The scientific concepts that are present in the
Bible that were not conceived yet by scientists of the time is usually
interpreted by Christians to show that the authors of the Bible had divine
inspiration for their writings. This is
due to the fact that the authors of the Bible knew scientific related concepts
before other people of the time knew these concepts. Non-Christians usually do not follow this
interpretation and instead offer a common rebuttal: If the Bible was written by
divine inspiration and is the Word of God, then why are their scientific
inaccuracies and contradictions in other parts of the Bible? Some of the parts in the Bible that
non-Christians say are inaccuracies are when the Bible uses the term “ends of
the earth” and that the Bible talks about a world that does not move (according
to “Holes in the Holy Bible”). Some of
the common contradictions that non-Christians present are: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradicting each
other about how many days it took God to create the earth and the universe, and
the contradictions in the genealogy of Jesus presented in Matthew and Luke(according
to “Some Reasons Why humanists Reject the Bible”).
Ends of the Earth
“Have you
commanded the morning since your days began,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
And caused the dawn to know its place,
That it
might take hold of the ends of the earth,
And the wicked be shaken out of it?” (Job 38: 12-13 NKJV)
And the wicked be shaken out of it?” (Job 38: 12-13 NKJV)
Have you ever tried to hold a ball in your
hands? Do you hold the sides or the
extremities of the ball? The word “Kanaph”
is the original Hebrew for the word that has been translated as “ends” (Brown,
Briggs, Driver, Gesenius, Robinson & Rödiger, 1906). This word can also be translated as
“extremity” (Brown, Briggs, Driver, Gesenius, Robinson & Rödiger, 1906). When the Bible says the ends of the earth, I
believe that it means the extremities, not the edges like a flat rectangle
would have. Many critics of the Bible
state that this points to the earth being flat instead of being a sphere, but this
does not line up with other scripture. In
Isaiah 40:22, it says, “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth…”
(NKJV). If the world was flat, God could
not sit above the circle of the earth (or the curve of the earth if the
original Hebrew is translated differently, as discussed in a past post). Therefore, I believe that it means the parts
of a sphere that God could hold and does not contradict science.
World does not move
“The Lord
reigns, He is clothed with majesty;
The Lord is
clothed, He has girded Himself with strength.
Surely the
world is established, so that it cannot be moved.” (Psalm 93:1 NKJV)
Many critics of the Bible believe this verse means
that the earth does not orbit the sun and does not move in space, but this is
not what I believe that this verse is saying.
In the original Hebrew, the word for move is “Mowt” (Brown, Briggs,
Driver, Gesenius, Robinson & Rödiger, 1906). This word can also be translated as shake (Brown,
Briggs, Driver, Gesenius, Robinson & Rödiger, 1906). I believe that this verse means that the earth
is established in the solar system and that the laws of the earth (such as
gravity, thermodynamics, and etc.) cannot be changed.
Genesis 1 and 2
in the day
that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” (Genesis 2:4 NKJV)
Many Bible critics believe that this verse
contradicts the creation story that is told in the first chapter of
Genesis. As I have said before, the word
that is typically translated as day (from Hebrew into English) is the word “Yowm”. Yomn is the word that is used in this verse
as day. Yomn can also be translated as
time. I believe that this verse talks
about the time period in which God made earth, the universe and everything in
it.
Genealogy of Jesus
Below is the differing genealogies that are
present in Matthew and in Luke:
As you can see, from David down to Jesus is very
inconsistent. Many critics of the Bible
use this to show that the Bible contradicts itself. I believe that there are several explanations
to the differing genealogies.
One possible explanation is due to the Levirate
marriage tradition. In this tradition,
if the husband dies and did not have any sons, the husband’s brother could
marry his brother’s widow to carry on the deceased husband’s name. This would mean that Joseph, Jesus’s earthly
father, may have had both a biological and legal father. This would mean that one genealogy could be
of Joseph’s biological father while the other genealogy could be of Joseph’s
legal father.
Another explanation is that the genealogy of Jesus
presented in Matthew follows the genealogy of Joseph and the genealogy of Jesus
presented in Luke is the genealogy of Mary.
This would mean that Heli could be Mary’s biological Father and Joseph’s
surrogate father. If Heli did not have
any sons, it would be normal custom to make Joseph his heir.
I believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of
God and that there are no contradictions to itself or to science. I believe that the Bible is the truth and
that it will stand through the test of time.
References:
Brown, F., Briggs, C. A., Driver, S. R., Gesenius, W.,
Robinson, E., & Rödiger, E. (1906). The brown-driver-briggs hebrew
and english lexicon with an appendix containing the biblical aramaic.
“Some Reasons Why
Humanists Reject the Bible”. Assoc., A.
H. (n.d.). Retrieved May 3, 2013 from
http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/Some_Reasons_Why_Humanists_Reject_the_Bible
“The Geneology of
Jesus”. Fairchild, M. (n.d.). Retrieved
May, 3, 2012 from http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/jesusgenealogy.htm
“The Holes in the Holy Bible”. n.d.. Retrieved May 3, 2013 from
http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/bible.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment