Sermon Notes: The Bible & its Critics IV (Different accounts, but all TRUE!)

The Bible and its Critics (Part IV: Different but True)

(Pastor Terry L. Reese, Valley GBC, Armagh, PA, June 28, AD 2020)

Text: John 17:11-21.

Intro: Final message on Bible Difficulties.

We haven’t answered all the complaints various critics have brought up, but we have sought to arm you with various principles.

One of the reasons we should know these things is because our children often prove to be easy prey for the most absurd of arguments. A few flimsy arguments from a college professor, and many of them are lost to us forever, despite being raised in the church.

1 John 2:19: They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

I. Today: we deal with the uncritical assumption that differing or divergent accounts of the same historical incident means that there has been a contradiction, or error, within the one or both of the narratives. For example: I Samuel & II Samuel and I & II Kings vs. I & II Chronicles give differing (but not contradictory) accounts of the era of the Kings. Likewise, the Gospels each recount the life and ministry of Jesus somewhat differently.

Examples of differing accounts:

o   Matthew & Mark mention an angel at the Empty Tomb (Matt. 28:5, Mark 16:5); but Luke 24:4 and John mention two (20:12).

o   How many women were at the tomb? Matthew only refers to the two Marys, but Mark also mentions Salome.

o   Matthew mentions two demoniacs at Gedara (8:28-34); Mark and Luke only mention one (Mark 5:1-20, Luke 8:26-39).

o   Matthew mentions two blind men being healed at Jericho (20:30); Mark and Luke mention only one—Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus (Mark 10:46, Luke 18:35).

o   Matthew & Mark tell us that Jesus healed the blind men upon leaving Jericho; Luke seems to imply the healing took place upon entering Jericho.

How, then, shall we deal with such seeming “contradictions?”

II. Principle #1: These differences are not contradictory, but supplemental.

A. The Gospels—represent four different viewpoints, with different themes and original target audiences in mind.

o   Matthew—unto the Jews—Jesus the Messiah—What did Jesus say?

o   Mark—unto the Romans—Jesus the Man of action and power—What did Jesus do?

o   Luke—unto the Greeks—Jesus the Son of Man—Who were His followers?

o   John—unto the Church—Jesus the eternal Son of God—Who was Jesus? (John 8:24, 58)

Each has his own audience, agenda, message, and point of view… In this regard, it is much like four witnesses to a modern traffic accident—each will involve different details, as reported from different angles. Indeed, law enforcement will tell us that different details from witnesses are a sign of the sort of testimony which is genuine; there has been no artificial collusion amongst the witnesses to come up with an “official story.”

B. Different emphases amongst the writers are reflected in the materials chosen: For example, a Washington party is covered by several different reporters: a political reporter, a society reporter, a gossip columnist, etc. The stories will be different; each reporter will have different themes, and different points of emphasis. Different—but not contradictory information—should not bother us.

In this regard, nor should omitting or leaving out certain information bother us. For example—you wouldn’t talk much about Mike Tyson or Muhammed Ali in a formal study about Italian-American boxers. You would, however, speak a lot about Jake La Motta, Rocky Marciano, and Rocky Graziano.

II. The Law of Non-contradiction.

In logic, the law of non-contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time (e.g., the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive).

In accounts where “one” is mentioned instead of “two,” there is no contradiction if you only mention the one. There is no contradiction, provided that you don’t say “only one.”

 Wherever there is two, there is always one! No logical contradiction!

Consider the case of the demoniacs of Gadara:

Matt. 8:28: When He came to the other side into the country of the Gadarenes, two men who were demon-possessed met Him as they were coming out of the tombs.

Mark 5:2-3: When He got out of the boat, immediately a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit met Him, and he had his dwelling among the tombs [Luke 8:27]

III. A Case study: Jesus and the blind men of Jericho.

Compare:

Matt. 20:29-30  And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him. And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.

Mark 10:46 And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.

Luke 18:35  And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh [approaching] unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side begging:

Error?

