{"id":1127,"date":"2016-10-20T21:03:14","date_gmt":"2016-10-20T18:03:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/test.apologeet.nl\/?page_id=1127"},"modified":"2022-06-14T22:58:19","modified_gmt":"2022-06-14T20:58:19","slug":"tegenstrijdigheden","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.apologeet.nl\/en\/faq\/tegenstrijdigheden\/","title":{"rendered":"Contradictions"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n
\r\n

\r\n

Opmerking: Om de pagina (zichtbaar) af te drukken dient u de printfunctie op de pagina zelf te gebruiken. \r\nDe functie is herkenbaar aan dit icoontje: <\/h1>\r\n\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n
\r\n

Contradictions in the Bible?<\/h1>\r\nEvery now and then people say that there are contradictions in the Bible. These 'inaccuracies' are quite often used to \r\nargue that the Bible can't be trusted because: \"Why should we trust the Bible if there are inaccuracies\".<\/i> \r\nSadly enough people, who come up with these arguments, are not easy to convince of the reality of God. Mostly the persons who come up with these \r\nso-called contradictions are not really searching for truth but rather for new 'errors'. Not much has changed since Jesus' days. Time and again Jesus \r\nrebuked the Scribes and Pharisees but still many of them continued looking for errors in Jesus' life. They fiercely held to their unbelief. Not even Jesus' \r\nresurrection from the grave convinced them. Just like those times, contemporary people are not willing to give up on their own theories. \r\n
\r\n
\r\nNevertheless, it is a nice challenge to face these 'contradictions' head on. On this page we will discuss them; not to convince people who are not willing, but to help those \r\nwho are seriously trying to understand God's word.\r\n
\r\n
\r\n

Contents:<\/h4>\r\n
    \r\n
  1. Proverbs 26: 4- 5 - Do we need to answer a fool or not?<\/a><\/li>\r\n
  2. God is satisfied\/unsatisfied with his works.<\/a><\/li>\r\n
  3. God is not omnipresent, or is He?<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
    \r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\n

    Proverbs 26: 4- 5 (kjv)<\/h1>\r\n\r\nAnswer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. \r\n
    \r\nAnswer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.\r\n<\/b>\r\n\r\n

    Do we need to answer the folly or not?<\/p>\r\n

    \r\nProverbs 26: 4\r\n
    \r\nAnswer not a fool according to his folly,\r\n
    \r\nlest thou also be like unto him.\r\n<\/em>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\nIn discussions, with atheists, the Christian will quickly realise that an atheist has a totally different starting point than Christians. \r\nWe also speak of different world-views or different presuppositions. One such difference is that the Christian sees the God of the Bible as the \r\nCreator and an atheist does not acknowledge any supernatural phenomenons. \r\nThis means that an atheist only wants to argue with a naturalistic<\/a> scientific attitude. \r\nAccording to Biblical concepts we can categories an atheist as a fool:\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\nPsalm 53:2 (kjv)\r\nThe fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\nIn discussions between atheists and Christians, the Christian quickly gets the allegation of being unscientific. \r\nFurthermore, according to atheists the Bible has nothing to do with science and God cannot be proven. \r\nIf we assume the atheistic world-view these allegations are true, but who has determined that science should be exercised in this way ? \r\nNevertheless, an atheist will often say that he\/she is willing to discuss matters with a Christian, but only on his\/her conditions. \r\nThis normally means that the Christian is not allowed to use the Bible. \r\nOnly then, according to the atheist, a discussion can be scientifically sound. Read what Mr Peterse has to say about the book \r\n'Degeneration'<\/a> by Peter Scheele:\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    \r\n\r\n\"First of all, within science only in physical terms formulated, materialistic causes are legitimate; \r\nthe supernatural is outside the scientific domain, and statements which refer to the supernatural—for example, to a creator—are not allowed\"\r\n<\/em>\r\n
    \r\n
    \r\nHans Peterse,\r\n
    \r\n    Degeneratie - Het Einde van de Evolutietheorie?<\/a> (original in Dutch, translation mine).\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/BLOCKQUOTE>\r\n \r\n

