Red Herring Arguments: Difference between revisions

Line 15:

==Jonah prophesied against Nineveh but it was not destroyed==

The problem with this explanation is that it is done without a knowledge of scripture.

Jonah prophesied against Nineveh saying that it would be destroyed but but it wasn't. Similarly William Branham prophesied certain things and they didn't come to pass. God works that way sometimes.

The problem with this explanation is that it is done without a true knowledge of the scripture.

God told Jeremiah:

Line 59:

Line 61:

The two examples of Biblical "errors" that VOGR gives are:

#Paul's story of his conversion experience differs between Acts 9 and Acts 22. How can you believe the Bible if it can't get its facts straight on whether Paul companions heard the voice or not?

#Genesis 15:13 says that the Egyptians would afflict the Israelits for four hundred year but Exodus 12:40 states that “the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. How can the Bible be trusted if there is a difference of 30 years?

#Every Gospel tells the resurrection story differently. How can the Bible be true if a story this important is different in all four accounts?

#Every Gospel tells the resurrection story differently. How can the Bible be true if a story this important is different in all four accounts (i.e. the number of women and angels present at the tomb)?

===Differences in Paul's Conversion Experiences===

Line 92:

Line 93:

No chronological problem exists between Genesis 15:13 (“400 years”) and Exodus 12:40 (“430 years”).

While 400 could easily be a general, rounded-off time span, the Jewish rabbis’ ancient resolution is that Genesis 15:13 speaks of Israel’s ~~captivity~~ in Egypt and Ex 12:40 speaks of the longer gap ~~from Abraham’s entrance into Canaan~~ to ~~Moses’ leading the people out of Egypt~~. Hence, this latter span includes the additional 30 years.

While 400 could easily be a general, rounded-off time span, the Jewish rabbis’ ancient resolution is that Genesis 15:13 speaks of Israel’s affliction in Egypt and Ex 12:40 speaks of the longer gap of their sojourning (i.e. they were not afflicted immediately after Joseph's death but only after the pharaoh came to power that did not know Joseph. Hence, this latter span includes the additional 30 years.

===Differences in the Gospel Accounts===

There are a number of explanations for the differences in the stories between the Gospel accounts, the simplest being: There are 4 different people telling the same story. Who in their right mind would expect them to be exactly the same? If you have 4 eye witnesses at the scene of an accident, will they all agree? In particular, when none of the men who wrote the accounts were actually present at the tomb with the women, they are simply relying on the memories that they recalled.

There are four '''different''' men telling the story and we are supposed to be '''shocked and surprised''' that their accounts are slightly different? Seriously?

The biggest problem is that VoGR does not truly state the facts in the case. Far from its being true that two of the Gospels state that they “saw only one angel,” not one of the Gospels states that they saw only one angel. It is true that Matthew says that “they saw an angel” (Matt 28:1–5), and Mark says: “They saw a young man,” presumably an angel (Mark 16:5–7); but neither Matthew nor Mark says that they saw “only” one angel. Saying that they saw one does not preclude the possibility of their seeing two.

Furthermore, it is not true that two of the Gospels state that the women saw two angels at the grave. It is true that Luke says (Luke 24:3–4) that after they had entered into the sepulcher two men (presumably angels) stood by them in dazzling apparel. But this apparently does not refer to the incident that Matthew refers to at all, for the angel there mentioned was an angel who was outside the sepulcher. Nor does it seem to refer to the same fact of which Mark speaks, for the young man (or angel) in Mark’s gospel was one who was sitting on the right side of the sepulcher. This angel may have been joined later by the one who was on the outside, and these two together may have stood by the women. This seems more likely, as the message uttered by the two in Luke is in part the same as that uttered by the angel outside the sepulcher in Matthew, and by the young man inside the sepulcher in Mark (Luke 24:5–6; Matthew 28:5–7; Mark 16:5–7).

The very simple solution is that there was an angel outside the tomb when the women approached, and they saw another one inside sitting. The one outside entered, and the one sitting arose, and standing by the women they uttered together or after one another the words recorded in Matthew and in Mark and in Luke.

But how about the account in John? John does tell us that there were two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain (John 20:12–13). How can we reconcile that with the other three?

Very easily.

