The Resurrection Revisited

The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of conservative faith for Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelical Protestants. Not only do they believe that Jesus died on a cross to atone for the sins of mankind and was buried but he also rose from the dead with an immortal body of flesh. However, when one reads the canonical gospel accounts of Jesus appearing to his disciples after his death, one notices discrepancies which cast serious doubt on the bodily resurrection.

Since this blog was inspired by the work of the late Farrell Till, this article will be based upon and build upon an article of his in The Skeptical Review, titled "The Resurrection Maze". Till rightfully noted an important rule in critical thinking as it applied to the resurrection stories:

"When two or more statements contradict one another, they cannot all be right. If we apply this rule of evidence to the testimony of the "eyewitnesses" to the resurrection, we have to conclude that at least some of the testimony was erroneous. If some of it was erroneous, then the Bible inerrancy doctrine itself must be erroneous."

After stating this, Till didn't do an exhaustive analysis of the New Testament's resurrection stories but limited his article to just a few. I will quote from most of his article and the sections I quote from will appear in blue, with my comments scattered in between. I begin with Till:

Inconsistencies in the four gospel accounts of the resurrection are too numerous to discuss in a single article, so I will limit discussion at this time to just a few. Matthew began his narrative of the events of that day by telling us that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the sepulcher "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (28:1). The time factor that he identified contrasts sharply with the testimony of Mark, Luke, and John, who said, respectively, that the time was "very early on the first day of the week... when the sun was risen" (16:1) or "on the first day of the week, at early dawn" (24:1) or "on the first day of the week... while it was yet dark" (20:1). By stretching imagination, perhaps we could reconcile the testimony of Matthew and Luke. If it was "beginning to dawn toward the first day of the week," we could maybe grant that this could be called "early dawn," but how could the sun already be risen if it was only beginning to dawn? And if the sun had already risen, as Mark claimed, how could it have been "yet dark," as John said? For that matter, how could it have been "yet dark" if the morning had reached any stage that could be correctly described as "dawn"? I grew up on a farm, so I can remember getting up many times as it was "beginning to dawn" or while it was still "early dawn," but it certainly wasn't "yet dark." By looking outside, I could see clearly enough to recognize objects. Certainly by the time the sun had risen, it was never "yet dark" outside. So how could it possibly be that John was right in the time factor that he specified but the other three were also right in their time factors? This is a chronological discrepancy that bibliolaters have never satisfactorily explained.

I suspect that Till is right here. Inerrantists will come up with all kinds of imaginative scenarios to explain the time differences in all four gospels. How could it be "still dark" outside and yet the sun had risen? It could be "still dark" and it was beginning to dawn, sure. But beginning to dawn isn't the same thing as the sun having already risen. If the sun already rose, that would be the conclusion of dawn, not the beginning. And if it was still dark, obviously, the sun hasn't risen. However, I want to note that the time differences here aren't the biggest or worst discrepancies. But it does make me skeptical that the postmortem stories are based on eyewitness accounts, whether from human memory, divine inspiration, or a mixture of both. Till continued:

As noted, Matthew said that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb. Mark identified the women as "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" (16:1). Luke said that the women who went to the tomb were "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them" (24:10), and John mentioned only Mary Magdalene (20:1). We have all heard the Gleason Archer-John Haley type of explanation for the "variances" in these names. Matthew chose to identify only two of the women, John chose to identify only one, but their failure to mention the presence of Salome or Joanna or "the other women" would not mean that they were not there. The same line of reasoning is usually applied to the variations in the number of angels reported at the scene. Matthew said that "an angel" (one) descended from heaven (28:2). Mark spoke of "a young man... arrayed in a white robe" (16:5), who was presumably an angel, but Luke (24:4) and John (20:12) wrote of two angels. If there were two, then there had to be one, inerrantists will say, but in a matter as vitally important as the testimony to a resurrection, inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, this kind of "explanation" has dubious merit at best. However, it is the stock explanation of inerrancy defenders in matters like these, so I will simply mention it, leave it to the readers to judge its merit, and go on to other discrepancies that no stretch of imagination can satisfactorily resolve.

Actually, I will note something that Till had never considered. The chief guru of biblical inerrancy alive, today, is probably Norman Geisler. I have seen Geisler use the "if-there-was-two, then-there-was-one" explanation. This has got to be the lamest "explanation" that I have ever seen from an apologist. Why is it so lame?

The reason is simple: saying that if there were two, there was at least one, is only true if a text explicitly mentions more than one! If Luke says that there were two angels present, then by necessity, there had to be at least one but that is only true, logically, if the text explicitly states that there was more than one. Suppose that Mark's gospel said that only one angel was present and Luke said that there were two. Geisler's explanation would be correct with regards to a text like we find in Luke's gospel but if Mark says that there was only one angel present, a discrepancy would still exist! The problem is that people like the late Gleason Archer and Norman Geisler haven't thought this nonsense through!

I don't regard the number of women problematic. Matthew mentions two, Luke mentions several, and Mark mentions three. None of them say that the women who they mention are the only ones who went to the tomb so I see these as variants that are not discrepant in nature. However, I will say one thing, though. Matthew and Mark only mention one person who greeted the women. In Mark, it's a "young man" who was wearing a "white robe" while Matthew identifies him as an angel. Luke explicitly states that there were two angels in the tomb.

Okay, so what? Well, according to Matthew 28, the one angel mentioned seemed to imply that only one angel was there. Take a look at Matthew 28: 1-7 (NASB):

Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. ² And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. ³ And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. ⁴ The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. ⁵ The angel said to the women, “^]Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. ⁶ He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. ⁷ Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.”

Notice that in verse 5, the angel speaks in first person singular. If two angels were present, why didn't the angel say "Do not be afraid, for we know that you are looking for Jesus who had been crucified". The use of first person singular indicates that one person was present; granted, it's not explicitly stated that only one angel was present but it makes the best explanation for the first person singular. To understand why, consider John's postmortem story of Jesus. In John 20: 1-2 ( NASB):

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. ² So she *ran and *came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and *said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.”

Notice that John's text only mentions Mary Magdalene and no other women. But notice what she is reported to have said to Simon Peter and another disciple: she says that the body of Jesus has been taken out, and "we" (plural) don't know where they put him. The plural in this verse indicates that there were more than one women present at the tomb with Mary Magdalene. Well, if there was more than one angel at the tomb to greet the women, why didn't Matthew's gospel, which only mentions one, use a plural to indicate that there was another angel present?

Till continues:

After the women arrived at the tomb, Matthew said that a "great earthquake" occurred and "an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it" (28:2). Mark, Luke, and John, however, disagreed. Mark said that the women found the stone already rolled away when they arrived at the tomb (16:2). Luke agreed with Mark and said that the stone was "rolled away from the tomb" when the women arrived (24:2), and John said that the stone had been "taken away from the tomb" when Mary Magdalene arrived (20:1). So who was right? Matthew or the other three? It simply could not have been that the stone was both in place and rolled away too when the women came to the tomb? Our rule of evidence demands one of two conclusions: Matthew was right and the other three were wrong, or the other three were right and Matthew was wrong. Both versions of the story cannot be right.

Matthew wrote that the angel who descended from heaven and sat upon the stone said to the women, "He (Jesus) is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come see the place where the Lord lay" (28:6). Luke's angels (plural) also reminded the women that Jesus had said that he would be raised:

Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again (24:5-7).

