understanding the bible · web viewunderstanding the bible the fact that both evil and good men...

Understanding the BibleThe fact that both evil and good men have made a career of refuting and

defending the accuracy of the Bible as long as any document which claims inspiration has existed is proof that we cannot cover this theme in this study. However, while we might reject the liberal conclusions of the theories such as the Documentary Hypothesis, we must not overlook that what we call a book is actually an ancient library of material written by many writers over a period of hundreds of years. Contained within this material will appear to be contradictions or writers which seem to understand the same event in different ways. For instance, one problem to the liberal mind is the event where Moses told Israel to “stand still and let God do it,” while God told Moses to “lift up his hand and get on with it.” Rather than this being two stories merged together it may simply be God correcting Moses’ “passive” theology. Another problem is Paul saying that God “credited” or “counted” Abraham’s belief for righteousness while God told Isaac that He “counted” Abraham’s keeping His “laws, commandments, statutes, and ordinances” for righteousness. These events could easily lead one to believe that the Bible flatly contradicts itself.

If we conclude that the Word contradicts itself and is therefore not reliable then we probably should abandon any effort to defend the Christian religion because it is preeminently a “religion of the book.” Destroy the book and you destroy the religion.

However, the other extreme is to see the Bible as a grab-bag out of which we can take a text out of its context and construct a theory. This is almost universally the method of modern Bible study and the student is advised to “seek the truth” and the theories will fall into place.

If we are tempted to see the Bible as the merging of miscellaneous materials we may fail to dig deeper and see that very often there are two or more agendas contained within the material—God’s agenda and man’s. For instance if we see the period of Mosaic Law as an expression of God’s ideals then we might look at the slaughter and mayhem in the story of David and be repulsed by the Old Testament image of God and effectively deny Him. If, however, we see God rejecting David as a man of blood we may see that events which David and others brought about by their own efforts was a denial of God’s ideals. This becomes much easier when we see that the sacrificial system was to show man just how sinful he was and not to elevate him spiritually.

The Problem of LanguageThe study of the Bible is fraught with many dangers but it is one of those

fundamental disciplines of Scripture study which must be understood at some level in order to see the nature of the Christian dispensation and to guard against falling back into legalism with its celebrative and ritualistic worship.

One of the obstacles to an understanding of the Bible is that even in our day, a translator in New York cannot always understand the intent of a writer in Germany and must make personal contact to get a verbal explanation. How, then, are we to understand the Bible which began to be written some 3500 years ago in a language which none truly understands. In fact, scholars discovered only in the last hundred years that the original language of the New Testament was not classic “Greek” or a “kind of Hebrew Greek” but was Koine or the language of the market place rather than the language of the seminary.

However, what would be impossible with many books becomes possible with the Bible.

“It is very wonderful that though the Bible deals with the deepest truths, yet it is the most translatable book there is. The Koran and other sacred books remain imprisoned in the languages in which they were written—the power of their appeal is largely inherent in their original tongue. The Bible is not only the most translatable books, but it is the Book which suffers least in translation.” ( J.H. Ritson, the British and Foreign Bible Society).

Survey of the Old Testament

This translatability, and proof of its inspiration, is based upon the Bible being written in symbolic language or word-pictures which have a natural meaning in all languages. Eugene Nida of the American Bible Society shows several ways that these words become understandable pictures:

Background of the Literature

“Gird up the loins of your mind” might become“Put a belt around the hips of your thoughts” if literally understood. Yet there are

similar expressions in all languages which allows the word-picture to communicate where a literal translation would be difficult.

“Lift up your eyes” in Turkish becomes“Pick your eyes up off the table.” And it would be meaningless.However, the writer gives an illustration where the true intent of the passage is

given:“God forgives” in the Shilluk language of the Sudan might become“God spits on the ground in the front of Him.”The Bible is written in many literary forms: parable, fable, simile, similitude,

metaphor, allegory, metonymy, synecdoche, proverb, irony, sarcasm, hyperbole, apostrophe, personification, interrogation, prolepsis, and parallels of three forms. It speaks in types or symbols and other forms. Therefore, while the Bible is unique in its translatability, it is a mistake to believe that the way of Truth is for the simple or lazy. In fact, Isaiah prophesied that the fool cannot stumble into the way of God:

"And a [highway] will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that Way; wicked fools will not go about on it. "— Isa 35:8 And Jesus declares that the reason that the fool or lazy cannot stumble upon God’s

highway is that it has a narrow gate:"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. "-- Mat 7:13-14 Peter prevents an idle treatment of the Bible when he warned that Paul was

chosen by God to teach some very difficult things and that the fool, the lazy, the ignorant, and the unstable are likely to turn the revealed Word of God into a destructive weapon:

"He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own [destruction].” -- 2 Pet 3:16

This was true because Paul, in the pattern of the Old Testament writers, makes some highly figurative uses of Old Testament prophecies to teach spiritual truths.

