust? This is a *minor* problem...? Although there are rough edges here and there, I don't think >there's any serious problem knowing what implications inerrancy has >for Biblical interpretation. It doesn't solve all problems, as there >are serious disagreements among those who accept it. But it certainly >rules out quite a large number of possible interpretations, and >narrows the range of disagreement quite significantly. --clh] I'm not sure that your discription characterizes the inerrantists that I've met and talked with. The position you describe is certainly more defensible ("Accuracy of original author's intent"), but almost useless for practical matters of interpretation. How do I know what Luke was thinking? For most matters of ordinary language, I would be reasonably confident of my interpretive abilities, but we're talking about eternity here. I can't use any of the normal contextual and cultural reference points for ascribing meaning, because the topic is something that had never been heard of before! I'm reminded of certain philosophical problems in the theory of statistics: either we can make reasonable requirements on the method (that don't violate our knowledge of mathematics and our objectivity), or we can get a method that can actually be used. Not both. -- David M. Tate | DISCLAIMER: dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu | "Hey, that's *my* dis!" _____________________________________________________________________________ Statistics is the science of inferring the obvious and the false.
bill@astro.as.utexas.edu (William H. Jefferys) (12/21/89)
In article <athos.Dec.15.01.39.35.1989.17438>, phys-bb@garnet.berkeley.edu (John Warren) writes:
#Here is another 'contradictory' pair. Let no one say these are
#contradictory passages without considering these thoughts.
#Matthew and Luke give two different genealogies for Jesus. The
#discrepancy sticks out like a sore thumb; thus the Bible compilers
#must have known about it, and they don't seem to have been too
#troubled by it. The standard answer to this 'inconsistency' is
#to say that one list is Jesus' ancestry through Joseph and the other
#through Mary. But both go through a man named Joseph. So what
#do we think.
#
#Well, there were more than one Joseph around in Jesus's day. In
#fact, ancient traditions have Joseph, Mary's husband, dying early
#in Jesus's life, so that Jesus came under the care of Joseph of
#Arimathea, who was Mary's uncle. This is why Luke says that 'it
#was supposed' that Jesus was the son of Joseph; it's talking of
#Joe of A. Matthew can only say that Joseph was the husband of
#Mary, since Jesus had no physical father. So Luke actually does
#go through Mary's bloodline.
I've never been very impressed with the `genealogy through Mary'
theory, and I don't think that this twist of bringing in Joseph of
Arimathea fixes it. The `genealogy through Mary' theory is utterly
without scriptural support. It was unknown to the ancient Church
(Eusebius does not mention it, for example), and in fact it is
quite recent, having been first suggested at the end of the 15th
century by Annius of Viterbo. I recently found the following
supporting comments in Farrar's Greek edition of Luke (Cambridge,
1921: p. 413). Farrar strongly rejects the theory, pointing out
that there is no evidence that the Jews recognized genealogies of
women as constituting a legal right for their sons. He also says
that to accept the `genealogy of Mary' theory does great violence
to Luke's language, for then we would have to make out Luke's
words to mean `Being, as was reputed, the son of Joseph [but
really the son of Mary, who was the daughter] of Eli, &c.' Luke,
whose Greek is quite good, would hardly write so sloppily.
There may be a convincing way of resolving this discrepancy
between Matthew and Luke, but IMHO the `genealogy through Mary'
theory isn't it.
Bill Jefferysdavem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (12/23/89)
Before getting too deeply into the resolution of the apparent
descrepancies between the genaeologies in Matthew 1:2-16 and Luke
3:23-38, I would like to dispose of one rather trivial issue. Someone
indicated that it was felt that there was some confusion because both
genaeologies include a man named Joseph. I would like to point out that
far more than just one person has had the name of Joseph throughout
history. It was quite common back then, as it still is today, to name a
child after a near relative, perhaps even his own immediate father.
When John the baptist was born to Zacharias and Elisabeth, for example,
their acquaintances were unaware that his name was to be John. They
tried to insist, after the customs of that day, that he be given the
same name as his father. Luke 1:59 says "And it came to pass, that on
the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him
Zacharias, after the name of his father.". It is real easy to believe
that there were many people named Joseph in Israel as there was a very
famous Joseph in their ancestry who was the patriarch of two of their
tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), a highly respected prime minister of
Egypt, and a very great man of God whose life is described throughout
approximately a quarter of the book of Genesis.
