Expert: Ernie Laurence, Jr. - 1/6/2011

Question
QUESTION: I used to wonder about God, so I studied the bible and wondered who wrote it..because some of the chapters were so confusing,eg:(For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever. (Jeremiah 3:12)
Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. (Jeremiah 17:4)
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. (John 5:31)
Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid. (John 8:14)
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18)
the whole world is under control of the evil one. (1 John 5:19)
And Jesus said, For judgement I am come into this world. (John 9:39)
I came not to judge the world (John 12:47)
)" , I simply couldn't believe that God would sent down such a disorganized book(but my hunch is that the guy named peter wrote his heart out in the bible and filled it up with gibberish), but all I found was a bunch of unverified stories which confuses the readers. First I saw that there were over 9 versions of the bible, and each of them were different. It said that Jesus was God's son....but then I started thinking that if God is not a human, then how could he have kids. This guy was saying that look, jesus didn't have any father, so his dad must have been God himself! But when I told him that Adam and Eve didn't have any parents either. Does that make them god's children too? Well, all this was so confusing , that I started looking into some other religion to see what they had to say about God etc.Then Bible considers everyone to be sinners, and that God had to send his "son" to get rid of sins.This was strange that God would kill his innocent "son" in order to get rid of evil satan.! it sounded pretty cruel to me.Why would His "son" have to die for other peoples sins, or for satan, who makes people sin? Christianity also calls religious law a curse,and so that if someone follows religious laws ,they are in a curse.I saw this video, and was very interested in what it showed.It is about religious science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHiAGHFnzMU .I have also studied both testaments, here are some of the conflicting verses I found in The Old Testament:
1}(a)"And David took from him a thousand chariots and SEVEN HUNDRED horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen"..-II Samuel 8:4 (b)"And David took from him a thousand chariots and SEVEN THOUSAND horsemen,and twenty thousand footmen"..-I Chronicles 18:4..So the question is 700 or 7000? 2}(a)"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel,and he moved David against them to say,Go,number Israel and Judah".-II Samuel 24:1(b)"And SATAN stood up against Israel,and provoked David to number Israel."-I Chronicles 21:1.So, is the Lord of David then Satan?God forbid!3}(a) "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had NO CHILD until the day of her death"-II Samuel 6:23.(b)"But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah,whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth:and THE FIVE SONS of Michal the daughter of Saul,whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzilai the Meholathite."-II Samuel 21:8,So, did Michal have children or not..?,there are a lot more contradictions in the old testament , showing that it could not have been holy.in the Psalm, The Muslim holy city of Makka is mentioned(original word for makka was Baca,as it's referred to in the Quran,Prophet David mentions in his Psalms 84:6:"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well, the rain also filleth the pool."The well here is a well known well of Zamzam,still present now,close to the Ka'bah.
can you explain these verses to me?I'm confused..
thanks

ANSWER: Sara,

I understand your questions and the confusion you feel is not a new thing.  Many people have the same kind of confusion, especially when they read material attempting to attack the Bible and sow that confusion.  Let me begin by generally answering your post, then I’ll look at each example individually.

There a few of things that are very important to keep in mind when studying any text, especially a religious text:

1.  What is a contradiction?  Logically a contradiction exists only when two mutually exclusive concepts are said to be true at exactly the same time.  This requires a number of things, including precisely stated concepts.  Many times alleged contradictions are nothing more than a misunderstanding of what a contradiction is.  I’ll talk more about this using your specific examples below.

2.  Context.  The Bible is not a series of independent statements divided up into verses.  It is a single, organic whole.  Verses, lifted out of their individual contexts, and compared without that context are meaningless and, yes, often seem contradictory.  They are not.  Again, we’ll see this in your examples below.

3.  When studying any religious text it is not necessary to have an open mind.  I think it foolish when people say this.  I think you should have a very closed mind and be very hard to convince that any religious text, including the Bible, is true.  I think you should put it through every possible logical test you can think of and test whether the text is true.  Because of all the things you encounter in this life, the questions proposed to be answered by religious are the most important.  However, you should also be honest in your inquiry applying the same principles of reason you would use in (at least the American) court systems.  Innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt.  Is the conclusion warranted by the premises.  Etc.

So let’s take a look at your specific examples and reason through them honestly and with a critical eye.

