Did Or Didn't God Reveal His Name to the Patriarchs of Israel?

 

Exodus 6:3 has been used by critics of the Bible to demonstrate a contradiction in the Bible.

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them.- Exo. 6:3 ESV

The alleged contradiction is that in this passage Yahweh says He didn't reveal His name "Yahweh" to the patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yet, there are passages in the book of Genesis where the patriarchs are said to have called on Yahweh. Seemingly knowing the tetragrammaton or tetragram [meaning the four letter word of God's covenant name]. For example:

To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD. - Gen. 4:26 ESV

From there he [i.e. Abram] moved to the hill country on the east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. And there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD.- Gen. 12:8 ESV

to the place where he had made an altar at the first. And there Abram called upon the name of the LORD.- Gen. 13:4 ESV

There are multiple ways that this can be addressed. One way is to point out that Exo. 6:3 can be translated differently. As Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser has pointed out numerous times:

With respect to the former, I’ve pointed out elsewhere on this blog (in footnotes, granted) that the consensus translation (” I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them”) is only one syntactical possibility. Another much less familiar option was pointed out by Francis Andersen years ago in his book, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. On syntactical grounds, Andersen argues for a translation that is basically opposite in its meaning to the accepted view:  “I am the Lord (YHWH).  I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai. And my name is the Lord (YHWH); did I not make myself known to them?” The verse in this translation expresses a rhetorical question. At the very least, Andersen’s seminal work on sentence structure and its implications for this crucial text should be part of the conversation. [source]

Heiser cites Francis I. Andersen's book, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. If this alternative translation is taken, then the apparent contradiction disappears. It's a perfectly legitimate translation grammatically speaking.

Another way to address this issue is to point out the fact that the concept of "name" in Semitic cultures wasn't limited to the literal pronunciation of a word. But it often also included the concept of a being's character, nature, attributes, personality, wonted behavior, authority, sanction, permission (etc.). Sometimes without a literal reference to the exact word and it's pronunciation. This is why the naming of places and people was very important and informative in Semitic cultures. The Bible is literally FULL of instances where names that have great significance. A famous example is how Isaac is named. He was named Isaac because his mother laughed when she heard that she would bear a son in her old age. The name "Isaac" means "laughter." Or how Abram's name was changed to Abraham because God promised him that he would become the father of many nations. Or how Jesus changed Simon's name to "Peter" because it means "rock." Examples could be multiplied.

There are many instances where "the name" of God refers to God's character and personality as mentioned above. For example:

 The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.- Prov. 18:10 ESV

And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.- Ps. 9:10 ESV

In these (and many other) passages in the Old Testament, the writer is not saying that knowledge of and proper pronunciation of God's name (Yahweh) can be used like a talisman by which one can cast spells for protection and provision (etc.). Rather, these passages are saying that God's character is such that those who pledge allegiance to Yahweh and put their trust in His faithful mercy will be protected and provided for.

If we interpret Exo. 6:3 with that concept of "name" [in the sense of character and nature] then the contradiction also vanishes. That's even if we assume the traditional translation is correct whereby the fathers/patriarchs DIDN'T know God's name. Because what it could be saying is that the patriarchs didn't know by experience the fullness of all of God's wonderful attributes. That the patriarchs may have had foretastes of it, but NOW [at the time of Exo. 6:3 and henceforth] the people of God would more fully know and experience God's gracious mercy with such fullness that by comparison it would be as if the patriarchs didn't know it. This is compatible with the patriarchs knowing the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton, but not experiencing the fullness of God's nature.

Another possible way to resolve the apparent contradiction is to say that some or all of the patriarchs LITERALLY didn't know the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton and that in all places (or in many places) in Genesis where people are said to call upon the name of Yahweh, it's referring to the character of the one true most high God, rather than the literal pronunciation of Yahweh.

It should be taken into consideration that the name of Yahweh may have been lost and recovered on and off during the times of the patriarchs. So, it's not like the tetragrammaton and its pronunciation needed to be faithfully passed on from generation to generation in the holy genealogical line. It may have been lost and recovered from other peoples who may have preserved it outside of holy line. Remember for example that Melchizedek was a worshipper of the true God, El Elyon [the Most High God]. Melchizedek or some other persons may have passed on the tetragrammaton to some of the patriarchs, without the patriarchs having necessarily passed it on to the next generation.