As noted in an earlier article, Luke said that the women, upon hearing this, "remembered his words" (v:8). Although Matthew didn't specifically say that the women remembered the words of Jesus that the angel reminded them of, he certainly implied that they did, because he immediately said that the women "departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word" (28:8). This is essentially what Luke said too. After saying that the women "remembered his (Jesus's) words," he said that the women "returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest" (24:9).

Now if the women "ran to bring his disciples word," as Matthew said, and if they "told all these things to the eleven," as Luke claimed, then surely they told the eleven about the angel (angels?) and what he (they?) had told them. In other words, Matthew's and Luke's versions of the resurrection story both present the women at the tomb as ones who had been informed about the resurrection and convinced that it had occurred before they ran to tell the disciples what they had seen.

One would never guess this, however, by just reading John's version. John was the one who chose to mention only the presence of Mary Magdalene at the tomb, and he said that Mary, upon seeing the stone taken away from the tomb, ran and told Simon Peter and "the other disciple" (20:2). She did this before seeing the angels, because it wasn't until after she had returned to the tomb that she saw the angels (vv:11-13). So when John's Mary ran to Peter and the other disciples, did she run with the "great joy" that Matthew mentioned? And did she tell the disciples "all these things" that Luke said the angels had told them? Apparently no, according to John's story! When John's Mary found the disciples, she said, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him" (20:2). Obviously, there was no "joy" in what she was saying here. She was quite distressed.

More perplexing than that, however, is the fact that John's Mary believed that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the tomb. Why would she have thought that IF she had seen angels at the tomb (as Matthew, Mark, and Luke claimed), who had reminded her of Jesus's promise to rise again on the third day, and especially IF she had "remembered his words" after the angels had jogged her memory? Obviously, John was not aware of any prior contact that Mary had had with angels or of any assurances she had received from angels that Jesus had been resurrected. His Mary was a distraught woman who, at the time of her report to Peter and "the other disciple," had no idea that Jesus had risen from the dead. Even after she returned to the tomb with Peter and the other disciple, she still thought that the body of Jesus had been stolen, because the angels that she encountered this time inside the tomb asked her why she was crying, and she said, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him" (Jn. 20:13). But why would she have thought that at this time IF prior to going to get Peter an angel or angels had told her, "He is risen" (Mt. 28:6; Mk. 16:6; Lk. 24:6)?

Till was absolutely correct. He illustrated here a serious discrepancy between the synoptics and John. According to the synoptics, Mary Magdalene and anyone with her went tomb, found it empty, were visited by angel (s), and then ran to the disciples to deliver the angelic message. According to John's gospel, this didn't happen. When Mary Magdalene and whoever was with her, went to tell Peter and the other disciple that they had taken the body of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and whoever was with her didn't know where the body was. This is a discrepancy that no inerrantist has ever successfully resolved. Till continued:

Gleason Archer, in his typically far-fetched style, has offered this answer to the question:

She apparently had not yet taken in the full import of what the angel meant when he told her that the Lord had risen again and that He was alive. In her confusion and amazement, all she could think of was that the body was not there; and she did not know what had become of it. Where could that body now be? It was for this reason that she wanted Peter and John to go back there and see what they could find out (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 348-349).

That sounds pretty thin to me, but inerrantists are famous for this kind of circumlocution when they are confronted with obvious discrepancies in the Bible text. Luke flatly stated that the women at the tomb, who would have included Mary Magdalene, "remembered his (Jesus's) words" when the angels reminded them that Jesus had predicted his resurrection while they were "yet in Galilee" (24:7-8). Despite the clarity of this statement, Archer wants us to believe that the obvious discrepancy between it and John's depiction of Mary in his resurrection story was only "apparent," because she "had not yet taken in the full import of what the angel meant when he told her the Lord had risen again." As an explanation of the problem, it is too transparent to deserve serious comment. What "full import" was there to take in? The angels said, "He is risen," as he had promised while he was "yet in Galilee," and the women "remembered his words"!

Till is right once again. Archer's explanation was absolute nonsense. Archer was no idiot and was quite educated. With someone so educated and articulate, you have to wonder if they are intellectually honest! Anyone who is highly educated yet espouses nonsense like this deserves to have his (or her) intellectual integrity called into question.

While yet in her state of confusion about what had happened, John's Mary encountered Jesus by the tomb--and didn't even recognize him! She thought that he was the gardener (20:14-15). So we are supposed to believe that angels had some time prior to this told her that Jesus was not "here," that "he is risen," as he had said would happen while he was "yet in Galilee," and that she had "remembered his words," but when finally she came face to face with the risen Jesus at the empty tomb, she didn't even know who he was. If a missionary preaching a religion we had not grown up with should come into our country with a story as inconsistent as this, who would believe it?

But it gets even worse. Mary's encounter with Jesus at the tomb in John's version clearly happened after Mary had found the stone rolled away and had run to tell Peter and had returned to the tomb, but this runs completely contrary to Matthew's version of an encounter with Jesus near the burial site. Matthew said that the women, upon receiving instructions from the angel (just one) to go tell the disciples that Jesus would go before them into Galilee, "departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word" (28:7-8). But look at what Matthew then said:

And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him. Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: go tell my brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there shall they see me (28:9).

Perhaps Jesus thought that the angel's message had not been clear enough, so he made an appearance himself to tell the women the same thing the angel had just said to them. Maybe he knew what he was doing too. A person as confused as Gleason Archer's Mary Magdalene would probably have to be given a message like this at least twice before she would understand it. At any rate, Matthew said that the women met the risen Jesus as they were running to tell the disciples that an angel had told them to meet Jesus in Galilee, and this flatly contradicts John's version. John said that Mary Magdalene saw Jesus after she had fetched the disciples and returned to the tomb. Before any inerrantist tries to tiptoe around this problem by claiming that John's failure to mention an encounter with Jesus while Mary was running to get Peter doesn't mean that such an encounter did not occur, let him explain why Mary didn't recognize him in the garden if she had already seen him before this and had even taken "hold of his feet and worshipped him" (Matt. 28:9). She had done all of this on the way into town but now back at the tomb again she wasn't even able to recognize Jesus! If I may resort to slang for just a moment, come on, give me a break!

The holding of Jesus's feet mentioned by Matthew poses yet another problem, for when John's Mary finally recognized Jesus at the tomb, he specifically forbade her to touch him: "Touch me not: for I am not yet ascended unto the Father" (20:17). What ascending to the Father would have to do with a restriction on touching Jesus is anybody's guess (I just read the scriptures; I didn't write them), but Jesus plainly stated this as a reason why Mary should not touch him. Yet, in Matthew's story, when the women, who would have included Mary, met Jesus on the way to "bring the disciples word," they "took hold of his feet and worshipped him." Now if they took hold of his feet, then they surely touched him. How else could they have taken hold of his feet? But at this encounter Jesus said nothing about not touching him, even though at this time he had most certainly "not yet ascended unto the Father." How could he have done so, since this encounter happened as the women were running into town to find the disciples, and the encounter with Mary, when Jesus told her he had not yet ascended, happened after she had found the disciples and had returned to the tomb?

The encounter with Jesus as the women were running into town raises yet another problem. Matthew plainly said that after the women "departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy" (28:8), they met Jesus and "took hold of his feet and worshipped him" (v:9). Now if the women met Jesus and worshipped him, they surely recognized him and realized that he had been resurrected. Why then did Mary say what she said when she found Peter and the other disciple? "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him" (Jn. 20:2). I earlier noted that this statement made no sense at all in light of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke said that the angel(s) told the women at the tomb and what Luke specifically said the women "remembered," but now that we know that the women, on the way into town to find the disciples, encountered Jesus, touched him, and worshipped him, Mary's statement to Peter goes beyond making no sense. It becomes an insult to the intelligence of all rational people who are asked to believe in the resurrection despite glaring discrepancies like this.

