Debate Topics: Apologetic

From: Subject: Debate Topics: Apologetic Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:30:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0046_01C3F5A5.94810C00" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0046_01C3F5A5.94810C00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm Debate Topics: Apologetic 3DApologetic=20

3D"100

By: Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, James = Schaeffer

"The first to present his case seems right, till = another=20 comes forward and questions him." (Proverbs 18:17)

The Charge of=20 Contradiction

Muslims talk often about the many contradictions in the Bible. The = number of=20 contradictions vary depending on whom you are talking to. Kairanvi's=20 Izhar-ul-Haq presents 119 numbered contradictions, while others = such as=20 Shabbir Ally have supposedly found 101 contradictions. The problem as = they see=20 it concerns their supposition that any religious book claiming absolute = divine=20 authority must not include any contradictions, as a message emanating = from an=20 Omniscient being must be consistent with itself.

The Muslims quote from the Qur'an (4:82) which says "do they not = consider=20 the Qur'an (with care). Had it been from any other than Allah, they = would have=20 found there-in many a discrepancy."

A Definition of Revelation:

In order to respond to this challenge it is important that we begin = by=20 recognizing and understanding clearly the presupposition and thinking = that=20 underlies such a challenge. The principle of non-contradiction has been = elevated=20 to the status of an absolute criterion, capable of being applied by = human beings=20 in judging the authenticity of God's word. This is not a proposition to = which=20 Christians can or should give assent. The Christian will gladly admit = that=20 scripture is ultimately non-self-contradictory. But the Christian cannot = agree=20 that the principle of non-contradiction is given to men as a criterion = by which=20 they are to judge God's word. It is this criterion which the Muslims = have=20 imposed upon the discussion of revelation.

This is a mistake which many of us fall into; measuring that which is = unfamiliar to us by a standard which is more familiar; in this case = measuring=20 the Bible with the standard which they have borrowed from the Qur'an. = Their=20 book, the Qur'an, is believed to have been 'sent down' (Nazil or = Tanzil), from=20 heaven unfettered by the hands of men. It is this belief in scripture as = a=20 revelation which has been 'sent down' which they then impose upon the = Bible as=20 well. But it is wrong for Muslims to assume that the Bible can be = measured using=20 the same criteria as that imposed on the Qur'an.

The Bible is not simply one book compiled by one man as the Muslims = claim for=20 their Qur'an, but a compilation of 66 books, written by more than 40 = authors,=20 over a period of 1500 years! For that reason Christians have always = maintained=20 that the entire Bible shows the imprint of human hands. Evidence of this = can be=20 found in the variety of human languages used, the varying styles of = writing, the=20 differences in the author's intellects and temperaments, as well as the = apparent=20 allusions to the author's contemporary concepts of scientific knowledge, = without=20 which the scriptures would not have been understood by the people of = that time.=20 That does not mean, however, that the Bible is not authoritative, for = each of=20 the writers received their revelation by means of inspiration.

A Definition of Inspiration:

In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all Scripture is inspired. The = word used=20 for inspiration is theopneustos which means = "God-breathed,"=20 implying that what was written had its origin in God Himself. In 2 Peter = 1:21 we=20 read that the writers were "carried along" by God. Thus, God used = each=20 writer, including his personality to accomplish a divinely authoritative = work,=20 for God cannot inspire error.

The Bible speaks many times of its inspiration: In Luke 24:27,44; = John 5:39;=20 and Hebrews 10:7, Jesus says that what was written about him in the Old=20 Testament would come to pass. Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 refer to the = Old=20 Testament as the Word of God. We read in 1 Corinthians 2:13, "This is = what we=20 speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the = Spirit." This is corroborated in 2 Timothy 3:16, as we saw above. In = 1=20 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul when referring to that which he had written = says,=20 "...you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, = the Word=20 of God..." Peter speaks of the inspiration of Paul's writings in 2 = Peter=20 3:15-16, where he maintains that, "...Paul also wrote to you with the = wisdom=20 that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters..." = Earlier, in=20 2 Peter 1:21 Peter writes, "For prophecy never had its origin in the = will of=20 man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [moved] by the = Holy=20 Spirit." And then finally in Revelation 22:18,19 the writer John, = referring=20 to the book of Revelation states, "...if anyone adds anything to = them, God=20 will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes = words=20 away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share = in the=20 tree of life..."

Charles Wesley summarizes this high view of inspiration brilliantly = when he=20 says, "The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, = bad men=20 or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because = good men=20 would not tell lies by saying 'Thus saith the Lord;' it was not written = by bad=20 men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning = sin,=20 and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine = inspiration"=20 (McDowell 1990:178).

How does God inspire the writers? Does He simply move the writers by=20 challenging their heart to reach new heights, much like we find in the = works of=20 Shakespeare, Milton, Homer and Dickens, all of which are human literary=20 masterpieces? Or does that which He inspire contain the words of = God-along with=20 myths, mistakes and legends, thus creating a book in which portions of = the Word=20 of God can be found, along with those of finite and fallible men? Or are = the=20 scriptures the infallible Word of God in their entirety? In other words, = how,=20 Muslims will ask, is this inspiration carried out? Does God use = mechanical=20 dictation, similar to that which we find claimed for the Qur'an, or does = He use=20 the writers own minds and experiences?

The simple answer is that God's control was always with them in their = writings, such that the Bible is nothing more than "The Word of God = in the=20 words of men" (McDowell 1990:176). This means that God utilized the = culture=20 and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in = His=20 sovereign providence. Thus history must be treated as history, poetry as = poetry,=20 hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and=20 approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between = literary=20 conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for = instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were = conventional=20 and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not = regard=20 these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total = precision=20 of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not = to have=20 achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely = precise=20 by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and = achieving=20 that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it = of=20 irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of = nature,=20 reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming = discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set = the=20 so-called 'phenomena' of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture = about=20 itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of = them, where=20 this can be convincingly achieved (as we have attempted in this paper), = will=20 encourage our faith. However, where for the present no convincing = solution is at=20 hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His = Word is=20 true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that = one day=20 they will be seen to have been illusions.

This is not a blind hope. For instance, a century ago there were = about 100=20 parts of the body whose function were mysterious to doctors, and people = would=20 say "This is proof of evolution as these are left over parts which we = don't need=20 anymore". However, because of on-going and diligent research we are now = left=20 with only one organ in the body which appears to be redundant. In time, = perhaps=20 we will find a use for that organ as well. This principle can also = be

seen with the Bible. So many 'discrepancies' have also been cleared = up due to=20 greater research and understanding. Had Shabbir been around a century or = even 25=20 years ago his list could easily have been 1001 contradictions. As new = data is=20 uncovered, we are continually finding answers to many of the historical=20 mysteries. Therefore we have every reason to believe that, in God's = time, the=20 rest will be solved as well.

We are fully aware that the Christian criteria for revelation is not=20 acceptable to Muslims, as it is in seeming conflict with their own. Yet, = by=20 simply measuring the Bible against the nazil or Tanzil = ('sent=20 down') concept which they claim for their Qur'an, Muslims condemn = themselves of=20 duplicity, since they demand of the New Testament that which they do not = demand=20 of the previous revelations, the Taurat and Zabuur, though = both=20 are revered as equally inspired revelations by all Muslims. Muslims = believe that=20 Moses wrote the Taurat and David the Zabuur. However, = neither=20 claimed to have received their revelations by a means of a nazil = ('sent=20 down') transmission. So why insist on such for the New Testament, = especially=20 since the document makes no such claim itself?

The underlying reason perhaps lies in the belief by Muslims that the = Qur'an,=20 because it is the only revelation which came "unfettered" by human = intervention,=20 is thus the truest and clearest statement of Allah's word, and therefore = supersedes all previous revelations, even annulling those revelations, = as they=20 have supposedly been corrupted by the limitations of their human = authors.

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for a nazil = revelation=20 for the Qur'an comes from one source alone, the man to which it was = supposedly=20 revealed, Muhammad. Yet there are no external witnesses both before or = at the=20 time who can corroborate Muhammad's testimony. Not even miracles are = provided to=20 substantiate his claims, nor are there any known documents of such a = Qur'an from=20 the century in which it is claimed to have been revealed (see the paper = on the=20 histori= city=20 of the Qur'an versus the Bible.)

Even if we were to disregard the historical problems for early = Qur'ans, a=20 further problem concerns the numerous Muslim traditions which speak of = the many=20 differing copies of Qur'anic codices which were prevalent during the = collating=20 of the Uthmanic recension of the Qur'an in the mid-seventh century, and = that the=20 conflicting copies were all destroyed, so that we cannot know today = whether the=20 Qur'an in our possession was even similar to that which was first = revealed.

What Muslims must understand is that Christians have always = maintained that=20 the Word of God, the Bible, was indeed written by men, but that these = men were=20 always under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter = 1:20-21).

Whereas the Qur'an is alleged to be free of any human element, God in = the=20 Bible deliberately chose to reveal His Word through individuals who were = inspired prophets and apostles, so that His Word would not only be = conveyed to=20 humanity correctly, and comprehensively but would be communicated to = their=20 understanding and powers of comprehension as well. This the Qur'an = cannot do if=20 it has no human element, as is generally alleged.

There are other problems with the contention maintained by Muslims = that the=20 Bible is full of contradictions. For instance, what then will Muslims do = with=20 the authority which their own Qur'an gives towards the Bible?

The Qur'an gives authority to the Bible:

The Qur'an, itself, the highest authority for all Muslims, gives = authority to=20 the Bible, assuming its authenticity at least up to the seventh-ninth = Centuries.=20 Consider the following Suras:

Sura Baqara 2:136 points out that there is no difference between the=20 scriptures which preceded and those of the Qur'an, saying, "...the = revelation=20 given to us...and Jesus...we make no difference between one and another = of=20 them." Sura Al-I-Imran 3:2-3 continues, "Allah...He sent down the = Law (of=20 Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)...as a guide to mankind." Sura = Nisaa 4:136=20 carries this farther by admonishing the Muslims to, "...Believe...and = the=20 scripture which He sent before him." In Sura Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52 we = find a=20 direct call to Christians to believe in their scriptures: "...We sent = Jesus,=20 the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent = him the=20 Gospel... Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed = therein, if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath = revealed, they=20 are (no better than) those who rebel..." Again, in Sura Ma-ida 5:68 = we find=20 a similar call: "People of the Book!...Stand fast by the law, the = Gospel, and=20 all revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the = revelation that=20 has come to thee from THY LORD."

To embolden this idea of the New and Old Testament's authority we = find in=20 Sura 10:94 that Muslims are advised to confer with these scriptures if = in doubt=20 about their own, saying: "If thou wert in doubt as to what We have = revealed=20 unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before = thee. The=20 truth had indeed come to thee from thy Lord." And as if to emphasize = this=20 point the advice is repeated in Sura 21:7, stating, "...the apostles = We sent=20 were but men, to whom We granted inspiration. If ye realize this not, = Ask of=20 those who possess the message."

Finally, in Sura Ankabut 29:46 Muslims are asked not to question the=20 authority of the scriptures of the Christians, saying, "And dispute = ye not=20 with the people of the book but say: We believe in the revelation which = has come=20 down to us and that which came down to you."

If there is anything in these Suras which is clear, it is that the = Qur'an=20 emphatically endorses the Torah and the Gospel as authentic and=20 authoritative revelations from God. This coincides with what Christians = believe,=20 as well.

In fact, nowhere is there any warning in the Qur'an that the former=20 scriptures had been corrupted, nor that they were contradictory. If the = Qur'an=20 was indeed the final and complete revelation, if it was the seal of all = former=20 revelations the Muslims claim, than certainly the author of the Qur'an = would=20 have included a warning against that which had been corrupted in the = earlier=20 scriptures. But nowhere do we find even a hint that the Bible was = contradictory,=20 or indeed that it was corrupted.