Here's an unlikely hypothetical situation which I'll use as an illustration. The unlikeness of it is to show that even in a worse case scenario the alleged contradiction doesn't necessarily follow. Say for example that Abraham's father didn't know the tetragram, but then Abraham did know it either because Yahweh revealed it to him, or Melchizedek or some other worshipper of the true God revealed it to him. Then [to continue with this hypothetical], Abraham failed to passed on the tetragram to his son Isaac. But then Isaac's son Jacob might have rediscovered it because another worshipper of Yahweh revealed it to him. Again, this is an extreme example, since it's likely that if Abraham knew the tetragram that he would have passed it on to Isaac, and then Isaac to Jacob [etc.]. But there are probably gaps in the list of the names of the patriarchs and the tetragram may have been lost repeatedly in the godly line from Adam to Abraham.

Personally, I suspect that some or all of the patriarchs who are said to have called on Yahweh didn't literally call on the character of the true God using the tetragrammaton/tetragram. Rather, the writer(s) of Genesis and/or the inspired redactors wrote and edited it the way we have it because it was understood that the true God was being referred to and that therefore it was alright and not deceptive to say that they called on God using the tetragram. It would be analogous to saying the native Americans who lived in New York 1000 years ago experienced bitterly cold winters. Would I be lying by calling them "Americans" when the country known as "America" didn't yet exist? Would I be lying by referring to the place as "New York" when the place wouldn't be called New York for many centuries? Obviously not. It's understood that I'm "retrofitting" (so to speak) the modern names for the sake of clarity and greater understanding. Something similar could be what is going on in some of the places in Genesis where some or all of the patriarchs are said to have "called on the name of Yahweh." Especially, if it could also mean "invoking the character (i.e. name) of the God [who would eventually be known as] Yahweh [as you now do know it who are reading this sacred text]."

Given the likely gaps in the genealogical lists of the patriarchs, many probably didn't speak Hebrew or even proto-Semitic languages. In which case, it would be unlikely that they would have know the tetragram. Since the tetragrammaton is derived from the meaning of later developing Hebrew and other related Semitic languages at and (relatively) immediately prior to the time of Moses. Unless Hebrew is some kind of divine language that was revealed to humanity from the very beginning [as some, I think, mistakenly insist], then Hebrew wasn't around during Seth's lifetime, or Noah's (etc.). In which case, it doesn't make much sense that Seth would have known and invoked The Deity using the tetragram.

Rather, during the time of the Exodus God may have AT THAT TIME chosen the word "Yahweh" to be His new divine covenantal name for His newly re-constituted people to use by which to have a relationship with Him. And God did that based on the then contemporary state of the development of the various Semitic languages at that time and place. Possibly even with the influence of pagans who may have used a similar name (or names) for their gods. Something which most grant was the case with the use of the titles "el" and "elohim." No one denies that those words were used by preexisting pagans and taken up by the Israelites. Why then couldn't the use of the name "Yahweh" have been influenced by pagan names in a similar or parallel way? I'm not saying that's what did happen. Only that I don't see a problem if it did happen that way. Unbelieving secular scholars DO believe it DID happen that way. But even if it did, that's not problematic. Nothing in the Tanakh precludes that possibility. Nowhere does the Tanakh say that the divine name used by the Israelites (i.e. Yahweh) had no precursors and that it was a brand spanking new term to refer to the Supreme Being.

More could be said as to why Exodus 6:3 does not present a contradiction in the Biblical text. But what I've already written is enough to demonstrate why the alleged contradiction is ultimately baseless.