A. How many blind men were there?

Matthew mentions two; Mark & Luke refer to one. But we have already dealt with the one vs. two… there is no contradiction, because Mark & Luke do not refer to ONLY one…

B. But what of the issue of entering (Luke) vs. leaving (Matthew & Mark) Jericho?

o   There are various explanations offered with regard to this incident (e.g., multiple healings, or perhaps one healing in various stages).

o   Archeology and historical research provide the best solution: In Roman times, a new Gentile “Jericho” was built a mile down the road from the old Jewish Jericho. Thus, NT Jericho can be described as follows: two settlements, with a busy little road lined with merchants (and beggars) in between!

o   The healing took place after Jesus had left Jewish Jericho and before he entered Gentile Jericho. Robertson’s Word Pictures:

“It is probable that Mark and Matthew refer to the old Jericho, the ruins of which have been discovered, while Luke alludes to the new Roman Jericho. The two blind men were apparently between the two towns… In Kentucky there are two towns about a half mile apart both called Pleasureville (one Old Pleasureville, the other New Pleasureville).”

Error? No—except for the critics’ lack of awareness, knowledge, and faith!

Also, perhaps this factor comes into play: Matthew, with his Jewish emphasis talks about Jesus leaving (Jewish) Jericho; Luke, writing unto the Gentiles, sees Jesus entering (Gentile) Jericho.

So, in the end, four principles come together here to explain this one “contradiction:”

1. Our lack of the knowledge of the historical background creates “errors;”

2. Our lack understanding the laws of contradiction creates “errors;”

3. Our lack of understanding of the emphasis of the writers creates “errors;”

4. Our lack of Faith in presupposing that this is God’s inerrant Word creates “errors.”

IV. Conclusion.

What if there were no ready answers from the realm of history or archeology? Would we still believe the Word of God? Or, must we have to wait until some archeologist makes a Bible-confirming discovery (e.g., the Hittites, the Pilate inscription) before we are able to believe?

What about those generations of saints that lived before such discoveries were made? How did they manage to believe?

Answer: We presume that this is God’s Word (2 Tim. 3:16). It gets the benefit of the doubt. We believe God’s Word because it is God’s powerful Word—exhaled from the very Being of the God of Truth.

Circular reasoning? No; God has a direct route, to the human heart. He has hard-wired the human heart, and Man is without excuse if it fails to acknowledge His self-authenticating Word (Rom. 1). His sheep, however, know His voice (John 10:3-5). It is self-evident to them.

Must we first rationalistically “prove” the Bible? No. Rather, we walk by faith, not by sight. We are saved on the basis of trust in what we don’t see…

John 20:29: Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

In the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16), the Rich Man desires that a resurrected messenger—something “real” and empirical—be sent to his brethren, to convince them of the truth of the Gospel; in his estimation, the Word by itself isn’t good enough to accomplish this.

But God’s shocking response to him was that neither miracles nor empirical evidences can do what the Word cannot do. If the Light is refused, nothing else will work!

1 Cor. 1:21-25: ²¹For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. ²²For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; ²³but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, ²⁴but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Even the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany from the dead (John 11-12) could not convert the Pharisees! Men must believe on the basis of the inscripturated Word…

John 17:20: "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word…”

Our counsel to you, beloved is to stick to Word when witnessing to the lost, and not allow yourself to be distracted from presenting the Gospel by “difficulties”…

God had a purpose in giving us His Word:

John 20:31: “…but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Sermon Notes: The Bible and its Critics (Literary Concerns & Issues)

The Bible and its Critics (Part III: Literary Issues)

(Pastor Terry L. Reese, Valley GBC, Armagh, PA, June 21, AD 2020)

Text: 2 Pet. 1:16-21.

We saw in previous messages that Our Lord Jesus Christ placed His Divine stamp of approval upon the entire sacred Canon of 66 Books—but this has not stopped godless men from finding all manner of “difficulties” with the Scriptures.

