Bible Studies

The Immutable God Proponent of Change

by Walter Boswell
05/25/18
Free to Share
Author requests article critique

  Message Writer
  Hire Writer

Tweet

                          THE IMMUTABLE GOD: PROPONENT OF CHANGE

ORIGINAL INTENT    [history --- authors --- language origins --- revisionism --- anachronisms]

                There is an apocryphal story of a stranger confronting Jesus with a trick question: “Do you believe the whole body of Scriptures is God-breathed, that is to say, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God?” To which, Jesus answered, “Yes, I believe the Scriptures were God-breathed; but I also believe, as Genesis (2:7) says, that Man was God-breathed, and in practice did he not fall short the glory of God? Beyond which, there is none perfect except my Father in heaven.”

                Did this incident really happen? The truth is, we will never really know, unless someone will one day be able to go back in time and verify it. Contrary to what some preachers and ministers proclaim and contrary to what certain cited passages suggest (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21), the Bible is not the infallible Word of God. Anything that has been touched by man is fallible. Anything within our hearing has been marketed to man and is disturbed thereby. Regarding any dialogue, passage, or verse, we can never hope to know its true transmission or substance except as it has been solemnified, practiced, and passed down unbroken and unaltered by numerous people over many years in accord with the actions deeded them.

                Embarking on a quest for real religious truth and consolation can be heart-breaking. The history of the Bible, or Book of Books, has its origins in what the Jews refer to now as the Torah, the ‘Law’. More familiarly, we might find its basis in the Mosaic Law, as authorized in the first five books of Moses, also called the Pentateuch in Greek. What Moses recorded on scrolls and placed inside the Ark of the Covenant which was to be taken out each year and read aloud for the edification and compliance of the Israelites (Deut 31:26, 10-13) was hardly the Hebrew Torah we know today. Obviously the events recorded in Genesis, for example, transpired long before Moses was born and reflected traditional beliefs held embodied in ‘living heritage’. The Book of Numbers gets its name from its audit-like census information and priestly processing details, not especially its legal demeanor. ‘Deuteronomy’ was constructed as an addendum since the name itself means ‘second law’ and is organized as a kind of historical retrospective with Moses himself giving oratorical discourses about the Israelites and their covenant with God. It is suspected to have been written centuries after the Israelites had already obtained settlement in the Promised Land. Many more centuries would pass before the remaining Jews in Palestine would canonize, therefore affix, the books of the Old Testament as sacred and inviolable. Until then, many rewrites, supplements, and revisions took place. The original 24 books were edited and sub-divided into the present-day 39 books. Evidence of anachronistic tampering abounds, such as Genesis 14:13 wherein Abram (Abraham) is called the Hebrew, a term not applied to the people themselves for centuries to come. There are references to the future captivity of the Israelites (Jud 18:30) and to future kings (Gen 36:31; Jud 17:6; 18:1; 21:25). In the New Testament, antagonistic lines evidenced against Levite priests and the Jews were written by early Christians who were experiencing backlash from the Jewish community for their practice of the ‘new way’, as Christianity was first called, and not necessarily against Jesus personally. Jumbled storylines involving Saul and David in 1 Samuel also testify to this revisionist activism. Actual passages are repeated almost verbatim (18:10-11; 19:9-10). Several versions tell the tale of how Saul became king (9:1-27; 10:1-13, 17-26), how and when he met David (16:14-23; 17:32-58), even the circumstances of Saul’s death (31:1-6; 2 Sam 1:1-10). Intermingled among these passages is David’s acclaimed victory over Goliath. 1 Sam 17:54 states that David took the head of the Philistine giant to Jerusalem; but Jerusalem was not captured by King David until much later. An incomplete 1 Sam 13:1 makes it impossible to discern the length of Saul’s reign (estimated to be anywhere from two to 42 years).

                Numerous other discrepancies involving text and authorship occur in the Old Testament. ‘Samuel’ was initially only one book, as was the (combined) Book of King(dom)s. The criteria set by the Jewish theologians mentioned above (primarily the Pharisees) would endeavor to eliminate any book that was not written in Hebrew or created in the Palestine area. References to the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14), the Book of Jashar (Josh 10:13), the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19; 15:31; 16:5, 14, 20, 27), and the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29; 15:7, 23) suggest there may be many missing books which could corroborate factual Israelite history. Otherwise, the Jewish commentators rejected these following seven Biblical books: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as parts of Esther and Daniel. During the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther chose to reject these same deuterocanonical books, even though Jesus himself reflected on some of their quotes and prophecy [re: Sir 23:9 (Matt 5:34); 24:18 (Matt 11:28); 28:2 (Matt 6:14); Wis 2:18-19 (Matt 26:67; 27:12, 43; John 5:18)]. He also rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation in the New Testament, but these books were reinstated by later Protestants. Genuine authorship for any given book has been debated extensively, considering the few historical records and artifacts that exist in order to make definitive judgements. Clearly Biblical books tend to get their title from the main character rather than the presumed author (e.g., Moses, Joshua, Job, Samuel, et al, as in the Book of Ruth is really the Book about Ruth). Following this pattern, the Bible itself, or the Book of God, as it is commonly and/or colloquially called, is literally misnamed since it is neither divinely-oriented nor personally penned by God; but instead is formulated in structure around the life and times of Man, detailing as it does his many faults and virtues, his promise in rising and his susceptibility to falling. Very little in the Bible is conspicuously revealing about the nature of God, except as reflected in the giving and the misgivings of his handiwork, hardly his handwriting.

