FUTILE ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE MAJOR BIBLE PROBLEMS
The Law of Moses and Abraham are central to the Bible. They are the foundation for everything else. But despite being claimed to be the word of God, the Bible has errors. And bad fruits - for lies are told to paper over the lies and mistakes.
HALEY’S BLUFFS, ABRAHAM
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W Haley claims that there are no
contradictions or errors in the Bible. Needless to say, it is only the
contradictions he can handle or thinks he can handle that he deals with. The
real ones are conveniently ignored. For instance, he does not try to explain
away Jesus’ error when he argued that Satan could not cast out Satan. Or Jesus’
error when he said that that God saying he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob proved the resurrection.
Here are some of Haley’s inane attempts to reconcile Bible disagreements.
Page 318, God gave the land to Abraham (Genesis 13:15) but we read that Abraham
did not possess it (Acts 7:5). Haley says that Abraham got the land in trust –
it was his although he never got the chance to take it. But when God told him
that it would be Abraham and his seed’s forever it is plain that both get the
land in the same sense. God would not give you something you will never have.
The context tells us that the promise was intended to be a reward and getting
the land in trust is no reward.
Page 318, In Genesis 20, Abraham worries about Abimelech stealing his wife for
he would not have the army to get her back when in chapter 14 we read that he
had three hundred and eighteen servants and in all probability the men of Aner,
Eschol and Mamre also to fight to get his kidnapped nephew back. Haley says that
there is no contradiction for Abimelech must have been too strong for even all
these. There is a contradiction for there is no need to think that Abraham was
afraid of a war. And he was not worried about losing Sarah when he let Abimelech
think she was not his wife and take her in. He did not believe a war would be
necessary. He didn’t fear that Abimelech would be too much for him to handle. If
he could not handle it, he would not have let her go in the first place.
Haley conveniently ignores the fact that in the same chapter God first threatens
to kill Abimelech in a vision for what he did with Sarah and then in verse 6 he
repents when Abimelech tells him he did not know until God told him that Sarah
was married and tells Abimelech that he will not punish him for it was not his
fault. So God did not realise at first that Abimelech was not really guilty and
appeared to him for nothing and threatened him in the wrong.
Page 336, Genesis 24, 28 and 36 disagree about who Esau’s wives were and the
number of wives he had. Haley says that the same people are meant but different
names were used. For example, he uses what he admits is just a theory, the
notion that women changed their names upon marriage, to identify Adah with
Bashemath. This is unbelievable. The theory is refuted by the fact that the
records and lists were drawn up after the women were married so their new names
would have been used. Nobody calls Jude John in a historical record when few
call him John. If Genesis had had the one author or editor as Christians say
the same names would have been employed.
Page 318, Abraham laughed at the angel’s promise that he would father a child
despite being one hundred years old. And then we are told after that he fathered
babies by Keturah.
Either he was impotent or he believed he could have no child for Sarah was too
old. Haley says that if Abraham fathered children by Keturah after this then God
miraculously cured his impotence.
But if you start assuming miracles to solve conflicts you will be able to
reconcile any contradiction whatsoever. You will not be able to point to a book
being without error as proof of its divinity. This argument really destroys the
Bible’s authority. You can’t assume miracles any more than you can assume that
€10 vanishing from your wallet is a miracle.
Haley then suggests that the Keturah bit is a digression and is about what
happened in an earlier period when Abraham was virile. That is unlikely for the
author could have moved it. It would show bad structure in the narrative and God
wouldn’t want such an imperfection. And there is no hint that it is a digression
so it is not when it is not likely to be.
HALEY’S BLUFFS - LEVITICUS AND DEUTERONOMY
Page 354. Deuteronomy 31:2 says that Moses was a decrepit old man unable to go
in or come out. 34:7 says the opposite. Haley “solves” the difficulty by
alleging that Moses meant he could not go out of the wilderness with the people
to go into the Promised Land. But he said first that he was a hundred and twenty
years old and then that he could not go out and come in – evidently meaning that
he couldn’t leave his tent. Then he said the Lord told him he would not enter
the land – another topic. He did not blame his age for that for he could have
been carried to the land but he blamed fate. The reason he added that God told
him he would not set foot on the Promised Land was because he felt he was not
far from death as his bodily state showed. He did not mean what Haley said.