These warnings make it clear that those who want to understand the Old Testament must not accept the enclosed proof-texts but must seek, knock, and ask the passage for its true meaning.

"Ask and it will be given to you; [seek] and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. " — Mat 7:7-8 3

The Problem of Distinguishing between the True and FalseThere are many concepts in the Bible which are neither endorsed, refuted, or

defined. For instance, the concept of “baptism for the dead” is passed over without comment and we must try to understand Paul’s meaning. Also, the Old Testament is liberally sprinkled with the concept that at death all comes to an end and one must determine whether the writer is discussing the body or the soul.

Another area of particular concern is that of prophecy which is either implicit or embedded within the very earliest Bible history. Many stories, therefore, must be understood as applying literally at that time and perhaps also as prophetic. Complicating this is the use to which the New Testament writers put the OT prophecies. The way in which NT writers use the OT message is a study within itself


but must be understood at some level in order to begin to understand the OT narrative.

First, the study of the implied prophecy or prophecies attributed by later writers is important because it is generally agreed that at least one third of the Bible is prophecy in one form or another. Therefore, because we believe that the Bible is given to reveal the mind of God, if we are to understand His nature and plan, failure to understand prophecy and the NT use of prophecy will result in the failure to understand God.

Peter declares that we live in a very dark place and that we should dwell upon and contemplate the spiritual images conveyed through Old Testament message until the light shines in our heart:

"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. "— 2 Pet 1:19-20 4 (See Rev. 22:16; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6; John 1:14).Second, from the very beginning there have been false prophets and one must

use great care to determine who is speaking and to whom they are speaking:"Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: 'Hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign LORD. Because they lead my people astray, saying, "Peace," when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash, therefore tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall. Rain will come in torrents, and I will send hailstones hurtling down, and violent winds will burst forth. "— Ezek 13:1-3, 9-11 4The false prophets were often professional prophets who could make their money

by teaching those things which were pleasant in opposition to the true prophets who often brought the hard, disciplinary message from God.

During the prophetic period is was common for men to claim to be prophets in order to extort money from people. The proof of the charismatic prophets often consisted of an ability to sing, dance, play various musical instruments and the demonstration often went to the extreme of stripping of his clothes, frothing at the mouth, and bruising or cutting himself. In short, he could only earn a living as a professional seer if he could put on a good show. When Amos wanted to teach the Word of God to dying Israel, the professional clergy made sure that he was not accepted:

"Then Amaziah said to Amos, "Get out, you seer! Go back to the land of Judah. Earn your bread there and do your prophesying there. Don't prophesy anymore at Bethel, because this is the king's sanctuary and the temple of the kingdom." " — Amos 7:12-13 This is a common theme in the Old Testament—the secular rulers use the religious

institution to gain civil or military power and violently eject the preachers of righteousness because much of the civil-religious power was exercised by those who did not want to be bothered by the ethical standards of Yahweh.

“Amaziah, assuming that Amos was just another professional prophet who earned his living by his religious trade (See I Sam. 9:8; I Kings 14:2; II Kings 8:8, warned him to return to Judah and there ‘eat bread’—that is, seek fees for his prophetic oracles. Amos reply was...“I was no prophet, nor a member of a prophetic guild.” (Anderson, p. 270).


Those whom Amos calls “guilds of prophets” were those from the “schools of the prophets” where the “preaching method” was often appropriated from the prophets of Baal and therefore brought taints of idolatry into the worship of Yahweh. Their ulterior motive, of course, was that “prophet” was an “occupation” and the return was often better than working for a living. The professional clergy-priest of Israel declared: “this is our temple and we will have no prophetic teaching in this place.”