There are some Muslims, however, who contend that according to sura = 2:140 the=20 Jews and Christians had corrupted their scriptures. This aya says = (referring to=20 the Jews), "...who is more unjust than those who conceal the = testimony they=20 have from Allah...?" Yet, nowhere does this aya state that the Jews = and=20 Christians corrupted their scriptures. It merely mentions that certain = Jews have=20 concealed "the testimony they have from Allah." In other words = the=20 testimony is still there (thus the reason the afore-mentioned suras = admonish=20 Muslims to respect the former scriptures), though the adherents of that=20 testimony have chosen to conceal it. If anything this aya is a ringing=20 endorsement to the credibility of those former scriptures, as it assumes = a=20 testimony from Allah does exist amongst the Jewish community.

God does not change His Word

Furthermore, both the Christian scriptures and the Muslim Qur'an hold = to the=20 premise that God does not change His word. He does not change His = revelation=20 (despite the law of abrogation found in the Qur'an). Sura Yunus 10:64 = says,=20 "No change can there be in the words of Allah." This is repeated = in Sura=20 Al An'am 6:34: "There is none that can alter the words of Allah," = found=20 also in Sura Qaf 50:28,29.

In the Bible we, likewise, have a number of references which speak of = the=20 unchangeableness of God's word; such as, Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; = Matthew=20 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20.

If this is the recurring theme in both the Bible and the Qur'an, it = is hardly=20 likely that we would find a scripture with such a multiplicity of = contradictions=20 which Muslims claim are found in the Bible.

What then should we do with the contradictions which the Muslims = claim are=20 there?

Contradictions analyzed:

When we look at the contradictions which Muslims point out we find = that many=20 of these errors are not errors at all but either a misunderstanding of = the=20 context or nothing more then copyist mistakes. The former can easily be=20 explained, while the latter need a little more attention. It is quite = clear that=20 the books of the Old Testament were written between the 17^th = and the=20 5^th century BC on the only parchments available at that time, = pieces=20 of Papyrus, which decayed rather quickly, and so needed continual = copying. We=20 now know that much of the Old Testament was copied by hand for 3,000 = years,=20 while the New Testament was copied for another 1,400 years, in isolated=20 communities in different lands and on different continents, yet they = still=20 remain basically unchanged.

Today many older manuscripts have been found which we can use to = corroborate=20 those earlier manuscripts. In fact we have an enormous collection of = manuscripts=20 available to which we can go to corroborate the textual credibility of = our=20 current document. Concerning the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we have = in our=20 possession 5,300 Greek manuscripts or fragments thereof, 10,000 Latin = Vulgate=20 manuscripts and at least 9,300 other early translations. In all we now = have more=20 than 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament from = which to=20 use! Obviously this gives us much more material with which to delineate = any=20 variant verses which may exist. Where there is a variant reading, these = have=20 been identified and expunged and noted as footnotes on the relevant = pages of the=20 texts. In no way does this imply any defects with our Bible (as found in = the=20 original autographs).

Christians readily admit, however, that there have been 'scribal = errors' in=20 the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of = anyone=20 to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from = any book,=20 sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript = (better known=20 as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, = was=20 free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date = of=20 their inception no longer exist.

The individuals responsible for the copying (scribes or copyists) = were prone=20 to making two types of scribal errors, well known and documented by = those expert=20 in the field of manuscript analysis. One concerned the spelling of = proper names=20 (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and the other had to do with = numbers. The=20 fact that it is mainly these type of errors in evidence gives credence = to the=20 argument for copyist errors. If indeed the originals were in = contradiction, we=20 would see evidence of this within the content of the stories themselves. = (Archer=20 1982:221-222)

What is important to remember, however, is that no well-attested = variation in=20 the manuscript copies that have come down to us alter any doctrine of = the Bible.=20 To this extent, at least, the Holy Spirit has exercised a restraining = influence=20 in superintending the transmission of the text.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, = it is=20 necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original = documents=20 were inspired. For that reason it is essential that we maintain an = ongoing=20 textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept = into the=20 text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, = however, is=20 that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, = so that=20 we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a = singular=20 providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of=20 Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we = possess are=20 not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations = are an=20 additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic = science=20 is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well = served in=20 these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for=20 hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. = Indeed,=20 in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with = which=20 it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through = the Word,=20 no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as = to=20 render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in = Christ=20 Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15)"

With that in mind let's now take a look at the examples forwarded by = Shabbir=20 Ally in his pamphlet to better ascertain whether or not the scriptures = can stand=20 the test of authority espoused above?

While answering the below challenges it has proven obvious to the = four of us=20 that Shabbir made a number of errors in his reasoning which could easily = have=20 been rectified had he simply looked at the context. This may offer us an = idea as=20 to why Muslims in general seem so fond of looking for, and apparently = finding=20 "contradictions" in the Bible - most of which are very easily explained = by=20 appealing to the context. When we look at the Qur'an we are struck with = the=20 reverse situation, for the Qur'an has very little context as such to = refer to.=20 There is little narration, and passages interject other passages with = themes=20 which have no connection. A similar theme is picked up and repeated in = another=20 Sura, though with variations and even at times contradictory material = (i.e. the=20 differing stories of Abraham and the idols found in Suras 21:51-59 and = 6:74-83;=20 19:41-49). It stands to reason, then, that Muslims fail to look in their = Holy=20 Book for other passages to derive a context. Is it no wonder that they = decline=20 to do the same with the Bible.

On the second page of his booklet "101 Clear Contradictions in the = Bible",=20 Shabbir Ally states "Permission Granted! Please copy this booklet and = spread the=20 truth."

We, the authors of this paper, have been delighted to fulfil this = request of=20 Mr. Ally. Although we have not directly copied all his words, we have = reproduced=20 his alleged contradictions in this booklet and replied to them. = Therefore,=20 through these rebuttals we are doing what Shabbir has asked, spreading = the=20 truth! Showing the firm foundation of the Bible, which is the truth.

Please weigh the words of Mr. Ally against the rebuttals found = herein.

You will note that a number of the questions contain more then one = answer.=20 This is done to show that there are different ways to understand a = seeming=20 problem in the Biblical text.

1. Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people = (2=20 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements = are true.=20 It was towards the end of David's reign, and David was looking back over = his=20 brilliant conquests, which had brought the Canaanite, Syrian, and = Phoenician=20 kingdoms into a state of vassalage and dependency on Israel. He had an = attitude=20 of pride and self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more = in=20 terms of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of God.

The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be brought to = his=20 knees, where he would once again be cast back onto the mercy of God. So = he let=20 him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just how much good it = would=20 do him, as the only thing this census would accomplish would be to = inflate the=20 national ego (intimated in Joab's warning against carrying out the = census in 1=20 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering was completed, God intended = to=20 chasten the nation with a disastrous plague which would bring about an = enormous=20 loss of life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 = Samuel=20 24:15).

What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair = (according=20 to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already prompted David to commit the = folly he=20 had in mind? It seems his reasons were entirely malicious, knowing that = a census=20 would displease the Lord (1 Chronicles 21:7-8), and so he also incited = David to=20 carry it through.

Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences = in the=20 Bible where both the Lord and Satan were involved in soul-searching = testings and=20 trials:

In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to = Satan from=20 God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. God's purpose was = to=20 purify Job's faith, and to strengthen his character by means of = discipline=20 through adversity, whereas Satan's purpose was purely malicious, = wishing Job=20 as much harm as possible so that he would recant his faith in his = God.
Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings of = persecuted=20 Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's purpose is to = strengthen=20 their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ in = this=20 life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come = (1 Peter=20 4:13-14), whereas Satan's purpose is to 'devour' them (1 Peter 5:8), = or rather=20 to draw them into self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level.
Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations during his = ministry=20 on earth. God's purpose for these temptations was for him to triumph=20 completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam to his = fall,=20 whereas Satan's purpose was to deflect the saviour from his messianic=20 mission.
In the case of Peter's three denials of Jesus in the court of the = high=20 priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of both = parties=20 involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, Satan has = asked=20 to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith = may not=20 fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your = brothers."
And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example = where both=20 God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when he had the = heart of=20 Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27), causing him to = betray=20 Jesus. The Lord's reasoning behind the crucifixion, however, was that = Jesus,=20 the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world should give his life = as a=20 ransom for many, so that once again sinful man could relish in the=20 relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and = thereby=20 enter into a relationship which is now eternal.
Thus we have five other examples where both the Lord and Satan were = involved together though with entirely different motives. Satan's = motive in=20 all these examples, including the census by David was driven by = malicious=20 intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an entirely different = motive.=20 His was a benevolent motive with a view to eventual victory, while=20 simultaneously increasing the usefulness of the person tested. In = every case=20 Satan's success was limited and transient; while in the end God's = purpose was=20 well served furthering His cause substantially.

(Archer 1982:186-188)

2. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the total population for Israel as = 800,000,=20 whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 says it was 1,100,000.

(Category: misunderstood the historical context or = misunderstood the=20 author's intent)

There are a number of ways to understand not only this problem but = the next=20 challenge as well, since they both refer to the same passages and to = the same=20 census.

It is possible that the differences between the two accounts are = related to=20 the unofficial and incomplete nature of the census (which will be = discussed=20 later), or that the book of Samuel presents rounded numbers, = particularly for=20 Judah.

The more likely answer, however, is that one census includes = categories of=20 men that the other excludes. It is quite conceivable that the 1 = Chronicles=20 21:5 figure included all the available men of fighting age, whether=20 battle-seasoned or not, whereas the 2 Samuel 24:9 account is speaking = only of=20 those who were ready for battle. Joab's report in 2 Samuel 24 uses the = word=20 'is hayil, which is translated as "mighty men", or = battle-seasoned=20 troops, and refers to them numbering 800,000 veterans. It is = reasonable that=20 there were an additional 300,000 men of military age kept in the = reserves, but=20 not yet involved in field combat. The two groups would therefore make = up the=20 1,100,000 men in the 1 Chronicles 21 account which does not employ the = Hebrew=20 term 'is hayil to describe them.

(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189-190)

3. 2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting = men in=20 Judah, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1 = Chronicles=20 21:5.

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not = complete=20 the numbering, as he had not yet taken a census of the tribe of = Benjamin, nor=20 that of Levi's either, due to the fact that David came under = conviction about=20 completing the census at all. Thus the different numbers indicate the=20 inclusion or exclusion of particular unspecified groups in the nation. = We find=20 another reference to this in 1 Chronicles 27:23-24 where it states = that David=20 did not include those twenty years old and younger, and that since = Joab did=20 not finish the census the number was not recorded in King David's=20 Chronicle.

The procedure for conducting the census had been to start with the=20 trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel 24:5) and then shift to the northern = most=20 tribe of Dan and work southward towards Jerusalem (verse 7). The = numbering of=20 Benjamin, therefore, would have come last. Hence Benjamin would not be = included with the total for Israel or of that for Judah, either. In = the case=20 of 2 Samuel 24, the figure for Judah included the already known figure = of=20 30,000 troops mustered by Benjamin. Hence the total of 500,000 = included the=20 Benjamite contingent.

Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the = North and=20 the South following the death of Solomon in 930 BC, most of the = Benjamites=20 remained loyal to the dynasty of David and constituted (along with = Simeon to=20 the south) the kingdom of Judah. Hence it was reasonable to include = Benjamin=20 with Judah and Simeon in the sub-total figure of 500,000, even though = Joab may=20 not have itemized it in the first report he gave to David (1 = Chronicles 21:5).=20 Therefore the completed grand total of fighting forces available to = David for=20 military service was 1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of = Judah-Simeon,=20 and 30,000 of Benjamin).