---

 UPDATE

Here's InspiringPhilosophy/Michael Jones' take on this question:

Did The Patriarchs Know Yahweh?
https://youtu.be/sPZnKzJqt_U

 

 

 

 

Doublets and the Atomic Bomb

 

 Jason Engwer posted a blog titled: "The Plausibility Of Alleged Doublets And Other Parallels In The Bible And Elsewhere." I posted some comments in the combox. The following is an edited version of my satirical comments:

[sarcasm] Here's a modern historical case of a doublet that proves how inaccurate modern history is. Allegedly in World War 2 an American B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on a Japanese city named Hiroshima. The explosion is said to have immediately killed an estimated 80,000 people; tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure. Then three days later another American B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Why would the Japanese not have surrendered immediately after the first bomb? That's irrational. If the instantaneous killing of 80,000 people wasn't enough to cause the Japanese to surrender, why would the later instantaneous death of 40,000 suffice to do it? That is, if they were able to immediately confirm it was the Americans who were responsible. But like I will allude to later, it would probably take some time to confirm the Americans were responsible using multiple avenues of inquiry. Scientific, diplomatic, political, via espionage, etc.These alleged "facts" make the story/ies historical implausible. Because it's psychologically unlikely. Just like how God feeding the Israelites with quail twice makes no sense because they didn't expect or know God to have done it previously. In a similar way the alleged atomic bombings is an obvious fictional historical doublet.

The first bomb is allegedly named "Little Boy" and the second bomb "Fat Man." How is this not an obvious case of legendary development, exaggeration and embellishment where the story grows as time passes and the story is passed on from generation to generation? It begins as "Little Boy" (smaller) and is embellished to "Fat Man" (larger). Another possibility is the later redactor(s) made up the two names so that the first name is anticipatory of the second name. That's just good story telling.

Yet, paradoxically fewer people are killed in the allegedly more powerful secondary bomb, hence proving a contradiction. How can more people be killed with a weaker bomb? That just doesn't make any rational sense. They didn't even get the names right. In one version of the story the city is supposed to be Hiroshima and in another version of the story it was Nagasaki. What obviously happened was that there were competing oral traditions with two different names for the cities and then when the time came to write down the stories for posterity both versions were written down as if the occurrence happened twice in two different cities. And ALL because they couldn't get their story straight.

Also, what are the chances that a B-29 bomber was used in both instances? That's another clue that the two stories stem from an original primitive story. Otherwise, two different types of planes would have been used. But according to the stories, two different planes of the same model with two different names were used [Enola Gay & Bockscar]. If the first plane survived the explosion, then they would have used it again in the second bombing. But if the first plane was destroyed, then they would have obviously used a different model for the second bombing because the first model was obviously not sufficient to survive another bombing [in terms of speed, altitude, hull integrity etc.]. The ostensible "fact" that the same model of plane was used both times but with a different name used for the second bombing strongly suggests competing oral histories.

The two bombings allegedly happened 3 days apart. The number three of course is a highly symbolic number in many cultures, supporting the non-historical nature of the stories. If it really happened, it would be some other number of days like 2 or 6 or something. But exactly 3 days? Like three leaf clovers? Or the three main Hindu Gods? Or the three natural states of water? Three days is hardly enough time for the Japanese to become convinced through investigation that the Americans were responsible. Moreover, the Americans would have been hesitant to bomb a second time so soon afterwards if they were concerned about casualties. They might have waited a week for a second atomic bombing. If they weren't concerned about casualties, then bombing a second time and a third time the same day, or the very next day, or every day afterwards till the Japanese surrendered would have happened. But exactly three days afterward is HIGHLY suspicious. Three days is perfectly symbolic.

I could say more, but I'll end with this. Isn't it way too coincidental that the U.S. President who allegedly authorized the atomic bombing was named "Harry S. Truman"? "Truman" as in "a true man" and "a man [of] truth." A man who is truly manly. With the secondary connotation of a truth telling man. A True-man who is honest and just/righteous. The first connotation also comports with his being given the first name, "Harry." Harry men universally connote greater masculinity. These details are obvious cases of Americans passing on their folklore orally in a way that paints their leader at the time in a positive light. A great warrior with a righteous cause. [/sarcasm]

 

Was Jesus Unanimously Condemned to Death Or Not?

An alleged Bible contradiction argues that the Gospels disagree whether the Sanhedrin unanimously condemned Jesus as deserving of death (Mark 14:64, 15:1) or whether there was at least one dissenter Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50-51). It's not clear whether Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin Council.