“The great prophets were often at odds with these professional prophets, and Amos in particular did not want to be identified with them (Amos 7:14). But despite the attempt of kings to silence the prophetic voice, it was heard more and more plainly in the period after the death of Solomon.” (Anderson, p. 232).

The Old Testament CanonThere are two ancient canons of the Hebrew Bible. The second, represented by

the Septuagint is almost universally acknowledged to be the text from which Jesus quotes while Matthew almost always quotes from the Hebrew Scrolls. The books in italics are books which were contained in the Apocrypha but most are now rejected by protestants notwithstanding their inclusion in the 1611 or King James Version under criminal penalty for anyone who removed them.

It is also significant that while Jesus did not denounce the Septuagint (LXX) version neither he nor the apostles ever quote from the apocrypha even though they quote much of the cannonical Old Testament books.

After the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 the Jews felt that with the loss of language because of the dispersion that the consonatal text had to be marked with vowels and vowel points to make transmission of pronounciation possible. In addition, in A.D. 90 a council was held in Jamnia to settle on the Hebrew canon. The resulting Masoretic text is much more consistent than the other documents both because of the extreme care in copying the text and because there was an effort to smooth out any conflicts.Palestinian (Hebrew or Masoretic Text Alexandrian (Septuagint or LXX )TorahGenesisExoduxLeviticusNumbersDeuteronomy

PentateuchGenesisExodusLeviticusNumbersDeuteronomy

Nebi’im (prophets)Former Prophets

JoshuaJudgesI-II SamuelI-II Kings

Later ProphetsIsaiahJeremiahEzekielThe Twelve: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Historical BooksJoshuaJudgesRuth I-II KIngdoms (I-II Sam.)III-IV Kingdoms (I-II Kings)I-II Paralipomenon (I-II Chron.).Esdras A Esdras B (Ezra-Nehemiah)Esther (Plus additional material)JudithTobitI-II MacabeesIII-IV Maccabees

Kethubim (writings)Tehillim (Song of Praise)JobProverbsFestal Scrolls:

Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther

DanielEzra-NehemiahI-II Chronicles

Poetry and WisdomPsalmsOdes of Solomon + Prayer of ManassehProverbsEcclesiastesSong of Solomon (Song of Songs)JobWisdom of SolomonEcclesiasticus (Wisdom of Ben Sira)Psalms of Solomon


Prophetic WritingsThe Twelve: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

IsaiahJeremiahBaruchLamentationsLetters of JeremiahEzekielDaniel plus—

Story of SusannaSong of the Three ChildrenStory of Bell and the Dragon

The Traditional View of Old Testament WritingsBook of History Writer DateGenesis Moses 1450Exodus MosesLeviticus Moses toNumbers MosesDeuteronomy Moses 1410Joshua Joshua 1390Judges Unknown 1050Ruth Unknown 10001 Samuel Samuel 10002 Samuel Unknown 9501 Kings Unknown 5502 Kings Unknown 5501 Chronicles Ezra 4502 Chronicles Ezra 450Ezra Ezra 450Nehemiah Nehemiah 425Esther Unknown 425

Poetry and Wisdom WriterDate

Job Unknown 900Psalms David 1000

& others to500

Proverbs Solomon 950& others 500

Ecclesiastes Solomon 950Song of Solomon Solomon 950

Books of Prophecy Writer DateIsaiah Isaiah 700Jeremiah Jeremiah 586Lamentations Jeremiah 586Ezekiel Ezekiel 570Daniel Daniel 530Hosea Hosea 725Joel Joel 600Amos Amos 750Obadiah Obadiah 587Jonah Jonah 745Micah Micah 700Nahum Nahum 612Habakkuk Habvakkuk 612Zephaniah Zephaniah 626Haggai Haggai 520Zechariah Zechariah 520Malachi 425

Divisions of the Old Testament CanonThe books of Law are:Genesis which means beginningsExodus which means going outLeviticus takes its name from the tribe of Levi and concerns the priesthoodNumbers is named after the census and continues the lawDeuteronomy is a a continuation of NumbersThe Books of History are

1 Samuel2 Samuel

Joshua 1 Kings EzraJudges 2 Kings Nehemiah


Ruth 1 Chronicles Esther2 Chronicles

Poetry or Devotion Major ProphetsJob IsaiahPsalms JeremiahProverbs LamentationsEcclesiastes EzekielSong of Solomon Daniel

