Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
The Harvester Podcast is brought to you by the Florida School of Preaching. Listen weekly to take a dive into biblical topics and thoughtful studies on things that matter to our eternal souls.
Welcome to the Harvester podcast.
We welcome you to our third season and our twelfth episode of that season.
And this season we have been looking at lessons on Christian evidences or apologetics as
they are sometimes called.
And we've established the fact that God exists, that the Bible is the Word of God.
And so today's episode and the next one also we're going to look at
alleged conflicts within the Bible that some people will use to say that the Bible cannot
be from God.
I am your host, Brian Kenyon, and along with me is...
And we are both from the South Florida Avenue Church of Christ in Lakeland, Florida.
And usually with us is Stephen Ford and Forest Antemesaris although Forest has been very
sparse this season.
But we're all in very busy schedules, busy time of life, and so it's hard for us to all
four get together, but I'm confident that we will be all together soon in a future
episode.
But George, bring us up to date then on what we have been talking about so far and how
this lesson is a good lesson to fit into all that.
All right, Brian, thank you.
Episode number 12 then addressing some objections to what we have studied up to this point
about the Bible's being God's Word.
The objection to biblical Christianity argues like this, at least this objection.
There are others, but this categorization of objections.
Premise number one, if the Bible conflicts with itself, if it does, then the Bible is not
the Word of God.
Of course, we would affirm that.
And then premise number two, the Bible does conflict with itself.
This is what we would deny.
And they conclude, therefore, the critic, therefore the Bible is not the Word of God.
Now, to answer such a claim, the defender of biblical Christianity, the apologist, needs
to show that the original texts allow for consistency.
That is, just the possibility of consistency would do the trick.
That is to say, we should be able to show that the passages in question that allegedly
conflict with one another can be understood in such a way there's enough wiggle room in
the meaning of these passages that they all can be true at the same time.
Again now, just the possibility of consistency would do the trick.
This would show that the critic does not have a clincher here.
And if this cannot be done, however, then there is a conflict.
And I think that's important for us.
uh Those of us who studied logic and things like that, we understand what consistency
means in a logical terminology.
And that means two statements can be true at the same time.
And so it's, you know, as, as George just mentioned, the consistency that is if there's an
apparent contradiction, if there is just one way that, that, that it can be true, both
statements can be true at the same time.
Then, then
logic and reason has proven consistency and true inconsistency would definitely be uh a
Indication that the Bible is not from God but Consistency shows that it is true.
And so even though the statements may not seem related But if they are can both be true at
the same time Then we know it's consistent and it's from God
Well, it's consistent.
And then we, uh, we have thereby defanged the, the, the, the critics claim.
So that's our burden while in the defense.
So let's look at what I call claim number one from the critics, Jairus's daughter.
This is a recorded in March chapter five, 21 to 43, Luke eight, 40 to 56.
That's four zero to 56.
and Matthew in Matthew 9 18 to 26.
Maybe to get this on the table before us.
Brian, could you read Mark 5 21 to 43?
Yes, and I'll be reading from the New King James translation.
The text reads, Now when Jesus had crossed over again by boat to the other side, a great
multitude gathered to him, and he was by the sea.
And behold, one of the rulers of the synagogue came, Jarius by name.
And when he saw him, he fell at his feet.
And he begged him earnestly, saying, My little daughter lies at the point of death.
Come and lay your hands on her, that she may be healed, and she will live.
So Jesus went with him and a great multitude followed him and thronged him.
Now a certain woman had an issue of blood or a flow of blood from twelve years and had
suffered many things from many physicians.
She had spent all that she had and was no better, but rather grew worse.
When she heard about Jesus, she came behind him in the crowd and touched his garment.
For she said, If only I may touch his clothes, I shall be well.
Immediately the fountain of her blood was dried up and she felt in her body that she was
healed of the affliction.
And Jesus immediately, knowing in himself that power had gone out of him, turned around in
the crowd and said, Who touched me?
Who touched my clothes?
But his disciples said to him, You see the multitude thronging you, and you say, Who
touched me?
And he looked around to see her who had done this thing.
But when the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell
down before him and told him the whole truth.
And he said to her, Daughter, your faith has made you well.
Go in peace and be healed of your affliction.
While he was still speaking, some came from the ruler of the synagogue's house, who said,
Your daughter is dead.