Ezra and Nehemiah were also once just one book. King David has been credited with writing some of the Psalms, especially Psalms 17 and 18 (re: Samuel); and because of his renown wisdom, much of Proverbs is dedicated to, if not written by, Solomon. The books of Ecclesiastes and The Song of Songs have been directly attributed to Solomon, although much of the writing bespeaks a language and a style coming after the Babylonian exile (circa 538 BC). While Ezekiel and many of the Minor Prophets were probably the originators, if not outright authors, of their named books, other books of Major Prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah were probably composite in nature – a mixture of themselves and their disciples along with traditional sayings and encounters attributed to the ‘Master’. Jeremiah, who ranks as one of the greatest of the prophets, has three books attributed to him in the Catholic Bible: Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, and most likely the person primarily responsible for most of his writings at least during his lifetime. New Testament authorship is no less uncertain. Even those letters (epistles) of Paul and Peter may not really be their compositions. More credence is given to those works known to have been written within the first century AD and acknowledged through cross-referencing. Tampering occurred, nevertheless, as can be seen in one clear insertion (John 17:3) where Jesus refers to himself in the passage as Jesus ‘Christ’. Revisionism is also apparent in the repetition of Mark 9:44, 46, and 48, which were probably retained as points of emphasis. The phrase used there was taken from Isaiah 66:24 about ‘neither shall their fire be quenched’ and is curiously mentioned five times (Mark 9:43, 44, 45, 46, 48). The Gospel of Mark is itself noteworthy for having two conclusions (16:1-8; 9-20 additional), presumably because the original text was lost or destroyed.

                Apart from these historical disparities, problems arise in respect to essential language, comprehension, and adequate translation. From my youth I thought I had a relatively good grasp on the message of Christ just from my own reading; and what I could not understand, the pastor on Sunday would help to explain. Then I discovered from background research that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, which was recorded in Greek, then translated much later into Latin, then into Old English, and finally into modern English. Such a communication of speech and word content over great periods of time portends a cluttered array of incongruities. No problem, you say, we will just go back to the original Greek and get someone to translate it verbatim. Only fragments of parchment or metal scrolls remain of any Biblical text (Old or New) composed prior to 100 AD. But even if there were one to be found, it would not be in classical Greek. The dialect spread throughout much of the Mediterranean world by Alexander the Great was ‘common Greek’, which because of its universality became the commercial language of the time. Since Jesus was speaking in Aramaic, it is doubtful that even a modern Greek-speaking expert could capture the full context on their conversations in terms of accent, idioms, and mannerism. Imagine if we, as English-speaking experts, were asked to provide a modern-day update on the works of William Shakespeare, should all of the current copies, translations, and analysis of his efforts suddenly disappear except for a few incomplete fragments. Trying to capture his meanings, his moods, his phrasing, his rhythm, not to mention his hidden messaging would be an almost impossible task … and this is just from changes in the English language over the course of 500 years or so. That is what puzzles me about some people who expend a great deal of scholarly time and perhaps a lifetime of application trying to go back and inject meaning into particular sentences or specific words in the Old Testament, which were originally written in Hebrew, hoping to extract some glint of divine understanding not accessible to anybody else. It is doubtful that even Baruch, Jeremiah’s personal scribe, captured the prophet’s every gesture and intent while yet writing in the timeframe of his own existence. Hebrew, as a language, has been all but dead (out of circulatory use) for nearly 2500 years – ever since the Israelites came back from Babylonian exile, when it was supplanted by the Semitic language variation called Aramaic from Assyria. Outside of Palestine, most of the dispersed Jews were compelled to speak common Greek; hence all the New Testament books were originally written in Greek, except, oddly enough, the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Aramaic. I say ‘oddly’ because Matthew is generally believed to be an illustrative expansion of the Gospel of Mark. Some portions of Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, and Esther, ‘though originally composed in Hebrew, were also subsequently amended in Aramaic in order to appear as they do today (and accepted as such).

TRANSLATIONAL ERROR       [comprehensive standing --- focused meaning]

                To see how even periodic, well-intended interpretations can affect the apprehension of passages, consider this side-by-side comparison between the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, the American Catholic Bible (ACB), and the International Standard Version (ISV).

Gen 25:18

KJV – And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur, that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Assyria; and he died in the presence of all his brethren.

ACB – The Ishmaelites ranged from Havilah-by-Shur, which is on the border of Egypt, all the way to Asshur; and each of them pitched camp in opposition to his various kinsmen.

ISV – His descendants settled from Havilah to Shur (that’s near Egypt), all the way to Assyria, in defiance of all of his relatives.

Ex 6:12

KJV – And Moses spake before the Lord, saying, Behold, the children of Israel have not hearkened unto me; how then shall Pharaoh hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips?

ACB – But Moses protested to the Lord, “If the Israelites would not listen to me, how can it be that Pharaoh will listen to me, poor speaker that I am!”

ISV – Then Moses said in front of the Lord, “Look, the Israelis didn’t listen to me, so how will Pharaoh? I’m not a persuasive speaker”

Lev 27:27

KJV – And if it be an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to thine estimation, and shall add a fifth part of it thereto: or if it be not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to thy estimation.

ACB – but if it is an unclean animal, it may be redeemed by paying one fifth more than its fixed value. If it is not redeemed, it shall be sold at its fixed value.

ISV – If it’s an unclean animal, then he is to ransom it according to your valuation, adding a fifth to it. If it’s not redeemed, then it is to be sold according to your valuation.

1 Sam 1:22

KJV – But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child is weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord, and there abide for ever.

ACB – Hannah did not go up, explaining to her husband, “Once the child is weaned, I will take him to appear before the Lord and to remain there forever; I will offer him as a perpetual nazirite.”

ISV – Hannah did not go up because she had told her husband, “As soon as the child is weaned, I’ll take him to appear in the Lord’s presence and remain there forever.”

2 Sam 13:18

KJV – And she had a garment of divers colours upon her: for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled. Then his servant brought her out, and bolted the door after her.