Natural man has a vested interest in pulling down the Word of God, for within its authoritative proclamations lies his own doom!

Heb. 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 

I. Critics of the Word of God ceaselessly claim errors, always presuming it “Guilty!” Often, the answers are quite simple—but once again, no answer will prove sufficient for some (Matt. 7:6).

For the sincere questioner and honest seeker, however, we should endeavor to provide reasonable responses to their concerns (1 Pet. 3:15), and we should also desire to minister to our fellow believers who are looking for answers to various difficulties.

Once again, we remind you of our most basic assumption and presupposition as believers when we approach the Word: while there are difficulties and enigmas (2 Pet. 3:15-16), there are no errors. As a DIVINE BOOK, it must be presupposed to be accurate, holy, authoritative, and infinitely trustworthy! As Jesus reminds us in John 17:17b: "Thy word is truth.”

But, there are things that are hard to understand; thus, the reason behind this entire series on Bible difficulties.

Today, we look at problems related to Literary Issues—and many of these “problems,” in the last analysis, will prove to be mere misapprehensions. We now bring to the table various questions and inappropriate expectations in this regard that have unsettled various individuals and caused many of these so-called “difficulties.” Some of these concerns, as we shall see, are patently ridiculous, but have nonetheless have proven to serve as a cause for angst amongst various individuals.

I. Question # 1: “Can the Bible be judged appropriately according to Today’s modern literary styles? Is this fair?”

Answer: The Bible must be properly understood according to the literary styles, standards, and conventions of the age in which it was written.

Let us remind ourselves that the inerrant Word of God is a HUMAN book, as well as a Divine book.

2 Pet. 1:20-21 ESV “²⁰…knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. ²¹For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

The Holy Spirit infallibly guided and bore along (2 Pet. 1:20-21) the human authors (much like Paul’s ship was driven along in Acts 27:15 & 17 during the tempest, in which the same Greek terminology is employed). In a wonderfully mysterious process, the Holy Spirit employed their human faculties, literary styles, and personal experiences to say exactly what the God of Truth wanted them say, down to the very words they chose.

The authors Scripture were not unconscious or empty vessels (as one sees in the occult world with the phenomenon of “automatic writing,” or like Mohammed and the Koran, in which he entered an ecstatic trance-state). The process of the inspiration of Scripture was infinitely more mysterious than simple mechanical dictation theories will allow. Hence, the writings of the Biblical authors are not only Divine, but tremendously human and personal. Note the passion of the repentant David:

Ps. 51:2-4: Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin! For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

The Bible (and every other literary document written by men) must be properly analyzed and understood according to the literary styles, standards, and conventions of the age in which it was written.

Every age has its own literary conventions, which may seem unusual to people living in another time frame. For example…

·         Paul’s name is placed at the beginning (not the end) of his letters;

·         Moses and Daniel speak of themselves in the third person in their writings, rather than in the 1^st Person (note that Caesar did the same thing in his history of the Gallic campaign);

·         Genealogies are often abbreviated—a common practice in antiquity, but not so much today:

Matt. 1: 8: And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias…

Betweem Joram and Ozias were three kings: Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, which are here omitted. Matthew had his own literary purpose in doing this; there is no error on Matthew’s part! Modern literary conventions and genealogical practices don’t apply here!

II. Question #2: “Why is the life of Christ laid out differently by different Gospel writers? Why is there a different ordering of events, and why are various events omitted in some accounts?”

Answer: Let us understand that the Gospels not written simply as matter-of-fact, modern chronologically-structured biographies. Each Gospel writer had his own themes and special purposes in writing, and also had different initial target audiences (e.g., Matthew had a special emphasis towards the Jews). Thus, each writer arranged and chose their material in accordance with these specific needs.

Thus…

o   While some material is arranged chronologically, some is arranged thematically.

o   The authors are not claiming that everything they present is in accordance with a strict chronology!

o   Imposing modern literary styles and conventions upon ancient men, with regard to their choices in organizing material, is patently absurd.