The genaeology in Matthew 1:2-16 is that of Joseph of Nazareth. We can
know this with certainty because it ends with Matthew 1:16 which says
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus,
who is called Christ.". Note that this verse very carefully avoids
saying that Joseph begat Jesus. Among other things this verse is
telling us that none of the kings of Judah from Solomon onward were
ancestors of Jesus because Joseph, although he was the husband of Mary,
was not the biological father of Jesus. A careful inspection of the
rest of Matthew 1 will show that Joseph himself knew that he was not
the biological father of Jesus. When he found out that Mary was
pregnant he sought a way to divorce her because he jumped to the
conclusion that she had committed adultery. When God told him what was
going on he immediately married her yet refrained from sexual relations
with her until Jesus was born so that there could be no possible doubt
that he was not the biological father.
The genaeology in Luke 3:23-38 is that of Mary. We can know this with
certainty because it begins with wording that relates to direct human
ancestry and because we know that Mary was the only immediate human
ancestor of Jesus.
The first verse finishes by declaring Heli as a direct ancestor of
Jesus. Luke 3:23 says "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,". Note that it very definitely says "which was the son of
Heli" and that the word "which" refers to Jesus.
This leaves us with what would appear to be a major contradiction. We
know that Jesus had just one immediate human ancestor, His mother Mary,
but Luke is telling us that He was the son of Heli. These two
statements do not really contradict one another at all. Please permit
me to explain.
Genaeologies were always traced through male ancestry. Not one female
name, for example, is listed in this particular one. The closest human
male ancestor of Jesus would have been Mary's father. It is, therefore,
reasonable to suspect that Heli was Mary's father. Jesus, then, would
be Heli's grand-son.
The fact that Jesus was Heli's grand-son, and not his immediate son,
would not make this verse untruthful. The term "son" as used within the
Scriptures refers to a direct, but not necessarily to an immediate,
male descendent. Matthew 1:1, for example, says "The book of the
generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.".
Compare this with Matthew 1:17 which says "So all the generations from
Abraham to David {are} fourteen generations; and from David until the
carrying away into Babylon {are} fourteen generations; and from the
carrying away into Babylon unto Christ {are} fourteen generations.".
Even though David is declared to be the son of Abraham, we are told
that there were fourteen generations from one to the other. Even though
Jesus is declared to be the son of David, we are told that there were
twenty-eight generations from one to the other. The reference to Jesus
being the son of David here is by no means unique either. The
Scriptures are very clear that the Jews of that day referred to Him by
this title quite often. As Jesus entered Jerusalem on the Sunday before
His crucifiction, for example, Matthew 21:9 tells us "And the
multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna
to the son of David: Blessed {is} he that cometh in the name of the
Lord; Hosanna in the highest.".
Before leaving Luke 3:23 I would like to make one more observation. It
makes a point of mentioning that it was supposed that Jesus was the son
of Joseph. This is to remind us, yet again, of one very important fact,
i.e. that Jesus was not the son of Joseph. His conception was the
result of some sort of interaction between Mary and God. Luke 1:35 says
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be
called the Son of God.". Even though most of the people back then made
the assumption that Jesus was the son of Joseph just because he was the
husband of His mother, God is telling us yet one more time that this
just is not so. It may be worth observing that, even today, many people
hold to this very same, absolutely incorrect position, i.e. that Jesus
was not born of a virgin. In so doing they are denying the power of the
very God whom they claim to be worshipping and whom they declare to be
the omnipotent Creator of this entire universe and everything that is
in it. 2 Timothy 3:5 warns not only of this kind of belief but also of
those who hold it "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof: from such turn away.".
Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014
856 Grenon Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K2B 6G3bill@emx.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) (12/25/89)
In Article <athos.Dec.22.23.57.24.1989.25813>, bnr-fos!bmers58!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes:
#The genaeology in Luke 3:23-38 is that of Mary. We can know this with
#certainty because it begins with wording that relates to direct human
#ancestry and because we know that Mary was the only immediate human
#ancestor of Jesus.
#
#The first verse finishes by declaring Heli as a direct ancestor of
#Jesus. Luke 3:23 says "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,". Note that it very definitely says "which was the son of
#Heli" and that the word "which" refers to Jesus.
This is precisely the kind of violence to Luke's words to which The Rev.