A. I used to wonder about God, so I studied the bible and wondered who wrote it..because some of the chapters were so confusing,eg:(For I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever. (Jeremiah 3:12)
Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever. (Jeremiah 17:4)

This is one of those context problems.  You have only posted a portion of Jeremiah 3:12, but the whole context of the verse is important.  As always, God’s statements, God’s promises are conditional.  In this chapter, the northern 10 tribes of Israel were metaphorically compared to a wife who had committed adultery with false gods and would not repent.  Judah, the southern 2 tribes and the “sister” of Israel, had repented, but God said that it was a feigned repentance.  He then tells Jeremiah to go to the northern tribes and tell them to repent truly and God will forgive them.

In Jeremiah 17:4, the target of the message is actually Judah, not Israel and the context is entirely different.  God here is speaking of those who would never repent.  As always, God’s promises are conditional.  Those God was speaking to in Jeremiah 17 were those who would not repent, therefore His anger against them would burn for the full amount of time (forever).

The targets of the two verses are different, the conditions are different, the contexts are different, and the times are different.  Thus there can be no contradiction.



B. If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. (John 5:31)
Jesus answered: Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid. (John 8:14)

This pair of verses is also a matter of context.  In John 5:31, Jesus is referring to the source of his authority and the beginning of his ministry.  Jesus in John 5 is saying that he is not teaching things on his own authority, and lays no claims to being the ultimate source of truth.  The ultimate source of the doctrines he teaches come from God the Father.  John the Immerser along with the rest of the Old Testament prophets prophecy based on inspiration from God the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Those scriptures and prophecies verify who Jesus is.  This is a legal statement that Jesus is making based on the Law of Moses.

In John 8, the context is different.  Jesus is not making a statement about the Law of Moses and necessity of witnesses, Jesus is making a statement about his own nature.  His actions, his teachings, and his capacity for miracles proved that he is the Son of God.  He was being challenged by the Pharisees because Jesus had made the claim to be the light of the world.  Jesus told them to look at what he did and then appealed to the Father as another witness.  This isn’t about legal witnesses, this is about judging fruit.  He knew the Pharisees were only interested in bringing him down.

Again, these two verses must be viewed within their proper context to give them an honest hearing.

C.  And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18)
the whole world is under control of the evil one. (1 John 5:19)

This is actually one of my favorite topics, but it requires a depth of understanding of the scriptures that I cannot fully provide in one answer like this.  I will do my best and then we can study it more if you wish in follow up questions.

Matthew 28:18 is a reference to the authority and Kingship of Jesus.  After his resurrection, God granted to Jesus the position of King.  One of the first things Jesus did as King was to go out and conquer His only real enemy, Satan.  Satan up to that time ruled the world.  It was why Satan’s temptation in Matthew 4 carried real power.  But in speaking to the men that would become his Apostles, Jesus says the following things about Satan:

John 12:31
Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.
John 14:30
I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me,
John 16:11
and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

Jesus was about to be crucified, then resurrected, and anointed as King.  He was about to become the rider on the white horse in Revelation 6, 19-20, the champion over the forces of evil.  At the end of the Jewish Wars, when the number one persecutor of the church (the Jewish nation) was destroyed, Satan was defeated and cast out of power.  He went from being the prince of the world that controlled all the nations to a wild animal seeking to devour weak individuals (1 Pet. 5:8) and who would flee from any strong individual who resisted him (James 4:7).
As for 1 John 5:19, this is a translation issue.  I’m not sure what translation you are using, but the original Greek phrase is:  

καὶ | ὁ | κόσμος | ὅλος | ἐν | τῷ | πονηρῷ | κεῖται   

And | the | universe | entire | in | this | (hardship/toil/peril) | lies

There is no reference to Satan in this verse at all.  The perils of sin for individuals (which is all that remains now) will not touch those who seek after God is all this verse says.

So ultimately Satan does not control the world any more.  He does not have the sweeping authority to control whole kingdoms now.  He can only tempt individuals and only if they do not stand up to him.  Therefore there is no contradiction.

D.  And Jesus said, For judgement I am come into this world. (John 9:39)
I came not to judge the world (John 12:47)

This is a simple grammatical issue.  Jesus was not physically in the world to judge (a verb), but to teach (a different verb).  He never sentenced a single individual to their eternal destination while here on Earth.  Yet his presence in the world as a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning him brought judgment (a noun) from God against the world who had waited in long suffering not to destroy the world because of sin as He almost did completely in the days of Noah.  Christ’s life, his living testimony of how men ought to live, set the standard of judgment from that time forward.  We too can live as Christ lived.  That is the judgment Christ spoke of in John 9:39.