I don't know if I agree with Till on this point so far. I agree with Till up to this last paragraph just quoted. The problem is that there is a somewhat new development in biblical Greek studies known as "Verbal Aspect Theory" and if it is correct, then the Greek word for "departed/left" in Matthew 28: 8 is to be understood as a completed action, without interruption. If so, then it would seem that the women left the tomb uninterrupted and then went to the disciples of Jesus. Then, Matthew 28:9 narrates something that occurred later. This would mean that quite a number of translations such as the King James, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, New English Translation, Darby, and Webster's are all wrong for all of them translate this verse as explicitly saying that Jesus met Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as they were leaving the tomb to tell his disciples.

Lastly, I quote this from Till's article:

Juxtaposed and considered as a single story, the four resurrection accounts form a veritable maze of contradictions. So once again I must remind readers of the rule of evidence that says falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything). When alleged witnesses to an event contradict themselves as flagrantly as did the four gospel writers in their accounts of the resurrection, everything that they said must be viewed with suspicion. These writers claimed that a man who was physically dead returned to life. A claim that extraordinary requires extraordinary proof, but there is certainly nothing extraordinary in the resurrection testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is so riddled with inconsistencies that no one but the hopelessly credulous could possibly believe it.

Till is correct but there are more discrepancies. For instance, Matthew and Mark contradict Luke and John. Matthew and Mark place the first appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Galilee. Luke and John place the first appearance of Jesus to his disciples in Jerusalem. This can be demonstrated to any inerrantist who desires evidence for this. In Luke's gospel, Jesus appears to eleven of his disciples (Luke 24: 8-10) while in John's gospel, one of the eleven, Thomas is absent ( John 20: 19-25). So did Jesus appear to eleven of his disciples ("doubting Thomas" included)? Or did he appear to only ten of his disciples?  These are two discrepancies that Till never discussed in his article but they do exist and can be demonstrated to be such.

At any rate, Till was (mostly) right. The gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection form a maze of discrepancies. If all of them, taken together, disagree with each other on so many details, at least one or more of them are mistaken. If one or more of them are mistaken, then we don't have amazing harmony from cover to cover in the entire Bible.

Did Jesus Die For Our Sins?

Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God also believe that the death of Jesus served to atone for the sins of mankind. This was a unique event in human history and Jesus' death served as the final sacrifice to atone for the sins of human beings. That it was understood to be the final sacrifice is evident from some passages in the New Testament letter to the Hebrews. For instance, in Hebrews 7: 26-27 (New American Standard Bible) we read:

²⁶ For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; ²⁷ who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. ²⁸ For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever

In this passage, we can clearly see that Jesus doesn't need to continually offer sacrifices like the high priests from the Levite tribe, first for his sins and then for the sins of the Hebrew people, because when he offered himself up on the cross, his sacrifice was once and for all. Likewise, in Hebrews 10: 1-4 (New International Version) we read:

The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. ² Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. ³ But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. ⁴ It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins

According to this passage, the law is only an imperfect shadow of the good things to come and can never perfect those who draw near. If the law was capable of making believers perfect, then sacrifices would've stopped some time ago and once the sacrifice was made, worshipers would've been cleansed once and for all time. Moreover, it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins; only the blood of Jesus, shed on the cross, could atone for the sins of humanity, once and for all. Therefore, his sacrifice was the ultimate and final sacrifice and the only one that truly could atone for the sins of humanity.

However, when we turn to the pages of the Hebrew Bible, what we find is that this is impossible. According to the book of Jeremiah, the priesthood is permanent. In Jeremiah 33: 17-26 (New International Version), we read:


¹⁷ For this is what the Lord says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel, ¹⁸ nor will the Levitical priests ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.’”

¹⁹ The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: ²⁰ “This is what the Lord says: ‘If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, ²¹ then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. ²² I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars in the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.’”
²³ The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: ²⁴ “Have you not noticed that these people are saying, ‘The Lord has rejected the two kingdoms he chose’? So they despise my people and no longer regard them as a nation. ²⁵ This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, ²⁶ then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.’”

Notice that in verse 17, Yahweh says that David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel, and, most importantly for this article, the Levitical priests will never fail to have a man to stand before him to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, and sacrifices. Notice that these two are covenants and they're parallel to each other. Yahweh made a covenant with David and with the Levites. That the Levitical priests will never fail to have a man to stand before Yahweh continually means that the office of the Levites is permanent. There will never be a final sacrifice to atone for the sins of humanity; the sacrificial system is permanent and will go on forever. Furthermore, Jesus was from the tribe of Judah, not Levi. So what authority would anyone from the tribe of Judah have to perform any kind of sacrifice or offering?

But if the sacrificial system is permanent and sacrifices (in addition to burnt and grain offerings) will go on forever, then how is it possible that the death of Jesus is meant to be the final sacrifice? It can't be!

Either Jeremiah is giving a false prophecy or the whoever wrote Hebrews is seriously mistaken despite being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Either way, the inerrancy doctrine suffers irreparable damage.

The Betrayal of Judas

According to the New Testament gospels, Jesus was arrested, tried, was crucified, buried, and then supposedly rose from the dead. It all started with the betrayal of one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot. But exactly what happened when Judas arrived on the scene depends on your choice of gospels. The synoptics tell one story, John tells another story and the former cannot be reconciled with the latter. To illustrate this discrepancy, it's not necessary to quote all three synoptics; it will do to quote just Mark and compare it with John. Using the NIV, let's take a look at Mark's narrative.

⁴³ Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.
⁴⁴ Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.” ⁴⁵ Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, “Rabbi!” and kissed him. ⁴⁶ The men seized Jesus and arrested him. ⁴⁷ Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
⁴⁸ “Am I leading a rebellion,” said Jesus, “that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? ⁴⁹ Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.” ⁵⁰ Then everyone deserted him and fled.
⁵¹ A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, ⁵² he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.

Notice what's going on here. While Jesus is speaking, Judas appears on the scene and comes with a crowd armed with weapons and he goes immediately to Jesus. After he does so, Jesus is then arrested. Then one of the disciples (who, we read in other gospels, is Peter) withdraws a sword and cuts the ear off of one of the high priest's servants. As Jesus is being arrested, Jesus then asks the crowd if he is leading a rebellion that they felt necessary to arm themselves, however, they did nothing like this when he spoke in the temple courts.

That this is exactly how the story was meant to be understood can be seen from the gospel of Mark in the NASB. The same passage just quoted is translated below:

⁴³ Immediately while He was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, *came up accompanied by a crowd with swords and clubs, who were from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. ⁴⁴ Now he who was betraying Him had given them a signal, saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the one; seize Him and lead Him away under guard.” ⁴⁵ After coming, Judas immediately went to Him, saying, “Rabbi!” and kissed Him. ⁴⁶ They laid hands on Him and seized Him. ⁴⁷ But one of those who stood by drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. ⁴⁸ And Jesus said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me, as you would against a robber? ⁴⁹ Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me; but this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures.” ⁵⁰ And they all left Him and fled.

⁵¹ A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they *seized him. ⁵² But he pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.

