The Agreement Principle
This is the principle by which the truthfulness and faithfulness of God becomes the guarantee that He will not set forth any passages in His Word which will contradict any other passage.
The Bible (Scriptures) is an organic unity. You will never have to apologize for the Word of God! Psa 119:90- There is no unfaithfulness in the Word of God. Jn 17:17 - "Thy Word is Truth"- There is no falsehood in the Truth (Word). If there are contradictions in the Bible, then the Bible is not the Word of God, and God is a liar. Num 23:19-"God is not a man, that He should lie. "Deut 32:4 Titus 1:2
Dr. Charles Jefferson, a modernist, says concerning the Millennium, "No question but that Paul was a Pre-Millennialist--and the Bible teaches so, but it is not true." The Bible is true! Remember this, the Bible sometimes seemingly may contradict itself. But here's where RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH comes in.
Never take an obscure passage of Scripture and use it to contradict a dozen clear passages:
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"- 2 Peter 1:21. What is meant by this? ANSWER:
The CONTEXT PRINCIPLE. The Author's interpretation is the ONLY one, and the Author is God!
Agreement of the Bible is disagreement of men.
Examples: Men today are denouncing the fact that the Jews will one day rule the world and that the nation will return to Palestine. A few years ago a man was laughed at for believing such truth, but today, as they denounce it, the return of the Jews is taking place, and it will not be long until the King of kings and the Lord of lords Himself will return and rule the whole earth! Some people say that the world is getting better and better. All portions of the Word of God agree that the world's condition will be "as in the days of Noah." "Some have itching ears," etc.
We must be very careful how we study, exercising care in studying the names and places:
There are five JOHNS in the Scriptures: John, John the Baptist, John Mark, etc. (John the Apostle, and John of Acts.)
We have ten SIMONS in the New Testament: Simon, Simon Peter; Simon Zelotes; Simon, the Son of Joseph and Mary; Simon, the father of Judas Iscariot; Simon, the Pharisee, Simon, the Leper; Simon, the Cyrenian; Simon, the Tanner; and Simon Magus.
There are three men named JAMES in the Scriptures: James, the son of Zebedee; James the son of Alphaeus; and James the Lord's brother. Someone became all excited because he read in Acts that James was killed, and then a little later, James came on the scene again. It wasn't the same James!
There are six Herods in the New Testament:
| Herod the Great | Herod Antipas |
| Herod Archelaus | Herod Philip |
| Herod Agrippa I | Herod Agrippa II |
The Lord stood before one Herod; this was the one ruling while the Lord was born. Paul stood before a different Herod.
We have six Marys in the Scriptures:
| Mary, the mother of our Lord | Mary Magdalene |
| Mary, the mother of James | Mary of Bethany |
| Mary, the mother of John | Mary, a helper of Paul |
Don't get any of the Marys mixed with each other.
There are some other things we should know when we study the Word. One of these is that the same name in many cases arises from the fact that it is a title associated with royalty. Instead of a name, it is a title. You know what is meant by the words president, king, Czar, or Kaiser, don't you? When you come to the Word of God, you have many titles. Ahimelech is a title. It is not a name. It is used as a title for the kings of the Amalakites and Philistines. Caesar is not a name. Julius Caesar isn't the name of the man. Julius is the Caesar of Rome. Every Roman emperor was called a Caesar. We have Tiberias Caesar, Augustus Caesar, and Julius Caesar. That wasn't a family name; that was a title. Pharaoh isn't the name of a man. It is a title. That is why we have so many different Pharaohs in the Scriptures. Pharaoh Hophraoh Nicho, and Pharaoh So and So.
Then, there is something else. There may be many men with the same name, and there may be one man with many names. This may cause confusion: Silvanus is Silas; the same, with 2 names.
Levi was another name for Matthew.
Timotheus is Timothy.
Cephas is Peter. In fact, Peter has 3 names: Simon, Peter, and Cephas.
You have a king, a notorious king, who has three names: Jehoiachin, called also Jeconiah, and Coniah.
Saul's name was changed to Paul; Abram to Abraham; Sarai to Sarah; Jacob to Israel; Joseph was changed by Pharaoh to Zaphnath-paaneah. We have Daniel or Belteshazzar; Hananiah or Shadrach; Mishael or Meshach, and Azariah or Abednego.
What is true of men is true of places as well. When you read of Antioch, you have to ask yourself, "Which Antioch?" There is more than one. There is one in Syria and one in Pisidia. When Paul is in one, don't put him in the other. Find out which one he is in and about which one the Scripture is talking.
There is Fayetteville, Tennessee, where I was born; there is also Fayetteville, Arkansas and Fayetteville, North Carolina. These three are different. Likewise, when studying about a city in the Scriptures, be sure that you know when there is more than one city by the same name. Distinguish between the places.