Why trouble the teacher any further?
As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he said to the ruler of the synagogue,
Do not be afraid, only believe.
And he permitted no one to follow him except Peter, James, and John, the brother of James.
Then he came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue and saw a tumult and those who
wept and welled loudly.
When he came in, he said to them, Why make this commotion and weep?
The child is not dead, but sleeping.
Then they ridiculed him, but when he had put them all outside, he took the father and the
mother of the child
and those who were with him, entered where the child was lying.
Then he took the child by the hand and said to her, Tabetha, or actually, Talitha, kumai,
which is translated, little girl, I say to you, Immediately the girl arose and walked, for
she was twelve years of age, and they were overcome with great amazement.
But he commanded them strictly that no one should know it, and said that something should
be given her to eat.
through verse 43.
So thank you, Brian.
That gives us the greater context here.
We notice that there are several matters that are taking place and documented in this
passage, but we want to focus our attention upon the little girl and her health condition
and the miracle that is in mind here.
Now, one thing to note, however, before we focus in on the objection from the critics,
is that we have an individual who is very concerned about his daughter, she's dying, and
uh he had heard that Jesus was a healer, and we find that he comes to Jesus then and wants
Jesus to uh make his little girl healthy again.
uh Notice in the passage that uh Jesus, on the other hand, uh is in no hurry here.
uh There's an
There's another event that takes place and Jesus takes his time and deals with that and
then we have the resumption in the text of the little girl again.
the father is all upset and uh panicky and wants him to do it right now.
But Jesus, uh again, he's not in a hurry and eventually he takes care of the matter.
I think that's important to understand what's happening here.
Now, let's look at this so-called claim number one, as I'm calling it from the critics.
In Mark 5 verses 22 to 23, excuse me, and in particular verse 23, it reads, and begged him
earnestly saying, now note, my little daughter lies at the point of death.
And then if we look at Luke's account over in Luke 8, 41 to 49, and in particular verse
42,
we find these words, for he had an only daughter about 12 years of age and she was dying.
So comparing Mark and Luke, she is at the point of death and then Luke says she was dying.
But then we go over to Matthew's account in Matthew 9, 18 to 26 and in particular verse
18, notice this, while he spoke these things to them, behold a ruler came and worshiped
him saying, my daughter has just died.
but come and lay your hand on her and she will live." the alleged conflict here is uh
evident, uh the critics will say, when you compare the three accounts.
We should note that Jairus, once again, we should note that Jairus had heard Jesus was a
healer.
Note also that uh Jesus had raised the son of a widow, of the widow of Nain before this,
recorded in Luke 7.
verses 11 to 17.
So, Jairus' daughter then, Mark 5, 22 to 23.
Mark's report, Mark quotes Jairus as saying to Jesus, my little daughter lies at the point
of death.
And then later, Mark quotes some who came from Jairus' house and saying to Jairus, your
daughter is dead.
That was later.
And then we have
That was later in this account as it's read here.
And then we have Luke's report in Luke 8 and verse 42 in particular and then compared with
verse 49 in that passage.
So Luke is reporting, not quoting, what Jairus said to Jesus and Luke affirms that his
daughter was dying.
And furthermore, Luke reports that later someone came to Jairus' house
And Luke quotes him as saying, your daughter is dead.
So we go over to Matthew's account in Matthew 9 verse 18.
This reads again, while he spoke these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped
him saying, my daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her and she will
live.
So Matthew is giving us a more brief account.
Matthew quotes Jairus as saying to Jesus, my daughter has just died.
and no additional words are given about someone coming from Jairus' house to tell him
this.
So here is the critical claim.
Mark reports that Jairus said his daughter is at the point of death.
Luke's report affirms that she was dying.
Those two are consistent.
And then Matthew's report conflicts, according to the critic, conflicts with Mark and Luke
in saying Jairus said to Jesus that she has died.
Now how do we reply to this?
How do we answer to that?
Well let's say a few things about this.
I believe we can uh provide some help here in understanding what's happening.
First, as was made clear in previous classes in this series, the view that we are
defending is since the Bible is God's Word, then whatever the Bible teaches, when God is
presenting His case, is true.
We'll call this X.
The Bible does include errors from others as well.
That is, it quotes others, such as Satan, or when humans are speaking their own words.
