What about the credibility of the Bible?
I began my message by reading some of the most offensive passages to modern ears that I could find. Here is a sampling:
Leviticus 25:44-46, “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us.” Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.”
Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”
Deuteronomy 25:11-12, “If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.”
1 Samuel 15:1-3, Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
I added a few verses to the list that appear to communicate error or contradictions such as:
Leviticus 11:6-7, “The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.” But, rabbits don’t chew the cud!
Leviticus 11:20-23, “All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest. All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.” But insects have six legs, not four!
And then there is the resurrection account where Matthew says there was 1 angel at Jesus’ tomb and John in his Gospel says there were two! How can they both be right?
Passages like these, are pointed to as evidence that the Bible is not accurate or credible.
I offered a three-part answer:
One: Whereas I accept the Old Testament as a part of the Bible, I interpret it through the teaching of the New Testament.
Two: I can find answers to the questions I have about the teachings and stories in the Bible by using proper biblical interpretation principles and study helps.
Three: I choose to live with the tensions of Scripture and to believe that it is the inspired Word of God without error in the original writings.
What do you think?
I have included a list of books and links to help answer some of the tough questions from this message and the ones that will follow.
I would appreciate your response to my answers and I would love to read additional answers that you think of.
Also, if you want to post other tough questions about the Bible, have at it.
September 7th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Dear Tim,
I have thoroughly enjoyed your past series of sermons on The Ten Commandments and after hearing today’s Sept. 7th sermon, I believe the next series on “God, I have Tough Questions” will be equally good and thought provoking. For the last year and a half, I have been reading “The Everyday With Jesus Bible” (Holman Christian Standard Bible). There have been days when I could not believe some of the scripture and stories of the Old Testament that I was reading, and several times was tempted to quit reading because it was creating doubts in my mind. Therefore, your sermon this morning was meant for me to hear. I am still reading and your comment at the end of your sermon,”You need a healthy dose of faith when reading the Old Testament” is definitely true.
I really appreciated your 3-part answers. As you said, the Old Testament was given as the Law and the New Testament was given as Grace, Mercy and Love. Meeting Jesus at the cross changes everything - it becomes subject to his teachings.
Because of my Christian heritage, I still have questions on the subject of war. The Old Testament is full of horrible acts and horrendous wars of all kinds. If, as you say and I believe, that meeting at the Cross changes everything and Jesus teaches, grace, mercy and love, how can we justify in our minds today, any of the past wars the U.S. has been a part of or the war in Iran today? Does not Jesus teach compassion, forgiveness, peace, mercy, grace and love? Does Jesus, in the New Testament, commanded us to seek revenge or go to war with others as a means to settle disputes or protect ourselves or our nation? If we follow Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament, does not killing in a hate war become murder? Perhaps I’ve not read far enough into the New testament to find these answers. Help!!
I appreciate you as a person and pastor who is willing to speak out and take a stand on these issues of the Bible and bring them to us for thought and discussion. This helps me look at my life and my beliefs and see where and how they apply or if they are relevant to me today.
River Oaks ministry has been a blessing in my life since attending for the last 4-5 years. I and my husband, Art, spend 5 months each winter in Naples, Fl. attending a Baptist Church in that City. We always look forward to returning to River Oaks in the Spring.
God’s blessings to you as you minister to us in this crazy world.
Sincerely, Jan Eby
September 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Pastor Tim
Although we have never met, I have been attending River Oaks since the first of the year with my family(daughters, grandchildren and sometimes one son-in-law.). Thank you so much for your instruction. You are opening all of our minds to God’s Word through your presentation of the Bible and His wonderful Word. I don’t know if this is the place, but I would like to be added to the e-mails. This new topic is off to a good start with inspiration to think! Rosemary
September 8th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Pastor Tim- I was troubled by your comment that Rabbits didn’t chew there cud. I have been watching rabbits in my back yard all summer and if they were not chewing there cud just what were they doing. Actually untill Sunday I never really knew what chewing the cud meant, so I thought I better check this out. This is what I found, really more than I would like to know, but at least on this one I think the Bible is correct.
LEV 11:1-6
ARE RABBITS ERRONEOUSLY CALLED RUMINANTS IN THE BIBLE
[I.E., THEY CHEW THE CUD] ?
[LEV 11:1-6]:
(v. 1) “The LORD said to Moses and Aaron,
(v. 2) ‘Say to the Israelites: ”’Of all the animals that live on land, these are the ones you may eat:
(v. 3) You may eat any animal that has a split hoof completely divided and that chews the cud.
(v. 4) There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you.
(v. 5) The coney, [that is the hyrax or rock badger] though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.
(v. 6) The arnebeth, [Heb: arnebeth = an unidentified animal which is rendered hare or rabbit, perhaps incorrectly] though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.
Greg hartman states:
http://christianhumor.moningco.com/library/weekly/aa060.htm
[OBJECTOR'S PREMISE]:
“You maintain that the Bible is inerrent; but I can point out some errors. The Bible mentions the digestive system of leporids, and it is wrong [in what it states]. These references do show some evidence of errors within the work.”
[GREG HARTMAN'S ANSWER]:
“If you think the Bible says rabbits have four stomachs …. sorry; it’s just not that simple.
…Despite your claim that Lev. 11:6 describes the digestive system of rabbits, it doesn’t. It says only that they “chew the cud” — and they do. Check out the following:
Leviticus 11:5 refers to the SAPAN (or HYRAX SYRIACUS) as an unclean animal (e.g., unfit for sacrifice or human consumption) because “though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof” (NASB). Clean animals had to do both to be eligible for food. The question at issue is the chewing of the cud. Did (or does) the SAPAN (translated “coney” in KJV and “rock badger” in NASB) really “chew the cud” (Heb. MA ‘ALEH GERAH, lit., “raising up what has been swallowed”)?