ACB – Now she had on a long tunic, for that is how maiden princesses dressed in olden days. When his attendant put her out and barred the door after her …

ISV – Now she was clothed in a long-sleeved, multi-colored ornamental tunic, commonly worn by the king’s virgin daughters. When Amnon’s servant threw her out and locked the door after her …

1 Kings 16:34

KJV – In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho: he laid the foundation thereof in Abriram his firstborn, and set up the gate thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun.

ACB – During his reign, Hiel from Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He lost his first-born son Abiram, when he laid the foundation, and his youngest son, Segub, when he set up the gates, as the Lord had foretold through Joshua, son of Nun.

ISV – It was during Ahab’s reign that Heil the Bethelite rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations just as his firstborn son Abiram was dying, and he erected its gates while his youngest son Segub was dying, thus fulfilling the message that the Lord delivered through Nun’s son Joshua.

Job 23:7

KJV – There the righteous might dispute with him, so should I be delivered for ever from my judge.

ACB – There the upright man might reason with him, and I should once and for all preserve my rights.

ISV – In that place, the upright can reason with him; and I’ll be acquitted once and for all by my judge.

                Narrowing our focus on a single phrase can be just as problematic. The oft-used expression in the Old Testament of 40 days and 40 nights (Gen 7:4;  Ex 24:18; 34:28; et al) did not necessarily specify a precise number of days and nights, any more than the American expression ‘month of Sundays’ or the old British expression ‘fortnight’ when used colloquially. The Mosaic judgement of ‘shall be cut off from among his people’ (e.g., Lev 17:4) could be interpreted liberally as some form of religious isolation or more critically as complete social excommunication or more intensely as outright death. Fortunately, that particular restriction (Lev 17:4) was modified in Deut 12:20-23. Fixating on a single word can be just as frustrating. Deut 15:1 states that at the end of every seven-year period, debts should be ‘relaxed’ (ACB), or ‘released’ (KJV) altogether. So then, is it a full cancellation or merely a temporary suspension, and does it apply to the principal, the interest, or both? In Revelations 6:8, the fourth horse and horseman are described: ‘Behold a pale horse, and his name that sat on him was death’ (KJV); whereas in ACB, ‘Now I saw a horse sickly green in color. Its rider was named Death’. Thus it would be our parochial misunderstanding to think that the scene involved a pale (light-colored) horse rather than a pale (sickly) horse more in keeping with its death-strewn rider. In Hebrews 4:8 and Acts 7:45, the KJV mistakenly translates Jehoshua or Jeshua as Jesus (from the Greek), but in this case referring to Joshua whom Moses called Jehoshua. Besides these concessions to human frailty, what is to be made of Numbers 5:18, wherein a suspected adulteress is brought in to the priest and ‘as the woman stands before the Lord, the priest shall uncover her head…’ Both KJV and ACB agree on this translation; however, many other versions refer to loosen (unbind, unbraid) her hair. Their dispute centers on the cultural perspective that the Israelite women, especially girls and young women, did not regularly veil their heads, even in or near the sanctuary. Who is ever prepared to go to such depths of vocabulary analysis, and to what benefit? In passages where many types of gems are named (Ex 28:17-20) or where many kinds of animals are identified (Lev 11:13-19, 22-23, 29-30), the English word equivalents are conjectures only. The very name of God expressed by the Hebrews (Yahweh or Jehovah) is a disjointed term resulting from a misreading of the conversational dialog between Moses and the Lord. Later, out of respect for the Lord’s name, the Hebrews often substituted the name Adonai, meaning ‘My Lord’. When Moses reversed the wind in order to drive away the eighth plague of locusts, the assumption is they were apparently cast into the Red Sea (Ex 10:18-19). But a literal translation is best read as the ‘Reed Sea’, which historians believe was a very shallow sea just north of the current and much deeper Red Sea. Obviously the same misconception would apply not much later on when the fleeing Israelites miraculously walked across the Red Sea. In the New Testament, the Greek words ‘adelphos’ and ‘adelphe’, meaning literally brother and sister in Mark 6:3, suggesting that Jesus had blood brothers, were also used at that time to describe a nephew or niece, half-brother or half-sister, or merely a cousin. The significance of this interpretation is important to some Catholics who believe that the Virgin Mary had only one child, Jesus.

IN THE BEGINNING: QUESTIONS       [mythological legacy --- anthropomorphism]

                Every young person upon first reading the Book of Genesis probably is beset with many troubling questions. How could day and night pass without the sun? Why did God put a ‘grenade’ in a children’s playground? How does the Lord take no responsibility for the original sin and for the killing of Abel? Who did Adam and Eve’s children marry without committing incest? Who did Cain marry and why did God set a mark upon him, seeing there was no one else out there? Later you hear a preacher say, “If it wasn’t for Adam eating that stupid apple, there would be no sin, no suffering, and no death in the world!” (1 Cor 15:20-22; Rom 5:12-14) Even to a child’s hearing, that sounded a little extreme; besides which, did not the Lord God, after Adam had already sinned, decry “See! This man has become like one of us (who is ‘us’?), knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever?” (Gen 3:22) Had they not already partaken of the tree since it was not prohibited; and would not, then, eternal life already be theirs? [Instead, the natural body is dust (death) (re: Gen 3:19; Ecc 3:20; 12:7; 1 Cor 15:44-47).]