Our position is that when it does this, the biblical text preserves inerranly what such
beings said without necessarily affirming that the statements of such beings are true.
Yes, and that's a good point.
The Bible affirms that it's true that Satan lied.
That's right.
Or the Bible affirms that it's true that such and such a human being said this false
doctrine or whatever.
oh
inherently so it's true that it's false
Yes, excellent.
So, for example, Luke chapter 4 verses 7 to 8 quotes an interchange between Satan and
Jesus.
This reads, if you will worship before me all will be yours, And then verse 8, and Jesus
answered and said to him, get behind me, Satan, for it is written, you shall worship the
Lord your God and him only you shall serve, unquote.
So based on the argument developed in this series,
It follows that Luke 4, 7 to 8, preserves what Satan said to Jesus.
But the statement that the father of lies said, the father of lies, John 8, 44, the
statement that the father of lies said is false.
That is, if you will worship before me, all will be yours is a false statement, though it
is in the Bible.
An example of the Bible's recording of human error is found in Matthew 26 verses 60 to 61.
This reads, at last two false witnesses came forward and said, This fellow said, I am able
to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.
Unquote.
The literal meaning of this statement that they claimed is not what Jesus meant, according
to the Bible.
Verse 21, But he was speaking of the temple of his body.
Therefore, when he had risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this
to them, and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had said." That's found
in John 2, 18-21.
So the Bible inherently preserves their false claim.
Second, now let us notice the three accounts about Jairus' daughter.
Does the wording in the three accounts allow for at least the possibility of being in
harmony?
If yes, this is all that is needed to remove the claim that they conflict from clincher
status, the latter being what the critic needs to make his case.
Mark 5 verse 23 reads, my little daughter lies at the point of death.
Mark's account quotes Jairus's words.
Next, Luke 842 reads, for he had only an only daughter about 12 years of age and she was
dying, unquote.
Luke's account is not quoting Jairus but is the Bible's affirmation that Jairus was right
about what he said as quoted in Mark, namely that his daughter is not yet dead.
Next, Matthew 9 verse 18 reads, quote, My daughter has just died, Matthew's account also
quotes Jairus's words, words which are different than and in conflict with the words of
Jairus that Mark quotes.
Whereas Luke affirms what Jairus said in Mark is true that the daughter had not yet died,
Luke's account does not affirm that what Jairus said in Matthew is true.
The three accounts allow the reader to conclude that the emotional Jairus said both
statements to Jesus, one that is in fact true, his daughter is dying, and then one that is
false, his daughter is dead.
Now here is where the critic is mistaken.
The conflict is with what Jairus said, not what the Bible is affirming.
Quite to the contrary, the Bible in Luke affirms as true only what Mark said, that is,
that the daughter is dying, not dead.
All of this is consistent with the argument presented in earlier lessons in this series,
and that argument, once again, is
Since the Bible is God's Word, then whatever the Bible teaches when God is presenting His
case is true.
So that uh is important for us to understand again in the three accounts about Jairus'
daughter.
The Bible is inerranely preserving the two conflicting statements that Jairus makes in the
emotion of the moment.
But where God is presenting His case, there is no conflict.
The conflict is with what Jairus said, not with what the Bible affirms as true.
On the contrary, the Bible in Luke affirms as true only what Jairus said in Mark that the
daughter is dying.
The Bible does not affirm that what Jairus said quoted in Matthew is true, namely that she
is dead at this point.
Now this at least is one way of interpreting this matter.
There is more that can be said, but again all we need is one
is the possibility of their being in harmony.
A question for the critic here is, do the three accounts allow for the possibility that
Jairus is emotional and made both statements to Jesus, she is dying and then a moment
later says she is dead?
The critic would have to say the words do not allow this, that is, it is impossible, which
the critic might assert but cannot prove.
Remember now, all the Bible believer needs is the possibility that there is no conflict,
but the critic who says that they do conflict must affirm that it is impossible to
reconcile the three accounts.
And I think it also shows, that what the Bible records is real human beings in moments of
despair and moments of stress that do, because we can think of examples in our lives,
maybe with ourselves or people we see, that would make similar statements in that
situation.
I know I've been visiting people in the emergency room and stuff, and they would say she's
dying, and at some point she says she's dead, or whatever, and again, human emotions come
out, but the Bible records all that.