After Jesus rose from the dead and became King, he then had the authority to judge the nations, which he did according to his words in Matt. 25.  When the end of time comes, Jesus will abdicate his throne back to the Father, who will then Judge all individuals according to their works in this life (1 Cor. 15).

So there is no contradiction here, either.

E.  I simply couldn't believe that God would sent down such a disorganized book(but my hunch is that the guy named peter wrote his heart out in the bible and filled it up with gibberish), but all I found was a bunch of unverified stories which confuses the readers.

Generalized statements like yours in point E are common, but in reality have no bearing on the case before us.  Peter only wrote two letters within the scriptures.  Paul wrote the majority of the books, if not the majority of the content, having written 13 of the New Testament books.

God is not the author of confusion.  The Bible is not disorganized at all.  It is a wonderful masterpiece, a single, beautiful work that is unmatched by any work of man.  From the very beginning of Genesis 1 to the end of Revelation 22, there is a cohesive whole that man simply could not have put together.  Over 40 human authors in 1600 years of writing put together a seamless writing with zero contradictions and zero problems.  Even a single human author could not accomplish this on his own.  Believe, me, I have tried.  I’ve written over 40 novels of my own and yet there are still problems within my works concerning continuity and whatnot.  Yet an omniscient, omnipotent God could work through men to write it like that.  That the Holy Spirit did exactly that is seen when one thoroughly studies the Bible as a whole, understanding the message given, rather than picking single verses out of context without understanding anything just to try and find a “gotcha”.  The problems come when those who choose to be dishonest in their examination of the Bible do not give it a logical opportunity to prove itself.


F. First I saw that there were over 9 versions of the bible, and each of them were different.

This is not a flaw in the Bible, this is a flaw in man.  Translations are not perfect and no person I know would defend them as such.  But translations can be reliable and comparing a number of reliable translations gives us God’s message as He intended it.  Learning the original languages is also a useful tool, as you can see above.

I recommend the KJV, the NKJV, the Hugo-McCord translation, and to a lesser extent the ASV.  Some other translations are acceptable as a comparison tool, like the NASB and the ESV, but I would not use them alone if I had to pick one.  I am most familiar with the flaws in the KJV so that is what I use on a regular basis.

G.  It said that Jesus was God's son....but then I started thinking that if God is not a human, then how could he have kids. This guy was saying that look, jesus didn't have any father, so his dad must have been God himself! But when I told him that Adam and Eve didn't have any parents either. Does that make them god's children too?

Jesus relationship to God the Father is one of authority not one of biological propogation.  Jesus is eternal and as such had no beginning.  He is the Son in that the person who is God the Father has authority over Him in a similar (but infinite) way an earthly father has authority over his own son.

Adam and Eve were created by God in his image and as such are considered His children, just as all humans are in that sense.  Just as my two children are like me in many ways.  In a spiritual sense, all who submit to God’s authority are called His children (John 1:12).


H.  Well, all this was so confusing , that I started looking into some other religion to see what they had to say about God etc.

Other religions stand or fall on their own, just as Christianity does.  Using one religion to judge another is not a logical process.  Why would any other religion have any authority to judge Christianity?  Who or what gave that authority?

I.  Then Bible considers everyone to be sinners,

Actually this is simply not true.  There is nothing in the scriptures that teach that all humans are sinners.  1) Jesus is not a sinner (Heb. 4:15), 2) from conception to the age of accountability children are not sinners (Matt. 18:3; 19:14), 3) Christians are no longer sinners, though they used to be and can become so again if they turn from walking in the light (1 John 1:7).  God commands men today to not sin.  God does not give commands men cannot follow.  Jesus showed us how to live sin free and while it is difficult, men can live without ever sinning.

J. and that God had to send his "son" to get rid of sins.This was strange that God would kill his innocent "son" in order to get rid of evil satan.! it sounded pretty cruel to me.Why would His "son" have to die for other peoples sins, or for satan, who makes people sin?

1.  God did not kill His “Son”, man did.  God sent Jesus knowing that man would do this, much the same way we send our soldiers into foreign fields of battle, knowing they may give their lives in defense of their country.  There is a necessary and important distinction here.