Many more questions could obviously be asked, such as, who were the sons of heaven which mated with the daughters of man (Gen 6:1-4)? Why would an all-powerful, omniscient God need a rainbow in the sky to ‘remind’ him of his covenant (Gen 9:13-16)? Scholars will say that such questions are irrelevant because Genesis is essentially mythological. Granted that it was not written as true history, it does awaken major theological questions pertinent to our current philosophical search. If we (mankind) were once pure and sinless, from whence really did come sin? The Bible says it came from the Devil disguised as a serpent in the Garden of Eden. And how did the Devil acquire his sinful ways? Well, he was once an angel called Lucifer, made perfect from creation until the day rebellion was found in him. But how can a perfect creature ever become sinful? Most theologians and philosophers balk at this point, or else they say that God made him a free and independent creature; or, at length, God does not create character, rather leaving it to experience for ‘soul-making’. Sin, like passion, is something that heaves up inside of you, causing you to do wrong; God did not implant it or plan it, nor even tempts you to do evil (James 1:12-15). Another will say, it all comes down to the story of independent creation and free will. How could a supposedly all-good and beneficent God, per commentary, ever allow tragedies like natural disasters, famine, disease, sickness, and the death of so many innocents? The theory states, it is in the same vein that we functionally abide by the belief that Nature must run its course, likewise that the person once created must run his own personal choice. The laws of (human) creation, as ordained by the Creator, do not permit natural intervention, except in extraordinary circumstances, because this would violate (dissipate) the absolute will of a designated sentient human being: a rank attained in the Garden of Eden. This too plies a contradiction. Absolute will comes not as a packaged gift of perfect grace. It must be instructed, embedded, plotted out, codified, instituted, and then verified through experiential practice. Only God is absolute; hence only God can have the total freedom and wisdom of ‘choice’. Absolute free will for humans is a fantasy.

                Turnabout is fair play then, as we put our faith in an existence we cannot control and in a God we can scarcely conceive. ‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, your ways are not my ways’ (Is 55:8); ‘his ways are everlasting’ (Hab 3:6); ‘I am the Lord, I change not’ (Mal 3:6); ‘Whatever God does will endure forever, there is no adding to it, or taking from it’ (Ecc 3:14); ‘the Glory of Israel neither retracts nor repents, for he is not a man that he should repent’ (1 Sam 15:29; Num 23:19); ‘not as a man sees does God see’ (1 Sam 16:7). The magnificence of the Lord gives him the ‘right’ to say and do things we as humans are not supposed to emulate. We are admonished not to judge, but God may (Matt 7:1-2; Rom 2:1-2; Gen 18:25; John 5:30; 8:15-16; Ex 12:12; Luke 6:37). And whereas we should not let ourselves be consumed with even righteous anger, frustration, and fear, he may:

                Wrath/Anger – Ex 15:3, 7, 8; 32:10; Deut 1:34, 37; 3:26; 4:21 9:19, 22; 13:17; 31:17; 32:16; Num 11:1, 33; 12:9; 14:11-12; 22:22; 25:4; Josh 7:1; 2 Sam 24:1; Jud 2:14, 20; Jonah 3:9; Ps 78:58; Matt 21:12

                Jealousy/Vengeance – Gen 4:10-12; Ex 20:5; 34:14; Deut 4:24; 5:9; 6:15; 29: 20, 27, 28; 32:16, 35

                Upset/Regret – Gen 6:6; 1 Sam 15:11; Matt 16:21-23; 17:14-21

                Frustration/Grief – Gen 6:6; Num 11: 18-20; Jud 10:14-16

                Favoritism – Deut 7:6; 32:10; 1 Sam 13:14; 2 Sam 7:15; 1 Chron 17:13-14; Ps 17:8; Mal 1:2-5; Acts 13:22 [Bearing in mind, evil has its god/devil; and if God has no favorites, who supports the good?]

As he wills, or in order to bring glory to the Lord’s works, God can make people blind, deaf, and dumb (Ex 4:11; John  9:1-3), he can kill universally and indiscriminately (Gen 7:21-22; 19:23-26; Ex 12:29-30; 14:26-28; et al), he can deceive and send down lying spirits (Gen 11:7-8; 1 Kings 22:18-23), and he is capable of creating evil and trouble (1 Sam 16:14; 18:10; 1 Kings 21:29; Is 45:7). More crucially for us in the future, God is intent on separating the just from the unjust and sending our souls to either heaven or hell (Matt 8:11-12; 22:13; 25:31-46; Mark 9:42-50; Luke 13:28; 16:22-23).

                For all that, the Bible also paints a picture of a God, despite his warrior outlook, who can be fatherly (Prov 3:12; 8:17; Rom 8:15), concerned (Gen 2:18; 3:21; Deut 2:7; 30:3), compassionate (Ex 22:26-27; Ps 86:15; 111:4; Luke 6:36), honorable (Gen 9:13-17), predisposed to mercy and forgiveness (Ex 15:13; 20:6; 34:6; Num 14:18; Deut 4:31; 5:10; 7:9, 12; 13:17), capable of repentance (Jonah 3:10), and also loving (Deut 7:8, 13; 10:15; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8). All of this might well be ascribable to a supernatural being – even a pagan Zeus or Thor. Who thinks, though, that these things make face with ‘God’? Instead, with mere picture-works of ourselves, we try to frame the totality of an unimaginable Lord. At least the Bible cannot assign to the Lord one human trait: modesty, for as the Bible demonstrates in numerous incidents, this comes stultified by the rankings of the third person of the Trinity, whose function it is – must speak with probing awe of his other selves.

TECHNICAL OR PROCEDURAL DISCORD      [point-to-point controversy]

                Project now the exposition of flagrant inconsistencies within the body of the storytelling or in passages that would seem to contravene accepted truth elsewhere defined.

• Love your neighbor (kinsman) and the alien (Lev 19:18, 34) versus Canaanites doomed (Deut 7:1-3) and even fighting (distant) kinsmen of Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites


• Pentecost offerings: 2 bullocks, 1 ram, 7 yearling lambs, 1 goat (Num 28:27-30) versus 1 bull, 2 rams, 7 yearling lambs, 1 goat (Lev 23:18-19)


• Ancestral figures listed in Genesis 5:3-32; 11:10-26 versus those listed in Luke 3:23-38 [Several other Biblical listings of generations and tribes are discordant]


• No man may see  God’s face and live (Ex 33:20) versus Moses talked to God face to face (Ex 33:11; Num 12:8; Deut 34:10)


• Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; only for his own guilt shall a man be put to death; him only who has sinned against me (Ex 32:33; Deut 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chron 25:4; Ezek 18:20) versus death of adulterous-born son of David and Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:14-23); seven descendants of Saul murdered for Saul’s breaking of an oath (2 Sam 21:1-9); Ahab’s son (1 Kings 21:29) [Kings David and Solomon committed many mortal offenses, but were not stoned, impeached, or struck down by God, having much of their due punishment deferred upon their descendants.]


• The Lord through Moses ordered that a man be stoned for gathering wood on the Sabbath day (Num 15:32-36) and specified the sacredness of the Sabbath showbread (Lev 24:5-9) versus Jesus’ disciples taking off the heads of the grain and eating it (Matt 12:1-2) and David’s soldiers eating the showbread intended only for the priests (1 Sam 21:2-8)


• A judicial fact shall be established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses; no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15) versus man and woman betrothed to another have sex, both must die (cited witnesses notwithstanding); or if they have relations in an open field, man must die (even if only one witness – the woman) (Deut 22: 23-27) [Surely not all crime convictions could be based on the judicial testimony of more than one witness, otherwise there could never be prosecution of someone for personal stealing (one on one) or other victimized incidents having limited witness verification; therefore the judges would have to hear and decide on many cases (Deut 25:1-2)]


• Love one another (John 13:34; 1 John 3:23) and if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9) and let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon (Is 55:7) versus Ananias and Sapphira being ruthlessly struck dead for not giving all of their sold property to the community, with no chance given for recanting and forgiveness (Acts 5:1-11) [notwithstanding that this has been singularly justified as a sin imputed against the Holy Spirit]


• God does not judge like man does (externally), for God looks into the heart (1 Sam 16:7; 1 Chron 28:9; Prov 15:11; Jer 17:10; 20:12; Acts 1:24); even Jesus, as the son of God, said, “God reads your hearts” (Luke 16:15) versus why could God not read Saul’s heart before he made him king, and likewise know that David would seriously sin; and did not Jesus appoint his own twelve disciples, while knowing that some of them would be vain and lacking: one (Peter) would deny him, another (Judas) would fully betray him! [“Did I not choose the twelve of you myself? Yet one of you is a devil” (John 6:70)]


• It would also be in the will of the Father who sent Jesus that he should lose nothing of what was given him versus above [(John 6:39; 10:28-29; 18:9) Only the amended phrase ‘none but him who was destined to be lost’ in John 17:12 saves the abandonment of his lost sheep Judas]


• In Ps 51:4 David prays for forgiveness: “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight” versus according to the Psalm preface, this is just after his sin with Bathsheba, and presumably the deliberate murder of her husband. How are these acts not also sins against Bathsheba, their marriage, and her husband Uriah? [It says that Nathan had confronted him with this evil (2 Sam 12:1-12). Even Jesus said in Matt 5:23-24 ‘Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar and there recall that your brother has ought against you, go first to be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift’. What kind of settlement with the Lord will bring Uriah back or for that matter the late child of their adulterous union?]

TIME-RELATED DISCREPANCIES    [figurative change versus purposeful change]

                Over years of service use, centuries even, the descriptive significance and worth of things are bound to change. Influenced by the Babylonians, the 50-shekal mina was dropped in favor of the 60-shekel mina (Ezek 45:9-12). The names of months on the Hebrew calendar also changed after Babylon. Ordinarily we might chalk up some of these changes to natural or circumstantial progression. Others may hint of a higher purpose. When the Israelites moved together as a single group, every animal intended for slaughter had to be brought to the meeting tent (Lev 17:3-4). Later, as they became settled and more spread out, the animals could be slaughtered and eaten in their own communities (Deut 12:20-22). Perhaps the most notable change involved the sanctuary or altar place. The instructions given to Moses called for an altar of earth or unhewn stones, with no steps going up (Ex 20:24-26), serviced by priests attired in clean ritual garments. Joshua conformed to this order when he built an altar to the Lord on Mount Ebal (Josh 8:30-31). Note that in 8:32 Joshua is reported to have inscribed upon the stones a copy of the law (just as Moses had done earlier). Obviously he did not inscribe the entire Torah, which would have taken weeks and months, maybe even years; rather some summary pronouncements of the commandments and the covenant agreement that could easily be read aloud to the entire community (Josh 8:34-35). Much later, when Solomon built the temple to the Lord (1 Kings c6, 7, 8), it was a huge finely-carved edifice, hardly in keeping with the Lord’s original order. Had the Lord changed or was it all done intentionally by the Lord’s farseeing design? God had told King David when he first proposed the idea of the temple that he (the Lord) was going to build David a temple through his descendants, which was fulfilled in the laying of the foundation stone in the form Jesus, the Lord’s own son. Thinking back to  Moses’ time, the Lord’s first dwelling place (as perceived from man’s perspective) was in the manifestation of a fire on a mountaintop, then in a cloud settling down on the meeting tent, then it was on the unhewn altar, then within the holy of holies, then a palatial temple, and now a ‘human’ temple. It could be that all (apparent) time discrepancies are really just progressions toward some higher purpose which circumspectively and amazingly resembles its beginning – the end resolving into the beginning.

                Whenever possible, an effort will be made in the following list of changes to induce a higher purpose or directional aim.

• The age at which the Levites were supposed to commence their term of service in the meeting tent was 30 (Num 4:2-3, 22-23, 46-47), then 25 (Num 8:23-26), then 20 (1 Chron 23:24-27). Since the last one was a man-made change, no real significance should be imparted to the changes beyond need and gained experience.