    \r\n\"disarmed\"\r\nIn this comment it is clear that Peterse is trying to set the 'rules'. Though it seems pretty harmless, a Christian cannot participate in these rules. \r\nThese rules are foolish. In a discussion, an atheist will not set his\/her biased viewpoints to one side. He cannot do this and a Christian should not do this either. \r\nIf a Christian leaves the Bible outside the discussion, he or she already lost the discussion in advance. \r\nThe biblical world-view is the foundation of a Christian, without the Bible his argument is without foundation and his argumentation will collapse!\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    \r\nSuppose, you answer to the 'rules' of your opponent, and you put your Bible away, and afterwards continue the discussion solely on the principles of the atheist, \r\nat that point you are just as foolish as your opponent. The outcome of the discussion will never meet your views. \r\nHence: \"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.\"<\/em>\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\nProverbs 26: 5\r\n
    \r\nAnswer a fool according to his folly,\r\n
    \r\nlest he be wise in his own conceit.\r\n<\/em>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\nIf you do not concede with an atheist in his\/her rules, the atheist will soon think that he\/she is a wise person. \r\nTo avoid this you will have to demonstrate why the atheist biased views are incorrect. Mostly atheists are not convinced by Christians, \r\nwho argue only from their biblical viewpoints, for these are not accepted by atheists. The challenge is to show that the atheistic world-view contains many contradictions. \r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\nFor example, the question about the origin of morality is a very difficult question to answer in atheism. \r\nAs Christians, we say that YHWH is the absolute morality giver. Atheists cannot agree with this statement so they quickly invent something else. \r\nSome will admit they do not have the answer. Others will say that morality is determined by the people. For example, \r\nthe people determined that rape is undesirable and even harmful to the \r\ncollective<\/a>. \r\nThe question that arises is what happens when a dominant group say that it is not wrong to rape women. \r\nDoes this mean that it is good because the people say so? There will be few atheists who will approve rape. \r\nSo, is there still an absolute morality afterall? Was the persecution of Jews during the second world war good because it was conducted by a regime which in its turn was elected by the people? \r\nEven the law in Nazie Germany Nazie approved these atrocities. Ultimately, in the atheistic world-view, one should admit that these atrocities were good because the people said so.\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\nAnother contradiction in the atheistic world-view can be found in the origin of everything around us. \r\nIf you only rely on naturalistic explanations there is now satisfying way of explaining how it all began. \r\nThe atheist might say that there was a big bang, but he\/she will be unable to explain how something evolved from nothing. \r\nThere must be something beyond the natural state, which itself is not subject to our laws of nature. \r\nIn the Christian world-view it is YHWH Who started everything, but this is not acceptable for atheists. Quite often they come up with the question of who or what created God. \r\nThis only shows hat they are stuck in their own world-view. Furthermore, they do not realise that one simply cannot endlessly search for causes. \r\nUltimately, there must be an absolute beginning. This 'absolute beginning' can only be caused by something beyond itself, something without beginning.\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\nIn this way a Christian can \"answer a fool according to his folly.\" Showing the atheist the contradictions of his\/her world-view will (hopefully) help him\/her to see how foolish it is. \r\nWhen they come to realise this, they will not see themselves as wise. This is how you answer a fool according to his folly (his world-view), \r\nwith the purpose of demonstrating the atheist that his world-view is not consistent, lest he\/she is not wise in his\/her own eyes.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n    <\/a> \r\n\r\n<\/a> \r\n \r\n<\/a>\r\n\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n
    \r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\n

    God is satisfied\/unsatisfied with his works<\/h1>\r\n

    \r\nGod is satisfied with his works\r\n
    \r\nGenesis 1:31 (kjv) \"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.\"<\/i>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\nGod is dissatisfied with his works.\r\n
    \r\nGenesis 6: 6 (kjv) \"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.\"<\/i>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\nBoth are right because it discusses two separate events. Something happened after Genesis 1: 31 and before Genesis 6: 6, namely, the Fall. Sin entered creation as a result of man's rebellion against God. This is not a contradiction. When YHWH created, all was very good. After man sinned, YHWH grieved.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    <\/p>\r\n

    \r\n\r\n<\/a> \r\n\r\n<\/a> \r\n \r\n<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n
    \r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n
    \r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\n

    God is not omnipresent, or is He?<\/h1>\r\n\"God\r\n

    God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things:<\/h4> \r\n

    \r\n(Proverbs 15:3<\/a> \/ \r\nPsalms 139:7-10<\/a> \/ \r\nJob 34:21-22)<\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all things:<\/h4>\r\n

    \r\n\"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.\" (Genesis 3:8)\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\n\"And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.\" (Genesis 11:5)\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\n\"And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.\" (Genesis 18:20-21)\r\n<\/i>\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    Let us look at what happens in Genesis:<\/h4>\r\n

    \r\nGenesis 3:8 \"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.\"<\/i>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\nTo make it easier on the critics we will add verse nine as well: \r\n\"And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?\"\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\nHow can one hide for the Lord? And why did God ask these questions?\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\nFirstly, we can state that Adam and Eve could only hide for a visible manifestation of God. That is to say, God visibly walked through the garden and in that sense it was possible to hide, from that what visible, behind the bushes.\r\n<\/p>\r\n

    \r\nSecondly, people with children will recognise the following questions: \"what are you doing?\", \"What have you done?\". These are the kind of questions fathers and mothers frequently ask their children. Does that mean they do not know the answer themselves? No, mostly the parents already know. By asking these questions, parents give their children the change to explain and ultimately to apologise. This is exactly what the Lord is doing, He is asking several questions:\r\n