ARCHER’S ERRORS AND LIES ABOUT HIS NON-CONTRADICTORY BIBLE
Gleason W Archer published an important work of apologetics for Bible
Christianity in 1916. It is the Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties.
The introduction shows that one cannot seriously believe in Jesus if one denies
that some of the stories of the Old Testament are history like Adam and Eve and
so forth. If the Bible errs then it cannot be trusted in religious matters - the
things of supreme importance. You do not drink a bottle of poison because the
label says it will do you no harm and you see erroneous statements on the label.
The book seeks to prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch and that there are not
errors or contradictions in the Bible – every traditional opinion of the Bible
in short.
The book says that the Bible states that Moses wrote the entire five books of
the Law, or the Torah (page 45). But in fact that it merely attributes certain
parts of it to Moses and does not say who wrote the rest. The real reason for
this strange idea is because Archer thinks that Jesus himself thought that Moses
wrote the Law. The source of a doctrine is as important as the content so if
Jesus was wrong about the source the doctrine had no foundation or a weaker one.
The authority of the five books would be stronger if Moses actually wrote them
for he was a major prophet. So if Jesus were a prophet he would have known by
the light of God that Moses wrote the law from which Jesus took doctrines. So
Archer is determined then to bend the evidence to fit what he reckons Jesus
says. His book says that certain features show that the author is more familiar
with Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula than Palestine so Moses was the author. But
these do not prove that Moses was the author for they only show that whoever the
author was he either did his homework or he was there. Many Israelites came from
Egypt with Moses and would have had records and any of them could have been
responsible for the Torah. The Law could still have been forged using ancient
writings centuries after Israel settled itself in Palestine. It is dishonest to
argue that the author knew little about Palestine for the books were concerned
with the wandering in the desert and had no need to mention Palestine.
Appalling evidences for Mosiac authorship are proposed which argue from the fact
that some material in it can be traced back to a time like that of Moses that
Moses must have been the author. This is garbage. We cannot expect much better
of an Encyclopaedia that says that since Abel sacrificed a lamb to God that he
knew of the salvation offered by Christ and was the first saved person to die
(page 76). The book insists that Numbers 12:3 which calls Moses the humblest of
men, was written by God through Moses so Moses was not bragging about himself
(page 136). It cites the authority of Haley, author of the notorious, Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible, himself for this. But this rests on the unfounded
assumption that Moses wrote Numbers. Christians invent miracles to cover up the
errors of Jesus and that is not on for they would not tolerate Mormons saying
that God forced Joseph Smith to copy the Bible to make the Book of Mormon.
The Epistle to the Hebrews insists that Melchizidek had no parents but was a
divine being for he had no beginning or end. Archer disputes this and says that
it only means that no parents were mentioned in the Old Testament. But the words
would have been taken literally if it had been Christ not Melchizidek.
In the Book of Exodus we read that Moses did miracles in Egypt during
competition with the Egyptian magicians and priests who were able to replicate
many of these miracles. It is asserted on page 113 that Pharaoh's magicians
performed their miracles by trickery. But would the Egyptians have been
impressed by them if they had? There is always something in such trickery to
give one away. For example, when a conjurer does a trick you know it is a trick
though you cannot explain how it’s done when you see him doing and saying
unnecessary things. A real magician would not find a chosen card after taking
the pack from you but would magic it out of the pack without taking it.
Page 123 seeks to justify the divine toleration of polygamy in the Old
Testament. It says that a man taking a second wife would not be adultery. But
that is saying that it is a valid marriage. But how can it be a real marriage
when marriage involves the complete giving of self to another and you cannot
give yourself completely to one woman and then another? Archer said that rulers
needed to practice polygamy when it was the sole way to sire children for
without them the greater evil of strife and civil war could result. The Bible
never says that. It never says why polygamy is allowed which gives the
impression that it was only allowed because it was thought to be right. To allow
polygamy for that reason would be like saying you may murder a man because he is
a potential killer! You may not for he might never do it. And would divorce not
be better if the first wife proved barren? It would be more honest anyway. At
least monogamy would be preserved.
The error in Leviticus that declares that rabbits chew their cud is casually
brushed off (126). The explanation is that it is handy to say they do to forbid
eating them just because it looks like they do it. But you can magic away any
mistake that way. Would Archer agree with a person who says he saw Mary at the
scene of a murder when he only saw a person who resembled Mary? The likes of
Archer will have to say that any rabbit that went into the Holy Land in those
days was miraculously enabled to chew the cud until the Law had passed. Such a
credulous explanation would make it possible to reconcile any contradiction at
all. Incredibly, it is claimed by some extremists that the word for cud can mean
berry or grain too so they solve the problem by saying not that the rabbit chews
the cud but that the rabbit chews the berry (See Web, Rabbits do not chew their
cud, Alleged Bible Contradictions). This ignores the context which considers
animals that do dirty things to be unclean and chewing the cud is eating dung
and is dirty and the rabbit is being accused of chewing the cud. If you can’t
eat animals that eat the berries then you can eat nothing. The fact that
Christians are able to come up with ten explanations for every Bible
contradiction shows that something is wrong for only one of them, naturally the
simplest one, or none of them can be acceptable. They are only making the Bible
seem useless and unclear with their efforts to delude their sheep. It would have
to be very vague to be able to legitimately take their rationalizations.
Archer says that Israel did not see God on Sinai though Exodus 24 says they did.
He says they only saw a representation of his beauty and glory for anybody who
sees God will be struck dead (Exodus 33:20) and they lived to tell the tale. It
says that they saw God not an image. Fundies won’t admit a contradiction when
they see it. It is a wonder they don’t say God made an exception for the
Israelites and let them see God. God told Moses that he could not let him see
him for that would kill him (Exodus 33:20). That implies that death follows
seeing God as surely as night follows day for even God can’t stop the sight of
him from killing and has no power to preserve the life. That was the reason why
God had to hide his face.
Archer refuses to perceive the absurdity in this. If God cannot prevent the
sight of him from killing you then God is not all-powerful. You could see God
with your mind and still have your body – only you would be able to do his will
for you cannot resist perfect goodness which is God.
We read that God was got David to sinfully count his people (2 Samuel 24:1) but
in a parallel account we are told that Satan did that (1 Chronicles 21:1,2). The
wording in the two is identical except where Satan is substituted for God in the
latter. Archer says that they can be reconciled. God permitted Satan to trick
David so it can be said that God did it and Satan did it. But God did it
indirectly and Satan directly. But when the passages are nearly the same the
words must have been the same meaning. When one says, “God did it”, and the
other says, “Satan did it”, they must mean did it in the same sense. They are
most likely to. So, the first is saying that God did it directly and this
shocked the person who used the book to make Chronicles and he changed God to
Satan. There had to have been a reason for the change. Also, you never just say
a person did something unless you mean directly. The context of the verses do
not hint that we should take the indirect meaning. Archer’s reconciliation is
implausible.
Archer argues that when Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest of all
(Matthew 13) he meant that it was the smallest seed in Palestine and not the
smallest in the world (329). This may be the black mustard seed but orchid seed
is even smaller. Archer holds that it is unlikely that Jesus meant that mustard
seed was the smallest in the world when he could have meant the smallest seed in
the country he lived in. But all means literally all in the world when the
context does not narrow it down. If Jesus meant only the seeds of Palestine he
would have said so and anyway the orchid grows in Palestine.
All attempts to prove that the Bible is the word of God fail because the Bible
contradicts itself and attempts to hide this are stupid, irresponsible and are
fabricated.