• Daughters were not recognized in the order of inheritance, but as the Israelites were becoming property owners, they would (Num 27:5-11; re: Job 42:15)


• Initially the Lord told the Israelites not to interfere or invade the land of the Moabites and the Ammonites (descendants of Lot) and the Edomites (descendants of Esau) for he had already bequeathed them their own territories (Deut 2:1-23; Num 20:14-21). But later there would be continual fighting between these people and the Israelites, even unto King David’s time (Jud 11:14-33; 2 Sam 8:1-14; 10:6-14). To make matters more complicated, Deut 23:3-8 states that the Ammonites and Moabites must never be admitted in the community of the Lord, regardless of their generation, but the Edomite and the Egyptian could be for their children of the third generation.


• First, animal sacrifices were intended to remove sins and absolve guilt. Then Jesus, a necessary intermediate lamb sacrifice, would take on all the sins of mankind and nail our indebtedness to the cross (Col 2:14). Now it is obedience and mercy I desire (Hos 6:6; 1 Sam 15:22; Prov 21:3; Heb 9:1-28; 10:1-18), hence ‘I have come to do your will’.


• Stone tablets ------ >  pendant on your forehead ------> written in your hearts (Jer 31:31-34) [but that was the original purpose (Deut 11:18; 6:5-9)]


• Circumcised foreskin ------- >  circumcise your heart [original intent Deut 10:16)]


• As already discussed extensively in a previous article, the notion behind tithing, when and how much, had been evolving for centuries. Before the figure of 10% was affixed in Mosaic Law, which is what the word ‘tithe’ (one-tenth) means, Abram (Abraham) gave 10% of his victory spoils to Melchizedek (Gen 14:18-20). Jacob likewise promised 10% (Gen 28:20-22). Joseph instituted a 20% policy for the Egyptians to pay to Pharaoh (their God) (Gen 47:20-26). The early Christian Church may have had no set rate; everyone contributed more or less what they could afford to give to the communal society, sometimes by selling their property or by performing work. Often the rich would contribute more than their share to help cover the poor, though this impressive ‘charity’ was probably encouraged by the expected arrival of Jesus’ second coming. Coincidentally or not, this practice may have been in keeping with God’s plan from the start, as in Ex 25:2, ‘from every man you shall accept the contribution that his heart prompts him to give’. Nowadays, dedicated churchgoers may give ‘religiously’ there and to the community, while others may give to any organization (religious or secular) as long as it is tax deductible.


• In several sections of the Old Testament, the Lord made it threateningly plain that if the Israelites were obstinate and disobedient and would not live their lives in conformity to the Law, then they would be punished. Conversely, if they honored and served the Lord and obeyed all his commandments, they would be blessed (Lev c26; Ezek 5:5-15; c6, c7; Deut 4:1-9, 25-31; 7:12-26; 11:18-32; 27:14-26; c28; 29:22-29; 30:15-20; 32:15-21). From these provisions on eternal justice, the Israelites naturally developed the life-perception that the righteous man should prosper and be blessed with great health, while the wicked would live a stricken existence cursed with poverty and misery (re: Job; Prov 15:25-29; 3:9-10; Wis 11:16). Both philosophers and laymen have referred to these predicted effects as ‘divine justice or divine retribution’. Only with age, of a person or a nation, do we come to realize that life is not so punctilious, that rain falls on the just and the unjust, and that the Lord’s reproof of the upright appears not all that different from the punishment of the wicked (Prov 3:12; Ecc 3:16-21; 8:10-13; 11:3-6; Sir 11:14; 39:25-27). Moreover, there is no man on earth so just as to always do good and never sin (Ecc 7:20). By extension, the Ancients generally believed that reward and punishment would be meted out in their own lifetimes, since they did not conceive, generally speaking, of an existence beyond death (Ecc 9:1-10; Ps 6:5), no heaven or paradise, no hell or Gehenna; whereas Jesus and the New Testament authors relied on the promise of eternal life for the just and everlasting fire for the unjust (re: Matt 25:41-46).


• Very closely related to this view was the belief that the just were deserving of being rewarded and forgiven of their sins (whether individually or for the chosen people in general), but that the unjust (meaning any non-Israelite) should never be rewarded by God or ever forgiven. Anything else would ‘not be fair’ (Ezek 18:23-32; 33:11-20; Jonah 4:1-11) and would not be in accord with the jealous and vengeful God that they knew. Behind this subtle, if selfish, apprehension was a lengthy history of being punished for their own wrongdoing, even sent into captivity, before they would ‘earn their way back’, through many trials and afflictions, to their homeland. Given this hardship, they labored under the same emotional wantonness that many still do now, of hating the evildoer instead of the evil that they do. Moving beyond this view to the Christian ideal of ‘loving your enemies’ may create a Christian paradox since an unbridled sinner who relishes in doing evil over and over again will eventually become the embodiment of that evil.


• Other themes in a progressive vein:

                    Adam and Eve -------------> Israelites -------------> Resurrected Jesus

     (chose to become like God)       (chosen people)               (chosen son of God)

                           Eden                           Promised Land                         Heaven

                        Israelites        >        Jews and Gentiles        >        Faithful Remnant

Observe how the register has been forwarded in time to allowing any of the world’s religious faithful; likewise it can be moved backward to Abraham, who was also chosen by God, and before that Noah who was lifted up and saved on the ark, and before even that Enoch who walked with God and never knew the ‘sting of death’, thereby predicting a like future for all who are saved in the end times.

• Since the Ancient Israelites did not generally believe in an afterlife, they were not necessarily opposed to committing suicide, depending on the method and when it occurred. The present-day prohibition against suicide is derived at least in part from Judas the Betrayer’s cowardly act, or so the legend goes (Matt 27:5), although Catholics generally believe that suicide is a sin against God. For the Israelites, falling on one’s sword in battle was obviously more preferable than being captured and tortured by the enemy, or being disgraced with a loss of honor (Jud 16:30; 1 Sam 31:3-6). Practically speaking, death is also preferable to a bitter life, unending sleep to a constant illness (Sir 30:17).