Dr. Farrar was objecting in the quotation that I posted recently. It is a
good example of the contortions to which inerrantists must occasionally
resort in order to maintain their unusual view of the Bible. You are
entitled to your opinion, of course, but to me it is quite clear that
here Luke is referring to Joseph, not Jesus, as the "son" of Heli.
As I pointed out, the "genealogy through Mary" theory was unknown to the
early Church and was invented late in the 15th century. As I stated
before, it has no basis in scripture. Eusebius gives a contradictory
theory derived from a letter of Julius Africanus, who in turn claimed to
have gotten it directly from descendants of the Holy Family. It is said
that Jacob, the father of Joseph, was the half-brother of Eli (Heli).
According to the theory, when Eli died childless, Jacob married Eli's
widow in a levirate marriage. Thus, Joseph has two fathers, his
biological father Jacob, and his "legal" father Eli (through the levirate
marriage). Eusebius' theory is far more plausible than the "geneaology
through Mary" nonsense, which has long been rejected by both liberal and
conservative scholars. While I do not necessarily subscribe to this
theory, it at least has the virtues of being (1) plausible, (2) in
accordance with Jewish law, (3) possessing ancient, if nonscriptural
authority, and (4) not requiring us to distort the clear meaning of
Luke's otherwise excellent Greek. The "genealogy through Mary" theory
shares none of these virtues.
Bill Jefferysdavem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (01/01/90)
In article <Dec.25.01.37.27.1989.17044@athos.rutgers.edu> bill@emx.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) writes: >This is precisely the kind of violence to Luke's words to which The Rev. >Dr. Farrar was objecting in the quotation that I posted recently. It is a >good example of the contortions to which inerrantists must occasionally >resort in order to maintain their unusual view of the Bible. May I assume, then, that you feel that the sinless angels of our perfect God whom He entrusts with His most important messages also speak less than perfect Greek? We know that the mother of Jesus was Mary and that the father of Jesus was God, yet this same Gospel writer, Luke, quotes the angel of God as referring to David as the father of Jesus. Luke 1:32 says "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:". Please permit me to repeat that the terms father and son as used throughout the Scriptures refer to a direct, although not necessarily immediate, relationship of a man to one of his descendants or ancestors respectively. Jesus was the son of Mary who in turn was the daughter of Heli. This means that Jesus was the grandson of Heli. Since Jesus was a direct male descendant of Heli, Luke was in no way using incorrect terminology when he declared that Jesus was the son of Heli. If this genaeology were not that of Mary then the Scriptures would contain no proof whatsoever that Jesus was a blood descendant of David. No genaeology of Joseph could possibly do this as he was not the biological father of Jesus. In the response to which I am replying an alternative way of interpreting Luke's genaeology was given. It involved a rather complicated series of interactions whose only proof was ancient tradition. The Scriptures declare that it is very dangerous to use tradition as a means of interpreting God's Word. Matthew 15:1-3 says "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3
scottg@hp-ptp.hp.com (Scott_Gulland) (01/01/90)
From: nunes@ai.toronto.edu (Joe Nunes) >>will be due to my own lack of understanding and not to God's inability >>to give us a completely consistent message. I welcome the challenge. I myself believe in the Biblical account of creation as stated and that this account is scientifically correct. I am also of the belief that the vast majority of creationist and non-creationist alike use interpretations that are scientifically absurd. This is why Genesis appears to be so inconsistant. However, not all creationist adhere to such ridiculous interpretations and all of the material below comes from research perfromed by Dr. Hugh Ross (Ph. D. in Astronomy). > OK. Here's one. > > There are two versions of Creation. In Version 1 (Gen 1:10-31), God creates > plants on the third day (before He created the sun and the moon, by the way; > they were created on the fourth day), sea creatures and birds on the fifth day, As you can see by the author's comment, this interpretation of version 1 is not very credible. Here is another interpetation which does not contradict scientific knowledge about nature of the creation of the universe and earth. One of the most important things to establish in order to interpret Genesis one correctly is its frame of reference (or viewpoint) and the initial conditions. This is given in Gen 1:1-2. The text is given as follows (NIV translation): "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Clearly it can be seen from above that the section indicating the frame of reference is "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters". In other words, the events of creation are being described from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the ocean, which at that time covered the entire Earth, and BELOW the cloud layers. The initial conditions