Notice the words that have been highlighted in bold. Starting with verse 43, we read that immediately while Jesus was still speaking, Judas arrived with the crowd. Once there, Judas went immediately to Jesus, kissed him, and then the crowd began to arrest Jesus. As they were taking Jesus to arrest him, one of the disciples took a sword and struck a servant. However, when we turn to John's gospel (quoting the NIV), we read this in John 18: 1-14:



When he had finished praying, Jesus left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley. On the other side there was a garden, and he and his disciples went into it. ² Now Judas, who betrayed him, knew the place, because Jesus had often met there with his disciples. ³ So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons.
⁴ Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”
⁵ “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.
“I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) ⁶ When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground.
⁷ Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?”
“Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.
⁸ Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.” ⁹ This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: “I have not lost one of those you gave me.”
¹⁰ Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)
¹¹ Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
¹² Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him ¹³ and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. ¹⁴ Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jewish leaders that it would be good if one man died for the people.

Notice that in this passage, Jesus knows what is going to happen so he goes out to meet the crowd rather than let Judas bring the crowd to him. Jesus asks the crowd, "Who is it that you want?" When the crowd responds, Jesus identifies himself, and after he asks the crowd a second time, they answer the same, and Jesus identifies himself again, but then tells them to let his disciples go. Peter then takes a sword and strikes Malchus' ear and is then rebuked by Jesus. Then, the soldiers arrest him and take him to Annas, then to Caiaphas.

But if Jesus went out to meet the crowd, at what point did Judas Iscariot go to kiss him? According to Mark, Judas and the crowd came up to Jesus while he was still speaking to his disciples and, without hesitation, Judas went up and kissed Jesus. However, as we see here in the passage quoted from John, Jesus went out and confronted the crowd and it was only after he told them to let his disciples flee, then does Peter withdraw the sword. And it is only after being rebuked by Jesus is Jesus then arrested. At no point in John's gospel is Jesus betrayed with a kiss. In fact, in Mark's gospel, Peter strikes a servant with his sword after soldiers began arresting Jesus while in John's gospel, Peter strikes a servant with his sword before the soldiers began arresting Jesus. But if Peter struck the servant before Jesus was arrested, when did Judas betray Jesus with a kiss?

What we have here is a discrepancy; both accounts cannot be right. Thus we have another flaw in the New Testament.

Is God Perfect?

In my previous posts, I used the New International Version to show that there are discrepancies in the Bible. However, the NIV can be used to show that more than just discrepancies exist in the Bible. It can be used to show that there are errors of fact. In this post, I will use the NIV to show that, contrary to what inerrantists believe, God is not a perfect being. Inerrantists believe that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnibenevolent (all-good or morally perfect). We can put this to the test. Let's take omniscience. Is God know everything? Does God have perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and future. If the Bible is studied honestly and critically, then the answer is a resounding no!

Everyone who believes that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God believes that all of the Hebrew Bible is inspired (literally "God-breathed"). So we can look to the Hebrew Bible to test the doctrine that God is omniscient and omniscience fails the test. I will look at two examples to show this.

The first example can be found in the book of Exodus. In the third chapter, Moses is tending the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro. As the story goes, an angel of Yahweh appeared to Moses in a burning bush but the bush is not consumed by the flames (v 2). His curiosity piqued, he decides to go over and investigate it and is told to take off his sandals for he is standing on holy ground (v 5). A conversation ensues with Yahweh telling Moses about the plight of his people in Egypt and how Moses is chosen to lead Yahweh's people out of Egypt. The conversation continues into the next chapter, where Moses asks Yahweh what should happen if the Hebrews do not believe him. In Exodus 4: 1-9, we read:

Moses answered, “What if they do not believe me or listen to me and say, ‘The Lord did not appear to you’?”

² Then the Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?”

“A staff,” he replied.

³ The Lord said, “Throw it on the ground.”

Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from it. ⁴ Then the Lord said to him, “Reach out your hand and take it by the tail.” So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand. ⁵ “This,” said the Lord, “is so that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has appeared to you.”

⁶ Then the Lord said, “Put your hand inside your cloak.” So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, the skin was leprous—it had become as white as snow.

⁷ “Now put it back into your cloak,” he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh.

⁸ Then the Lord said, “If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first sign, they may believe the second. ⁹ But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take from the river will become blood on the ground.”

Moses is instructed to be prepared to give the Hebrews three signs. The first is to throw a staff on the ground, which will become a snake, the second is to put his hand in his cloak and to take it out and show the leprous appearance of it, and the third is to pour water from the Nile and it will become blood. What is really telling about this passage is the part highlighted in bold. Yahweh tells Moses that if the Hebrews do not believe or pay attention to the first sign, they may believe the second. The Hebrews might believe the second?

And if they don't believe either the snake trick or the leprous hand, then Moses is to do his third miraculous act, pouring water from the Nile onto the ground. But why would Yahweh need to tell Moses that the Hebrews might believe the second one? If he is omniscient, then Yahweh knows what it's going to take to convince the Hebrews that Moses is who he says that he is. Either the Hebrews will believe the first sign or they won't. If they won't be convinced by the snake trick, why even bother with it? If the Hebrews aren't convinced by the first miracle, but may believe the second one, then what Yahweh is saying here is that even he doesn't know if the first two miracles will succeed.

How is this to be reconciled with the doctrine that Yahweh is omniscient?

As we move through the Hebrew Bible, the problem only worsens. Another example comes from the book of Jeremiah. In Jeremiah 3: 6-10, we read the following:

⁶ During the reign of King Josiah, the Lord said to me, “Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. ⁷ I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. ⁸ I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery. ⁹ Because Israel’s immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood. ¹⁰ In spite of all this, her unfaithful sister Judah did not return to me with all her heart, but only in pretense,” declares the Lord.

In this passage, Yahweh is complaining to the prophet Jeremiah about how unfaithful both Israel and Judah have been during the reign of King Josiah. I have highlighted verse seven to show the problem that this poses for the omniscience doctrine. Yahweh complains that faithless Israel "has gone up on every high hill and under spreading tree and has committed adultery there". In verse seven, Yahweh states "I thought that after she had done all of this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it".

So Yahweh thought that Israel would return to him but Israel didn't. So Yahweh, here, is admitting that he is mistaken. He is clearly deceived in his expectations and mistakenly thought that Israel would turn to him. How can an omniscient being be mistaken in his thoughts? If Yahweh is truly omniscient, then he would've known that Israel wouldn't have turned to him.

Things don't get any better when we move onto the New Testament. We have to remember that conservative, Bible-believing Christians believe that Jesus is God incarnate in human flesh. They believe that God is one being or essence, in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to their theology, the essence of God consists of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is simply God the Son incarnate in human flesh and is a perfect union of God and man. He is 100% God and 100% man, in a "hypostatic union". Therefore, we can deduce that Jesus Christ, being God the Son, has all of the attributes of God the Father, including omniscience.
'
However, in Matthew 24: 36-41, we read:

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. ³⁷ As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ³⁸ For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; ³⁹ and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. ⁴⁰ Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. ⁴¹ Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

In the context, Jesus is addressing his disciples about his "second coming" and the "end of the age" (Matthew 24: 3). As for when Jesus will come back, according to verse 36, no one knows, including angels or Jesus himself. Only the Father knows. But if Jesus is 100% God, and God is omniscient, then Jesus is, necessarily, omniscient. How can an omniscient being not know something that is going to happen in the future?  Inerrantists love to point to the gospel of John's prologue as strong evidence that Jesus is God: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1) is used to argue that Jesus, being the Word is, himself, God.