2.  Sin separates man from God (Isa. 59:2).  The wages of sin is spiritual death (Genesis 3; Rom. 6:23).  Since God’s infinite Justice demands debts to be paid and the debt of sin is death, without Christ, man was spiritually dead once he sinned and had no means to ever live again.  But God the Father sent His Son, also an infinite being, to live without sinning and therefore be able to take on all the sins of the world, paying the debt owed.  Jesus physical death was important because being in the flesh, he died for those in the flesh.  But it was his spiritual separation from God on the cross (when he cried eloi eloi lama sabachthanai) that was the point he became sin for all the world, taking that sin with him into death.  Doing so provided man the opportunity to be resurrected spiritually (Rom. 6:3-23), just as Christ was resurrected.

3.  Cruel by what standard?  Cruel by the standard that a Creator gave everything to His creation, a creation who turned around and rejected that Creator?  Cruel by the standard that when that creation (human-kind) rejected the Creator and thus separated themselves from Him and eternal life that He had given them, that He loved them so much He was willing to sacrifice His only unique Son on their behalf?  That is not cruelty, Sara, that is the ultimate act of love.  What parent would willingly sacrifice their own child to save everyone else?  If you are not a parent, it will be difficult for you to understand this fully.

K.  Christianity also calls religious law a curse,and so that if someone follows religious laws ,they are in a curse.

No.  The New Testament calls the Old Testament a curse in the sense that the Old Law could not save anyone, only condemn them if they sinned.  It had no means to forgive sin.  That was why it was a curse.  Jesus took on that curse on the cross and fulfilled the Old Law, taking it away (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15).  The New Law (New Testament) is not a curse, but a gift.

I saw this video, and was very interested in what it showed.It is about religious science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHiAGHFnzMU .

L.  I have also studied both testaments, here are some of the conflicting verses I found in The Old Testament:

Are these verses you found from your own personal studies or are these alleged contradictions you picked up from someone who has no interest in an honest study of the Bible?  Since it is likely you are finding these contradictions online and prefer to study that way, I will offer answers from a source I tend to trust that answers these and a host of other alleged contradictions within scripture.

http://apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/sort-2-1-100-title

I suggest you read through them and make up your own mind.  If you choose to listen to outside sources to help you make up your mind, make sure you listen to both sides justly, as you have done by asking me.

In Truth and Love,

Ernie

P.S. I forgot the last question about Baca.  Of course many cities in existence today were in existence during both Old and New Testament times.  Jerusalem is an ancient city built right after the flood (it was called Salem then).  Ephesus, Rome, Athens, Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, Thityra, Philidelphia (Turkey), Gaza, and so on are all cities in Old or New Testament times that exist today.  So if this was a reference to early Mecca before Islam came about, there is no contradiction here.

However, there is no indication that Baca of Psa. 84:6 is Mecca.  They are located in two different places.  Meccas is on the Southwestern edge of Saudi Arabia.  Baca (which means tears) was named for the balsam trees in Raphaim valley where David defeated the Philistines.  It was in Palestine.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thanks again for the long and beautiful answer! It did help clear up my confusions about these.However, right now I am still confused about what trinity is really about. And after I saw this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3anSlKeZO8 , I didn't know how to explain it.Can you please tell me what it meant?
I was also interested about the scientific facts the video here showed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHiAGHFnzMU .How could something be so much related to science?
Thanks for helping!
Sara

Answer
Hey Sara,

Glad I could help answer some of those questions.

Concerning the Trinity.  

1st, let me address the video you posted up of this Muslim guy (a former denominational preacher) trying to explain away the Trinity.  The man is really not qualified to even talk on the topic.  That he used to be a preacher for a "Christian" denomination does not qualify him because members of the denominations are vastly ignorant of the scriptures.  Note that he references very little Bible when attempting to even define the term.  Instead he focuses the majority of his attention on Catholic (another denomination) history.  Second, converting to the false religion of Islam is a step in the direction of ignorance and away from Truth.  If you want answers concerning Christianity, the best source is the Bible itself.  And if you want a guide in your study, ask someone who is still a Christian...like me! :)

2nd, let me approach the concept of the Trinity from scripture.  The first place we learn of the nature of God is Genesis 1.  In the original language of Genesis, Hebrew, the word "God" is translated from the word "elohim".  Elohim is the plural form of the word "el" (as in El Shaddai-God Almighty, or El Adonai-God the Lord).  When God inspired Moses to write about God, He inspired Moses to write using the plural noun "elohim" but with singular grammatical tenses.  It would be like us saying "the people is making a houses".  People and houses are plural in this sentence, but written as if they were singular.  Even the title "El Adonai" is a reference to the trinity because El(God) is singular but Adonai(Lord) is plural in nature.