And as we mentioned before, the Bible is true when it says what these people said, but
then as George pointed out, when God is presenting His case, it's always true, and so
these statements are indeed consistent.
And uh now there is another interpretation that we could offer to show harmony that at
least we could uh analyze, but I believe that what I presented uh gets the job done.
One is reminded of the poem titled The Anvil of God's Word attributed to John Clifford.
Last eve I paused beside the blacksmith's door and heard the anvil ring the vesper chime.
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor old hammers, worn with beating ears of time.
How many anvils have you had, said I, to wear and batter all these hammers so?
Just one, said he, and then with twinkling eye, the anvil wears the hammers out, you know.
And so I thought the anvil of God's word.
For ages, skeptic blows have beaten upon, yet though the noise of falling blows was heard,
the anvil is unharmed, the hammer's gone." Unquote.
So that's claim number one.
Any further thoughts there, Brian, before we look at claim number two from the creation
No, I think that answers that claim that that does not, just because you have those two
statements, does not disprove the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible.
Okay, great.
So, claim number two, as I call it, the inscription on the cross.
Now, I understand that we could just go on and on with these alleged discrepancies in the
Bible.
In fact, that also would be another wonderful series of lessons that would give us
opportunity to look at many more that are alleged by the critic and then analyze them to
show uh consistency in the biblical text.
but in this series we're going to have to be restricting ourselves and I'll call this one
claim number two.
Again, the inscription on the cross.
is recorded in Matthew 27 verse 37, Mark 15 verse 26, Luke 23 verse 38, and in this one we
have John also giving us information in John chapter 19 verse 19.
So John 19, 19 to 20 gives us
a fair amount of details.
This reads, now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross and the writing was, Jesus of
Nazareth the King of the Jews.
And then verse 20, then many of the Jews read this title for the place where Jesus was
crucified was near the city and it was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin.
Therefore the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate,
Do not write the King of the Jews, but he said I am the King of the Jews.
Pilate answered, What I have written I have written." So each of the four Gospels indicate
an inscription as follows.
We'll notice first here, notice Matthew 27 verse 37.
This reads, Above his head they placed the written charge against him.
This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.
Each of the four gospels indicate an inscription.
we're looking at Matthew 27 verse 37, this is Jesus, King of the Jews.
Mark 15, 26 says, the King of the Jews.
Luke 23 verse 38 says, this is the King of the Jews.
John 19, 19, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.
Now here's the critical claim.
The gospel writers conflict with one another as to what words were on the cross.
Now this is a good example showing the nature of the Gospels.
They are four accounts of events documenting the life of Jesus.
Expect differences among them from four different perspectives.
Otherwise all four would be identical books in every way.
Rather we argue that there are different accounts here, but they are complementary.
Note the word, I'm not saying comp-li-mentary, but comp-li-mentary.
That is to say, that E in there means to complete.
They are not conflicting, but they are additive one to the other.
Taken together, the four gospels provide a variety of details resulting in a four picture.
But keep in mind also the observation in John 20 verse 25, which reads,
And there are also many other things that Jesus did which if they were written one by one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Amen." Unquote.
So now a reply then to the critic.
A gospel writer could be giving a summary statement capturing the essence of a saying.
Further, given the complementary nature of the gospels, it is possible that one
What was actually written on the cross may be found by compiling the four gospels
together.
Doing so could yield, this is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.
Now, I just point out as a footnote here, uh Pilate's choice of words here, I believe, is
needling the Jews.
He was not a friend of the Jews.
He was uh an appointed uh ruler from Rome.
and he was very conscious of that and his job at least in part was to keep the peace, the
pax romana as said in Latin, the Roman peace and the Roman government was very concerned
about that.
wanted people to be peaceful, do not upset the apple cart so to speak, get along with the
Roman government and if you do not
you will pay the consequence and they'll have a public crucifixion and the body would stay
there for a while and people would walk by they'd make it in a public place and the signal
given to the citizenry is and anyone else that even the non-citizen do not mess with us.
Yes, and that's consistent with Pilate in general because remember he was ready to release
Jesus until they brought up, if you let this man go you are not Caesar's friend.
Caesar.
And soon as Caesar got in there then Pilate had to crucify Right.
At least in his mind.
Yet a way down deep, uh, there is some, uh, suggestion that, that he was, uh, he w not
happy with the whole situation.