There are three Bethsaidas and five Romas. If you get the right one, then you won't have confusion. The same place may have more than one name. Chattanooga used to be called "Ross's Landing"; and in the Word, we learn Luz is the same as Bethel. They are the same place. You read of Arid, which is Jerusalem. Often in the Scriptures you read of Ham, or Egypt. Sinai and Horeb are the same place.
The Sea of Galilee is called Lake Gennesaret, Sea of Tiberias, and Chinnereth. The Dead Sea is also called the East Sea, Sea of the Plain, and the Salt Sea; but it is, remember, only the Dead Sea with different names.
In order to impress the importance of this upon you, I want to give you some of the so-called flaws and discrepancies in the Word of God which Dean Stanley points out in Smith's Dictionary I wouldn,t buy one of these. You can take my word for it. Mr. Stanley is a learned man, but he can find flaws (what he calls flaws) in the Word of God. He gives 12 of them; these discrepancies are in the man, and not in the BOOK. He is not accurate in his study. He shows that there are at least 12 discrepancies between Stephen's address and the history of Israel. In Acts 7, Stephen gives that address in which he rehearses the history of Israel, and Dean Stanley takes this speech that we say is written through inspiration and compares it with the Mosaic history and finds 12 so-called errors. He says some of these come by variations and additions.
To begin with we ask this If the Spirit of God writes something in the Old Testament and makes an addition in the New Testament is there anything wrong with that?" Say that Dr. Stanford got out an edition of a book, and it was exhausted; when the new edition comes out, we find he has added a chapter. Is that a contradiction? Does that mean the first edition is wrong? Certainly not!
If you write a letter and put a P. S. on it, does that mean that the letter is all wrong and that you have contradicted yourself? Of course not!
You can see what Stanley is getting at by another paragraph: "It is significant as showing the freedom with which he handled the sacred history, and the comparative unimportance assigned by him and by the sacred historian who records his speech, to minute accuracy. It may he said that the whole speech is a protest against rigid views of the mechanical exactness of the inspired records of the Old Testament." He is denying inspiration.
Moses wrote a history, and Stephen made a speech (he does not say that he is quoting directly from the Word); a man, in making a speech, may make a mistake in historic facts.
Stephen didn't do that, but it may be possible!
Let's look at some of these so-called discrepancies:
Mr. Stanley compares Acts 7:2 with Genesis 12:1. He said Stephen says that the call of God came to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he ever went to Haran, but that Genesis 12:1 says the call came to him when he was in Haran. So the great Dean places these two verses together when they do not deal with the same thing at all. What he should have done was to take Acts 7:2 and put it against Genesis 11:31. He didn't know anything about the Context Principle.
Now, here is another so-called contradiction that is very interesting: Acts 7:14 against Genesis 46:26, 27- It says that 66 came with Jacob: Jacob made 67. You can understand that. If he came with them, he was not included. If you and I go downtown together, I would say one came with me. I wouldn't say that two came with me. Jacob makes sixty-seven. Joseph was in Egypt, and that makes 68, and Joseph had two sons and they made 70. No wives were included, but when you get to Acts 7, it says, "All kindred came," and that was 75.
Acts 7:20 with Exodus 2:2- The LXX is the same. Acts 7:22-"Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" over against Exodus 4:10- "And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, not since thou hast spoken unto thy servant; but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue." The Dean says that this is a contradiction, that because Moses said he was slow of speech, he was, therefore, not eloquent.
These two verses should never be compared together for they do not speak about the same thing.
Moses was brought up in the court of Pharaoh, as Pharaoh's daughter's son, being her legal son and heir, apparently to the throne; he was bound to be educated. Common sense will tell you that education never makes a man eloquent. Degrees after a man's name do not make him necessarily an interesting speaker. The Dean loses again. Acts 7:22 with Exo 2:10- For the life of me I cannot see why anyone would compare these two verses. I hope the Dean reads this article, for these have nothing in common.
And in another place the Dean is very much excited about three periods of forty-years each that Stephen mentions:
40 years in Egypt.
40 years in the wilderness.
40 years in the desert.
That would make Moses 120 years old.
The Dean says that the mention of these three periods is found only here, and that only the last one is specified in the Pentateuch. Well, I may say, "What of it?" If God wants to give us three periods of 40 years each in the speech of Stephen, what of it?! Where is the contradiction? There is a lot of information in the Pentateuch concerning these periods. Exo 16:35- "Children of Israel ate manna forty years"; that doesn't contradict what Stephen says. Num 14:33 and Deut 31:2- Do either of these contradict what Stephen says? If you subtract 40 years from 120 years, you have 80 years, and that is what Stephen says. He was 80 years old when he led them out of Egypt.