63    And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need?
64    You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.- Mark 14:63-64

And as soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole Council. And they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate.- Mark 15:1

Versus

50    Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man,
51    who had not consented to their decision and action; and he was looking for the kingdom of God.- Luke 23:50-51

There are various ways around this alleged contradiction. I'll enumerate a few of them.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (JFB hereafter) states regarding Mark 14:64:

they all condemned him to be guilty of death—or of a capital crime, which blasphemy against God was according to the Jewish law (Le 24:16). Yet not absolutely all; for Joseph of Arimathea, "a good man and a just," was one of that Council, and "he was not a consenting party to the counsel and deed of them," for that is the strict sense of the words of Lu 23:50, 51. Probably he absented himself, and Nicodemus also, from this meeting of the Council, the temper of which they would know too well to expect their voice to be listened to; and in that case, the words of our Evangelist are to be taken strictly, that, without one dissentient voice, "all [present] condemned him to be guilty of death."

JFB speculates that Joseph and Nicodemus (who may have also been a Council member) left before the vote was taken because they strongly suspected ("knew") that the overwhelming majority of the Council was hostile toward Jesus and had already set their mind to condemn Him. Why would they leave before the vote? Maybe out of disgust for the evidently "kangaroo court" trial of Jesus that was happening that they left the assembly to privately pray for divine intervention so that Jesus wouldn't be condemned to death. Or maybe out of cowardice Joseph (and possibly Nicodemus too) absented himself from the vote because he didn't have the courage to openly oppose the clear majority who were hell bent on condemning Jesus. That might account for his later bold request of Pilate for Jesus' body. Maybe out of guilt, SHAME and repentance he decided to compensate for his cowardice with that audacious request. It might be argued that this would be inconsistent with Luke's description of Joseph as a "good and righteous man" (Luke 23:50). But like other statements in the rest of the Bible that talk about people being righteous and "perfect", it refers to the tenor of their lives. Not that they never sinned or committed evil. King David who committed murder was forgiven by God after his repentance and was eventually called affectionately "a man after My [God's] own heart". Even assuming Luke knew that Joseph was previously cowardly, it would have been in poor taste to mention that without Joseph's approval (unlike with Peter who openly admitted his cowardice and betrayal of Jesus in his preaching). Especially in light of what Joseph eventually did in mercifully preparing Jesus' body for burial. There would be no point in marring Joseph's reputation and memory by recording his cowardice. He was an elderly man at the time of the events [being a Council member] and possibly dead by the time Luke wrote his Gospel.

Admittedly, the natural (but possibly wrong and non-necessary) inference one can draw from Luke 23:50-51 is that Joseph was aware of the trial and was there for the vote. But the verses are also consistent with Joseph not being aware of the trial and/or not being present at the vote. It's true that Mark 15:1 states the whole Council was present in the morning. But there is a time gap between Mark 14:64 (when the vote was taken) and Mark 15:1. Therefore another possibility is that the Council members may have intentionally not informed Joseph of the orchestrated arrest and trial of Jesus precisely because they knew he would object and oppose them. They would do this especially if they knew that Joseph might hold a lot of sway during the proceedings and if he was known to be an especially pious Jew. So, they may have voted before Joseph became aware of the trial and decision. But he was eventually informed of it and arrived by the time of Mark 15:1 when it was too late (practically) to oppose what was happening because of the momentum for the call of His death.

Assuming the author of Mark knew that there was at least one dissenter, the "all" of Mark 14:64 may be hyperbole referring to the overwhelming majority. So, it need not be a contradiction. It was (and still is) common linguistic practice to be general or hyperbolic in communication. For example, when Matt. 3:5-6 states, "[t]hen Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to" be baptized by John the Baptist, the reader is expected to understand that not every single person in that region literally went to hear John preach and (all the more) to be baptized. Even today, if someone was to travel 385 miles from point A to point B for a vacation, it's not normally considered a lie for the person to say he traveled 400 miles. Another logical possibility is that the author of Mark didn't know there were any dissenters and so wrote, and intended to convey, that there weren't any. But strictly (though not literally) speaking, GMark's words in the text are consistent with there being a very small minority or a single dissenter given normal human communication that speaks in generalities and with imprecision. Take for example Hebrews 3:16-19:

16    For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?
17    And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness?
18    And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?
19    So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

Literally speaking, verse 16 states "all" (everyone) who left Egypt led by Moses rebelled against God and died in the wilderness. Yet, in this famous story it was universally known that Joshua and Caleb didn't rebel and didn't die in the wilderness. But lived long enough to enter the Promised Land. Only if one takes Heb. 3:16 in a WOODENLY literal way could one possibly insist on a Bible contradiction. In a similar way, Mark 14:64 is consistent with there being a very small dissenting party. And especially a single dissenter (assuming Nicodemus wasn't a Council member).