Genesis 1:1 says that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."  Then in verses 26-27, when making man, God says "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:".  To whom is God speaking?  Why does God refer to "us" and "our" if He is the only sentient being in existence at this point?  Then in verse 27, God creates man using singular terms.  From the very beginning of scripture, the idea of a singular/plural, a poly-une God is evident.  That the Spirit of God was present at Creation is evident in Genesis 1:2 "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Daniel speaks of Michael, the chief of all the heavenly princes.  Michael in the Hebrew means "one who is like God".  We see him again in Revelation 12.  He is called "the archangel".  There is only one archangel, only one supreme messenger from God.  That is Christ.  Michael is the preincarnate Christ.  Jesus before he came to earth and took human form.

Fast forward again to the New Testament scriptures (which Islam claims to accept, but in practice rejects).  John 1:1 (which the mail bag guy addressed, but got entirely wrong) reads:  In the beginning was the word (logos - will/mind), and the word was with the God, and the word existed as the God.  So the word was said to be with the one true God.  With is a preposition that denotes accompanyment of two or more separate things.  If I go with my wife to the store, we both go.  If I am with my wife, I am near her, next to her, along with her.  But the very next phrase after saying that the word as a separate concept was along side of The God, claims that the word exists AS The God.  Then John 1:14 says that the word became flesh and dwelt among humans, which is of course Jesus.  Jesus therefore is the Word, was with God before he came to Earth, and according to John 1:1 IS The God.

Furthermore, John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2 both claim that the kosmos (universe) was made by and through Jesus.  John 1:3 specifically says "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."  Everything that was a created object was created by the Word/Jesus.  If Jesus is a created being as so many are suggesting, then Jesus, before he existed, somehow created himself.

Finally, in Heb. 1:8, God the Father says to the Son "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:"  God the Father acknowledges that Jesus is also God.

There is plenty more from both the Old and the New Testament to prove that The One True God exists as three persons from a doctrinal standpoint.

Now, concerning our understanding of the nature of a tri-une being.  This is much more difficult.  We are finite and as such have great difficulty with infinite concepts.  God/Deity/Divine/Theos/Elohim is a singular concept with regard to power/capacity/authority.  This one Divine power exists in three people, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).  Many analogies have been used in an attempt to explain the Trinity, but as I understand it, they all fall somewhat short.  Here are a few of those to help you get closer to the picture.

An egg is one egg, but it exists as yoke, white, and shell.
A person is one person, but exists as physical body, emotional heart, and spiritual soul.
The US government is one government, but exists as three branches: president, congress, supreme court.
The example the Muslim guy uses is one finger with three parts.

Like I said, these are all finite things used to try and explain an infinite concept and therefore they fall short.  While we may not fully understand the nature of Trinity, it is clearly taught throughout scriptures.  Therefore if we come to the conclusion that the Bible is the Truth, then we accept the nature of God as Tri-une as a matter of faith regardless if we understand it to the fullest extent.

Concerning the Youtube Videos Showing Where Science Proves the Quran

The second video really had little in it in the way of proofs.  It really made a lot of generalized assertions with only one reference to a scientific fact that "proves" the Quran to be true, that of the sky and the mountains anchoring it vs. the sky suspended by nothing.  I'm  a Physics teacher by day and it is important to note that this is technically not accurate either.  The sky is suspended by its own air pressure and the ground everywhere pushing up against it.  But it is not a great arch held up by mountains.  Regardless, it isn't the amount of truth in a religious document that proves it to be genuine.  It's the amount of error (which is why you brought up those alleged contradictions in the Bible).  The Quran, which is a series of sayings from Mohammed collected by his followers and written down after he died from memory, contains a large number of contradictions internally.  These contradictions damn the book as nothing more than the work of man.  If you are interested in examining some of these, I will gladly post them up for you.

In Truth and Love,

Ernie