(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189)

4. 2 Samuel 24:13 mentions that there will be seven years = of famine=20 whereas 1 Chronicles 21:12 mentions only three.

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent, and misunderstood = the=20 wording)

There are two ways to look at this. The first is to assume that the = author=20 of 1 Chronicles emphasized the three-year period in which the famine = was to be=20 most intense, whereas the author of 2 Samuel includes the two years = prior to=20 and after this period, during which the famine worsened and lessened=20 respectively.

Another solution can be noticed by observing the usage of words in = each=20 passage. When you compare the two passages you will note that the = wording is=20 significantly different in 1 Chronicles 21 from that found in a 2 = Samuel 24.=20 In 2 Samuel 24:13 the question is "shell seven years of famine come to = you?"=20 In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an alternative imperative, "take for = yourself=20 either three years of famine..." From this we may reasonably conclude = that 2=20 Samuel records the first approach of the prophet Gad to David, in = which the=20 alternative prospect was seven years; whereas the Chronicles account = gives us=20 the second and final approach of Nathan to the King, in which the Lord = (doubtless in response to David's earnest entreaty in private prayer) = reduced=20 the severity of that grim alternative to three years rather than an = entire=20 span of seven. As it turned out, however, David opted for God's third=20 preference, and thereby received three days of severe pestilence, = resulting in=20 the deaths of 70,000 men in Israel.

(Archer 1982:189-190 and Light of Life II 1992:190)

5. Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) = when he=20 began to rule over Jerusalem?

(Category: copyist error)

Because we are dealing with accounts which were written thousands = of years=20 ago, we would not expect to have the originals in our possession = today, as=20 they would have disintegrated long ago. We are therefore dependent on = the=20 copies taken from copies of those originals, which were in turn = continually=20 copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the copying were = prone to=20 making two types of scribal errors. One concerned the spelling of = proper=20 names, and the other had to do with numbers.

The two examples of numerical discrepancy here have to do with a = decade in=20 the number given. Ahaziah is said to have been 22 in 2 Kings 8:26; = while in 2=20 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been 42. Fortunately there is = enough=20 additional information in the Biblical text to show that the correct = number is=20 22. Earlier in 2 Kings 8:17 the author mentions that Ahaziah's father = Joram=20 ben Ahab was 32 when he became King, and he died eight years later, at = the age=20 of 40. Therefore Ahaziah could not have been 42 at the time of his = father's=20 death at age 40! Such scribal errors do not change Jewish or Christian = beliefs=20 in the least. In such a case, another portion of scripture often = corrects the=20 mistake (2 Kings 8:26 in this instance). We must also remember that = the=20 scribes who were responsible for the copies were meticulously honest = in=20 handling Biblical texts. They delivered them as they received them, = without=20 changing even obvious mistakes, which are few indeed.

(Refer to the next question for a more in-depth presentation on how = scribes=20 could misconstrue numbers within manuscripts)

(Archer 1982:206 and Light of Life II 1992:201)

6. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old (2 Kings 24:8) or 8 years = old (2=20 Chronicles 36:9) when he became king of Jerusalem?

(Category: copyist error)

Once again there is enough information in the context of these two = passages=20 to tell us that 8 is wrong and 18 right. The age of 8 is unusually = young to=20 assume governmental leadership. However, there are certain = commentators who=20 contend that this can be entirely possible. They maintain that when = Jehoiachin=20 was eight years old, his father made him co-regent, so that he could = be=20 trained in the responsibilities of leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin then = became=20 officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon his father's death.

A more likely scenario, however, is that this is yet another case = of=20 scribal error, evidenced commonly with numbers. It may be helpful to = interject=20 here that there were three known ways of writing numbers in Hebrew. = The=20 earliest, a series of notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th = century=20 BC Elephantine Papyri (described in more detail below) was = followed by=20 a system whereby alphabetical letters were used for numbers. A further = system=20 was introduced whereby the spelling out of the numbers in full was = prescribed=20 by the guild of so-perim. Fortunately we have a large file of = documents=20 in papyrus from these three sources to which we can refer.

As with many of these numerical discrepancies, it is the decade = number that=20 varies. It is instructive to observe that the number notations used by = the=20 Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri, = during the=20 time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which this passage comes, evidences = the=20 earlier form of numerical notation. This consisted of a horizontal = stroke=20 ending in a downward hook at its right end to represent the numbers in = tens=20 (thus two horizontal strokes one above the other would be 20). = Vertical=20 strokes were used to represent anything less than ten. Thus eight = would be=20 /III IIII, but eighteen would be /III IIII with the addition of a = horizontal=20 line and downward hook above it. Similarly twenty-two would be /I = followed by=20 two horizontal hooks, and forty-two would be /I followed by two sets = of=20 horizontal hooks (please forgive the deficiencies of my computer; it = is not=20 the scholar Dr. Archer is).

If, then, the primary manuscript from which a copy was being = carried out=20 was blurred or smudged, one or more of the decadal notations could be = missed=20 by the copyist. It is far less likely that the copyist would have = mistakenly=20 seen an extra ten stroke that was not present in his original then = that he=20 would have failed to observe one that had been smudged.

In the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the = corrections=20 have been included in the texts. However, for clarity, footnotes at = the bottom=20 of the page mention that earlier Hebrew MSS include the scribal error, = while=20 the Septuagint MSS and Syriac as well as one Hebrew MSS include the = correct=20 numerals. It only makes sense to correct the numerals once the scribal = error=20 has been noted. This, however, in no way negates the authenticity nor = the=20 authority of the scriptures which we have.

Confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various = pagan=20 writers as well. For example in the Behistun rock inscription set up = by Darius=20 1, we find that number 38 gives the figure for the slain of the army = of Frada=20 as 55,243, with 6,572 prisoners, according to the Babylonian column. = Copies of=20 this inscription found in Babylon itself, records the number of = prisoners as=20 6,973. However in the Aramaic translation of this inscription = discovered at=20 the Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972.

Similarly in number 31 of the same inscription, the Babylonian = column gives=20 2,045 as the number of slain in the rebellious army of Frawartish, = along with=20 1,558 prisoners, whereas the Aramaic copy has over 1,575 as the = prisoner=20 count.

(Archer 1982:206-207, 214-215, 222, 230; Nehls pg.17-18; Light of = Life II=20 1992:204-205)

7. Did king Jehoiachin rule over Jerusalem for three months = (2=20 Kings 24:8), or for three months and ten days (2 Chronicles=20 36:9)?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

Here again, as we found in challenge number 2 and 4, the author of = the=20 Chronicles has been more specific with his numbering, whereas the = author of=20 Kings is simply rounding off the number of months, assuming that the=20 additional ten days is not significant enough to mention.

8. Did the chief of the mighty men of David lift up his = spear and=20 killed 800 men (2 Samuel 23:8) or only 300 men (1 Chronicles=20 11:11)?

(Category:misunderstood the historical context or misunderstood = the=20 author's intent)

It is quite possible that both authors may have described two = different=20 incidents, though by the same man, or one author may have only = mentioned in=20 part what the other author mentions in full.

(Light of Life II 1992:187)

9. Did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem = after=20 defeating the Philistines (2 Samuel 5 and 6), or before (1 Chronicles = chapters=20 13 and 14)?

(Category: didn't read the entire text)

This is not really a problem. Shabbir Ally should have continued = reading on=20 further to 1 Chronicles 15, as he would then have seen that David = brought the=20 Ark after defeating the Philistines. The reason for this is that the=20 Israelites moved the Ark of the covenant twice. The first time, they = moved it=20 from Baal, prior to the defeat of the Philistines, as we see in 2 = Samuel 5 and=20 6 and in 1 Chronicles 15. Once the prophet Samuel narrates David's = victory=20 over the Philistines, he tells us about both times when the Ark was = moved.=20 However in 1 Chronicles, the order is as follows: the Ark was first = moved from=20 baal; then David defeated the Philistines; and finally, the Ark was = moved from=20 the House of Obed-Edom.

Therefore the two accounts are not contradictory at all. What we = have here=20 is simply one prophet choosing to give us the complete history of the = Ark at=20 once (rather than referring to it later) and another presenting the = history in=20 a different way. In both cases the timing of events is the same.

The same could be said of the Qur'an. In Sura 2 we are introduced = to the=20 fall of Adam, then God's mercy is shown to the Israelites, followed by = Pharaoh's drowning, followed by Moses and the Golden calf, followed by = the=20 Israelites complaint about food and water, and then we are introduced = to the=20 account of the golden calf again. Following this, we read about Moses = and=20 Jesus, then we read about Moses and the golden calf, and then about = Solomon=20 and Abraham. If one wants to talk about chronology, what does Moses = have to do=20 with Jesus, or Solomon with Abraham? Chronologically the sura should = have=20 begun with Adam's fall, then moved to Cain and Abel, Enoch, Abraham, = Lot,=20 Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, the sons of Israel and Moses, in that = order. If=20 such a blatant chronological mix-up can be found in this sura of the = Qur'an,=20 then Shabbir would do well to explain it before criticizing what they = deem to=20 be an error in the Bible.

(Light of Life II 1992:176)

10. Was Noah supposed to bring 2 pairs of all living = creatures=20 (Genesis 6:19-20), or was he to bring 7 pairs of 'clean' animals = (Genesis 7:2;=20 see also Genesis 7:8,9)?

(Category: misquoted the text)

This indeed is an odd question to raise. It is obvious that Shabbir = Ally=20 has misquoted the text in the 6^th chapter of Genesis, which = makes=20 no mention of any 'clean' animals in its figure, while the = 7^th=20 chapter specifically delineates between the clean and unclean animals. = Genesis=20 7:2 says Noah was to bring in 7 pairs of 'clean' animals and 2 pairs = of every=20 kind of 'unclean' animal. Why did Shabbir not mention the second half = of this=20 verse which stipulates 2 pairs in his challenge? It is obvious that = there is=20 no discrepancy between the two accounts. The problem is the question=20 itself.

Shabbir attempts to back his argument by mentioning that verses 8 = and 9 of=20 chapter 7 prove that only two pairs went into the ark. However, these = verses=20 say nothing about two pairs entering the ark. They simply say that it = was=20 pairs of clean and unclean animals or birds and creatures which = entered the=20 ark.

The reason for including seven of the clean species is perfectly = evident:=20 they were to be used for sacrificial worship after the flood had = receded (as=20 indeed they were, according to Genesis 8:20). Obviously if there had = not been=20 more than two of each of these clean species, they would have been = rendered=20 extinct by their being sacrificed on the altar. But in the case of the = unclean=20 animals and birds, a single pair would suffice, since they would not = be needed=20 for blood sacrifice.

(Archer 1982:81-82)

11. Did David capture 1,700 of King Zobah's horsemen (2 = Samuel=20 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1 Chronicles 18:4)?

(Category: copyist error)

There are two possible solutions to these differing figures. The = first by=20 Keil and Delitzsh (page 360) is a most convincing solution. They = maintain that=20 the word for chariotry (rekeb) was inadvertently omitted by the = scribe=20 in copying 2 Samuel 8:4, and that the second figure, 7,000 (for the=20 parasim "cavalrymen"), was necessarily reduced to 700 from the = 7,000 he=20 saw in his Vorlage for the simple reason that no one would = write 7,000=20 after he had written 1,000 in the recording the one and the same = figure. The=20 omission of rekeb might have occurred with an earlier scribe, = and a=20 reduction from 7,000 to 700 would have then continued with the = successive=20 copies by later scribes. But in all probability the Chronicles figure = is right=20 and the Samuel numbers should be corrected to agree with that.

A second solution starts from the premise that the number had been = reduced=20 to 700 as it refers to 700 rows, each consisting of 10 horse men, = making a=20 total of 7,000.