III. Question #3: “Does the Bible employ such well-known literary conventions such as rounding-off numbers and paraphrasing… and is this OK for an inerrant book?”

Answer: “Yes” on both counts! The Bible employs the following literary devices:

a.    The language of appearance (common, non-technical, everyday, descriptive language (Josh. 1:15: “the sunrise”);

b.    Round (as opposed to exact) numbers (1 Chron. 19:18);

c.    Paraphrasing (i.e., restating things using different words, rather than employing exact quotation).

Let us analyze these conventions individually…

a) The language of appearance. The Bible uses the everyday, non-technical language of appearance in order to describe things.

For example, Joshua 1:15 speaks of “the sunrise”—yet, we know that from a purely scientific basis, that this phenomenon is not caused by the sun’s motion, but by the Earth spinning upon its axis. But things are NOT required to be written in technical, scientific jargon in order to be true. These things were written for people of all times, using common, everyday, phenomenalistic language. Scientists of our own day use this language, in popular conversation. It is a matter of author’s INTENT!

b) The use of round numbers.

1 Chron. 19:18: The Arameans fled before Israel, and David killed of the Arameans 7,000 charioteers and 40,000 foot soldiers, and put to death Shophach the commander of the army.

Is this an exact number? If not, does that make it a false report? No; again, it is a matter of author’s INTENT! The Chronicler is not intending to give an exact, precise, numerically accurate statistical report. He is employing linguistic and numeric shorthand so that we get the main idea. For example, it is not inaccurate to state that Hitler killed 6,000,000 Jews. We understand this to be a generalization. INTENT!

c) Paraphrasing.

The Bible uses the literary device of paraphrasing (i.e., restating things using different words, rather than employing exact quotation). This “problem” involves the following misperceptions:

              i.        Modern critics sometimes seem to lack the consciousness that the Biblical writers do, in fact, often paraphrase;

            ii.        The above misapprehension is sometimes misperceived by critics as a failure of the author’s to quote accurately.

Biblical statements are not always direct quotes—and do not claim to be! Many modern translations, for the sake of readability, employ the device of quotation marks—but there are no quotation marks in the original languages!

Thus, with regard to Peter’s good confession of Jesus as the Christ, there are three different wordings given:

Matt 16:16: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Mark 8:29: "You are the Christ."

Luke 9:20: "The Christ of God."

Likewise, the New Testament also paraphrases the Old Testament, employing “free” quotation:

Matt. 2:6:  And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

Micah 5:2:  But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Statements are paraphrased by the authors in their own words for emphasis of meaning. We do all of these things today—and it is understood, by way of INTENT, what we are doing! These are not “errors;” they are acceptable literary devices and conventions.

IV. Another misunderstanding of language: confusing general statements with universal ones, or proverbial truisms with absolute truths.

Often the Bible (e.g., Proverbs) offers general truisms—which are general rules-of-thumb that USUALLY hold true. They do, however, admit of EXCEPTIONS. These are given for purposes of general guidance (e.g., Prov. 16:7, Prov. 22:6)—not for universal assurance. Let us consider, for example, the case of Prov. 22:6:

Prov. 22:6: Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it.

But what about the notorious gunslinger John Wesley Hardin, who killed perhaps forty men? He was the son of a devout Methodist minister, James "Gip" Hardin, who named his son after the founder of the Methodist Church. And what of modern “church brats”—the badly behaving sons and daughters of godly pastors, who are often the shame and reproach of many a local church? Or, what of the wicked sons of the prophet Samuel and King Josiah—two of the most faithful men in the Bible? Should Prov. 22:6 be seen as a falsehood?

Not at all. Prov. 22:6 is intended as a truism, demonstrating a general pattern of truth—but it is not intended by Solomon as an absolute truth that will not permit exceptions.