There is a contradiction.
Page 363. Because the Bible says that Aaron died on Mount Hor and then that he
died at Mosera, Haley says that Mosera could have been the name of the district
in which the mountain was. Haley says that he might have climbed the mountain to
die - unbelievable. And it is wrong to say that Mosera could have been the name
of the area when there is no evidence. It is wrong to say there is no
contradiction because there might be one. Even if the whole Bible can be
reconciled that does not prove that this is not a contradiction. And especially
when the Bible said that a false prophet could get everything right and make one
error that proves he is a false prophet.
HALEY’S BLUFFS – JOSHUA AND JUDGES
Let us see what Haley has to say about the Book of Joshua and Judges.
It is interesting that he does not try to deal with Samson tying two foxes
together and setting them on fire near Philistine crops to destroy them. It
would not have been a very effective method of burning them out. The author
seems to think it would have made them rocket forward and run for miles setting
all the fields on fire. It would not. Each one would have tried to pull away
from the other. Strange that a Nazarite like Samson whose strength depended on
him remaining a Nazarite according to an angel could touch foxes when they ate
dead meat? Nazarites could not touch anything that touched anything unclean.
Page 348 says that Joshua defeated kings but did not get their cities. Haley
says that Hannibal killed the Roman leaders but did not manage to conquer Rome.
But the cities can be seized if one has enough men. Joshua must have had enough
when he was able to kill the kings and their armies and weaken the cities by
killing their soldiers and then go on further liquidation sprees. Joshua 15:63
says that Judah could not get rid of the inhabitants of Jerusalem so they lived
together. That is simply not believable for mistrust and resentment would always
have been there. The “sacred” author is lying when he says they did that to
“this very day”.
Page 324. Joshua literally wiped out all the Canaanites and we are told no
survivors were left (Joshua 10:40) but the Canaanites in the land were enslaved
by his nation (Judges 1:28). Haley says that the texts saying no survivors are
general and refer to the wipeout in the southern region for in chapter 11 of
Joshua, Joshua attacks the northern area run from Hazor so there had been
Canaanites left there. But Joshua 10:40 says that Joshua conquered the whole
land and names some areas as examples and that nobody was left and Hazor is one
of the areas too though it is the last to be discussed for the author wants to
tell us more about it.
Joshua 8:8,9 says that there was an ambuscade of thirty thousand men on a city
and a few verses later we read it was five thousand (Joshua 8:12). Haley on page
381 says there could have been two ambuscades or the text was corrupted. The
unreliable Septuagint is his case for corruption! But when Joshua picked out
thirty thousand men for the job meaning that it was expected to be a hard
struggle to take over the city would only five thousand have been attacking?
There is a contradiction.
Page 368. Since it is recorded in Joshua that some cities belonged to the region
of Dan and elsewhere that they are in the territory of Ephraim, 1 Chronicles
4:69, Haley presents the suggestion of some that the latter text has words
missing through sloppy copying! He says that is just an opinion so there is no
evidence for it. When fundies see a conflict they blame the copyists! Then they
have the nerve to say the originals which they have never seen are inerrant!
Page 376 says that the reason the Bible says Joshua conquered the whole land of
Canaan (Joshua 12:7,8; 21:43) and then that he only had a part of it (Joshua 23;
Judges 2:23) was that Joshua had the land for it was powerless to resist him but
did not occupy or rule the whole land but only a bit. Haley blames the
disobedience of Israel for not them not being able to drive the Canaanites all
out. The idea that a nation hungry for power and which conquered everywhere
couldn’t and wouldn’t root out everybody who was not an Israelite is absurd.