(Archer 1982:184: Keil & Delitzsch 1949:360; Light of Life II=20 1992:182)

12. Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (1 Kings = 4:26),=20 or 4,000 stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25)?

(Category: copyist error, or misunderstood the historical=20 context)

There are a number of ways to answer these puzzling differences. = The most=20 plausible is analogous to what we found earlier in challenge numbers = five and=20 six above, where the decadal number has been rubbed out or distorted = due to=20 constant use.

Others believe that the stalls mentioned in 2 Chronicles were large = ones=20 that housed 10 horses each (that is, a row of ten stalls). Therefore = 4,000 of=20 these large stalls would be equivalent to 40,000 small ones.

Another commentator maintains that the number of stalls recorded in = 1 Kings=20 was the number at the beginning of Solomon's reign, whereas the number = recorded in 2 Chronicles was the number of stalls at the end of his = reign. We=20 know that Solomon reigned for 40 years; no doubt, many changes = occurred during=20 this period. It is quite likely that he reduced the size of the = military=20 machine his father David had left him.

(Light of Life II 1992:191)

13. According to the author, did Baasha, the king of Israel = die in=20 the 26^th year of king Asa's reign (1 Kings 15:33), or was = he still=20 alive in the 36^th year ( 2 Chronicles 16:1)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context, or copyist=20 error)

There are two possible solutions to this problem. To begin with, = scholars=20 who have looked at these passages have concluded that the 36th year of = Asa=20 should be calculated from the withdrawal of the 10 tribes from Judah = and=20 Benjamin which brought about the division of the country into Judah = and=20 Israel. If we look at it from this perspective, the 36th year of the = divided=20 monarchy would be in the 16th year of Asa. This is supported by the = Book of=20 the Kings of Judah and Israel, as well as contemporary records, which = follow=20 this convention. (note: for a fuller explanation of this theory, see = Archer,=20 page 225-116).

Keil and Delitzsch (pp. 366-367) preferred to regard the number 36 = in 2=20 Chronicles 16:1 and the number 35 in 15:19 as a copyist's error for 16 = and 15,=20 respectively. This problem is similar to question numbers five and six = above.=20 In this case, however, the numbers were written using Hebrew = alphabetical type=20 (rather than the Egyptian multiple stroke type used in the Elephantine = Papyri,=20 referred to in questions 5 and 6). It is therefore quite possible that = the=20 number 16 could quite easily be confused with 36. The reason for this = is that=20 up through the seventh century BC the letter yod (10) greatly = resembled=20 the letter lamed (30), except for two tiny strokes attached to = the left=20 of the main vertical strokes. It required only a smudge from excessive = wear on=20 this scroll-column to result in making the yod look like a=20 lamed. It is possible that this error occurred first in the = earlier=20 passage, in 2 Chronicles 15:19 (with its 35 wrongly copied from an = original=20 15); then to make it consistent in 16:1, the same scribe (or perhaps a = later=20 one) concluded that 16 must be an error for 36 and changed it = accordingly on=20 his copy.

(Archer 1982:226: Keil & Delitzsch 1949:366-367; Light of Life = II=20 1992:194)

14. Did Solomon appoint 3,600 overseers (2 Chronicles 2:2) = for the=20 work of building the temple, or was it only 3,300 (1 Kings = 5:16)?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

This is not too great a problem. The most likely solution is that = the=20 author of 2 Chronicles included the 300 men who were selected as = reservists to=20 take the place of any supervisors who would become ill or who had = died, while=20 the author of the 1 Kings 5:16 passage includes only the supervisory = force.=20 With the group as large as the 3,300, sickness and death certainly did = occur,=20 requiring reserves who would be called up as the need arose.

(Light of Life II 1992:192)

15. Did Solomon build a facility containing 2,000 baths (1 = Kings=20 7:26), or over 3,000 baths (2 Chronicles 4:5)?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent, or copyist=20 error)

The Hebrew verb rendered "contained" and "held" is different from = that=20 translated "received"; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily=20 contained 2,000 baths. But when filled to its utmost capacity it = received and=20 held 3,000 baths. Thus the chronicler simply mentions the amount of = water that=20 would make the sea like a flowing spring rather than a still pool. = This=20 informs us that 3,000 gallons of water were required to completely = fill the=20 sea which usually held 2,000 gallons.

Another solution follows a theme mentioned earlier, that the number = in=20 Hebrew lettering for 2000 has been confounded by the scribe with a = similar=20 alphabetical number for the number 3,000.

It should be noted that Shabbir (in his debate on 25^th = February=20 1998 against Jay Smith in Birmingham, UK) quoted this "contradiction" = and=20 added to it saying that if the bath had a diameter of 10 cubits it = cannot=20 possibly have had a circumference of 30 cubits as the text says (since = 'pi'=20 dictates that it would have a circumference of 31.416 or a 9.549 = diameter).=20

Shabbir made the humorous comment "Find me a bath like that and I = will get=20 baptized in it!" But Shabbir did not read the text properly or was = just going=20 for a cheap, displaced laugh. Why? Because the text says that it was = about 8cm=20 thick and had a rim shaped like a lily. Therefore it depends on where = you=20 measure from. The top or bottom of the rim or the inside or outside = for the=20 vessel would all give a different diameter; and depending on whether = you=20 measure at the top of the rim or at the narrower point, you would get = a=20 different circumference.

In other words, Shabbir may well be getting baptized if someone can = be=20 bothered to make a replica!

(Haley pg. 382; Light of Life II 1992:192)

16-21. Are the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian=20 captivity correct in Ezra (Ezra 2:6, 8, 12, 15, 19, 28) or in Nehemiah = (Nehemiah 7:11, 13, 17, 20, 22, 32)?

(note: because numbers 16-21 deal with the same census, I have = included=20 them as one)

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

In chapter 2 of Ezra and in chapter 7 of Nehemiah there are about=20 thirty-three family units that appear in both lists of Israelites = returning=20 from Babylon to Judea. Of these 33 family units listed in Ezra and = Nehemiah,=20 nineteen of the family units are identical, while fourteen show = discrepancies=20 in the number of members within the family units (though Shabbir only = lists=20 six of them). Two of the discrepancies differ by 1, one differs by 4, = two by=20 6, two differ by 9, another differs by 11, another two by 100, another = by 201,=20 another differs by 105, a further family differs by 300, and the = largest=20 difference is the figure for the sons of Azgad, a difference of 1,100 = between=20 the accounts of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.

How, then, are we to account for the 14 discrepancies? The answer = is quite=20 simple, and Shabbir, had he done any study into the history of these = two=20 accounts would never have bothered to waste his time in asking these=20 questions. The fact that there are both similarities and discrepancies = side-by-side should have pointed him to the solution as well (as you = who are=20 reading this are probably even now concluding).

There are two important factors to bear in mind when looking at = these=20 discrepancies between the two lists. The first is the probability that = though=20 members of the units or families had enrolled their names at first as=20 intending to go; in the interval of preparation, some possibly died, = others=20 were prevented by sickness or other insurmountable obstacles, so that = the=20 final number who actually went was not the same as those who had = intended to=20 go. Anyone who has planned a school-coach trip to the beach can = understand how=20 typical a scenario this really is.

A second and more important factor are the different circumstances = in which=20 the two registers were taken, an important fact of which Shabbir seems = to be=20 acutely unaware. Ezra's register was made up while still in Babylon = (in the=20 450s BC), before the return to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:1-2), whereas = Nehemiah's=20 register was drawn up in Judea (around 445 BC), after the walls of = Jerusalem=20 had been rebuilt (Nehemiah 7:4-6). The lapse of so many years between = the two=20 lists (between 5-10 years) would certainly make a difference in the = numbers of=20 each family through death or by other causes.

Most scholars believe that Nehemiah recorded those people who = actually=20 arrived at Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua in = 537 or=20 536 BC (Nehemiah 7:7). Ezra, on the other hand, uses the earlier list = of those=20 who originally announced their intention to join the caravan of = returning=20 colonists back in Babylon, in the 450s BC.

The discrepancies between these two lists point to the fact that = there were=20 new factors which arose to change their minds. Some may have fallen = into=20 disagreement, others may have discovered business reasons to delay = their=20 departure until later, whereas in some cases there were certainly some = illnesses or death, and in other cases there may have been some = last-minute=20 recruits from those who first decided to remain in Babylon. Only clans = or=20 city-group's came in with a shrunken numbers. All the rest picked up=20 last-minute recruits varying from one to 1,100.

When we look at the names we find that certain names are mentioned = in=20 alternate forms. Among the Jews of that time (as well as those living = in the=20 East), a person had a name, title, and surname. Thus, the children of = Hariph=20 (Nehemiah 7:24) are the children of Jorah (Ezra 2:18), while the = children of=20 Sia (Nehemiah 7:47) are also the children of Siaha (Ezra 2:44).

When we take all these factors into consideration, the differences = in=20 totals that do appear in these two tallies should occasion no surprise = whatsoever. The same sort of arbitration and attrition has featured = every=20 large migration in human history.

(Archer 1982:229-230 and Light of Life II 1992:219-220)

22. Both Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the totals = for the=20 whole assembly was 42,360, yet when the totals are added, Ezra - = 29,818 and=20 Nehemiah - 31,089?

(Category: copyist error)

There are possibly two answers to this seeming dilemma. The first = is that=20 this is most likely a copyist's error. The original texts must have = had the=20 correct totals, but somewhere along the line of transmission, a scribe = made an=20 error in one of the lists, and changed the total in the other so that = they=20 would match, without first totaling up the numbers for the families in = each=20 list. There is the suggestion that a later scribe upon copying out = these lists=20 purposely put down the totals for the whole assembly who were in = Jerusalem at=20 his time, which because it was later would have been larger.

The other possibility is forwarded by the learned Old Testament = scholar=20 R.K. Harrison, who suggests that at any rate the figure of 42,000 may = be=20 metaphorical, following "...the pattern of the Exodus and similar=20 traditions, where the large numbers were employed as symbols of the = magnitude=20 of God, and in this particular instance indicating the triumphant = deliverance=20 that God achieved for His captive people" (Harrison = 1970:1142-1143).

Such errors do not change the historicity of the account, since in = such=20 cases another portion of Scripture usually corrects the mistake (the = added=20 totals in this instance). As the well-known commentator, Matthew Henry = once=20 wrote, "Few books are not printed without mistakes; yet, authors do = not=20 disown them on account of this, nor are the errors by the press = imputed to the=20 author. The candid reader amends them by the context or by comparing = them with=20 some other part of the work."

(Light of Life II 1992:201, 219)

23. Did 200 singers (Ezra 2:65) or 245 singers (Nehemiah = 7:67)=20 accompany the assembly?

(Category: copyist error)

As in question number 7, this is a copyist error, where a scribe = copying=20 the numbers in the Ezra account simply rounded off the figure of 245 = to=20 200.

24. Was King Abijah's mother's name Michaiah, daughter of = Uriel of=20 Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2) or Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 = Chronicles 11:20=20 & 2 Samuel 13:27)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This apparent contradiction rests on the understanding of the = Hebrew word=20 bat, equivalent to the English daughter. Although = usually used=20 to denote a first generation female descendant, it can equally refer = to more=20 distant kinship. An example of this is 2 Samuel 1:24, which states: 'O = daughters of Israel, weep for Saul...' As this is approximately 900 = years=20 after Israel (also called Jacob) actually lived, it is clear that this = refers=20 to the Israelite women, his distant female descendants.