And, uh, when he said, is Jesus, Nazareth, Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews or the
like, the Jews didn't like that.
looks to me like he was needling them there.
And also in John's account, John gives the more detailed one because John is written to a
totally different audience, remember?
The three synoptics are kind of kind of early-ish.
Right.
Yeah, when people still knew Jesus and knew people that knew Jesus, whereas John was
written to that second generation of Christians, some of whom never even knew Jesus or
knew anybody who knew Jesus.
So on the other hand, of course, uh he is, uh we would agree that he is inerranely
reserving what was said back during Jesus' lifetime, as are the other gospel accounts.
So once again, just the possibility removes the critics' proof of conflict from what I
would call clincherhood.
As a matter of interest, to gain insight into what the inscription actually looked like,
uh
Gleason L.
Archer Jr.
in his uh book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties provides Aramaic, Latin, and Greek
renderings of John 19, 19.
a few folks were to, if this were a video, we could show you that.
uh Latin Rex, Enviorum Hic, that is, this is King of the Jews, Rex meaning King in Latin.
The Greek is, uh hiasousha nasorion basireos ton iodion, literally Jesus the Nazarene King
of the Jews.
So it would have looked something along those lines or some combination of these uh
references that we have in the gospel accounts.
So again then we have,
tried to show that given the wording of the texts in the various accounts that there is
enough leeway, enough latitude there uh in meaning of the terms that allows us to conclude
that they are in harmony and all we need to do is show that they could be in harmony which
is what we have done.
Any further thoughts there?
Nope, it does show the consistency.
all these statements can both be true at the same time, given some background information
as we discussed.
And so they do not conflict, they do not contradict, but they are totally consistent with
one another.
Another thing we could say here by way of a footnote is uh it is not as easy to show a
conflict among texts as one might think.
Furthermore, there's a difference.
I'm persuaded that some of the critics or least some people are not fully aware of what a
contradiction is.
In fact, in logic, we talk about a contradiction.
Two statements are contradictory or they can be
contrary or they can be subcontrary this has to do with uh whether they can both be true
and Both be false whether they can be both be true But not both be false whether they can
both be false and not both be true, etc.
Etc and there's a fair amount of uh Detail to become aware of as to just what I conflict
as I use the term conflict so as to retain the distinction between contradiction
contrary and subcontrary.
that's more generic term, but, um, now if, in fact there is a conflict, uh, then of
course, honesty would compel all of us to admit it.
But, but once again, just want to point out that, uh, it's not the way we need to be, uh,
careful that we not in a cavalier way say, we got a conflict here and let it go with that.
Sometimes these, a lot of these are just, uh,
what we could call paper tigers.
That is maybe they have the appearance of being ferocious, but further investigation shows
that the, that there is no substance there.
And again, the argument that we've been dealing with, the argument that, you know, people
who object to Christianity would use along these lines, as we said in the beginning, if
the Bible conflicts with itself, then the Bible is not the Word of God.
And as George had mentioned, we would agree with that for sure.
Number two, the Bible does conflict with itself.
Now, that's where the disagreement is.
And these two examples are just examples of that.
Therefore, the Bible is not the Word of God.
And so this argument is unsound.
because of premise number two it's valid is set up right this on sound because the bible
does not conflict with itself
is incorrect, Correct.
That's right.
In order for an argument to be sound, it has to be formed, what we call, validly.
And that has a specific meaning.
And then once it's formed validly, then all of the premises, all of the premises must be
true in order for the conclusion to follow.
and as a matter of fact, the argument is valid.
As a matter of fact, it is called
affirming the antecedent if we want to get into detail, but the second premise is not true
and that at least we've shown that the possibility that it's not true, that's all we need
to do in defense.
Now again, there's much more that can be said by way of critics and analyzing their
claims.
Next class, uh next episode, we'll address some additional objections to what we have
studied.
And if you're listening to this and have some other objections that you have heard but are
stumped with an answer of consistency, let us know.
We'll be happy to deal with those also as they come in.
And so we appreciate, George, in sharing this information with us, and we appreciate you
listening in to this podcast as we go through these Christian evidences things.
And as mentioned before, our next class will address some more additional alleged uh
inconsistencies with the Bible and we will answer those as well.
And again if you have any questions or any comments we'd love to hear from you.
You can email us at fsop at fsop.net but we thank you for joining us and look forward to
your being here with us next time.