Absolute truths, however, are ALWAYS true without any exception whatsoever (e.g., John 3:16 & Rom. 10:13). God’s great and everlasting promises of salvation and eternal security for the believer will ALWAYS hold true!

V. Conclusion.

Natural man, as we stated at the outset, has a vested interest in pulling down the Word of God, for within its authoritative proclamations lies his doom. That’s why he strips himself of all common sense, and relentlessly searches for error, even in the most ridiculous places.

1Cor. 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 

Natural man has a with a final, unerring, objective source of authority in a post-Christian, postmodern world that is floundering in moral and ethical ambiguity. His relationship to Jesus is like that of the wicked citizens in the Parable of the Ten Minas in Luke 19:14:

“But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, 'We will not have this man to reign over us.'”

It also recalls the relationship between God and the Israelites in the days of the Judges:

Judges 21: 25: “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”

There is no problem with the Word of God—only with Modern Man in his insane flight from Reason and Truth…

The Final World

We conclude our series "The Five World's of Scripture" with discussion upon the perfect New Heavens and New Earth, our eternal home.

Studies in Daniel: The training of Daniel and his friends in the Babylonian Captivity (1:3-7)

2. The training of Daniel and his friends in the Captivity (1:3-7)

a. The “cream” of Judah’s young men taken (1:3-4a)—in fulfillment of prophecy!

1:3a: “…Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs”

o   The term “eunuch” (Heb., sâris) does not necessarily refer to a castrated eunuch (cf., Potiphar, a married man, was also a sâris).

o   No evidence, despite speculations from Josephus, that Daniel became a eunuchs; note v. 4: “no blemish.” Eunuchs ineligible from participating in the political & religious affairs of the nation: Deut. 23:1.

1:3b: “…to bring…some of the king’s descendants and some of the nobles”

o   Children of the nobility. Probably indicates teenagers.

o   The fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy to King Hezekiah (cf., 2 Kings 20:12-19, Isa. 39:1-8) for misplaced trust in a Babylonian alliance against Assyria.

o   Carried off, from their homes and families, 800 miles, to Babylon.

1:4a: “young men in whom there was no blemish…”

o   Young men of the highest quality; the “best and the brightest,” highly serviceable to Nebuchadnezzar. Sound physically & mentally; socially poised.

b. Nebuchadnezzar’s potential purposes in taking the young men.

            i.        Hostages? A means of keeping their families under check.

          ii.        Trophies? A sign of Babylon’s supremacy.

         iii.        Most probable & foremost: to serve as future royal servants and administrators—especially with regard to affairs relating to Judah. The youths would be assimilated into Babylonian culture.

c. The Babylonian Method of Assimilation, or “Brainwashing” (vv. 4b-7).

i. Mental indoctrination, or reprogramming: changing their way of thinking.

Formal education: an intense 3 year program of university-style formal education (v. 4b-5) in the Akkadian & Aramaic languages and in classical Mesopotamian literature; the best and the worst of Babylonian learning!

ii. Changing their way of worship…

Name changes (vv. 6-7): a sign of subjection (cf., Gen. 2:19-20; 2 Kings 23:34).

o   Their earlier Hebrew names perhaps indicative of the spirituality of their parents. The training Daniel and his friends had as children probably gave them a solid foundation to withstand such powerful foreign influences (Prov. 22:6).

o   The new names allude to Babylonian deities—hateful to a pious Jew (Ps. 16:4). The meaning of some of the Babylonian names is debated.

i. Daniel (“God is Judge”)ðBelteshazzar (“Divine Lady, protect the king”)

ii. Hananiah (“YHWH has been gracious) ðShadrach (“Command of Aku”)

iii. Mishael (“Who is as God?”) ðMeshach (“Who is what Aku is?”)

iv. Azariah (“YHWH is my help”) ðAbednego (“Servant of Nabu”)

o   Such indoctrination practices known in our own times:

“According to a decree issued in 1966, Muslims in Albania had to change their names to Albanian names while newborn Albanians had to receive non-religious names. In a decree of November 1975, all the citizens of Albania whose names were considered objectionable by the Albanian Communist Party were ordered to change their names to "pure Albanian names" by the end of the year.”—Wikipedia, “Albanian name” entry

iii. Lifestyle practices (v. 5); changing their way of living.