When seen in this light, the 'contradiction' vanishes. 2 Chronicles = 13:2=20 correctly states that Michaiah is a daughter of Uriel. We can assume = that=20 Uriel married Tamar, Absalom's only immediate daughter. Together they = had=20 Michaiah who then married king Rehoboam and became the mother of = Abijah. 2=20 Chronicles 11:20 and 1 Kings 15:2, in stating that Maachah was a = daughter of=20 Absalom, simply link her back to her more famous grandfather, instead = of her=20 lesser known father, to indicate her royal lineage. Abishalom is a = variant of=20 Absalom and Michaiah is a variant of Maachah. Therefore, the family = tree looks=20 like this:
```
       Absalom/Abishalom
               |
             Tamar-----Uriel
                    |
Rehoboam-----Maachah/Michaiah
          |
        Abijah
```
25. Joshua and the Israelites did (Joshua 10:23,40) or did = not=20 (Joshua 15:63) capture Jerusalem?

(Category: misread the text)

The short answer is, not in this campaign. The verses given are in = complete=20 harmony and the confusion arises solely from misreading the passage=20 concerned.

In Joshua 10, it is the king of Jerusalem that is killed: = his city=20 is not captured (verses 16-18 and 22-26). The five Amorite kings and = their=20 armies left their cities and went to attack Gibeon. Joshua and the = Israelites=20 routed them and the five kings fled to the cave at Makkedah, from = which=20 Joshua's soldiers brought them to Joshua, who killed them all. = Concerning=20 their armies, verse 20 states: 'the few who were left reached their = fortified=20 cities', which clearly indicates that the cities were not captured. So = it was=20 the kings, not their cities, who were captured.

Joshua 10:28-42 records the rest of this particular military = campaign. It=20 states that several cities were captured and destroyed, these being: = Makkedah,=20 Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron and Debir. All of these cities are = south-west=20 of Jerusalem. The king of Gezer and his army were defeated in the = field whilst=20 helping Lachish (v.33) and in verse 30 comparison is made to the = earlier=20 capture of Jericho, but neither of these last two cities were captured = at this=20 time. Verses 40 & 41 delineate the limits of this campaign, all of = which=20 took place to the south and west of Jerusalem. Importantly, Gibeon, = the=20 eastern limit of this campaign, is still approximately 10 miles to the = north-west of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem is, therefore, not stated as captured in Joshua 10. This = agrees=20 completely with Joshua 15:63, which states that Judah could not = dislodge the=20 Jebusites in Jerusalem.

26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father = of=20 Joseph and husband of Mary?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most = scholars=20 today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives = that of=20 Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of = Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew = 1:18-25=20 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is = told=20 wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both = genealogies?=20 The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in = mentioning=20 only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her = husband's=20 name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In = the first,=20 every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one = exception of=20 Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' = Matthat).=20 Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone = reading=20 the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's = wife,=20 even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish = source. This=20 recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the = daughter=20 of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

27. Did Jesus descend from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from = Nathan=20 (Luke 3:31), both of whom are sons of David?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This is directly linked to 'contradiction' 26. Having shown that = Matthew=20 gives Joseph's genealogy and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that = Joseph=20 was descended from David through Solomon and Mary through Nathan. =

28. Was Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27) the = father of=20 Shealtiel?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Once again, this problem disappears when it is understood that two=20 different genealogies are given from David to Jesus, those of both = Mary and=20 Joseph (see #26). Two different genealogies mean two different men = named=20 Shealtiel, a common Hebrew name. Therefore, it is not surprising to = recognize=20 that they both had different fathers!

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus = Christ, Abiud=20 (Matthew 1:13) or Rhesa (Luke 3:27), and what about Zerubbabel in (1=20 Chronicles 3:19-20)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As with #28, two different Shealtiels necessitates two different=20 Zerubbabels, so it is no problem that their sons had different = names.

It should not surprise us that there was a Zerubbabel son of = Shealtiel in=20 both Mary's and Joseph's ancestry. Matthew tells us that Joseph's = father was=20 named Jacob. Of course, the Bible records another Joseph son of Jacob, = who=20 rose to become the second most powerful ruler in Egypt (Genesis = 37-47). We see=20 no need to suggest that these two men are one and the same, so we = should have=20 no problem with two men named Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel.

The Zerubbabel mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:19,20 could easily be a = third.=20 Again, this causes no problem: there are several Marys mentioned in = the=20 Gospels, because it was a common name. The same may be true here. This = Zerubbabel would then be a cousin of the one mentioned in Matthew = 1:12,13. A=20 comparison of Matthew and 1 Chronicles gives the following possible = family=20 tree:
```
Jehoiachin
    |
Shealtiel----Malkiram----Pedaiah----Shenazzar----Jekamiah----Hoshama----N=
edabiah----...
    |                                   |
Zerubbabel                   Zerubbabel----Shimei----...
    |                            |
  Abiud                       7 sons
    |   (1 Ch. 3:19,20)
    |
  Joseph
```
30. Was Joram (Matthew 1:8) or Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1) = the=20 father of Uzziah?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer is of a similar nature to that in #24. Just as the = Hebrew=20 bat (daughter) can be used to denote a more distant descendant, = so can=20 the Hebrew ben (son). Jesus is referred to in Matthew 1:1 as = the son of=20 David, the son of Abraham. Both the genealogies trace Jesus' ancestry = through=20 both these men, illustrating the usage of 'son'. Although no Hebrew=20 manuscripts of Matthew's gospel are extant today, it is clear that he = was a=20 Jew writing from a Hebrew perspective and therefore completely at home = with=20 the Hebrew concept of son ship.

With this in mind, it can easily be shown that Amaziah was the = immediate=20 father of Uzziah (also called Azariah). Joram/Jehoram, on the other = hand, was=20 Uzziah's great-great-grandfather and a direct ascendant. The line goes = Joram/Jehoram - Ahaziah - Joash - Amaziah - Azariah/Uzziah (2 = Chronicles=20 21:4-26:1).

Matthew's telescoping of Joseph's genealogy is quite acceptable, as = his=20 purpose is simply to show the route of descent. He comments in 1:17 = that there=20 were three sets of fourteen generations. This reveals his fondness for = numbers=20 and links in directly with the designation of Jesus as the son of = David. In=20 the Hebrew language, each letter is given a value. The total value of = the name=20 David is fourteen and this is probably the reason why Matthew only = records=20 fourteen generations in each section, to underline Jesus' position as = the son=20 of David.

31. Was Josiah (Matthew 1:11) or Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles = 3:16) the=20 father of Jechoniah?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This question is essentially the same as #30. Jehoiakim was = Jeconiah's=20 father and Josiah his grandfather. This is quite acceptable and = results from=20 Matthew's aesthetic telescoping of the genealogy, not from any = error.
32. Were there fourteen (Matthew 1:17) or thirteen (Matthew = 1:12-16) generations from the Babylonian exile until = Christ?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

As Matthew clearly states (1:17), there were fourteen. In the first = section=20 there are fourteen names, in the second fifteen and in the third, = fourteen.=20 Perhaps the simplest way of resolving the problem is to suggest that = in the=20 first and third sections, the first and last person is included as a=20 generation, whereas not in the second. In any case, as Matthew has = clearly=20 telescoped his genealogy with good reason, a mistake on his part is by = no=20 means shown conclusively. If by some chance another name or two has = been lost=20 from the list in the originals, by scribal error, we cannot know. = Whatever the=20 real situation, a simple explanation can be afforded, as above.
33. Who was the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or = Arphaxad=20 (Genesis 11:12)?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

Although a conclusive answer is not possible, plausible = explanations can be=20 found. The most probable answer to this is that the genealogy in the = Masoretic=20 text of Genesis telescopes the generations as does Matthew in his = list. When=20 we look at the Septuagint (LXX), we find the name of Cainan included = as the=20 father of Shelah, echoing what we find in Luke. Luke, writing in = Greek, would=20 have used the Septuagint as his authority.

On that same note, if we refer to the Septuagint, when we look at = Genesis=20 11:12 we find that Apharxad was 135 years old, rather than 35 = (which=20 would allow more time for him to be Shelah's grandfather).

34. John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10-13) or was = not=20 Elijah to come (John 1:19-21)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Matthew records Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah = who was=20 to come, while John seems to record John the Baptist denying it. The = reason=20 for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of contextualization by = readers.

The priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him if = he was=20 Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone, unless you know the = Jewish=20 Scriptures. For God says through the prophet Malachi that He will send = Elijah=20 to the people of Israel before a certain time. Therefore as the Jewish = people=20 were expecting Elijah, the question is quite logical.

John was about 30 years when he was asked this question. His = parents were=20 already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah from the tribe of Levi. = So when=20 asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into heaven about 878 years = earlier,=20 the answer was obviously "No, I am not Elijah."

Jesus also testifies, albeit indirectly, to John not being Elijah = in=20 Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than all people who = have ever=20 been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was greater than = them=20 both.

So what did Jesus mean when he says of John "he is the Elijah who = was to=20 come"? The angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his = son,=20 John, who was not yet born, saying "he will go on before the Lord, in = the=20 spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their = children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make = ready a=20 people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 = to see=20 this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned = above,=20 which says "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the = great and=20 dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers = to=20 their children, and the hearts of the children to their = fathers".=20 Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the "Elijah" whom God = foretold=20 through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, = "Are=20 you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as 'Elijah'?" John would = have=20 responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is = true, but=20 Elijah had already come. He says that this "Elijah" suffered, like he, = Jesus=20 will suffer; "the disciples understood that he was talking to them = about=20 John the Baptist". Therefore, once we understand the context it is = clear;=20 John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the = prophecy spoke=20 of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, = Jesus, "the=20 Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", John 1:29.
35. Jesus would (Luke 1:32) or would not (Matthew 1:11; 1=20 Chronicles 3:16 & Jeremiah 36:30) inherit David's = throne?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This answer follows on directly from that to #26. Having shown that = Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph, it is obvious from Jeremiah = 36:30 that=20 none of Joseph's physical descendants were qualified to sit on David's = throne=20 as he himself was descended from Jeconiah. However, as Matthew makes = clear,=20 Jesus was not a physical descendant of Joseph. After having = listed=20 Joseph's genealogy with the problem of his descendance from Jeconiah, = Matthew=20 narrates the story of the virgin birth. Thus he proves how Jesus = avoids the=20 Jeconiah problem and remains able to sit on David's throne. Luke, on = the other=20 hand, shows that Jesus' true physical descendance was from David apart = from=20 Jeconiah, thus fully qualifying him to inherit the throne of his = father David.=20 The announcement of the angel in Luke 1:32 completes the picture: 'the = Lord=20 God will give him the throne of his father David'. This divine = appointment,=20 together with his physical descendance, make him the only rightful = heir to=20 David's throne.

(Fruchtenbaum 1993:12)

36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one colt (Mark 11:7; cf. = Luke=20 19:35), or a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7)?

(Category: misread the text & misunderstood the historical=20 context)

The accusation is that the Gospels contradict about how many = donkeys Jesus=20 rode into Jerusalem on. This accusation is based on not reading the = text of=20 Matthew properly and ignoring his full point about this event.

It first should be noted that all four Gospel writers refer to this = event,=20 the missing reference above being John 12:14-15. Mark, Luke and John = are all=20 in agreement that Jesus sat on the colt. Logic shows that there is no=20 "contradiction" as Jesus cannot ride on two animals at once! So, why = does=20 Matthew mention two animals? The reason is clear.

Even by looking at Matthew in isolation, we can see from the text = that=20 Jesus did not ride on two animals, but only on the colt. For in the = two verses=20 preceding the quote in point (b) above by Shabbir, we read Matthew = quoting two=20 prophecies from the Old Testament (Isaiah 62:11 and Zechariah 9:9) = together.=20 Matthew says:

"Say to the Daughter of Zion, 'See, your king comes to you, = gently and=20 riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey'."