Then, we have it out of the horse's mouth that even he is ignorant of at least something. We have seen that there are instances where God is either ignorant or mistaken in his thinking. In any case, God is not omniscient. If God is not omniscient, he doesn't have perfect knowledge. If God doesn't have perfect knowledge, then God is not a perfect being, perfect in all of his attributes.

The Fighting Men of Israel

In my previous post, I showed that the New International Version, (hereafter, the "NIV") can be used to show that there are flaws in the Bible. In this post, I will show that another discrepancy exists in the Hebrew Bible, regarding the fighting men of Israel. If any would-be apologist for biblical inerrancy would like to dispute what I am about to demonstrate, I will be happy to respond with the best evidence that I know of showing that a discrepancy really does exist. So what is this discrepancy? The discrepancy is that in a few passages, the fighting men of Israel who left Egypt all died in the desert, leaving none alive forty years later, as the Hebrews were about to enter into the land promised to them while other passages show that the fighting men who left Israel were alive and well, forty years later and were about to enter the land promised to them.

According to a number of passages in Numbers, Moses and Aaron were commanded to take a census of all of the fighting men of Israel, twenty years and older, and because they rebelled against Moses and Aaron. Therefore, Yahweh promised that all of the men counted in the census would die in the desert and after they had all died, a new census of fighting men was taken. None of the fighting men counted in the first census would live forty years later and would be allowed to enter into the promised land. Certain passages in Deuteronomy show, to the contrary, that the fighting men of Israel were alive and well, forty years later, and were about to enter the promised land.

To begin with, the number of fighting men of Israel was counted in the first census and the total number of men in the census was 603,550. This can be shown by examining the first chapter of Numbers. In Numbers 1:1-54, we read:

The Lord spoke to Moses in the tent of meeting in the Desert of Sinai on the first day of the second month of the second year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. He said: ² “Take a census of the whole Israelite community by their clans and families, listing every man by name, one by one. ³ You and Aaron are to count according to their divisions all the men in Israel who are twenty years old or more and able to serve in the army. ⁴ One man from each tribe, each of them the head of his family, is to help you. ⁵ These are the names of the men who are to assist you:

from Reuben, Elizur son of Shedeur;

⁶ from Simeon, Shelumiel son of Zurishaddai;

⁷ from Judah, Nahshon son of Amminadab;

⁸ from Issachar, Nethanel son of Zuar;

⁹ from Zebulun, Eliab son of Helon;

¹⁰ from the sons of Joseph:

from Ephraim, Elishama son of Ammihud;

from Manasseh, Gamaliel son of Pedahzur;

¹¹ from Benjamin, Abidan son of Gideoni;

¹² from Dan, Ahiezer son of Ammishaddai;

¹³ from Asher, Pagiel son of Okran;

¹⁴ from Gad, Eliasaph son of Deuel;

¹⁵ from Naphtali, Ahira son of Enan.”

¹⁶ These were the men appointed from the community, the leaders of their ancestral tribes. They were the heads of the clans of Israel.

¹⁷ Moses and Aaron took these men whose names had been specified, ¹⁸ and they called the whole community together on the first day of the second month. The people registered their ancestry by their clans and families, and the men twenty years old or more were listed by name, one by one, ¹⁹ as the Lord commanded Moses. And so he counted them in the Desert of Sinai:

²⁰ From the descendants of Reuben the firstborn son of Israel:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, one by one, according to the records of their clans and families. ²¹ The number from the tribe of Reuben was 46,500.

²² From the descendants of Simeon:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were counted and listed by name, one by one, according to the records of their clans and families. ²³ The number from the tribe of Simeon was 59,300.

²⁴ From the descendants of Gad:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. ²⁵ The number from the tribe of Gad was 45,650.

²⁶ From the descendants of Judah:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. ²⁷ The number from the tribe of Judah was 74,600.

²⁸ From the descendants of Issachar:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. ²⁹ The number from the tribe of Issachar was 54,400.

³⁰ From the descendants of Zebulun:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. ³¹ The number from the tribe of Zebulun was 57,400.

³² From the sons of Joseph:

From the descendants of Ephraim:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. ³³ The number from the tribe of Ephraim was 40,500.

³⁴ From the descendants of Manasseh:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. ³⁵ The number from the tribe of Manasseh was 32,200.

³⁶ From the descendants of Benjamin:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. ³⁷ The number from the tribe of Benjamin was 35,400.

³⁸ From the descendants of Dan:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. ³⁹ The number from the tribe of Dan was 62,700.

⁴⁰ From the descendants of Asher:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. ⁴¹ The number from the tribe of Asher was 41,500.

⁴² From the descendants of Naphtali:

All the men twenty years old or more who were able to serve in the army were listed by name, according to the records of their clans and families. ⁴³ The number from the tribe of Naphtali was 53,400.

⁴⁴ These were the men counted by Moses and Aaron and the twelve leaders of Israel, each one representing his family. ⁴⁵ All the Israelites twenty years old or more who were able to serve in Israel’s army were counted according to their families. ⁴⁶ The total number was 603,550.

⁴⁷ The ancestral tribe of the Levites, however, was not counted along with the others. ⁴⁸ The Lord had said to Moses: ⁴⁹ “You must not count the tribe of Levi or include them in the census of the other Israelites. ⁵⁰ Instead, appoint the Levites to be in charge of the tabernacle of the covenant law—over all its furnishings and everything belonging to it. They are to carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings; they are to take care of it and encamp around it. ⁵¹ Whenever the tabernacle is to move, the Levites are to take it down, and whenever the tabernacle is to be set up, the Levites shall do it. Anyone else who approaches it is to be put to death. ⁵² The Israelites are to set up their tents by divisions, each of them in their own camp under their standard. ⁵³ The Levites, however, are to set up their tents around the tabernacle of the covenant law so that my wrath will not fall on the Israelite community. The Levites are to be responsible for the care of the tabernacle of the covenant law.”

⁵⁴ The Israelites did all this just as the Lord commanded Moses.

The entirety of the first chapter of Numbers has been quoted because it can be used to establish the fact that the census of the fighting men who were alive and left Egypt, was 603,550. In the above passage, I have highlighted in bold, the numbers given from each tribe. If one adds the numbers, one gets a total of 603, 550.

1.) The tribe of Reuben: 46, 500.
2.) The tribe of Simeon: 59, 300.
3.) The tribe of God: 45, 650.
4.) The tribe of Judah: 74, 600.
5.) The tribe of Issachar: 54, 400.
6.) The tribe of Zebulun: 57, 400.
7.) The tribe of Ephraim: 40, 500.
8.) The tribe of Manasseh: 32, 200.
9.) The tribe of Benjamin: 35, 400.
10.) The tribe of Dan: 62, 700.
11.) The tribe of Asher: 41, 500.
12.) The tribe of Naphtali: 53, 400.

The sum total of all of these numbers is: 603, 550. To see why this is important, we need to view a few more passages from the book of Numbers. The next is Numbers 13: 1-33:

The Lord said to Moses, ² “Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites. From each ancestral tribe send one of its leaders.”