• The Ancients initially feared the harsh God of Moses, for the plagues and punishments he issued against the Egyptians and for his frightening vision on Mount Sinai (Ex 19:16-25; 20:18-21). This is a far cry from the gentle Father personified in Jesus, who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son (John 3:16). Christ told us we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind, and with all our strength (Mark 12:30), which really just hearkened back to the entreatment in Deuteronomy 6:4-5, and may have its foundation in the Garden of Eden for Adam to abide in an obedience of love, where perfect love casts out all fear [(1 John 4:18) unless he should sin]. This brings to the fore an odd, if not stretched, correlation. Were God, our creator, to be considered our collective ‘heavenly birth mother/father’, what parents demand love of their offspring? The child’s nature should have been to respond in kind.


• Some affirmed enlightenments have already been revealed:

       Father     >     Father and Son     >     Father, Son, and Holy Spirit      (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38)

       @ Sinai         @ Christ’s coming                    @ Pentecost

And the second commandment follows likely:

       You shall love your neighbor as yourself >>>      (Lev 19:18)

                      You shall have the same love for the resident alien as for yourself >>>     (Lev 19:34)

                                        Love your enemies; pray for your persecutors                       (Matt 5:43-48)

Another progression has already been recognized in the New Testament:

            Melchizedek              >               Order of Levi              >              Jesus (of Melchizedek order)

             (Gen 14:18)                       (Num 17:12-13; 18:1-2)                     (Heb 7:11-12; 5:6; Ps 110:4)

Many other discrepancies related to or invoked by Jesus will be detailed separately.

TEXTUAL CONFLICTS    [testifying (not absolute) truth --- wordplay --- partial resolutions]

                The appearance of an inconsistency within any system indicates an imperfection either in the creation or its creator. Textual conflicts abound in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, too many to identify individually or even to categorically list. Small differences could rationally be explained through perspective and witnessing, as in, did Judas hang himself (Matt 27:5) or did he jump off a cliff (Acts 1:18); did two women go to the tomb and talk to an angel (Matt 28:1-7) or did at least three women go to the tomb and talk to two angels (Luke 24:1-10)? Similarly, after Jesus gives his lengthy message about ‘I am the way’ … and the ‘spirit of truth’ … and ‘love one another’ … in John chapters 14, 15, and 16, he states in 16:5, “Now that I go back to him who sent me, not one of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’”, even though Simon Peter had asked that precise question at the start of the discourse (John 13:36). Either this is an oversight on Jesus’ part or on the writer’s part. Major differences, like the two stories of the creation of man in Genesis and the distorted relationship between Saul and David in the book of Samuel were almost surely caused by revisionists seeking to harmonize or fuse together two customary legends. A similar intermingling appears in the story of Noah, with certain lines being repeated (Gen 6:13-22; 7:1-5) and the inconsistency of how many animals of each kind were taken aboard: 1 pair only (Gen 6:19; 7:9) versus 7 pairs of clean and 1 pair of unclean (7:2). In Numbers chapter 16, the distinct rebellions of Korah and Dathan plus Abiram have been intertwined. Entire sections of 2 Kings’ chapters 18, 19, and 20 have been replicated as part of Isaiah (chapters 36-39).

                Because some Semitic cultures conferred great importance on the ‘word’, especially a man’s spoken ‘word’, names were sometimes deliberately created for their children which harbored God’s fortune (El) or endowed them with some characteristic or even predicted their future destiny [Ishmael (God has heard); Esau (hairy); Joseph (may he add – another son); Israel (contended with the divine); Immanuel (with us is God)]. Fondness for wordplay extended as far back as:

                Adam (man) was formed out of the adama (ground);

and could be seen in Elijah:

                ‘Man of God … come down’ in Hebrew sounded like ‘fire of God come down’.

Forwarded to John 11:48-52: when the priests feared that the Romans would sweep away their sanctuary because of one out-of-control prophet (Jesus), they suggested that ‘better to have one man die than the whole nation destroyed’. Thus saying, they were in a twisted sense conforming to God’s own plan that one man (Jesus) would have to die as a spiritual sacrifice for the whole nation. In another clever New Testament wordplay, the Gospel writer John would use the Greek word ‘pneuma’ in the double sense of ‘wind’ and ‘spirit’.

While the semantics of all this may seem trite today, it often writhingly presaged the manner and means by which God would respond. The forty days that the scouts spent reconnoitering the Promised Land, only to bring back a disheartening report, was turned into a 40-year sentence of wandering in the desert (Num 14:33-34). The Egyptians were punished particularly with plagues of locusts, frogs, gnats, and flies (despicable animals) because they despicably worshipped insects, serpents, and other strange creatures. So saying, it is the Lord’s way that a man should be punished by the very things through which he sins (Wis 11:15-16). ‘Words’ could announce real curses (Deut 27:14-26) or real blessings (Deut 28:1-6) because the Lord himself had spoken them. When Pharaoh told Moses after the ninth plague not to appear before him again or he would die, he was setting the table for the tenth and final plague. By denying the Israelites their prescribed flesh (animal) sacrifice, the Egyptians were condemning their own first-born to be human sacrifices in substitution. It also served as satisfying revenge for the killing of the baby boys surrounding Moses’ birth (Ex 10:28-29; 1:15-22). When the Israelites became fearful of the Lord at Mount Sinai and cried out, “Let not God speak to us, or we shall die”, it established the precedent of always having an intermediary between God and man: a Moses, a prophet, or a Jesus. As a side note, the natural stammering or stuttering of Moses probably became the fractured model of the erratic, almost incomprehensible, speaking in tongues by later prophets and at Pentecost, thereby also mocking the Israelites for failing to fully understand the message (words) of the Lord. Several times God warned the Israelites by setting up abominable idols to demons, to ‘no-gods’, thereby provoking the Lord to anger, the Lord would in turn provoke them by setting up a ‘no-people’, that is raise up a previously unexalted people to conquer Israel and lay waste to their land (e.g. Deut 32:16-21). Likewise in Deuteronomy 28:47-48 the Lord threatens, “Since you will not serve the Lord, your God, (your friend and mentor) with joy and gratitude for the abundance of things the Lord had given them, then in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and a want of things, you will serve the enemies that the Lord will send against you. He will put an iron yoke on your neck, until he destroys you”. After so many times of the Israelites crying out to the Lord for help, begging for a Judge to save them, which God did, only to have the Israelites fall back into idolatry and worshipping Baal, the Lord finally said, “I will save you no more. Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen; let them save you now that you are in distress” (Jud 10:10-14). God often grants appeasement and even answers to prayers by giving people what they ask for, ironically much to their disappointment.