Minor ProphetsHosea Jonah ZephaniahJoel Micah HaggaiAmos Nahum ZechariahObadiah Habakkuk Malachi


insert chart


Methods of Understanding the BibleBecause of the complications brought about by ancient and modern scholarship it

is almost impossible to understand the Bible without deciding beforehand what you think about the possibility of revelation and inspiration. Revelation is God putting into the minds of the writer the thoughts which He wanted communicated and Inspiration is the writing and preservation of what He wanted written and preserved. The following list is a number of ways in which scholars understand the Bible. We will make no attempt to elaborate these theories but they must be understood at some level to equip one to read and understand the presuppositional view of modern “pop” writers and speakers.

Inspiration of LiteratureDefined

Presuppositional viewsLiberal views

Bible CONTAINS WordIllumination view (right wing)Intuition View (left wing)

FeaturesRationalisticMan-centeredIgnores Bible’s own claims

Neo-orthodox viewsBible BECOMES word

Existential views (right wing)Demythologizing view (left wing)

FeaturesNaturalisticSubjectiveRevelation is personal not propositionalProgressive Inspiration

Conservative viewsBible IS Word

Verbal Dictation view (right wing)Inspired concept view (Dynamic View) (left wing)Fundamentalist

MechanisticDoes not explain personality traits of writers

BiblicalVerbal Plenary viewBiblical ClaimsPropositionalThe meaning of inerrancy

The Documentary HypothesisWe will single out the Documentary Hypothesis because it is simultaneously a

method of research adopted before many liberal scholars even begin to study the Bible as a “historical” book and it is a method which will help the conservative student to under-stand many apparent contradictions in the literature.

It is not possible to understand a particular writer or teacher without understanding the presuppositions which underlie his thinking. And because much of the popular (and serious) literature flooding the market as a replacement for serious Bible study takes the Documentary Hypothesis and other theories of Literary Criticism as proven we will briefly examine this theory.

While the Documentary Hypothesis may stand as one extreme, a good reason to look at the theory is the other extreme which seeks to understand Scripture as a

10


systematic book in the modern sense which might result from one writer sitting down, outlining all of God’s principles, and then composing a text book. The Bible is not that kind of book

11


The danger of such a belief is that we are too tempted to reach into the period of Mosaic Law, see it as God’s highest standard for that time, and pull proof-texts out and try to apply those standards to the modern Christian church. The failure to see the period of Law as disciplinary may result in worshiping the disease rather than the cure—much like worshiping the cross rather than the cross-bearer.

Another warning is that, while we might reject some of the liberal conclusions of the Documentary Hypothesis, we must not overlook that what we call a book is actually an ancient library of material written by many writers over a period of hundreds of years. Contained within this material will appear to be contradictions of writers who understand the same event in different ways. For instance, one problem to the liberal mind is the event where Moses told Israel to “stand still and let God do it,” while God tells Moses to “lift up his hand and get on with it.” Rather than this being two conflated stories it may simply be God correcting Moses’ “passive,” “faith-only” theology. Another problem is Paul saying that God “credited” or “counted” Abraham’s belief for righteousness while God told Isaac that He “counted” Abraham’s keeping His “laws, commandments, statutes, and ordinances” for righteousness. These events could easily lead one to believe that the Bible flatly contradicts itself.

Rather than seeing contradictory stories put together in a shot-gun marriage it is just as easy to see the Bible showing both man’s false understanding and a record of God’s corrections.Statement of the Theory

From the following chart we can readily see a comparison between two views: the ancient view is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch even as some of the events were actually taking place. We are confident, however, that Moses did not write the story of his death and burial and if Moses began to write about 1450 B.C. he is recording events in God’s relationship with mankind which took place from 8000 to 4000 B.C. And if one accepts the “gap theory” which occurs between Genesis 1:1 and the rest of the record he is describing events which took place much earlier. Since Moses was not present he was either recording oral traditions or is driven by the Holy Spirit to leave a historical record of the period. If Moses is recording oral tradition in the first account of creation in Genesis 1 then science was highly developed because there is an amazing correspondence between this record and the sequence which modern science accepts.

The second view is that expressed in the Documentary Hypothesis, which is abbreviated the JEPD theory, and is made up of the following four components.