Matthew 21:5

By saying "a donkey" and then "on a colt, the foal of a donkey" = Zechariah=20 is using classic Hebrew sentence structure and poetic language known = as=20 "parallelism", simply repeating the same thing again in another way, = as a=20 parallel statement. This is very common in the Bible (i.e. Psalm = 119:105=20 mentions, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my = path," yet=20 says the same thing twice in succession). It is clear that there is = only one=20 animal referred to. Therefore Matthew clearly says Jesus rode only on = a colt,=20 in agreement with the other three Gospel writers.

So why does Matthew say that the colt and its mother were brought = along in=20 verse seven? The reason is simple. Matthew, who was an eyewitness = (where as=20 Mark and Luke were quite possibly not) emphasizes the immaturity of = the colt,=20 too young to be separated from its mother. As the colt had never been = ridden=20 the probability was that it was still dependent on its mother. It = would have=20 made the entry to Jerusalem easier if the mother donkey were led along = down=20 the road, as the foal would naturally follow her, even though he had = never=20 before carried a rider and had not yet been trained to follow a = roadway.

Here again we see that there is no contradiction between the = synoptic=20 accounts, but only added detail on the part of Matthew as one who = viewed the=20 event while it was happening.

This is just one of many of the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. He = fulfilled ones that were in his control as well as ones which he could = not=20 manipulate, such as the time and place of his birth (Daniel 9:24-26, = Micah=20 5:1-2, Matthew 2:1-6), and his resurrection (Psalm 16:10, Acts = 2:24-32) to=20 name but two.

Some Muslims believe that in the Taurat there is reference to the = prophecy=20 which the Qur'an speaks of in Sura 7:157 and 61:6 concerning Muhammad. = However, these Muslims yet have to come up with one, while Jesus is = predicted=20 time and time again.

37. Simon Peter finds out that Jesus was the Christ by a = revelation=20 from heaven (Matthew 16:17), or by His brother Andrew (John=20 1:41)?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

The emphasis of Matthew 16:17 is that Simon did not just hear it = from=20 someone else: God had made it clear to him. That does not preclude him = being=20 told by other people. Jesus' point is that he was not simply repeating = what=20 someone else had said. He had lived and worked with Jesus and he was = now clear=20 in his mind that Jesus was none other than the Christ (Messiah), the = Son of=20 the Living God.

Jesus did not ask, "Who have you heard that I am?" but, "Who do you = say I am?" There is all the difference in the world between = these two=20 questions, and Peter was no longer in any doubt.

38. Jesus first met Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of = Galilee=20 (Matthew 4:18-22), or on the banks of the river Jordan (John=20 1:42-43)?

(Category: misread the text)

The accusation is that one Gospel records Jesus meeting Simon Peter = and=20 Andrew by the sea of Galilee, while the other says he met them by the = river=20 Jordan. However this accusation falls flat on its face as the = different=20 writers pick up the story in different places. Both are true.

John 1:35 onwards says Jesus met them by the river Jordan and that = they=20 spent time with him there. Andrew (and probably Peter too) were = disciples of=20 John the Baptist. They left this area and went to Galilee, in which = region was=20 the village of Cana where Jesus then performed his first recorded = miracle.=20 "After this he went down to Capernaum with his mothers and brothers = and=20 disciples. There they stayed for a few days." John 2:12.

Peter and Andrew were originally from a town named Bethsaida (John = 2:44)=20 but now lived in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14-15, Mark 1:30-31, Luke = 4:38-39), a=20 few miles from Bethsaida. They were fishermen by trade, so it was = perfectly=20 normal for them to fish when they were home during these few days (for = at this=20 time Jesus was only just beginning public teaching or healing).

This is where Matthew picks up the story. As Peter and Andrew fish = in the=20 Lake of Galilee, Jesus calls them to follow him - to leave all they = have=20 behind and become his permanent disciples. Before this took place, he = had not=20 asked them, but they had followed him because of John the Baptist's = testimony=20 of him (John 1:35-39). Now, because of this testimony, plus the = miracle in=20 Cana, as well as the things Jesus said (John 1:47-51), as well as the = time=20 spent with the wisest and only perfect man who ever lived etc., it is=20 perfectly understandable for them to leave everything and follow him. = It would=20 not be understandable for them to just drop their known lives and = follow a=20 stranger who appeared and asked them to, like children after the pied = piper!=20 Jesus did not enchant anyone - they followed as they realized who he = was - the=20 one all the prophets spoke of, the Messiah the son of God.

39. When Jesus met Jairus, his daughter 'had just died' = (Matthew=20 9:18), or was 'at the point of death' (Mark 5:23)?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

When Jairus left his home, his daughter was very sick, and at the = point of=20 death, or he wouldn't have gone to look for Jesus. When he met Jesus = he=20 certainly was not sure whether his daughter had already succumbed. = Therefore,=20 he could have uttered both statements; Matthew mentioning her death, = while=20 Mark speaking about her sickness. However, it must be underlined that = this is=20 not a detail of any importance to the story, or to us. The crucial = points are=20 clear:

Jairus's daughter had a fatal illness.=20
All that could have been done would already have been: she was = as good=20 as dead if not already dead.=20
Jairus knew that Jesus could both heal her and bring her back = from the=20 dead. As far as he was concerned, there was no difference. =

Therefore it is really of no significance whether the girl was = actually=20 dead or at the point of death when Jairus reached Jesus.'

40. Jesus allowed (Mark 6:8), or did not allow (Matthew = 10:9; Luke=20 9:3) his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage)

It is alleged that the Gospel writers contradict each other = concerning=20 whether Jesus allowed his disciples to take a staff on their journey = or not.=20 The problem is one of translation.

In Matthew we read the English translation of the Greek word "ktesthe", which is rendered in the King James = (Authorized) translation as "Provide neither gold, nor silver nor = yet=20 staves". According to a Greek dictionary this word means "to get = for=20 oneself, to acquire, to procure, by purchase or otherwise" (Robinson,=20 Lexicon of the New Testament). Therefore in Matthew Jesus is = saying "Do=20 not procure anything in addition to what you already have. Just go as = you=20 are."

Matthew 10 and Mark 6 agree that Jesus directed his disciples to = take along=20 no extra equipment. Luke 9:3 agrees in part with the wording of Mark = 6:8,=20 using the verb in Greek, ("take"); but then, like Matthew adds = "no=20 staff, no bag, no bread, no money". But Matthew 10:10 includes what = was=20 apparently a further clarification: they were not to acquire a = staff as=20 part of their special equipment for the tour. Mark 6:8 seems to = indicate that=20 this did not necessarily involve discarding any staff they already had = as they=20 traveled the country with Jesus.

However, this is not a definitive answer, only a possible = explanation. This=20 trivial difference does not effect the substantial agreement of the = Gospels.=20 We would not be troubled if this were, or is, a contradiction, for we = do not=20 have the same view of these Gospels as a Muslim is taught about the = Qur'an.=20 And if this is the pinnacle of Biblical contradictions when the Bible = is said=20 to be "full of contradictions" and "totally corrupted", then such = people are=20 obviously deluded. If indeed Christian scribes and translators had = wished to=20 alter the original Gospels, this "contradiction" would not have been = here. It=20 is a sign of the authenticity of the text as a human account of what = took=20 place, and is a clear sign that it has not been deliberately = corrupted.

41. Herod did (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16) or did not (Luke = 9:9) think=20 that Jesus was John the Baptist?

(Category: misread the text)

There is no contradiction here. In Luke 9:9, Herod asks who this = incredible=20 person could be, as John was now dead. In Matthew 14:2 and Mark 6:16 = he gives=20 his answer: after considering who Jesus could be, he concluded that he = must be=20 John the Baptist, raised from the dead. By the time Herod actually met = Jesus,=20 at his trial, he may not have still thought that it was John (Luke = 23:8-11).=20 If that were the case, he had most probably heard more about him and=20 understood John's claims about preparing for one who was to come (John = 1:15-34). He may well have heard that Jesus had been baptised by John, = obviously ruling out the possibility that they were the same = person.

42. John the Baptist did (Matthew 3:13-14) or did not (John = 1:32-33) recognize Jesus before his baptism?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

John's statement in John 1:33 that he would not have known Jesus = except for=20 seeing the Holy Spirit alight on him and remain, can be understood to = mean=20 that John would not have known for sure without this definite = sign.=20 John was filled with the Holy Spirit from before his birth (Luke 1:15) = and we=20 have record of an amazing recognition of Jesus even while John was in = his=20 mother's womb. Luke 1:41-44 relates that when Mary visited John's = mother, the=20 sound of her greeting prompted John, then still in the womb, to leap = in=20 recognition of Mary's presence, as the mother of the Lord.

From this passage we can also see that John's mother had some = knowledge=20 about who Jesus would be. It is very likely that she told John = something of=20 this as he was growing up (even though it seems that she died while he = was=20 young).

In the light of this prior knowledge and the witness of the Holy = Spirit=20 within John, it is most likely that this sign of the Holy Spirit = resting on=20 Jesus was simply a sure confirmation of what he already thought. God = removed=20 any doubt so that he could be sure that it was not his imagination or = someone=20 else's mistake.

43. John the Baptist did (John 1:32-33) or did not (Matthew = 11:2)=20 recognize Jesus after his baptism?

(Category: misread the text)

In the passage of John 1:29-36 it is abundantly clear that John = recognised=20 Jesus. We should have no doubt at all about this.

Matthew 11:2 takes place later on, and many things have happened in = the=20 interum. John's original knowledge of Jesus was limited and it seems = that=20 subsequent events had disillusioned him somewhat. He did not know = exactly what=20 form Jesus' ministry would take. We are told from Matthew 3:11,12 some = of what=20 John knew: "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. = His=20 winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor,=20 gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with = unquenchable=20 fire." This is the classic portrayal of the Messiah as the = conquering king=20 who would bring God's judgement on all those who reject him, bringing = peace=20 and justice to those who follow him. John obviously understood this. =

However, the Messiah was also portrayed in the scriptures as a = suffering=20 servant who would suffer on behalf of God's people. This is shown = clearly in=20 Isaiah 53, especially verse 12: "For he bore the sin of many, and = made=20 intercession for the transgressors". John also understood this, as = shown=20 by his statement in John 1:29: "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes = away the=20 sin of the world!"

What was sometimes not so well understood was how the two = portrayals of the=20 Messiah interacted. Many thought that the Messiah would bring his = terrible=20 judgement as soon as he came. In fact, this will occur when he returns = again=20 (his return is alluded to in Acts 1:11, for example). Some were = confused,=20 therefore, by Jesus' reluctance to act as a military leader and = release the=20 nation of Israel from Roman oppression at that time.

This confusion is illustrated by Luke 24:13-33, where Jesus spoke = with two=20 of his followers on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection. They = were=20 initially kept from recognising him (v.16). They told him how they = "had=20 hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel" (v.21). = They=20 were correct in this hope, but failed to understand the first stage in = God's=20 redemptive process. Jesus corrected their misunderstanding in v. = 25,26:=20 "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the = prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things = and then=20 enter his glory?" (emphasis added)

It is most likely that a similar misunderstanding prompted John's = question=20 in Matthew 11:2. Despite having been so sure of Jesus' identity as the = Messiah=20 of Israel, further events had clouded his certainty. After expecting = Jesus to=20 oust the Romans and restore the kingdom of Israel as in the days of = king=20 David, instead he had seen Jesus 'teach and preach in the towns of = Galilee'=20 (Matthew 11:1), with no mention of a military campaign. John surely = wondered=20 what had gone wrong: had he misunderstood the Messiah's role, or = perhaps he=20 had made a bigger mistake in thinking Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus' = answer in=20 Matthew 11:4-6 makes it clear:

"Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind = receive sight,=20 the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the = dead are=20 raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man = who does=20 not fall away on account of me."