indicate that the earth is formless and empty (a more accurate tranlation of the Hebrew words, here, might be "unorganized and empty"). Note that the universe and the earth already exist (and by inference the sun). Finally, it is dark on the surface of the deep. DAY 1: Gen 1:3-5 "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night.' And there was evening, and there was morning - the first day." The surface of the Earth begain in darkness (verse 2) because at its earilest formative stages the Earth had a reducing atmosphere, (i.e. an atmosphere much like that of Jupiter wherein elements tend to combine with hydrogen). This atmosphere most likely was dominated by ammonia and methane (which absorbs light). For light to penetrate to the Earth's surface to the degree required for photosynthesis, the atmosphere somehow had to be transformed from reducing to oxidizing, i.e. to in which substances tend to combine with oxygen, rather than with hydorgen. For this atmospheric change to be made without the loss of water that is vital for land life was an extremely delicate operation. Methane has a molecular weigth of 16; ammonia, 17; and water, 18. The trans- formation had to allow for the evaporation from the Earth's atmosphere of both methane and ammonia but the retention of the slightly heavier water. The probability of success for this atmospheric transfromation for any given planet is much less than one in a billion. Thus, the changing of the Earth's atmosphere from opaque (light-absorbing) to translucent (light-diffusing) without loss of water stands as the first of the Genesis miracles whereby God was preparing the Earth for life. Day and night, from the perspective of an observer on the Earth's surface, become recognizable only when light can diffuse through the cloud cover. So, "day" and "night" are defined at this point Day 2: Gen 1:6-8 (Simple Summary Statement Only) Establishment of a stable water cycle. Day 3: Gen 1:9-13 (Simple Summary Statement Only) Appearance of dry land and the vegetation upon the land. DAY 4: Gen 1:14-19 "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let their be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.' And it was so. God made two great lights. The greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning - the fourth day." To give you a better feeling for the original text, here are the major Hebrew words in the first segment of text above and their definitions. The words "Let there be" is the translation for the Hebrew word 'HAYAH'. The word "expanse" corresponds to the Hebrew word RAWQIYA. The word "sky" corresponds to the Hebrew word SHAMAYIM. The definition of these Hebrew words are as follows: HAYAH: become; cause to appear or arise; cause to be made or done; come into existence; come to pass; make into something. RAWQIYA: (apparently) visible dome of the sky; (technically, the atmosphere immediately above the surface of the earth) SHAMAYIM: visible dome of the sky above and in which the clouds move; the realm in which the celestial bodies move; the spiritual real in which God and the angels dwell and operate. - with respect to the above definitions; whenever shamayim is used with erets (earth), as in Gen 1:1, the combination refers to the entire physical universe. For some time after the transformation of the Earth's atmosphere to an oxidizing one, a combination of high carbon dioxide levels (greenhouse effect), volcanic active, and very high humidity would have prevented any break in the cloud cover. Fossil evidence supports this very humid atmosphere of primative Earth. Over time a decrease in volcanic activity, carbon dioxide levels (consummed by plant life), and stabilized air temperature and pressure all contributed to a break in the cloud cover. Thus the appearance of the Sun, Moon, and Stars. > and all beasts of the earth on the sixth day. After all this, God creates Man, > also ... much text deleted. > > In Version 2 (Gen 2:4-24), God creates Adam before anything else. Then God > creates ... much text deleted. > > Note that the first version specifically states that *every* winged fowl was > created before man, whereas the second version states that *every* fowl of > the air was created after man. The first version does in all actuality say that birds were created before Man. However, the second version does NOT state birds were created after man. This is just a mis-interpretation on the basis of a shallow reading of the English translation. Genesis 1 focuses on the Physical events of creation; Genesis 2 focuses on the spiritual events. More specifically, Genesis 1 describes the miracles God performed to prepare the earth for mankind. Genesis 2 presents God's assignment of authority and responsibility. Further, in order to determine the intended chronological sequencing of the text, you MUST go to the original Hebrew text. The Hebrew language has only three verb tenses: imperative, perfect, and imperfect. The perfect tense indicates completed actions while the imperfect tense denotes incomplete or unfinished actions. The perfect tense is used in Genesis 2:19 for the formation of the beast and birds. This simply implies that those creatures were made sometime in the past. Additionally, to denote sequence relationships a special ending is used in the verbs. This ending is not present in Genesis 2:19. Careful attention to verb tense and the purpose of each account rules out any supposed contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Plants, rain, man, animals and woman are subjects of discussion in Genesis 2, but creation chronology is not the issue. Adam simply interacts first with the plants, then with animals, and last of all, with Eve. I believe that all of the contradictions listed so far are not contradictions but paradoxes. And paradoxes can be resolved by a variety of means as I have resolved this one. Scott Gulland scottg@hpiacla ---------------
ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) (01/04/90)
Scott_Gulland writes: >I myself believe in the Biblical account of creation as stated and that >this account is scientifically correct.... [I have removed extensive quotations from his original article. --clh] It appears that what Scott is proposing here is a variation on what has been called, among other things, "gapism". In short, this is an attempt to explain differences between the Genesis creation stories and modern science by supposing an (implicit) time-gap somewhere in the first few verses of Genesis. Where the gap is supposed to occur in the story varies, but the intended result is to increase the time-scale of the biblical creation story by an unspecified, but nevertheless long, period thereby bringing it into harmony with modern astronomy and physics. A major problem with this line of argument is that it is not supported by the actual text. Specifically it is based on the standard, but poor, translation of Gen 1.1-4 that is given in the KJV and most subsequent popular translations (i.e. translations that start "In the beginning..."). Most modern translations now understand the first sentence to comprise *all* of the first *three* verses on Gen 1 in a very interesting --and surprisingly characteristic-- way. (For anyone interested in examining these arguments in more detail, good sources are the notes and commentary for the corresponding verses of A. E. Speiser's translation of _Genesis_ for the Anchor Bible series, the Doubleday Biblical Commentary and Friedman's _Who Wrote the Bible_.) The first sentence breaks down as follows (translation by Speiser): Opening temporal clause. 1] "When God set about to create the heaven and earth ..." Parenthetical aside. 2] "... --the world being then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas and an awesome wind sweeping over the water-- ..." Main clause 3] "... God said, 'Let there be light.' And there was light." The first point to be made here is that the main body of the above makes up one, indivisible, sentence. That is, the *very* first act of God in Genesis is the Creation of Light. A second --and to me somewhat more interesting--- point is that this sentence structure ([1] opening, temporal clause, [2] parenthesis, [3] final main clause) appears to be a standard formula for the opening of creation stories in the literature of the ancient near east. The nearest example at hand is the second Genesis creation story at 2.4b- 2.7 (translation again by Speiser): 1] "At the time when God Yahweh made earth and heaven ..." 2] "... --no shrub of the field being yet in the earth and no grain of the field having sprouted, for God Yahweh had not sent rain upon the earth and no man was there to till the soil; instead a flow would well up from the ground and water the whole surface of the soil-- ..." 3] "... God Yahweh formed man from clods of soil and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. Thus man became a living being." Similarly, the opening of the so-called Babylonian Creation Epic, ENUMA ELIS ("When on High...") has the same structure. Moreover the opening word of the second Genesis story is B(e)YOM (literally, "on the day(!!) when") is cognate with the Akkadian ENUMA (i.e. the opening word of the ENUMA ELIS). Finally, it should be noted that this last --the distinct parallelism of syntax and vocabulary-- supplies very strong internal, textual evidence for the existence of the two separate creation stories in Genesis.) NICHAEL
scottg@hp-ptp.hp.com (Scott_Gulland) (01/07/90)
Nichael Cramer writes... > It appears that what Scott is proposing here is a variation on what has > been called, among other things, "gapism". In short, this is an attempt > to explain differences between the Genesis creation stories and modern > science by supposing an (implicit) time-gap somewhere in the first few > verses of Genesis. Where the gap is supposed to occur in the story ...a > A major problem with this line of argument is that it is not supported by > the actual text. Specifically it is based on the standard, but poor, > translation of Gen 1.1-4 that is given in the KJV and most subsequent > popular translations (i.e. translations that start "In the beginning..."). You are absolutely incorrect! It is based on work by Dr. Hugh Ross and the actual Hebrew text for Genesis one. A strong case can be made for each day in Genesis 1 covering a login period of time. I'll offer the following arguments: 1. The Hewbrew word used in Genesis 1 for "day" is YOWM. YOWM can be used (and is) to indicate any of four time periods: a) from sunrise to sunset, b) from sunset to sunset, c) a segment of time without any reference to solor days (usually several years), and finally d) an age or epoch. Therefore there is a valid interpretation of the word day which agrees with known scientific knowledge about the age of the earth. 