Royal chronology

Steve Hays posted a blog titled "Royal chronology" in response to and to complement Jonathan McLatchie's blog "Investigating Alleged Contradictions in the Old Testament ". I recommend both of them.

Royal chronology by Steve Hays

Investigating Alleged Contradictions in the Old Testament by Jonathan McLatchie
[see also Steve's comments in the combox]

From Bethsaida To Bethsaida?

In a live webinar Mike Licona addresses an apparent contradiction regarding the circumstances of the feeding of the 5000. He discusses it for about 5 minutes HERE. Basically Mike Licona points out two problems:

1. in Mark 6:45 it says that after the feeding of the 5,000 get onto a boat heading for Bethsaida. However, Luke 9:10 states the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 occurred at or near Bethsaida. The apparent contradiction is that the apostles were already at Bethsaida, so how could they be leaving Bethsaida and crossing the lake in order to arrive at Bethsaida.

2. The gospels seems to be confused as to where they intended to land and/or where they actually did landed. Was it Bethsaida? Gennesaret? Capernaum?

[UPDATE: Mike Licona has an article on the topic at his website HERE. It's uncertain when it was posted, but I suspect it was after the webinar mentioned above]

Regarding the apparent contradiction, I looked up Luke 9:10; Mark 6:32, 45; and John 6:17 in (admittedly dated) commentaries like those of John Gill, Adam Clarke and Jamieson Fausset and Brown commentary.

JFB says in John 6:17 "toward Capernaum — Mark says (Mar_6:45), “unto Bethsaida,” meaning “Bethsaida of Galilee” (Joh_12:21), on the west side of the lake. The place they left was of the same name (see on Mar_6:32)."

John Gill in his commentary on John 12:21 also speculates on two "Bethsaida"s. One of which was distinguished by calling it "Bethsaida in Galiliee" (John 12:21).

Gill writes:

"which was of Bethsaida of Galilee; See Gill on Joh_1:44. This place may be interpreted, "the house of hunting", or "of fishing"; for it is not easy to say which it has its name from, since צידא, "saida", signifies both hunting and fishing: and seeing it was in or near the tribe of Naphtali, where was plenty of deer, and a wilderness was near it, where might be wild beasts, it might be so called from hunting: and as it was situated near the lake of Gennesaret, it might have its name from the fishing trade used in it; for Peter and Andrew, who were of it, were both fishermen: but it is yet more difficult to determine, whether this is the same with, or different from the Bethsaida Josephus (s) speaks of, as rebuilt by Philip, and called by him Julius, after the name of Caesar's daughter, as I have observed in See Gill on Luk_9:10, See Gill on Joh_1:44; since this was in Galilee, of which Herod Antipas was tetrarch, and where Philip could have no power to rebuild places, and change their names; and besides, the city, which he repaired, and called Julian, according to Josephus (t) was in lower Gaulonitis, and therefore must be different, unless that, or any part of it, can be thought to be the same with Galilee: wherefore the learned Reland (u) thinks, that there were two Bethsaidas, and which seems very probable; and it is likely, that this is here purposely called Bethsaida of Galilee, to distinguish it from the other, which, by some persons, might still be called Bethsaida, though it had got a new name. Moreover, this Bethsaida is mentioned in other places along with Capernaum and Chorazin, Mat_11:21, which were in Galilee. And Epiphanius says (w), that Bethsaida and Capernaum were not far distant one from another: and according to Jerom (x), Chorazin was but two miles from Capernaum; and who elsewhere says (y), that Capernaum, Tiberias, Bethsaida, and Chorazin, were situated on the shore of the lake of Gennesaret. It is said to be fifty six miles from Jerusalem:........

(s) Antiqu. l. 18. c. 2. sect. 1. Ed. Hudson. (t) De Bello. Jud. l. 2. c. 9. sect. 1. (u) Palestina Illustrata, l. 3. p. 654, 655. (w) Contra Haeres. l. 2. Haeres. 51. (x) De locis Hebraicis, fol. 90. 6. (y) Comment. in Esaiam, c. 9. 1."

