DOES GOD TEMPT MAN?
(KJV) Contradiction 1: And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham... Genesis 22:1
(KJV) Contradiction 2: Let no man say when he is tempted, "I am tempted of God" for God cannot be tempted
with evil, neither tempteth he any man. James 1:13
(NIV) Accurate: Some time later God tested Abraham... Genesis 22:1
The Hebrew lexicon primarily defines the word nacah used in Genesis as to test, try, or prove in the sense of
putting someone to the test- not in the sense of tempting to do evil. On the other hand, the Greek lexicon
specifically states the definition of the word in Galatians (apeirastos) as cannot be tempted by evil or not liable
to the temptation of sin. The Hebrew word implies to test while the Greek implies what we understand to literally
mean tempt. The KJV uses the antiquated translation as tempt though this is not technically correct. This issue
has been debated to death so in order for our point to really hit home, let's use a few examples from the Old
Testament which use the term nacah as a reference to test/try:
- Daniel 1:12,14 Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables and water...
- Ecclesiastes 7:23 All this I tested by wisdom and I said...
- I Kings 10:1 When the queen of Sheba heard about the fame of Solomon and his relation to the name of
the Lord, she came to test him with hard questions. - Judges 6:39 Then Gideon said to God... "Allow me one more test with the fleece."
If we replace the word test with the word tempt in the above passages, the verses would make no sense
whatsoever. Did the Queen of Sheba tempt Solomon's wisdom with difficult questions? Did Daniel ask the chief
official to tempt the effects of his requested diet on his body? Was Gideon wanting to make a tempt with the
fleece? When we examine other verses which use the word nacah, we can reach a logical conclusion regarding
the correct definition in Genesis.
WAS JESUS' FIRST SERMON ON A PLAIN OR ON A MOUNT?
(KJV) Contradiction 1: And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain... Matthew 5:1
(KJV) Contradiction 2: And He came down with them, and stood in the plain... Luke 6:17
(NIV) He went down with them and stood on a level place... Luke 6:17
As the NIV more accurately explains, the Greek word used in Luke is pedinos which simply refers to a level or
flat place. All this fuss basically comes down to Jesus finding a flat surface on which to gain His footing! Skeptics
are assuming inclined areas contain no level places but this obviously is not so. A plateau, for instance, is a flat
area that may be found on higher ground.
DID THOSE AT SAUL'S/PAUL'S CONVERSION HEAR A VOICE?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless. They heard the sound but did not
see anyone. Acts 9:7
(NIV) Contradiction 2: My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was
speaking to me. Acts 22:9
I must be missing something because I personally see no contradiction in the above verses. Both verses state
the men heard a voice but verse 22 expands on the incident by explaining the men did not understand what was
said. I'm assuming the problem comes from those referencing the KJV which states "they did not hear the voice."
But once we examine the original Greek, we see Luke uses the word akouo which can also mean to understand,
comprehend, or perceive (as the NIV explains).
CAN HUMANS ASCEND TO HEAVEN?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses
of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. II Kings 2:11
(NIV) Contradiction 2: No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of
Man. John 3:13
The Hebrew word used in Kings is shamayim which can either refer to the skies (primary) or the actual abode of
God (secondary). In Hebrew tradition, the meaning in this case is the skies. On the other hand, John uses the
Greek word ouranos which can also refer to either the skies or the actual abode of God. In this sense, tradition
states no man can physically ascend into Heaven. The dualism of the definitions offers us a reasonable answer
free of any contradiction.
CAN GOD BE SEEN?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: The Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Exodus 33:11
(NIV) Contradiction 2: No one has ever seen God... John 1:18
In the first verse, the Hebrew idiom for face to face translates into English as without a mediator. This verse does
not imply Moses physically seeing the face of God but that he was able to communicate with God as a man
speaks to his friend (as a true friend would not require a go-between for communication). This explanation is
given once we read the context:
Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory." And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of
you... "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Then the Lord said, "There is
a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock
and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back.
But my face must not be seen." Exodus 33:18-23
God can appear to us as a physical manifestation but He does not appear to us in full glory. The original Hebrew
texts mostly differentiate between the type of presence God takes with either the use of the word Elohim (God's
glory) or Jehovah (God's literal name). Elohim is usually used in spiritual encounters while Jehovah is usually
used in physical encounters, thus eliminating any contradiction.
However, we seem to find ourselves in a bit of a predicament with the verse in Genesis 32:30: So Jacob called
the place Peniel, saying, 'It is because I saw God [Elohim] face to face, and yet my life was spared.' Again we
see the Hebrew idiom face to face referring to without a mediator. I also see the words "yet my life was spared"
as a possible reference to his struggle with God in Genesis 32:22-30 (and not necessarily a reference to him
seeing "God's glory"). Lastly, the context shows Jacob struggling with a manifestation of God and not God's
glory (Then Jacob was left alone, and a man (iysh) wrestled with him until daybreak).
 |
 |
WHO BOUGHT THE POTTER'S FIELD?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field... Acts 1:18
(NIV) Contradiction 2: The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the
treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for
foreigners. Matthew 27:6-7
Once we examine the original Greek, we see Matthew and Luke differentiate between terms of ownership.
Matthew uses the word ajgoravzw (legal ownership) while Luke uses ktaomai (physical possession). In other
words, Judas purchased the field in his name and was therefore the legal owner, but after his death, the priests
obtained the field for communal use yet did not possess the legal rights to it. In layman's terms, The original
Greek states Judas purchased the field but the priest acquired the field after his death.