³ So at the Lord’s command Moses sent them out from the Desert of Paran. All of them were leaders of the Israelites. ⁴ These are their names:

from the tribe of Reuben, Shammua son of Zakkur;

⁵ from the tribe of Simeon, Shaphat son of Hori;

⁶ from the tribe of Judah, Caleb son of Jephunneh;

⁷ from the tribe of Issachar, Igal son of Joseph;

⁸ from the tribe of Ephraim, Hoshea son of Nun;

⁹ from the tribe of Benjamin, Palti son of Raphu;

¹⁰ from the tribe of Zebulun, Gaddiel son of Sodi;

¹¹ from the tribe of Manasseh (a tribe of Joseph), Gaddi son of Susi;

¹² from the tribe of Dan, Ammiel son of Gemalli;

¹³ from the tribe of Asher, Sethur son of Michael;

¹⁴ from the tribe of Naphtali, Nahbi son of Vophsi;

¹⁵ from the tribe of Gad, Geuel son of Maki.

¹⁶ These are the names of the men Moses sent to explore the land. (Moses gave Hoshea son of Nun the name Joshua.)

¹⁷ When Moses sent them to explore Canaan, he said, “Go up through the Negev and on into the hill country. ¹⁸ See what the land is like and whether the people who live there are strong or weak, few or many. ¹⁹ What kind of land do they live in? Is it good or bad? What kind of towns do they live in? Are they unwalled or fortified? ²⁰ How is the soil? Is it fertile or poor? Are there trees in it or not? Do your best to bring back some of the fruit of the land.” (It was the season for the first ripe grapes.)
²¹ So they went up and explored the land from the Desert of Zin as far as Rehob, toward Lebo Hamath. ²² They went up through the Negev and came to Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai, the descendants of Anak, lived. (Hebron had been built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.) ²³ When they reached the Valley of Eshkol, they cut off a branch bearing a single cluster of grapes. Two of them carried it on a pole between them, along with some pomegranates and figs. ²⁴ That place was called the Valley of Eshkol because of the cluster of grapes the Israelites cut off there. ²⁵ At the end of forty days they returned from exploring the land;

²⁶ They came back to Moses and Aaron and the whole Israelite community at Kadesh in the Desert of Paran. There they reported to them and to the whole assembly and showed them the fruit of the land. ²⁷ They gave Moses this account: “We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit. ²⁸ But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there. ²⁹ The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan.”

³⁰ Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, “We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it.”

³¹ But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.” ³² And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. ³³ We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

A few facts are evident from this passage. First, the men who go into the promised land bring back a report to Moses, Aaron, and the whole Israelite community and showed them the fruit that they had gotten from the land. Second, as evident from verse 28, they say that the people of the land are powerful, and the cities very large and fortified and then go onto list some of the people there, including the descendants of Anak. Third, Caleb tells the people that they should up and take possession of the land. Forth, the men who went into the land discourage everyone by saying that the people are stronger and cannot be attacked and this bad report spreads throughout the community.

To see what happens next, we need to read Numbers 14: 1-38:

That night all the members of the community raised their voices and wept aloud. ² All the Israelites grumbled against Moses and Aaron, and the whole assembly said to them, “If only we had died in Egypt! Or in this wilderness! ³ Why is the Lord bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder. Wouldn’t it be better for us to go back to Egypt?” ⁴ And they said to each other, “We should choose a leader and go back to Egypt.”

⁵ Then Moses and Aaron fell facedown in front of the whole Israelite assembly gathered there.

⁶ Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had explored the land, tore their clothes ⁷ and said to the entire Israelite assembly, “The land we passed through and explored is exceedingly good. ⁸ If the Lord is pleased with us, he will lead us into that land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and will give it to us. ⁹ Only do not rebel against the Lord. And do not be afraid of the people of the land, because we will devour them. Their protection is gone, but the Lord is with us. Do not be afraid of them.”

¹⁰ But the whole assembly talked about stoning them. Then the glory of the Lord appeared at the tent of meeting to all the Israelites. ¹¹ The Lord said to Moses, “How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them? ¹² I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them, but I will make you into a nation greater and stronger than they.”

¹³ Moses said to the Lord, “Then the Egyptians will hear about it! By your power you brought these people up from among them. ¹⁴ And they will tell the inhabitants of this land about it. They have already heard that you, Lord, are with these people and that you, Lord, have been seen face to face, that your cloud stays over them, and that you go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. ¹⁵ If you put all these people to death, leaving none alive, the nations who have heard this report about you will say, ¹⁶ ‘The Lord was not able to bring these people into the land he promised them on oath, so he slaughtered them in the wilderness.’

¹⁷ “Now may the Lord’s strength be displayed, just as you have declared: ¹⁸ ‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’ ¹⁹ In accordance with your great love, forgive the sin of these people, just as you have pardoned them from the time they left Egypt until now.”

²⁰ The Lord replied, “I have forgiven them, as you asked. ²¹ Nevertheless, as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the Lord fills the whole earth, ²² not one of those who saw my glory and the signs I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times— ²³ not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their ancestors. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it. ²⁴ But because my servant Caleb has a different spirit and follows me wholeheartedly, I will bring him into the land he went to, and his descendants will inherit it. ²⁵ Since the Amalekites and the Canaanites are living in the valleys, turn back tomorrow and set out toward the desert along the route to the Red Sea.”

²⁶ The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: ²⁷ “How long will this wicked community grumble against me? I have heard the complaints of these grumbling Israelites. ²⁸ So tell them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Lord, I will do to you the very thing I heard you say: ²⁹ In this wilderness your bodies will fall—every one of you twenty years old or more who was counted in the census and who has grumbled against me. ³⁰ Not one of you will enter the land I swore with uplifted hand to make your home, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun. ³¹ As for your children that you said would be taken as plunder, I will bring them in to enjoy the land you have rejected. ³² But as for you, your bodies will fall in this wilderness. ³³ Your children will be shepherds here for forty years, suffering for your unfaithfulness, until the last of your bodies lies in the wilderness. ³⁴ For forty years—one year for each of the forty days you explored the land—you will suffer for your sins and know what it is like to have me against you.’ ³⁵ I, the Lord, have spoken, and I will surely do these things to this whole wicked community, which has banded together against me. They will meet their end in this wilderness; here they will die.”

³⁶ So the men Moses had sent to explore the land, who returned and made the whole community grumble against him by spreading a bad report about it— ³⁷ these men who were responsible for spreading the bad report about the land were struck down and died of a plague before the Lord.
³⁸ Of the men who went to explore the land, only Joshua son of Nun and Caleb son of Jephunneh survived.

From this passage, a few facts are evident. first, the community wept that night and all of the Israelites grumbled against Moses and want to elect a new leader to take them back to Egypt. Second, both Joshua (the son of Nun) and Caleb (the son of Jephunneh) discourage them from wanting to rebel against Moses and Aaron and choosing a new leader to take them back to Egypt and, instead, encourage them to go into the promised land because Yahweh is on their side; the enemies are no match for them. Third, the whole community talks about stoning Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb, and so Yahweh then tells Moses that he will strike them down with a plague and make Moses the patriarch of a new nation. Forth, Yahweh then decides that even though he has forgiven the Hebrews for rebelling, all of the men who saw the signs that he performed in Egypt will not live to see the land (in verse 22) with the exception of Caleb.

Next, Yahweh states that (in verse 29) all of the Hebrew men (twenty years and older) who were counted in the census, will all fall to their deaths, except Joshua and Caleb. Last, all of the men counted in the census will die, each and every one of them, for forty years, will all die and none of the men, who saw the miraculous signs of Yahweh and were counted in the census, will live to enter the land promised to them.

After all of the Hebrews that were counted in the first census died, Yahweh commanded Moses and Eleazar to take a new census; this time, they were on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan, across from Jericho. In Numbers 26: 1-65, we read:

After the plague the Lord said to Moses and Eleazar son of Aaron, the priest, ² “Take a census of the whole Israelite community by families—all those twenty years old or more who are able to serve in the army of Israel.” ³ So on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho, Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them and said, ⁴ “Take a census of the men twenty years old or more, as the Lord commanded Moses.”