Similarly in Leviticus 11:6 the same statement is made about the ‘ARNEBET (”rabbit,” “hare”). Does the hare ruminate? The answer to both statements must be in the negative so far as the actual digestive process is concerned. True ruminants normally have four stomachs, and that which has been worked over in these stomachs is regurgitated into the mouth when it is ready to be chewed again. In this technical sense neither the hyrax nor the hare can be called ruminants, but they do give the appearance of chewing their cud in the same way ruminants do. So convincing is this appearance that even Linnaeus at first classed them as ruminants, even though the four-stomach apparatus was lacking. But we need to remember that this list of forbidden animals was intended to be a practical guide for the ordinary Israelite as he was out in the wilds looking for food. He might well conclude from the sideways movement of the jaws that these animals ruminated like the larger cattle; and since they fed on the same kind of grass and herbs, they might well be eligible for human consumption. Thus it was necessary to point out that they did not have hooves at all and therefore could not meet the requirements for clean food. G.S. Cansdale gives this interesting information concerning the habits of the ‘ARNEBET:
“Hares, like rabbits, are known to practice ‘refection’: at certain times of day, when the rabbit or hare is resting, it passes droppings of different texture, which it at once eats. Thus it appears to be chewing without taking fresh greens into its mouth. On its first passage through the gut, indigestible vegetable matter is acted on by bacteria and can be better assimilated the second time through. This is the exact same principle ruminants use in chewing the cud” (”Hare,” in Tenney, ZONDERVAN PICTORIAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, 3:33).”
(From The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Dr. Gleason Archer).
So the bottom line is this: rabbits don’t have four stomachs, but as you see above, they can and do defecate partially digested grass, which they then eat again. This process of “refection,” even though rabbits don’t have four stomachs, is in every other respect the exact same thing ruminants do — that is, chew their food more than once — and since the verse in question only specifies “chewing the cud” and not the actual physiology of the digestive system, I’m afraid you HAVEN’T found a Bible mistake here after all.
[Jonathan Sarfati, First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 20(4):56, September–November 1998]
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3725.asp
“In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.”
TO SUM UP:
Lev. 11:6 does not say rabbits are ruminants; it only says that they chew the cud — and they do, via refection rather than regurgitation….
September 11th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Pastor Tim,
As a frequent visitor to River Oaks who has often been impressed with the insightful content of your sermons, I was eagerly looking forward to this series, as most of my continuing problems with organized religion in general (and with evangelical Christianity in particular) seem to be grounded in precisely these kinds of morally questionable tenets of scripture.
Furthermore, I admire the manner in which you presented the most egregious problems with frankness and without much apology. Many who consider themselves devout Christians are unfamiliar with the content of their own bibles, and are therefore unable to appreciate the reservations among those of us who are reluctant to embrace a religion with a codified history of violence and genocide.
Unfortunately, I have to say that the series seems to be off to a somewhat sluggish start. I listened to your explanations for the atrocities contained in the Old Testament and found them wanting. Certainly I am in agreement that the teachings of Jesus serve to temper the apparent bloodthirst of the God of the Old Covenant. But this does not change the fact that the demands of Mosaic Law are inherently immoral and wrong by any measure that my conscience will allow.
The biggest disappointment for me was the suggestion that answers to these important questions can be found in popular study guides and apologetics. I have read much of the proffered literature and have yet to find an argument that isn’t hopelessly circular or that doesn’t require a pre-acceptance of Christian faith. Frankly, I cannot and will not accept any theological tenet which demands I set aside values that I know to be self-evident. A god that advocates rape and murder of your enemies in the name of racial advancement is not worthy of my worship, and no argument for scriptural infallibility will change my mind in that regard.
Also, I would be remiss not to mention that the segment from Senator Obama’s speech on faith in America was taken entirely out of context, and therefore seemed gratuitous and unnecessary. In the past, I have been impressed by your fair and evenhanded discussion of politcal matters. This time, however, regardless of what you may have intended, the net result portrayed Obama in a distressingly partisan light, and as such was extremely disappointing.
Having said all of this, I will continue to follow the series and remain optimistic that your usual sagacity will be very much in evidence.
Cheers,
G.T.
Reply
Geoff,
Thanks for your kind word regarding my past messages and my willingness to take on the tough questions of evangelical Christianity. this series is as hard as any I have done. It is definitely outside ‘what I learned in Seminary!”
The central issue you seem to have with my sermon was my answer to the ‘atrocities of the Old Testament’. You found it wanting. Actually, I didn’t answer that question, at least not directly. As similarly I didn’t answer the question of slavery, or the apparent contradictions about rabbits chewing their cud or four-legged insects. I simply didn’t have time to offer the answers and so I pointed to where the answers could be found; in books for sale in the lobby or in articles on line.
Regarding the specific issue of genocide and the ‘apparent bloodthirst of the god of the Old Covenant’ I did suggest the chapter in Lee Strobel’s book, Case for Faith. I spent a few minutes today re-reading that chapter and I came away feeling that he does a credible job in answering that very hard question. If you have not read his chapter, “God Isn’t Worthy if He Kills Innocent Children”, I suggest you do. Having said that, I understand, if after all is written that can be written and said that can be said, that some people will reject God and the Bible because of what he says or does. I acknowledged that at the end of my message and I am okay with leaving the final debate between you and God.
To your comment regarding Obama; I am sorry that you feel I took his words out of context or used it in a partisan way. In truth, I took time to put his words in context and I did not use him to promote any political party or agenda, but simply to introduce my topic.
Having said that, I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to respond to this first message in the Tough Questions Series and should you continue to listen, I hope to hear from you again.
Tim