WHO WAS THE MOTHER OF ABIJAH?
(KJV) Contradiction 1: [Abijah's] mother's name also was Michaia... II Chronicles 13:1-2
(KJV) Contradiction 2: ...Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him Abijah... II Chronicles 11:20
(NIV) Accurate: [Abijah's] mother's name was Maacah, a daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. II Chronicles 13:1-2
(NIV) Accurate: Then he married Maacah daughter of Absalom, who bore him Abijah. II Chronicles 11:20
Though the spelling differs in some versions, the KJV lexicon states both names refer to the same woman (See
here [note 6] and here [note 2]) Both are described as the wife of King Rehoboam and the mother of Abijah.
Though Maacah is her literal name, Michaiah (meaning depression) was a pun the author of Chronicles uses in
chapter 13 (with the humorous twist being lost in translation). On the other hand, various texts reveal the name
as Maacah in both verses.
Skeptic Interjection: How is this the same woman when one verse says she is Uriel's daughter while the other
says she is Absalom's?
Answer: This conflict has two possible solutions: Some believe Absalom was Maacah's father while Uriel was her
mother. Although Uriel's gender is not specified, most of my sources reveal Uriel was a man. This leads us to the
second and more likely possibility. The Hebrew word used in both verses is bath which is an ambiguous term
meaning daughter, granddaughter, daughter-in-law, etc. Basically, any female descendant- both immediate and
long term. If Uriel was indeed a man, he was most likely her immediate father while Absalom was one of her
ancestors, with his name being mentioned to reference her royal heritage. This explanation is reinforced by the
fact Maacah's name is not found in the list of Absalom's children mentioned in II Samuel 14:27 where we are told
his daughter was Tamar (not Maacah).
HOW MANY CHILDREN DID MICHAL (THE DAUGHTER OF SAUL) HAVE?
(KJV) Contradiction 1: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children. II Samuel 6:23
(KJV) Contradiction 1: ...And the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul... II Samuel 21:8
(NIV) Accurate: ...Together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab... II Samuel 21:8
I Samuel 14:49 reveals Saul had two daughters (Michal and Merab): The name of his older daughter was Merab,
and that of the younger was Michal. Some pre-Masoretic texts reveal Merab as the possible accurate daughter
mentioned in chapter 21.
Skeptic Interjection: But don't most Hebrew texts state the name as Michal?
Answer: Most Hebrew texts as well as some copies of the Septuagint use the name Michal. This causes some
skeptics to believe later scribes purposely changed the name to Merab in order to fix the contradictions. But the
name Merab is also used in some older manuscripts including two Hebrew texts, some copies of the Septuagint,
and the Syriac version.
RABBITS DO NOT CHEW CUD
(KJV) Contradiction: And the hare, because he cheweth the cud... Leviticus 11:6
The error in this translation is the use of the word cud from the Hebrew word gerah which basically means
partially digested material. Rabbits do alah (move) their gerah (undigested food) with the fact they eat their own
feces in order to reabsorb the nutrients of the undigested material. This process, known as refection (See: note
2a), differs from our modern definition of the process of rumination (See: note 2). In this case, the translators of
the KJV used the word they felt best suited this process although it technically is not what we know today as
chewing cud.
Skeptic Interjection: Rabbits do not chew their pellets- they swallow them whole.
Answer: The actual infinitive literally meaning to chew the cud is gerar (See: note 2) and is only used in
Leviticus 11:7 as a reference to cud chewing. Gerar is not the term used when referring to the refection process
of rabbits/hares in Leviticus 11:6. The word used in this case is alah which does not remotely mean chew
(though the translators of the KJV thought it did!). Alah encompasses many definitions referring to movement of
some sort (to ascend, to depart, to withdraw, etc.) but never as a reference to chewing. Critics view the English
translations which state chew the cud in both verses and think Ah ha! But they ignore the original Hebrew
which differentiates between the two processes. I cannot be anymore clear than this. Skeptics are trying to
correctly merge 17th century A.D. English definitions with 15th century B.C. Hebrew terminology but common
sense tells us there are many errors in this line of thinking.
BATS ARE NOT BIRDS
(KJV) Contradiction: And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...and the stork,
the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. Leviticus 11:13,19
The error in this translation is the use of the word fowls from the Hebrew word owph which literally refers to any
flying creature. The original Hebrew text is explaining what flying creatures were acceptable for consumption and
which ones were not. Because the bat is technically a flying creature, it was accurately included in this list.
Skeptic Interjection: Why didn't the Bible just classify the bat with other mammals?
Answer: At the time, the bat fit best under the classification of winged creatures. The extensive scientific
classifications we have today did not exist 3500 years ago. The Bible listing the bat with other winged creatures
was literally and technically correct. Just because modern definitions have changed does not make the 3500 year
old classification of winged creatures incorrect.
WHO SHOULD BEAR A MAN'S BURDEN?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: Carry each other's burdens... Galatians 6:2
(NIV) Contradiction 2: For each one should carry his own load. Galatians 6:5
These two verses are basically telling us to lend each other a helping hand but not to take advantage of those
who are willing to help. Upon examination of the original Greek, we can see two different words are used.
Galatians 6:2 uses baros which implies troubles/burdens we are to share with one another while Galatians 6:5
uses phortion which literally translates as the burdens of the conscience for which we are individually responsible.
 |  |  |  |  |
| Bookmark Us (Ctrl + d) |