2. Genesis 2:4 suggests a long time span for the creation week. In the literal Hebrew this verse reads "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day of their making ...". Here, the word "day" refers to all six creation days. Obviously a period greater than 24 hours. However, the word "generation" is TOLEDAH in Hebrew and refers to a time span of never less than 20 years. Note that the plural form is used meaning a significantly greater span of time. 3. The 7th day in Genesis 1 and 2 is not closed out. For the 1st six creation days the author says "...there was evening, and there was morning -- the N th day." This statement indicates that each of the 1st six creation days had a beginning and an ending. However, for the 7th day no such statement appears either in Genesis 1 - 2 or anywhere else in the Bible. This distinct change in form strongly suggests that this day has (or had) not yet ended. There are several other supporting arguments but these should suffice to make my point. > Most modern translations now understand the first sentence to comprise > *all* of the first *three* verses on Gen 1 in a very interesting --and > surprisingly characteristic-- way. > > (For anyone interested in examining these arguments in more detail, > good sources are the notes and commentary for the corresponding verses > of A. E. Speiser's translation of _Genesis_ for the Anchor Bible series, > the Doubleday Biblical Commentary and Friedman's _Who Wrote the Bible_.) > > The first sentence breaks down as follows (translation by Speiser): > > Opening temporal clause. > 1] "When God set about to create the heaven and earth ..." Almost all modern tranlations (made within the last 15 years) using all current knowledge on Hebrew and Greek translation and discoveries of ancient text translate this "In the beginning". Remember, these translations come from the Top scolars in the field and they all agree. I don't think Speiser is a very credible source! > Parenthetical aside. > 2] "... --the world being then a formless waste, with darkness over > the seas and an awesome wind sweeping over the water-- ..." Hebrew: TEHOM RUWACH ELOHIYM RACHAPH TEHOM: a great mass of water; the oceans and the seas RUWACH: spirit; breath; wind - in conjunction with Elohiym always refers to the Holy Spirit ELOHIYM: the deity; the supreme Being; the true God RACHAPH: to brood over; cherishing and vivifying; to be tenderly affected; to be moved These translations are absolute rubish (especially #2). Scott Gulland scottg@hpiacla -------------- [First, let me comment that I see this discussion not as a matter of creationism -- which would belong on talk.origins -- but as about how one goes about interpreting Gen. if one believes that creation took a lot more than 7 days. Here are the translations I have. I think this includes most of the major modern translations: TEV: "In the beginning, when God created the universe..." (footnote: or "in the beginning God created the universe" or "When God began to create the universe"), the earth was formless and desolate. The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the power of God was moving over the water. Then God commanded... NAB: "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, ppwhile a mighty wind swept over the waters. Then God said... NIV: "In the beginning, God created ... Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering ove the waters. And God said... NJB: same as NIV, except "with a divine wind sweeping over the waters" REB and RSV: similar to NIV, but with footnote: or "when God began to create") NJPS: "When God began to create heaven and earth -- the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the waters -- God said... (footnotes: others "In the beginning God created.", others "the spirit of") It seems clear that other translators see various elements of the Anchor Bible translation as at least plausible, though no one translation adopts them all. --clh]
blais@emx.utexas.edu (Donald Blais) (01/16/90)
In article <Jan.1.10.58.05.1990.11708@athos.rutgers.edu> hplabs!scottg@hp-ptp.hp.com (Scott_Gulland) writes: >As you can see by the author's comment, this interpretation of version 1 is >not very credible. Here is another interpetation which does not contradict >scientific knowledge about nature of the creation of the universe and earth. The internal structure of the first story of creation is simple, elegant, and hard to ignore once recognized. The story sorts the whole of creation into six classes: (1) the domain of light Gn 1:3-5 (2) the domain of water Gn 1:6-8 (3) the domain of earth Gn 1:9-13 (4) mobile denizens of the domain of light Gn 1:14-19 (5) mobile denizens of the domain of water Gn 1:20-23 (6) mobile denizens of the domain of earth Gn 1:24-31 At the start, there is chaos. God instills order. God rests. The story has a beauty and consistency of its own. The day (YWM) is a narrative artifice for the separation into six classes. Its length is the duration of a category. -- Donald E. Blais INTERNET: blais@emx.utexas.edu Computation Center BITNET: BLAIS@UTAIVC University of Texas UUCP: ... !cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!blais Austin TX 78712 PHONE: (512) 471-3241