These activities were Messianic prerogatives, as foretold by Isaiah = 29:18;=20 35:5,6; 61:1-3. Although John's disillusionment was a natural human = reaction,=20 he had been right the first time. Jesus ended his reply with an = exhortation to=20 John not to give up hope. The Messiah was here without a doubt and all = would=20 be revealed in its proper time.

44. When Jesus bears witness to himself, is his testimony = not true=20 (John 5:31) or is his testimony true (John 8:14)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

"If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid" (John = 5:31)=20 compared with "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is=20 valid" (John 8:14). It appears to be a contradiction, but only if = the=20 context is ignored.

In John 5 Jesus is speaking about how he cannot claim on his own to = be the=20 Messiah nor the Son of God, unless he is in line with = God's=20 revealed word. That is, without fulfilling the prophecies spoken in = the Old=20 Testament. But as Jesus did fulfil them and was proclaimed to be the = Messiah=20 by John the Baptist who the prophets also spoke of as heralding the = way for=20 the Messiah (see #34), then Jesus was indeed who he claimed to be, the = Son of=20 God. Jesus says of the Jewish scriptures which his listeners studied=20 diligently, "These are the Scriptures that testify about = me".

We read of a somewhat different setting however in John 8. Jesus = has just=20 once again claimed to be the Messiah by quoting Old Testament = Messianic=20 prophecies and applying them to himself (John 8:12, Isaiah 9:2, = Malachi 4:2).=20 "Then some Pharisees challenged him, 'Here you are, appearing as = your own=20 witness; your testimony is not valid'." Verse 13.

It is to this statement that Jesus responds "Yes it is". Why? = Because the=20 Pharisees were using a law from Deuteronomy 19:15 which says "One = witness=20 is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may = have=20 committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or = three=20 witnesses. If a malicious witness takes the stand."

Therefore they broadened the law to mean more that it does actually = say.=20 Indeed, the testimony of one man was valid - however not enough to = convict,=20 but enough when used in defense to bring an acquittal. This law is not = speaking about anyone making a claim about himself, only in a court = when=20 accused of a crime.

So when Jesus says in reply to them "Even if I testify on my own = behalf,=20 my testimony is valid" he is right to do so as what the law = referred to=20 did not directly apply. He also says that he knew exactly who he was, = whereas=20 they did not. He was not lying to them; he was the sinless Messiah of = God.=20 Therefore his word could be trusted.

However, it is a good principle not to believe just anyone who = claims to be=20 the Messiah. Any claimant must have proof. Therefore the second thing = Jesus=20 goes on to state in John 8 is that he has these witnesses too, the = witnesses=20 that the Pharisees were asking for. "I am one who testifies for = myself; my=20 other witness is the Father who sent me." Verse 18. The same = proclamation=20 as in John 5 that he was fulfilling the prophecies that they knew (see = just=20 before this incident in John 7:42 for further proof of this = point).

There is no contradiction, simply clarity and great depth which can = be seen=20 when Jesus' is viewed in context, in his fertile Jewish culture and=20 setting.

45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem he cleansed (Matthew = 21:12) or did=20 not cleanse (Mark 11:1-17) the temple that same day, but the next=20 day?

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

The key to understanding may be found in Matthew's use of = narrative. At=20 times he can be seen to arrange his material in topical order rather = than=20 strict chronological sequence. See the next question (#46) for more=20 details.

With this in mind, it is probable that Matthew relates the = cleansing of the=20 temple along with the triumphal entry, even though the cleansing = occurred the=20 next day. Verse 12 states that 'Jesus entered the temple' but does not = say=20 clearly that it was immediately following the entry into Jerusalem.. = Verse 17=20 informs us that he left Jerusalem and went to Bethany, where he spent = the=20 night. Mark 11:11 also has him going out to Bethany for the night, but = this is=20 something that he did each night of that week in Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:23 states: "Jesus entered the temple courts" in a = similar=20 fashion to verse 12, yet Luke 20:1 says that the following incident = occurred=20 "one day", indicating that it may not have been immediately = after the=20 fig tree incident.

According to this possible interpretation, Jesus entered the temple = on the=20 day of his triumphal entry, looked around and retired to Bethany. The = next=20 morning he cursed the fig tree on the way to Jerusalem (at which time = it=20 started to wither) and cleansed the temple when he got there. = Returning to=20 Bethany that evening, probably as it was getting dark, the withered = fig tree=20 may not have been noticed by the disciples. It was only the following = morning=20 in the full light of day that they saw what had happened to it.

(Archer 1994:334.335)

46. Matthew 21:19 says that the tree which Jesus cursed = withered at=20 once, whereas Mark 11:20 maintains that it withered = overnight.

(Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

The differences found between the accounts of Matthew and Mark = concerning=20 the fig tree have much to do with the order both Matthew and Mark used = in=20 arranging their material. When we study the narrative technique of = Matthew in=20 general, we find (as was noted in #45 above) that he sometimes = arranges his=20 material in a topical order rather than in the strictly chronological = order=20 that is more often characteristic of Mark and Luke.

For instance, if we look at chapters 5-7 of Matthew which deal with = the=20 sermon on the Mount, it is quite conceivable that portions of the = sermon on=20 the Mount teachings are found some times in other settings, such as in = the=20 sermon on the plain in Luke (6:20-49). Matthew's tendency was to group = his=20 material in themes according to a logical sequence. We find another = example of=20 this exhibited in a series of parables of the kingdom of heaven that = make up=20 chapter 13. Once a theme has been broached, Matthew prefers to carry = it=20 through to its completion, as a general rule.

When we see it from this perspective it is to Mark that we look to = when=20 trying to ascertain the chronology of an event. In Mark's account we = find that=20 Jesus went to the temple on both Palm Sunday and the following Monday. = But in=20 Mark 11:11-19 it is clearly stated that Jesus did not expel the = tradesmen from=20 the temple until Monday, after he had cursed the barren fig tree = (verses 12 to=20 14).

To conclude then, Matthew felt it suited his topical approach more=20 effectively to include the Monday afternoon action with the Sunday = afternoon=20 initial observation, whereas Mark preferred to follow a strict = chronological=20 sequence. These differences are not contradictory, but show merely a = different=20 style in arrangement by each author.

(Archer 1982:334-335 and Light of Life III 1992:96-97)

47. In Matthew 26:48-50 Judas came up and kissed Jesus, = whereas in=20 John 18:3-12 Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss=20 him.

(Category: misquoted the text)

This is rather an odd seeming discrepancy by Shabbir, for nowhere = in the=20 John account does it say (as Shabbir forthrightly maintains) that = Judas could=20 not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him. Not being able to get close = to him=20 had nothing, therefore, to do with whether he kissed him or not. It = seems that=20 Shabbir imagines this to be the problem and so imposes it onto the = text. The=20 fact that John does not mention a kiss does not mean Judas did not use = a kiss.=20 Many times we have seen where one of the gospel writers includes a = piece of=20 information which another leaves out. That does not imply that either = one is=20 wrong, only that, as witnesses, they view an event by different means, = and so=20 include into their testimony only that which they deem to be = important.

(Light of Life III 1992:107)

48. Did Peter deny Christ three times before the cock = crowed (John=20 13:38), or three times before the cock crowed twice (Mark 14:30,=20 72)?

(Category: discovery of earlier manuscripts)

This accusation is that Jesus says to Peter "the cock will not = crow till=20 you have denied me three times" (John 13:38) and also "Before = the cock=20 crows twice you will deny me three times" (Mark 14:30). However, = as the=20 King James translation has it the cock crowed prior to Peter's third = denial in=20 Mark, while the prediction in John failed. This problem is one of = manuscript=20 evidence.

Matthew 26:33-35, 74-75 "before the cock crows you will disown = me three=20 times"

Luke 22:31-34, 60-62 "before the cock crows today, you will deny = three=20 times that you know me"

John 13:38 "before the cock crows, you will disown me three=20 times"

Mark is therefore the odd one out. This is probably due to the = second crow=20 being a later addition to the original Gospel for some unknown reason. = Some=20 early manuscripts of Mark do not have the words "a second time" and = "twice" in=20 14:72, nor the word "twice" in 14:30, or the cock crowing a first time = in=20 verse 14:68 as in the King James translation. Therefore an erroneous = addition=20 is spotted by the clarity of having 4 accounts of the event and many = early=20 manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark.

However, another explanation is plausible if the first crow verse = (68 in=20 the King James) was not in the original but the others ("twice" in 30 = and 72)=20 were, as in the New International translation. For as a cock can (and = often=20 does) crow more than once in a row, there would be no contradiction = (the first=20 and second crows being together, with Peter remembering Jesus' = prediction on=20 the second crow), for since we may be very sure that if a rooster = crows twice,=20 he has at least crowed once. Mark therefore just included more = information in=20 his account than the other gospel writers.

Although I am not an expert on the manuscripts used for the King = James=20 translation and do not know a great deal about why later, more = accurate=20 translators had enough manuscript evidence to omit verse 68 but not = the=20 others, I think that the first reason is more likely.

49. Jesus did (John 19:17) or did not (Matthew 27:31-32) = bear his=20 own cross?

(Category: misread the text or the texts are compatible with a = little=20 thought)

John 19:17 states that he went out carrying his own cross to the = place of=20 the skull. Matthew 27:31,32 tells us that he was led out to be = crucified and=20 that it was only as they were going out to Golgotha that Simon was = forced to=20 carry the cross.

Mark 15:20,21 agrees with Matthew and gives us the additional = information=20 that Jesus started out from inside the palace (Praetorium). As Simon = was on=20 his way in from the country, it is clear that he was passing by in the = street.=20 This implies that Jesus carried his cross for some distance, from the = palace=20 into the street. Weak from his floggings and torture, it is likely = that he=20 either collapsed under the weight of the cross or was going very = slowly. In=20 any case, the soldiers forced Simon to carry the cross for him. Luke = 23:26 is=20 in agreement, stating that Simon was seized as they led Jesus = away.

Thus the contradiction vanishes. Jesus started out carrying the = cross and=20 Simon took over at some point during the journey.

50. Did Jesus die before (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38), = or=20 after (Luke 23:45-46) the curtain of the temple was torn?

(Category: misread the text)

After reading the three passages Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 = and Luke=20 23:45-46, it is not clear where the apparent contradictions are that = Shabbir=20 has pointed out. All three passages point to the fact that at the time = of=20 Jesus' death the curtain in the temple was torn. It does not stand to = reason=20 that because both Matthew and Mark mention the event of Christ's death = before=20 mentioning the curtain tearing, while Luke mentions it in reverse = order, that=20 they are therefore in contradiction, as Matthew states that the two = events=20 happened, 'At that moment', and the other two passages nowhere deny = this.

They all agree that these two events happened simultaneously for a = very=20 good reason; for the curtain was there as a barrier between God and = man. Its=20 destruction coincides with the death of the Messiah, thereby allowing = man the=20 opportunity for the first time since Adam's expulsion from God's = presence at=20 the garden of Eden, to once again be reunited with Him.

51. Did Jesus say everything openly (John 18:20) or did he = speak=20 secretly to his disciples (Mark 4:34, Matthew 13:10-11)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The reason people say that Jesus contradicts himself about saying = things=20 secretly or not, especially in relation to parables, is due to a lack = of=20 textual and cultural contextualising.

This answer requires significant background information, some of = which I=20 hope to give briefly here.