These were the Israelites who came out of Egypt:

⁵ The descendants of Reuben, the firstborn son of Israel, were:

through Hanok, the Hanokite clan;

through Pallu, the Palluite clan;

⁶ through Hezron, the Hezronite clan;

through Karmi, the Karmite clan.

⁷ These were the clans of Reuben; those numbered were 43,730.

⁸ The son of Pallu was Eliab, ⁹ and the sons of Eliab were Nemuel, Dathan and Abiram. The same Dathan and Abiram were the community officials who rebelled against Moses and Aaron and were among Korah’s followers when they rebelled against the Lord. ¹⁰ The earth opened its mouth and swallowed them along with Korah, whose followers died when the fire devoured the 250 men. And they served as a warning sign. ¹¹ The line of Korah, however, did not die out.

¹² The descendants of Simeon by their clans were:

through Nemuel, the Nemuelite clan;

through Jamin, the Jaminite clan;

through Jakin, the Jakinite clan;

¹³ through Zerah, the Zerahite clan;

through Shaul, the Shaulite clan.

¹⁴ These were the clans of Simeon; those numbered were 22,200.

¹⁵ The descendants of Gad by their clans were:

through Zephon, the Zephonite clan;

through Haggi, the Haggite clan;

through Shuni, the Shunite clan;

¹⁶ through Ozni, the Oznite clan;

through Eri, the Erite clan;

¹⁷ through Arodi, the Arodite clan;

through Areli, the Arelite clan.

¹⁸ These were the clans of Gad; those numbered were 40,500.

¹⁹ Er and Onan were sons of Judah, but they died in Canaan.

²⁰ The descendants of Judah by their clans were:

through Shelah, the Shelanite clan;

through Perez, the Perezite clan;

through Zerah, the Zerahite clan.

²¹ The descendants of Perez were:

through Hezron, the Hezronite clan;

through Hamul, the Hamulite clan.

²² These were the clans of Judah; those numbered were 76,500.

²³ The descendants of Issachar by their clans were:

through Tola, the Tolaite clan;

through Puah, the Puite clan;

²⁴ through Jashub, the Jashubite clan;

through Shimron, the Shimronite clan.

²⁵ These were the clans of Issachar; those numbered were 64,300.

²⁶ The descendants of Zebulun by their clans were:

through Sered, the Seredite clan;

through Elon, the Elonite clan;

through Jahleel, the Jahleelite clan.

²⁷ These were the clans of Zebulun; those numbered were 60,500.

²⁸ The descendants of Joseph by their clans through Manasseh and Ephraim were:

²⁹ The descendants of Manasseh:

through Makir, the Makirite clan (Makir was the father of Gilead);

through Gilead, the Gileadite clan.

³⁰ These were the descendants of Gilead:

through Iezer, the Iezerite clan;

through Helek, the Helekite clan;

³¹ through Asriel, the Asrielite clan;

through Shechem, the Shechemite clan;

³² through Shemida, the Shemidaite clan;

through Hepher, the Hepherite clan.

³³ (Zelophehad son of Hepher had no sons; he had only daughters, whose names were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah and Tirzah.)

³⁴ These were the clans of Manasseh; those numbered were 52,700.

³⁵ These were the descendants of Ephraim by their clans:

through Shuthelah, the Shuthelahite clan;

through Beker, the Bekerite clan;

through Tahan, the Tahanite clan.

³⁶ These were the descendants of Shuthelah:

through Eran, the Eranite clan.

³⁷ These were the clans of Ephraim; those numbered were 32,500.

These were the descendants of Joseph by their clans.

³⁸ The descendants of Benjamin by their clans were:

through Bela, the Belaite clan;

through Ashbel, the Ashbelite clan;

through Ahiram, the Ahiramite clan;

³⁹ through Shupham, the Shuphamite clan;

through Hupham, the Huphamite clan.

⁴⁰ The descendants of Bela through Ard and Naaman were:

through Ard, the Ardite clan;

through Naaman, the Naamite clan.

⁴¹ These were the clans of Benjamin; those numbered were 45,600.

⁴² These were the descendants of Dan by their clans:

through Shuham, the Shuhamite clan.

These were the clans of Dan: ⁴³ All of them were Shuhamite clans; and those numbered were 64,400.

⁴⁴ The descendants of Asher by their clans were:

through Imnah, the Imnite clan;

through Ishvi, the Ishvite clan;

through Beriah, the Beriite clan;

⁴⁵ and through the descendants of Beriah:

through Heber, the Heberite clan;

through Malkiel, the Malkielite clan.

⁴⁶ (Asher had a daughter named Serah.)

⁴⁷ These were the clans of Asher; those numbered were 53,400.

⁴⁸ The descendants of Naphtali by their clans were:

through Jahzeel, the Jahzeelite clan;

through Guni, the Gunite clan;

⁴⁹ through Jezer, the Jezerite clan;

through Shillem, the Shillemite clan.

⁵⁰ These were the clans of Naphtali; those numbered were 45,400.

⁵¹ The total number of the men of Israel was 601,730.

⁵² The Lord said to Moses, ⁵³ “The land is to be allotted to them as an inheritance based on the number of names. ⁵⁴ To a larger group give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group a smaller one; each is to receive its inheritance according to the number of those listed. ⁵⁵ Be sure that the land is distributed by lot. What each group inherits will be according to the names for its ancestral tribe. ⁵⁶ Each inheritance is to be distributed by lot among the larger and smaller groups.”

⁵⁷ These were the Levites who were counted by their clans:

through Gershon, the Gershonite clan;

through Kohath, the Kohathite clan;

through Merari, the Merarite clan.

⁵⁸ These also were Levite clans:

the Libnite clan,

the Hebronite clan,

the Mahlite clan,

the Mushite clan,

the Korahite clan.

(Kohath was the forefather of Amram; ⁵⁹ the name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, a descendant of Levi, who was born to the Levites in Egypt. To Amram she bore Aaron, Moses and their sister Miriam. ⁶⁰ Aaron was the father of Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. ⁶¹ But Nadab and Abihu died when they made an offering before the Lord with unauthorized fire.)

⁶² All the male Levites a month old or more numbered 23,000. They were not counted along with the other Israelites because they received no inheritance among them.

⁶³ These are the ones counted by Moses and Eleazar the priest when they counted the Israelites on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho. ⁶⁴ Not one of them was among those counted by Moses and Aaron the priest when they counted the Israelites in the Desert of Sinai. ⁶⁵ For the Lord had told those Israelites they would surely die in the wilderness, and not one of them was left except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun.

A few facts are evident from this passage. First, Yahweh instructs Moses and Eleazar to conduct another census and it's of the same type: of fighting men, twenty years and older. Second, all of the sums of each tribe are given below:

1.) The tribe of Reuben: 43, 730.
2.) The tribe of Simeon: 22, 200.
3.) The tribe of Gad:  40, 500.
4.) The tribe of Judah: 76, 500.
5.) The tribe of Issachar: 64, 300.
6.) The tribe of Zebulun: 60, 500.
7.) The tribe of Ephraim: 32, 500.
8.) The tribe of Manasseh: 52, 700.
9.) The tribe of Benjamin: 45, 600.
10.) The tribe of Dan: 64, 400.
11.) The tribe of Asher: 53, 400.
12.) The tribe of Naphtali: 45, 400.