1. The Yahwistic tradition—is designated by the letter J because there is a body of material within the Pentateuch which calls God Yahweh (Jehovah). This material is said to have been written about the time of Solomon or about 950 BC, and came from the royal writers in Jerusalem. This body of material places special emphasis upon the king.

“J, or the Yahwist, was the first writer to bring together the legends, myths, poems, even well-known stories from other peoples, such as the Babylonians, into one great history of God’s people.”2. The Elohist tradition—is designated by the letter E because this body of

material calls God Elohim. Theory holds that this material was written about 750 B.C. and came from the northern kingdom (Israel) after the civil war which divided the Israel from Judah. This material places emphasis upon the prophets.

“E, or the Elohist, was the second writer to gather all the traditions into one history.”JE—is claimed to have been merged in Jerusalem in about 700 B.C. However, it is

claimed that there was more than a merging of the material; it was a completion of the tradition.

12


“JE. The works of these two writers were put together into one history by an unknown editor after Jeeruslem was destroyed. Sometimes the editor kept both J’s and E’s telling of a story, even when they differed in detail.”

13


3. The Priestly Tradition—designated by the letter P is said to have come into existence during the Babylonian exile between about 587-538 B.C. and would have been a Southern tradition.

“P may have been a priest or group of priests who lived during the exile in Babylon. They worked out a code of holiness for the people, that is, the ways of worship and the laws that ought to be observed. This Priestly Code was at first a separate book.”JEP—JE is claimed to have been merged with P between 500 and 400 B.C. and

consists of Genesis through Numbers.4. The Deuteronomist tradition—designated by the letter D is all of the

material contained in the book of Deuteronomy and was begun in Israel and completed in Jerusalem in 621 B.C.

“The D or Deuteronomy document has as its purpose reform in religious practices.”This theory holds that all of the material was combined about 400 B.C. and is often

attributed to Ezra.Evidence for the Theory

Beginning with a presuppositionIt is not possible to look at any theory without bringing to bear one’s own world

view. For instance one defender of the theory has said:“The ‘scientific scholar’ is, generally speaking, quite as dogmatic in rejecting the authority of the Old Testament, as the conservative is in accepting and defending it. He is just as insistent on fitting the Old Testament into a world-view, which rejects the redemptive supernaturalism of the Bible and the uniqueness of its history, religion and cultus, as the Bible defender is in insisting on the uniqueness of Old Testament history and the supernaturalism which pervades...To charge an opponent with bias and dogmatism, is an easy way of avoiding the issue.” (Quoted by McDowell, p. 4).STATEMENT OF POSITION“Since we purportedly live in a closed system or universe, there can be no interference or intrusion from the outside by an alleged God. This closed system or continuum means that every event has its cause within the system. To put it plainly, every event or happening has its natural explanation. Therefore, any reference to a divine act or event is futile, since it is presumed there has to be a natural explanation for all phenomena.”BASIC TENETSThere are clearly many who believe in God and the possibility of inspiration and

who also defend the documentary hypothesis. And one can believe that Genesis was written a thousand years later than the traditional view without rejecting God. However, we may want to accept part of the theory without subscribing to the principle tenents of those who formulated this theory which can be summarized as:

1. Every effect (scripture) has its natural causes.2. There is no God.3. There is no supernatural.4. Miacles are not possible.“If the issue is over the existence of the supernatural, very obviously such an approach had made the conclusion its major premise. In short, before the criticism actually begins, the supernatural is ruled out. All of it must go. The conclusion is not therefore purely a result of openminded study of the supernatural, but a conclusion dictated dogmatically by an antisupernatural

14


methaphysics.”(Ramm, Bernard, Protestant Christian Evidence, Moody, 1953, p. 204).

15


Insert chart

16

Background of the Literature 17


The founder of the Theory, Julius Welhausen, said of God giving Moses the Law, “Who can seriously believe all that?” Langdom B. Gilkey said of the Exodus, “the acts Hebrews believed God might have done and the words he might have said had he done and said them—but of course we recognize he did not.” A. Kuenen said, “So long as we attribute a part of Israel’s religious life directly to God and allow supernatural or immediate revelation to intervene even in one instance...we see ourselves obliged to do violence...to the historical account.”