                In later times, the infraction of the spoken word or deed need only touch one of God’s holy messengers to evoke a heavenly reaction. When Saul recognized his transgression and pleaded to Samuel for forgiveness, Samuel told him, “you have rejected the command of the Lord and the Lord rejects you as king of Israel”, then he turned to leave. But Saul seized a hold on his mantle and tore a loose piece off. Then Samuel said, “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day” (1 Sam 15:24-28). This bit of prophetic drama, or play-acting for lack of a better term, would be recited many times throughout the centuries by subsequent prophets. Jeremiah strapped on wooden yoke bars with bands running over his shoulders to symbolize that as punishment the kings of Edom and Judah must submit to Babylon’s rule for a time as penance, or else face greater punishment in years to come. A king’s false prophet tried to break the pronouncement by seizing Jeremiah, taking the yoke off from around his neck, and breaking it. But the Lord said, “By breaking the wooden yoke, you have forged an iron yoke!” (re: Deut 28:48 above).

                Vows and pledges were also considered sacred (equal in value to ‘in the beginning was the Word’). Joshua made an alliance and an oath not to harm the Gibeonites (Jos 9:15). King Saul broke that oath by putting many Gibeonites to death. A three-year famine raged across the land, and the Lord said it was because of this bloodguilt. David offered up seven of Saul’s descendants as bounty for that vengeance (2 Sam 21:1-9). The broken vow most responsible for the Israelites’ centuries-long suffering was their continual breaking of the Lord’s sacred covenant which was established through Moses.

                A very obvious textual conflict occurred in Joshua (21:43-45; 23:14) which involved the Lord’s own sworn oath. Joshua proclaimed that the Lord had given Israel all the land he had promised to their fathers that he would give them … peace on every side … not one of their enemies could withstand them … not a single promise … was broken. Yet in numerous passages the conquest was described as incomplete (Josh 13:1; 16:10; 17:12; Jud 1:21; 2:21-23; 3:1) and the fighting continued long after Joshua’s death. A partial answer to this conflict is presented in Judges 2:20-23: ‘inasmuch as this nation has violated my covenant … I for my part will not clear away from them any more of the nations which Joshua left when he died … through these nations the Israelites were to be made to prove whether or not they would keep to the way of the Lord … therefore the Lord allowed them to remain instead of expelling them immediately’. Just like the Lord’s promises of a perpetual ministry to Eli (1 Sam 2:30) and an everlasting kingship for Saul (1 Sam 13:13-14), they were contingent on the behavior of the receivers of those promises to fulfill their part of the bargain. As a legal point of emphasis, it could be said that the Lord never makes promises; he merely sets forth a testament: a blessing or a curse (Deut 11:26-28), which for us constitutes a test of our solemn word, compliant character, and successful performance. The eternal line of succession promised to David and Solomon was premised on their faithfulness and willingness to obey all the Lord’s commands (1 Kings 6:11-13). Any other type of agreement between heaven and earth would not be justified given the relative positions of the ‘bargaining’ parties. Having acquired at least a substantial portion of Canaan as promised, we may still wonder if the Lord really made their descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky (Gen 26:4), or as the dust of the earth (Gen 28:14; 1 Kings 4:20). Did the Lord bless (those nations) who blessed Israel and curse those who cursed Israel (Gen 12:3)? How then could the Lord ever let Israel be conquered, since the land was given to them as a ‘permanent possession’ (Gen 17:8; Ex 32:13; 1 Kings 8:33-34)? How could a people, a ‘chosen’ people, a holy nation (Ex 19:5-6) ever be slaughtered or overrun or carried into captivity far from their homeland – except that ‘like the nations which the Lord destroys before you, so shall you too perish for not heeding the voice of the Lord’ (Deut  8:20).

                We may renounce, despite our cardinal belief, that ‘I am the Lord; I do not change’; and let us be much grateful that the Bible has deluded us in that regard. For if the Lord did not change, he would not have repented of the evil he planned on Ninevah (Jonah 3:10); he would not have listened to Moses’ prayers to spare the Israelites for their many sins (Deut 9:16-19; 10:10; Ex 32: 9-14; Num 11:2; 21:7-8); he would not have delayed the destruction of King Ahab and his familial line (1 Kings 21:17-29); he would not have withheld immediate punishment of King David, King Solomon, and a host of others who had committed the mortal sins of adultery, murder, idolatry, and more, well deserving of death under His (Mosaic) law; moreover, he would not have seen fit to grant you and me any remission of sins for a full forgiveness. As it is written:

-          If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land (2 Chron 7:14)

-          Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him: and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon (Is 55:7)

-          If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9)

-          You will cast into the depths of the sea all our sins (Micah 7:19)

-          As far as the east is from the west … has he removed our transgressions from us (Ps 103:12)

Jesus, when asked which is the greatest commandment in the law, responded, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind”. Perhaps there is a corresponding basis for determining how and when God will acknowledge our recovery into grace:  

-           Return to me and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts (Mal 3:7)

But we knew this from the beginning, from Genesis onward. Creation is the movement of God, while we still hope in our hearts for the chance to become one more new creation.

Dr. Walter Boswell