The sum total of all of these numbers is 601, 730, which is exactly what is recorded in verse 51 from this passage.

Lastly, according to verse 63, these men, all 601, 730, are the ones counted on the plains of Moab; not one of them was among those counted by Moses and Aaron earlier at Sinai. Yahweh told those Hebrews that they would die in the wilderness and not one of them was left except Caleb and Joshua.

So from this, we can only conclude that all of the Hebrews counted in the first census perished and none of them were left except for Joshua and Caleb, and that these Hebrews in the census were those who were in Egypt and saw the miraculous signs that had been performed. However, there are other passages, from Deuteronomy, that show that these fighting men were not dead, forty years later, but were alive and ready to enter the land promised to them. To show this, the first passage we need to look at comes from Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy 7: 12-19, we read:

¹² If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors. ¹³ He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land—your grain, new wine and olive oil—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you. ¹⁴ You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young. ¹⁵ The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. ¹⁶ You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

¹⁷ You may say to yourselves, “These nations are stronger than we are. How can we drive them out?”

¹⁸ But do not be afraid of them; remember well what the Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt. ¹⁹ You saw with your own eyes the great trials, the signs and wonders, the mighty hand and outstretched arm, with which the Lord your God brought you out. The Lord your God will do the same to all the peoples you now fear. ²⁰ Moreover, the Lord your God will send the hornet among them until even the survivors who hide from you have perished. ²¹ Do not be terrified by them, for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God. ²² The Lord your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you. ²³ But the Lord your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed. ²⁴ He will give their kings into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them. ²⁵ The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the Lord your God. ²⁶ Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Regard it as vile and utterly detest it, for it is set apart for destruction.

A couple of facts are evident from this passage. First of all, Deuteronomy, as a whole, is supposedly given to all of the Hebrews while Moses is on the plains of Moab, forty years after the Hebrews supposedly left Egypt. Second, according to verse 19, the Hebrews whom God is having Moses address, saw with their own eyes the "great trials", "signs and wonders" that God did in bringing them out of Egypt and now Yahweh was promising to do it again as they entered into the land promised to them. But do we have definitive evidence that the Hebrews being addressed here are, in fact, the same Hebrews who left Egypt and saw the miraculous signs?

The answer is yes! To see the evidence, let's look at another passage, again from Deuteronomy 11: 1-12:

Love the Lord your God and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always. ² Remember today that your children were not the ones who saw and experienced the discipline of the Lord your God: his majesty, his mighty hand, his outstretched arm; ³ the signs he performed and the things he did in the heart of Egypt, both to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his whole country; ⁴ what he did to the Egyptian army, to its horses and chariots, how he overwhelmed them with the waters of the Red Sea as they were pursuing you, and how the Lord brought lasting ruin on them. ⁵ It was not your children who saw what he did for you in the wilderness until you arrived at this place, ⁶ and what he did to Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab the Reubenite, when the earth opened its mouth right in the middle of all Israel and swallowed them up with their households, their tents and every living thing that belonged to them. ⁷ But it was your own eyes that saw all these great things the Lord has done.

⁸ Observe therefore all the commands I am giving you today, so that you may have the strength to go in and take over the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess, ⁹ and so that you may live long in the land the Lord swore to your ancestors to give to them and their descendants, a land flowing with milk and honey. ¹⁰ The land you are entering to take over is not like the land of Egypt, from which you have come, where you planted your seed and irrigated it by foot as in a vegetable garden. ¹¹ But the land you are crossing the Jordan to take possession of is a land of mountains and valleys that drinks rain from heaven. ¹² It is a land the Lord your God cares for; the eyes of the Lord your God are continually on it from the beginning of the year to its end.

A couple of facts are evident from this passage. First, the language of this passage is similar to the previous passage. The Hebrews are being told that their children were not the ones who saw and experienced the discipline, majesty, might hand, and the signs performed by God in the heart of Egypt, both to Pharaoh and his country. It was not their children who saw what God did for them in the wilderness until they arrived at the plains of Moab, but it was with their own eyes (verse 7) that saw all that Yahweh had done.

Second, it is the same people who saw all these signs with their own eyes that are entering the land to take over; it's not their children who are entering the land but them. This is strong evidence that the same Hebrews who were in Egypt, forty years prior, who saw the miraculous signs that Yahweh performed in Egypt, were the same Hebrews who were alive, forty years later, and about to enter into the promised land.

The best evidence, however, comes from Deuteronomy 29: 1-18:

These are the terms of the covenant the Lord commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb.

² Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them:

Your eyes have seen all that the Lord did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. ³ With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those signs and great wonders. ⁴ But to this day the Lord has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear. ⁵ Yet the Lord says, “During the forty years that I led you through the wilderness, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals on your feet. ⁶ You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the Lord your God.”

⁷ When you reached this place, Sihon king of Heshbon and Og king of Bashan came out to fight against us, but we defeated them. ⁸ We took their land and gave it as an inheritance to the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh.

⁹ Carefully follow the terms of this covenant, so that you may prosper in everything you do. ¹⁰ All of you are standing today in the presence of the Lord your God—your leaders and chief men, your elders and officials, and all the other men of Israel, ¹¹ together with your children and your wives, and the foreigners living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water. ¹² You are standing here in order to enter into a covenant with the Lord your God, a covenant the Lord is making with you this day and sealing with an oath, ¹³ to confirm you this day as his people, that he may be your God as he promised you and as he swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. ¹⁴ I am making this covenant, with its oath, not only with you ¹⁵ who are standing here with us today in the presence of the Lord our God but also with those who are not here today.

¹⁶ You yourselves know how we lived in Egypt and how we passed through the countries on the way here. ¹⁷ You saw among them their detestable images and idols of wood and stone, of silver and gold. ¹⁸ Make sure there is no man or woman, clan or tribe among you today whose heart turns away from the Lord our God to go and worship the gods of those nations; make sure there is no root among you that produces such bitter poison

A few facts are evident from this passage. First, a covenant is being made at Moab between Yahweh and the Hebrews and this passage quoted contains the terms of this covenant. Second, as in the other passages, the Hebrews are being told that with their own eyes, they saw the great trials, wonders, and signs that Yahweh performed in Egypt. Third, Yahweh says, explicitly, that all of this is forty years later (in verse 5). Forth, all of them standing there includes "leaders", "chief men", "elders", "officials' and "all the other men of Israel"-are entering into this covenant and it is all of these men, standing there, who saw with their own eyes, and not their children's eyes, all the trials and miraculous signs that Yahweh performed in Egypt.

This establishes a discrepancy. In the passage from Numbers 14:20-35, we read that Yahweh promised that all of the men from the census, which are those who saw the miraculous signs of Yahweh, would not enter the promised land and that every one of them would die in the desert, one by one, for forty years, until they all perished and now, in Deuteronomy 29: 1-18, we now see that all of the men from the first census, who saw the miraculous signs of Yahweh, are alive and well and are entering the promised land. Thus Numbers 14: 20-35 contradicts Deuteronomy 29: 1-18. We know from the other passages in Numbers that all of the men counted in the first census did in fact die and no one survived except Joshua and Caleb and we know from the other passages quoted from Deuteronomy that the Hebrews being addressed saw the miraculous signs with their own eyes, not their children's eyes, and that Moses was recalling the events that occurred on the plains of Moab, forty years after the Hebrews left Egypt.

Another discrepancy in the Bible has been established.