The Documentary Hypothesis—and many other liberal approaches—therefore, are not the result of objective, unbiased research but are the product of trying to understand the purely historical account based upon the presupposition that it was not a product of inspiration.

On the other side of the coin, we might profit from understanding the Hypothesis even if our presupposition is that God said whatever it was He wanted to say in the Bible. If one sees difficulties then the record of history will show that further research will resolve many of the problems without “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.”

GROUNDS FOR THE THEORYThe primary ground for the theory has already been established—that there is no

God and therefore no supernatual. Therefore, if the Bible has historical value that value must be extracted from the words and sentences to understand the true story.

The second reason for the theory is that when one reads the documents (most of which are no earlier than the 10th century) there are different names for God such as Yahweh or Elohim, there are literary variations (different names, doublets, repetion of accounts, style and dictation). Most modern supporters of the theory reject the notion that the different names for God is significant in breaking the material apart into its “original” pieces.

We might notice that there are many names used of God which do not denote a different writer but a deferent attribute of God. That is, God does not have a proper name but only different attributes which appear depending upon the need.

Hebrew Name AttributeAb or Abba--------------FatherEl Elyon------------------SupremeEl Olam-------------------Everlasting

or El Roi or Yaweh-RoiEl Shaddai---------------All-powerful

or El-elohe-IsraelElohim--------------------Creator

or Elohim SabaothGaol-----------------------RedeemerMagen--------------------ShieldPalat-----------------------DelivererShaphat------------------JudgeSur-------------------------Foundation “Rock”Yasha---------------------SaviorYahweh------------------Covenant God “I am”Yaweh-Hesed----------Loving, Merciful GodYaweh-Jireh-------------ProviderYaweh-Nissi-------------Leader, Protector, ShepherdYaweh-Ropheka-------Healer Or RaphaYaweh-Sabaoth--------Lord of Heavenly HostsYaweh-Shalom---------God of PeaceYaweh-Tsidkenu-------Righteous God

As an example, the name ‘Elohim is used during the creation and the covenant with Noah, ‘El Shaddai is used in making the covenant with Abraham, and Yahweh is used during the Mosaic revelation.,

18


The third ground upon which the Documentary Hypothesis was built was that there was no ability to write in the time of Moses (Ca. 1500-1400 B.C.). However, the evidence is that Abraham came from a highly literate society in the area of Babylon where the average school boy could extract square and cube roots and had access to a great library which included dictioraries of many languages. The reader is referred to More Evidences that Demand a Verdict by McDowell, or Archaeology and Bible History by Free for archaeological evidences that the claim that Moses could not write is what Arlie Hoover calls “Chronological snobbery.”

Having said this, it is still important to understand the ways in which God is designated by His attributes rather than by a human-like proper name.

The Method of the CompilersRedation is the compilation or editing of many tidbits into one coherent story and

the compllers are Redactors. There are as many compilations of J,E,P, and D material as there are redactors. Conflation is the merging of variant readings into one coherent story:

“Almost every book that promotes the theory has a listing of chapters and verses originally belonging to the independent documents. All isolated fragments tht are left over are attributed, much too easily, to redactors or compilers. It should be understood, however, that there are no literary references, no extant manuscripts of any kind, which mention the J,E,P, or D documents, either singly or as a group. They have been created by separating them, with the aid of the above mentioned, criteria, from extant text of the Pentateuch.” (Quoted by McDowell, p. 32).While the 10000 or more manuscripts give overwhelming evidence that we can

understand the intent of the original writers, the process of translation from translations would tend to obscure any evidence which can be gained from a writer’s style. For instance the Massoretic text was undoubtedly influenced by the Septuagint or Greek translation (abbreviated LXX) which was from the Hebrew and Aramaic.

Schools of Radical CriticismRadical rejection of the Pentateuch come from three major schools of thought:The Documentary Hypothesis holds that the Pentateuch which is traditionally

attributed to Moses is held to have been written by numerous authors over a period of 400 years and compiled by Ezra about 400 B.C. This theory was proposed by the German scholar, Julius Wellhausen, in 1878.

Form Criticism holds that the individual documents were composed of many early oral traditions and were written down just prior to the exile in about 586 B.C. This approach was to go beyond the form in which the material was written and extract the myths and legends.