Firstly, what is a parable? It is a story given in order to = clarify,=20 emphasize or illustrate a teaching, not a teaching within itself. = Jesus was a=20 Jewish Rabbi. In Rabbinical literature there are approximately 4000 = parables=20 recorded. It was thought by Rabbis to be good practice to divide their = instruction of the people into three parts, the latter third typically = being=20 two parables representative to the first two thirds. Jesus carries on = in this=20 tradition with just over one third of his recorded instruction being = in the=20 form of parables. He drew upon a wealth of images that the Israelis of = his day=20 knew, using common motifs such as plants, animals etc. Therefore the = point of=20 each of Jesus' parables was clear to all the listeners, which can be = seen from=20 the Gospels too. Parables were so rich and also so subtle that not = only could=20 they drive home a clear and simple point to the ordinary listener, but = the=20 scholars could turn them over and over in their mind, deriving greater = and=20 greater meaning from them. So, Jesus often expanded on the meaning of = a=20 parable to his disciples, his close students, in response to their = inquiry or=20 to instruct them further as any Jewish Rabbi would.

This can be seen from reading Mark 4:34 in context. For it says, = "With=20 many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them [the = crowds], as=20 much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without = using a=20 parable [to clarify, emphasize or illustrate the teaching]. But = when he=20 was alone with his own disciples he explained everything [taught = them=20 more, for they could understand more than the crowds]." Mark=20 4:33-34.

Therefore parables were not secret teachings. They are not esoteric = knowledge given only to the initiated. It makes no sense (nor has any=20 historical basis) to say that Jesus went around confusing people. He = went=20 around in order to teach and instruct people. So when Jesus was asked = while on=20 trial in court (John 18:20) about his teaching, he says something to = the words=20 of "I taught publicly - everyone heard my words. You know I taught. I = did not=20 teach in secret." He was right.

As all this is true, what are these "secrets of the kingdom of = heaven"=20 which Jesus speaks of? The only 'secret' ("the mystery hidden for = long ages=20 past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writing by = the=20 command of the eternal God, so that the nations might believe and obey = him" (Romans 16:25-26) is that Jesus is Lord!

This secret was that Jesus' mission was foretold by the prophets, = that he=20 was the fulfillment of these prophecies and the greatest revelation = that would=20 ever be given to mankind. His words were not only for the saving of = people,=20 but also for the judging of people because they were "ever hearing = but=20 never understanding, ever seeing but never perceiving" (Matthew = 13:14) as=20 many of the hearers of the parables were unwilling to repent and = submit to=20 God.

Many people enjoyed Jesus' teaching, came for the nice moral = discourses and=20 the excellent parables, but not many followed him as the cost was too = great=20 (see Luke 9:57-61, 14:25-27, 33). But it was these things his = disciples were=20 beginning to understand because they truly followed Jesus. The secrets = of the=20 kingdom of heaven is what he said to his disciples following (and = explaining)=20 Matthew 13:10-11:

"But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears = because they=20 hear [unlike the crowds]. For I tell you the truth, many = prophets and=20 righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to = hear what=20 you hear but did not hear it" [as they did not live during the = lifetime of=20 Jesus - all the prophets were before him].

The secret is Jesus is Lord, Jesus is king, Jesus is Messiah, Jesus = is the=20 one all the prophets spoke of, the salvation of mankind, God's = greatest=20 revelation, the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 21:6-8, 22:12-16), the = only=20 way to be right with God (John 3:36, Romans 6:23).

52. Was Jesus on the cross (Mark 15:23) or in Pilate's = court (John=20 19:14) at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

The simple answer to this is that the synoptic writers (Matthew, = Mark and=20 Luke) employed a different system of numbering the hours of day to = that used=20 by John. The synoptics use the traditional Hebrew system, where the = hours were=20 numbered from sunrise (approximately 6:00am in modern reckoning), = making the=20 crucifixion about 9:00am, the third hour by this system..

John, on the other hand, uses the Roman civil day. This reckoned = the day=20 from midnight to midnight, as we do today. Pliny the Elder (Natural = History=20 2.77) and Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.3) both tell us as = much.=20 Thus, by the Roman system employed by John, Jesus' trial by night was = in its=20 end stages by the sixth hour (6:00am), which was the first hour of the = Hebrew=20 reckoning used in the synoptics. Between this point and the = crucifixion, Jesus=20 underwent a brutal flogging and was repeatedly mocked and beaten by = the=20 soldiers in the Praetorium (Mark 15:16-20). The crucifixion itself = occurred at=20 the third hour in the Hebrew reckoning, which is the ninth in the = Roman, or=20 9:00am by our modern thinking.

This is not just a neat twist to escape a problem, as there is = every reason=20 to suppose that John used the Roman system, even though he was just as = Jewish=20 as Matthew, Mark and Luke. John's gospel was written after the other = three,=20 around AD90, while he was living in Ephesus. This was the capital of = the Roman=20 province of Asia, so John would have become used to reckoning the day=20 according to the Roman usage. Further evidence of him doing so is = found in=20 John 21:19: 'On the evening of that first day of the week'. = This was=20 Sunday evening, which in Hebrew thinking was actually part of the = second day,=20 each day beginning at sunset.

(Archer 1994:363-364)

53. The two thieves crucified with Jesus either did (Mark = 15:32) or=20 did not (Luke 23:43) mock Jesus?

(Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

This apparent contradiction asks did both thieves crucified with = Jesus mock=20 him or just one. Mark 15:23 says both did. Luke 23:43 says one mocked = and one=20 defended Jesus. It isn't too difficult to see what it going on here. = The=20 obvious conclusion is that both thieves mocked Jesus initially. = However after=20 Jesus had said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they = are=20 doing," one of the robbers seems to have had a change of heart and = repented on=20 the cross, while the other continued in his mocking.

There is a lesson here which shouldn't be overlooked; that the Lord = allows=20 us at any time to repent, no matter what crime or sin we have = committed. These=20 two thieves are symptomatic of all of us. Some of us when faced with = the=20 reality of Christ continue to reject him and mock him, while others = accept our=20 sinfulness and ask for forgiveness. The good news is that like the = thief on=20 the cross, we can be exonerated from that sin at any time, even while = 'looking=20 at death in the face'.

54. Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the = crucifixion=20 (Luke 23:43), or two days later (John 20:17)?

(Category: misunderstood how God works in history)

The idea that Jesus contradicts himself (or the Gospels contradict=20 themselves) concerning whether he had ascended to Paradise or not = after his=20 death on the cross is due to assumptions about Paradise as well as the = need to=20 contextualize.

Jesus says to the thief on the cross "Today you will be with me in=20 Paradise". This was indeed true. For the thief was to die that same = day on=20 earth; but in paradise "today" is any day in this world, as Heaven is = outside=20 of time.

Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, according to the rendering of the = King James=20 translation, that he had not yet "ascended" to his Father. However, = this could=20 also be rendered "returned" to his Father.

Jesus was with God, and was God, before the beginning of the world = (John 1=20 and Philippians 2:6-11). He left all his glory and became fully God, = fully=20 man. Later, God did exalt Jesus to the highest place once more, to the = right=20 hand of Himself (see Acts 7:56). This had not yet taken place in John = 20:17.=20 Jesus saying "for I have not yet returned to the Father" does not rule = out the=20 possibility that he was in heaven between his death and resurrection = in "our=20 time" (although Heaven is outside of time). By way of parallel (albeit = an=20 imperfect one), I do go to my original home and the area where I grew = up=20 without returning there. Returning as in myself being restored to what = was.

However, a more likely understanding of the text has to do with the = context. Another way to say, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not = ascended to=20 my Father. Go instead to my brothers...", would be, "Do not hang on to = me Mary=20 - I have not left you all yet. You will see me again. But now, I want = you to=20 go and tell my disciples that I am going to my Father soon, but not = yet".

Both Islam and Christianity believe in the resurrection of the = body, and=20 both believe in the intermediate state. In Luke, Jesus dies, and his = spirit=20 ascended to Paradise (see vs. 46). In John, Jesus has been bodily = resurrected,=20 and in that state, he had not yet ascended to the Father.

The time factor makes this somewhat paradoxical but the texts are = not=20 mutually exclusive. There is no contradiction.

55. When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light = and heard=20 a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice (Acts 9:7), or did = they=20 not (Acts 22:9)?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is = compatible with=20 a little thought)

Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts = (akouo), it=20 has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. = Therefore, the=20 explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what = it was=20 saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no=20 contradiction.

(Haley p.359)

56. When Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, did his = traveling companions fall (Acts 26:14) or did they not fall (Acts 9:7) = to the=20 ground?

(Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is = compatible with=20 a little thought)

There are two possible explanations of this point. The word = rendered=20 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. This = is=20 something that can be experienced whether standing up or lying = down.

An alternative explanation is this: Acts 26:14 states that the = initial=20 falling to the ground occurred when the light flashed around, before = the voice=20 was heard. Acts 9:7 says that the men 'stood speechless' after the = voice had=20 spoken. There would be ample time for them to stand up whilst the = voice was=20 speaking to Saul, especially as it had no significance or meaning to = them.=20 Saul, on the other hand, understood the voice and was no doubt = transfixed with=20 fear as he suddenly realized that for so long he had been persecuting = and=20 killing those who were following God. He had in effect been working = against=20 the God whom he thought he was serving. This terrible realization = evidently=20 kept him on the ground longer than his companions.

(Haley p.359)

57. Did the voice tell Paul what he was to do on the spot = (Acts=20 26:16-18), or was he commanded to go to Damascus to be told what to do = (Acts=20 9:7; 22:10)?

(Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Paul was told his duties in Damascus as can be seen from Acts 9 and = 22.=20 However in Acts 26 the context is different. In this chapter Paul = doesn't=20 worry about the chronological or geographical order of events because = he is=20 talking to people who have already heard his story.

In Acts 9:1-31 Luke, the author of Acts, narrates the conversion of = Saul.=20

In Acts 22:1-21 Luke narrates Paul speaking to Jews, who knew who = Paul was=20 and had actually caused him to be arrested and kept in the Roman Army = barracks=20 in Jerusalem. He speaks to the Jews from the steps of the barracks and = starts=20 off by giving his credentials as a Jew, before launching into a = detailed=20 account of his meeting with the Lord Jesus Christ and his = conversion.

In Acts 26:2-23 Luke, however, narrates the speech given by Paul, = (who was=20 imprisoned for at least two years after his arrest in Jerusalem and = his speech=20 in Acts 22,). This was given to the Roman Governor Festus and King = Herod=20 Agrippa, both of whom were already familiar with the case. (Read the = preceding=20 Chapters). Therefore they did not require a full blown explanation of = Paul's=20 case, but a summary. Which is exactly what Paul gives them. This is = further=20 highlighted by Paul reminding them of his Jewish credentials in one = part of a=20 sentence, "I lived as a Pharisee," as opposed to two sentences in Acts = 22:3.=20 Paul also later in the Chapter is aware that King Agrippa is aware of = the=20 things that have happened in verses 25-27.

58. Did 24,000 Israelites die in the plague in 'Shittim' = (Numbers=20 25:1, 9), or was it only 23,000 Israelites who died (1 Corinthians=20 10:8)?

(Category: confused this incident with another)

This apparent contradiction asks how many people died from the = plague that=20 occurred in Shittim (which incidentally is misspelt 'Shittin' in = Shabbir's=20 pamphlet). Numbers 25:1-9 and 1 Corinthians 10:8 are contrasted. = Shabbir is=20 referring to the wrong plague here.

If he had looked at the context of 1 Corinthians 10, he would have = noted=20 that Paul was referring to the plague in Exodus 32:28, which takes = place at=20 Mt. Sinai and not to that found in Numbers 25, which takes place in = Shittim,=20 amongst the Moabites. If there is any doubt refer to verse 7 of 1 = Corinthians=20 10, which quotes almost exactly from Exodus 32:6, "Afterwards they sat = down to=20 eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry."

Now there are those who may say that the number killed in the = Exodus 32=20 account were 3,000 (Exodus 32:28)