It was not the group of women at all that saw these two angels, but we are distinctly told it was Mary alone. Mary started out with the other women for the sepulcher, got a little ahead of the group, was the first to see the stone rolled away from the tomb (John 20:1), immediately jumped at the conclusion that the tomb had been rifled, and ran at top speed to the city to carry the news to Peter and John (John 20:2). While she was going into the city, the other women reached and entered the tomb, and the things recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke occurred. These women left the sepulcher before Mary reached it the second time. Peter and John had also left it when Mary reached the sepulcher; and two angels, the one who had been on the outside and the one who at first had been sitting on the inside, were both sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain.

All the other apparent contradictions in the four accounts of the resurrection — and they are quite numerous — also disappear on careful study.

But as we mentioned above, these apparent contradictions are themselves proof of the truth and the accuracy of the accounts.

It is evident that these four accounts are separate and independent accounts. If four different persons had sat down to make up a story in collusion of a resurrection that never occurred, they would have made their four accounts appear to agree, at least on the surface. Whatever contradictions there might be in the four accounts would only come out after minute and careful study.

But just the opposite is the case here. It is all on the surface that the apparent contradictions occur. It is only by careful and protracted study that the real agreement shines forth. It is just such a harmony as would not exist between four accounts fabricated in collusion. It is just such an agreement as would exist in four independent accounts of substantially the same circumstances, each narrator telling the same story from his own standpoint, relating such details as impressed him, omitting other details which did not impress him but which did impress another narrator and which the other narrator related.

Sometimes two accounts would seem to contradict one another, but the third account would come in and unintentionally reconcile the apparent discrepancies between the two. This is precisely what we have in the four accounts of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We should thank God that there are these apparent discrepancies among them. The more one studies the four accounts of the resurrection, the more they will be convinced, if the person is honest, that they are separate and independent accounts, and a truthful narration of what actually occurred. They could not have been fabricated in collusion with one another — the very discrepancies urged prove this. Much less could they have been fabricated independently of one another. Four men sitting down independently of one another to fabricate an account of something that never occurred would have agreed with one another nowhere, but in point of fact the more we study these four accounts the more clearly we discover how well they fit in with one another.

In the basic fundamental truths, the Gospels have absolutely no contradictions. The so-called variations in the narratives are only the details which were mostly vividly impressed on one mind or another of the witnesses of our Lord’s resurrection, or on the mind of the writers of these four respective Gospels.

The closest, most critical, examination of these narratives throughout the ages has never destroyed and can never destroy their powerful testimony to the truth that Christ did rise from the dead on the third day, and was seen of many.

=Why a Comparison to William Branham's Failed Prophecies is a Red Herring=

The issues in the failed or flawed prophecies of William Branham are completely different from the two issues raised above.

Why?

One needs to look at each of the prophecies to determine what the problem is.

~~===Differences~~ in the ~~Gospel Accounts===~~

For example, [[The Municipal Bridge Vision]] was not fulfilled. No one died. For more details on why we can say this, [[The Municipal Bridge Vision|look at our article on the subject.]] This is not similar to any of the so-called discrepancies in the Bible that we discussed above. Similarly, it has nothing to do with speaking judgement against a nation and the nation repenting. The big problem is that William Branham said that the vision was fulfilled '''but it was not.'''

~~There are~~ a ~~number~~ of ~~explanations for the differences~~ in ~~the stories between the Gospel accounts, the simplest being: There are 4 different people telling the same~~ story. ~~Who in their right mind~~ would ~~expect them~~ to be ~~exactly~~ the same?

The [[The Vision of the Meetings in South Africa|African Vision]] was also not fulfilled. This is again not a case of a nation avoiding judgement by repenting. It is not a case of a slight discrepancy in a story. This is a case where William Branham prophesied that he would speak to 300,000 people but he didn't it never happened. This simply cannot be compared to the issues raised with the Bible. They're just not the same.

=Conclusion=

The people that rely on the excuse (and it is an excuse) that the Bible has errors in it, simply don't have a good understanding of the Bible (and this includes those message ministers that use this claim). They are simply yielding to the normal progression of [[Cognitive Dissonance]]. The first easy answer that they get is good enough for them.

Those that state that some of the failed prophesies of William Branham are comparable to that of Jonah's failed prophecy similarly fail to understand the principles of Biblical prophecy.

Line 105:

Line 151:

Josh McDowell and Don Douglas Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1993)

Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, E. Ray Clendenen et al., The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith, 1756 (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2007).

R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible: Alleged Errors and Contradictions (Willow Grove: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing, 1998).