Oral Traditionists rejects the Documentary hypothesis and hold that the Pentateuch was not written before the Exile. The oral tradition must take precedence over the written record.

We refer the student to “More Evidences that demands a verdict, Vol. 2, Compiled by Josh McDowel” for complete pro and con statements on this theory.

The Creation of Mankind in GenesisThe Documentary Hypothesis theory holds—with poor evidence—that Genesis 2

is an older account of creation which was corrected by the “priestly” account of Genesis 1 in about 400 B.C. to refute the anti-feminism which developed from chapter two. The difficulty is that Genesis 1 says that animals were created before man but Genesis 2:19 in many versions reads: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto

19


Adam to see what he would call them...” There are many ways to understand this apparent conflict without making the Bible contradict itself:

First, if the Bible was written to satisfy a human dilemma no fraudulent effort would allow such a conflict to stand. One can conclude, therefore, that there is no conflict in the earliest manuscripts. To show that the Genesis record is not a conflation of bits and pieces try reading the story by omitting either chapter 1 or chapter 2. A reading of the second chapter makes it clear that the continuing narrative is to define the method of creation for male and female and to set the stage for the garden of Eden scene.

“It is, in truth, a misnomer to speak of chapter ii as a account of the ‘creation’ at all, in the same sense as chapter i. It contains no account of the creation of either earth or heaven, or of the general world of vegetation; its interest centers in the making of man and woman, and everthing in the narrative is regarded from that point of view.” (quoted by McDowell, p. 135).Gen. 2:4 states that “these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth.”

This phrase occurs nine other times, and each time it introduces an account of the offspring descended from a specific ancestor. In the case of man, the first chapter is a skeletal outline of creation which is followed by a detailed description of how the creation took place. This was a common method and many Egyptian Stela begins with the outline and then follows with details. They are not contradictiory but complementary. In chapter one we are told that God created man as male and female—chapter two shows the method and sequence.

Second, the Bible uses all of the figures of speech known to mankind but we do not believe that Jesus was a door or that Herod was a fox. To the 3X5 card mentality of most of us, a troubling characteristic of the Bible is its frequent use of PROLEPSIS which is defined by Webster as “the describing of an event as taking place before it could have done so, the treating of a future event as if it had already happened.”

In a common Hebrew practice, prolepsis is “an error in chronology, when an event is dated before the actual time: a species of anachronism.” An example is Genesis 3:20 which states: “And the man called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” We do not attack this passage because it is understood that she was not the mother of all living when she was named but when the event was recorded. Because the Bible is filled with such examples we should see this as an ancient methof of communicating thought rather than chronology and would not appear contradictory to the writers or they would not have used the device.

Third, a better understanding is gained from the Old Testament scholar, F. Delitzch who uses various examples to show that the passage could read: “The Lord God had formed (or having formed) out of the ground every beast of the field...”) The New International Version which makes use of the thousands of manuscripts not available in 1611 translates the passage:

“Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them...” The creation is past-tense while the naming is present tense.This is the only instance in this chapter where the first part of the verse refers to

antecedent action and while this translation does not remove all of the difficulties it is one more evidence to topple thousands of “alleged discrepancies” with continuing research.

Fourth, our Lord in Matthew 19:5 used the formulation of marriage from Genesis 2 to show the permanency of the relationship. Throughout the New Testament the writers treat Genesis as a historical record and what one thinks of the

20


accuracy of the Old Testament is intimately bound up with ones opinion of the Christian faith. A faith in the Old Testament, however, does not remove all of the problems in understanding it.

Fifth, even if we ignore the past-tense creation of animals, we should notice that rather than merging two different stories, these accounts follow a very common Hebrew method of writing. The first story of creation seems chronological and fits the sequence of modern science. The second story in chapter two is “wholly unchronological, the near and the remote being brought together without regard to the order of time.”

“In other words, everything in this supplementary account, is viewed in its relation to man, hence he is here placed foremost according to the spirit of the Aristotelian maxim: the Posterior in appearance, the prior in idea.” (Haley, John W., Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible).

21


Kalish said that “The writer’s end is the history of man’s fall. The serpent occasions, the wife shares it; it is therefore necessary to introduce the creation of the animals and of woman.” (Commentary on Genesis, p. 113).