The King placed before them the rich, enticing provisions that he himself enjoyed!

APPLICATION: The Adversary is still in the brainwashing and indoctrination business! Every day of our lives we are drinking in vast amounts of intellectual, social, spiritual, and cultural pollution arising from the unregenerate world into our system. We need the God’s cleansing Word everyday!

Some passages for reflection:

I Peter 5:8-9: Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world.

Rom. 12:1-2: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

John 17:17: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”

Eph. 5:25-27: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

John 13:8: Peter said to Him, "You shall never wash my feet!" Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me."

Bulletin Insert: The Bible & its Critics (Literary Issues & Misunderstandings)

The Bible & its Critics (Literary Issues)

(Pastor Terry L. Reese, Valley GBC, Armagh, PA, June 21, AD 2020)

“Problems” related to Literary Issues tend to be simple misunderstandings with regard to the original author’s intent.

I. Question 1: “Can the Bible be judged appropriately according to Today’s modern literary styles? Is this fair?”

Answer: The Bible must be properly understood according to the literary styles, standards, and conventions of the age in which it was written.

Ancient literary practices may seem unusual to people today.

·         Moses and Daniel speak of themselves in the 3rd person in their books (as did Caesar did in his writings!).

·         Genealogies were often abbreviated—a common practice in antiquity, but not so today (e.g., Matt. 1: 8).  

II. Question 2: “Why is the life of Christ laid out differently by different Gospel writers? Why a different ordering of events, and why are various events omitted in some accounts?”

Answer: the Gospels were not written to be simple, matter-of-fact, modern chronologically-structured biographies.

Each Gospel writer had his own themes & special purposes in writing, and each had their own different target-audience (e.g., Matthew had a Jewish emphasis). Thus, each writer arranged and chose his material with this in mind. Thus…

o   Some material is arranged chronologically, but some is arranged thematically.

o   The authors are not claiming that everything they present follows some sort of strict chronology!

III. Question 3: “Does the Bible employ such well-known literary conventions such as rounding-off numbers and paraphrasing… and is this OK for an inerrant book?”

Answer: “Yes” on both counts! The Bible employs a variety of standard literary devices.

a.    The language of appearance (common, non-technical, everyday, descriptive language (Josh. 1:15: “the sunrise”).

b.    Round (as opposed to exact) numbers (1 Chron. 19:18).

c.    Paraphrasing (i.e., restating things using different words, rather than employing exact quotation).

Thus, with regard to Peter’s good confession of Jesus as the Christ, there are three different wordings given:

Matt. 16:16: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Mark 8:29: "You are the Christ."

Luke 9:20: "The Christ of God."

Biblical statements are not always direct quotes—and do not claim to be! Many modern translations, for the sake of readability, employ the device of quotation marks—but there are no quotation marks in the original languages!

The New Testament also paraphrases the Old, using “free” quotation (e.g., Matt. 2:6, Micah 5:2). Statements are sometimes restated by the authors in their own words for emphasis of meaning.

We do all of these things today—and it is understood, by way of INTENT, what we are doing! These are not “errors;” they are acceptable literary devices and conventions.

IV. Another misunderstanding of language: confusing general statements with universal ones, or proverbial truisms with absolute truths.

Often the Bible (e.g., Proverbs) offers general truisms—which are general rules-of-thumb that USUALLY hold true. They do, however, admit of EXCEPTIONS. These are given for purposes of general guidance (e.g., Prov. 16:7, Prov. 22:6) —not for universal assurance.

Absolute truths, however, are ALWAYS true without any exception whatsoever (e.g., John 3:16 & Rom. 10:13). God’s great and everlasting promises of salvation and eternal security for the believer will ALWAYS hold true!