John Gill commented on Luke 9:10:

"into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida; the city of Andrew and Peter, Joh_1:44, and which, as Josephus (r) says, was by the lake of Gennesaret, and by Philip called Julias; and this desert place was the desert of Bethsaida, a lonely, wild, uncultivated, and desolate place, not far from it. Hither Christ went with his disciples, that they might be retired and alone, and have some refreshment and rest from their labours, and where they might privately converse together; and he give them some fresh instructions, and directions, and comfort.

(r) Antiqu. l. 18. c. 3."

So, it may be possible that they left Bethsaida (or the area near it) to Bethsaida OF GALILEE (or the area near it). In which case there is no contradiction.

John 6:17 says they "got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum." Mark 6:53 and Matt. 14:34 on the contrary says they arrived at Gennesaret. However, it's not clear whether they intended to get to Capernaum specifically, or whether it was to go in that general direction. Even the KJV and Webster translates it "toward Capernaum" rather than "to Capernaum". Capernaum may or may not have been their intended final stopping point.

When Mark 6:53 and Matt. 14:34 say they arrived at Gennesaret it's not clear (at least to me) whether they mean the LAND of Gennesaret or that side of the lake of Galilee called Gennesaret (i.e. the LAKE of Gennesaret). Though, in the original Greek it might be clear. Since I don't read Koine, I can't determine it either way. It also must be remembered that they may have stopped by various points along the lake (even possibly walking on land temporarily) before they arrived at their final destination and stayed on land.

Even in modern times when one is running errands getting from point A to point E you might stop by point B, C, and D. For example, taking context into consideration, it's no contradiction for someone to say in conversation 1. he arrived at O'Hare Airport, in conversation 2. he got to Office Depot, and in conversation 3. arrived at some hotel in Chicago. That's because he had to get there by plane and so landed at O'Hare. But also dropped by Office Depot to get materials to help him give his lecture at the hotel. His leaving home and FINALLY arriving at the hotel doesn't entail he didn't also arrive at O'Hare and Office Depot.


See also Lydia McGrew's blogpost on this subject:

But wait! There's more! Refuting a claim of discrepancy in the gospels

See also Jonathan McLatchie's blogpost on this subject:

Is Mark "Confused" About the Location of the Feeding of the Five Thousand?


See also Steve Hays' blogpost on this subject:

Was Mark confused?

See also Norman Geisler's article on this subject:

Was Mark Confused or was it Mike Licona?

Was Mark Confused? Birth Narratives? Original Readings?

by James White

(https://youtu.be/Pgk0don6HEE)

See these other podcasts by James White:

https://youtu.be/IZMwZznx4ac


https://youtu.be/rb2FOVYAsZI

Supposed Bible Contradiction #15 (The Feeding of 5000?)

https://youtu.be/sHm2LEg-Xws

 

A Possible Solution to the Problem of "The Curse of Jeconiah"

I found the following video interesting as a solution to the problem of the Curse of Jeconiah. I'm not saying it's necessarily true. What do you think?

(https://youtu.be/p4v1UEZb3Z0)

The Death of Judas Iscariot a Contradiction?

The Death of Judas is one of the most well known alleged Bible contradictions. A few years back I speculated that Matthew's description of Judas' death was typological and not literal because of the similarities between Judas' betrayal of Jesus and death and that of Ahithophel's betrayal of King David and his death. It turns out I'm not the only one who thought so. Here are links that argue along similar lines.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.php

Video Versions

Part ONE

https://youtu.be/Ado78pyEGIs

Part TWO

https://youtu.be/R-Tz96_lex0

Part two addresses whether Judas or the chief priests purchased field.

Michael Jones of YouTube channel InspiringPhilosophy posits the same possibility.

Supposed Bible Contradiction #19 (Death of Judas)
https://youtu.be/2_01suXK8lg

Here's a defense for a more traditional harmonization.

How Did Judas Die?  by Steve Hays

See also the articles and comments in:

Ehrman v. Williams rematch

Peter Williams on the death of Judas

How far did Judas fall?