The following table shows that there are not two but three cycles of creation. Notice how the writer in the second chapter sweeps over the whole creative period but defines only the way in which man and woman were created. In chapter two he discusses “the generations” of all things; “the Lord planted a garden in Eden” and there “he put man whom he had formed; “out of the ground made the Lord God go grow” “out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field”; and God formed Eve out of man’s rib to show the inseperable connection between man and woman.

First Cycle Second Cycle Third CycleIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. -- Gen 1:1

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. -- Gen 1:2

and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, -- Gen 2:5

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." -- Gen 1:26

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. -- Gen 2:7 “The Lord had formed...all the beasts of the field...” Gen. 2:19 NIV

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. -- Gen 1:27

So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. -- Gen 2:21

Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. -- Gen 2:22 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, ' for she was taken out of man." -- Gen 2:23 (

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. -- Gen 2:19 (NIV) 22

22


Crossing the Red SeaThe story of the crossing of the Red Sea is seen by one writer to consist of tidbits

from the J, E, and P sources. Notice how the writer emagines that a writer saw the need to construct the story and then try reading just the Yahwist column to see if the separate writers could write such an incomplete story.

23


Yahwist Elohist PriestlyMoses answered the people, "Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance the LORD will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again. The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still." -- Exo 14:13-14

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Why are you crying out to me? Tell the Israelites to move on. Raise your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea to divide the water so that the Israelites can go through the sea on dry ground. I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they will go in after them. And I will gain glory through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. The Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen." -- Exo 14:15-18

Then the angel of God, who had been traveling in front of Israel's army, withdrew and went behind them.” Exo 14:19a

The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them, coming between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other side;” Exod. 14:19b-20a

so neither went near the other all night long. -- Exo 14:20b Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea” Exo

14:21aand all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. Exod 21b

The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh's horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea. -- Exo 14:21c, 22, 2324

During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion. He made the wheels of their chariots come off so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, "Let's get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for them against Egypt." -- Exo 14:24-25

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and their chariots and horsemen. Moses stretched out his hand over the sea” Exo 14:26-27a

and at daybreak the sea went back to its place. The Egyptians were fleeing toward it, and the LORD swept them into the sea. -- Exo 14:27b

The water flowed back and covered the chariots and horsemen--the entire army of Pharaoh that had followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived. But the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. -- Exo 14:28-29

That day the LORD saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians lying dead on the shore. And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant. -- Exo 14:30-31

24


First, the writer emagines a contradiction between what Moses said and what the Lord said: Moses said “stand still and allow God to fight for you,” while God said, “why are you cry to me, Tell the Israelites to move on...” This is the same contradiction which one can see within Paul’s epistles where Paul shows that salvation is 100% by God’s grace but Paul also demands that people “move out” and do not receive God’s grace in vain.

Second, if a redactor had constructed the story it is likely that he would have copied it all in his own words in order to tell the story which he wants. Yet, the modern scholar emagines that he has the ability after multiple translations from translations to pick out the distinctive writing styles to such an extent that he can assign the first part of a verse to the J document, the second part to E, and the third part to P.

Third, The New Testament will use this example as typical of baptism. If one broke the passage into three different sources we would lack the picture of faith as “moving out,” and we would fail to see the picture of our Lord passing over the escaping sinner, standing between him and sin (Pharaoh), and drowning “the old man of sin” in water.The Two Stone Tablets

Another problem is seen from two totally different Ten Commandments. We will examint this in detail later in this study. For now we simply need to notice that in Exodus 20 when God gave the high ethical standards of the ten commandments Israel had not yet committed idolatry around the golden calf. After this event Moses interceded for Israel and God has Moses cut out his own two tablets upon which He wrote ten words. However, in chapter 34 we do not see a listing of the ten commandments but a warning against idolatry. These were the tablets which were to be put into the ark of the Covenant as a witness against Israel because they had already refused to walk by the original ten commandments.

If these two accounts did not appear in exactly the sequence in which Moses wrote them then many other passages which state that God gave the Mosaic Law as a method of discipline would have no meaning.

We will look at many other examples in this study where there appears to be a conflict but where better research will show that mankind often writes his own conclusions in the Bible and we will have to “ask, seek, and knock” to find God’s corrective stories.

ks/9/6/90

25

understanding the bible · web viewunderstanding the bible the fact that both evil and good men...

Documents