Deut 34:7-He died at the age of 120. There is no contradiction. Turn to Exo 7:7-That is exactly what Stephen said, and while the first period is not mentioned, it is implied in Exo 2:11. It is all in beautiful agreement and harmony. Acts 7:31, 32 and Exo 3:3 should be compared with Exo 3:6. Acts 7:53, where Stephen speaks of the Law given by angels, the Dean says that this record of the giving of the law is not mentioned in Exo 19:16. Well, what of it? I can tell him where it is mentioned- Deut 33:2 - "saints" means "Holy ones or Angels." Gal 3:19 and Heb 2:2 are in agreement, aren't they? You must be accurate when you study the Word of God. Acts 7:16 with Gen 23:15- Can't a man buy two grave lots? Num 22:22 records the anger of the Lord upon Balaam for going, while in Num 22:20, the Lord tells him to go. The answer can be found in the words, "If the men come to call." But they didn't call.
A professor by the name of Iwart came to disbelieve the Bible, he said, because of Jer 7:22, 23. There are two things wrong with his trying to say that God contradicted Himself when He did give the law and did institute the sacrifices:
1. The Law was not given when Israel was brought out of Egypt, but later. 2. God never commanded man to bring the sacrifice, but man was told to bring them on his own free will; they were offerings. Lev 2:1-16; 3:1, 6; 12:4. Mat 2:23- "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene."
The contradiction, the Modernists point out, is that you can read the entire Old Testament, all the Prophets, and you cannot find one place where it is written. Now, we ask, is this a contradiction? No! Always remember that not all prophecy is written, and not all prophecy is spoken. Some prophecy was written and not spoken. Some prophecy was spoken and not written.
In Jud 13:7, we have the record of the Nazarite, Samson! Jesus was never called a Nazarite, because He was a Nazarene. He lived in Nazareth. Mat 27:9 is not found in the book of Jeremiah. However, notice what it says: "spoken", not written. Gen 6:19 with Gen 7:2-In Gen 6:19, Noah was commanded to take one pair of unclean animals into the ark to secure propagation. In Gen 7:2, Noah was commanded to take seven of each clean beast into the Ark for propagation and for sacrifice.
Here is another fellow who threw a fit about the flood. He says there are two accounts of the flood in the same chapter, which shows that it was written by two different authors. Gen 7:12 "And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights." Gen 7:24 "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."
For a man to make such a statement is foolishness. If a man wants to attack the Bible, he should do it in a way that isn't so foolish. It rained 40 days, and the water prevailed (existed) on the earth 150 days. No contradiction here. Exo 20:14 with Num 31:18- These women were not to be the tool of man's desire, but they were to be kept for servants. Deut 31:2, 34:7, 31:2 says that Moses was 120 years old and that he could no more go out and come in. It does not say that he was feeble, but that he could not go over Jordan. His time had come; no more could he come in and go out. Deut 34:7 says that he was 120 years old, and that his eye was not dim nor his natural force abated.
Heb 11:17 and Gen 22:2 with Gen 25:6- When it speaks of Isaac being the only begotten son, it means the only heir, the only one from whom would come the Messiah.
Someone has said that Eternal Life is denied in the Book of Ecclesiastes. This is no contradiction. Remember, Ecclesiastes is the Book concerning the Man UNDER the Sun, the reasoning of the unregenerated man. Thus, it denied the actuality of Eternal Life.
The approval of Jehu killing Ahab is found in II Kings 10:30. God's disapproval is found in Hosea 1:4. God wanted the destruction of Ahab's family and Jehu did it. Jehu didn't do it because of his love for God (2 Ki 10:31), but he murdered an entire household for his own position of gain. Jehu would have done it, even though God had not commanded it.
This is an old one: We are told that "Thou shalt not kill" is the Law of God. God makes an exception, however, in the case of a man who deliberately murders. The murderer is not considered a murderer himself, but as a faithful servant of the Lord in extermination of that which the Lord wants destroyed.
An objection comes from Professor Preserved Smith of Lane Seminary. He is speaking about the high places shown in I Ki 15:14 and II Chr 14:1, 2, 3, during the reign of Asa. When the Professor saw this, he was sure he had a flat contradiction. You know, if he were as familiar with the Bible as he is with high criticism, he would know there were high places devoted to Jehovah as well as devoted to idols, and that when Asa came he took down the high places devoted to the worship of idols, and that those to Jehovah were not taken down. Read the following: 2 Ki 12:2, 3; 2 Ki 15:3, 4; I Chr 16:39,40.
II Sam 24:24 with I Chr 21:22-25- This is the record of the buying of the threshing floor. It is the place where the angel stopped with drawn sword when the plague was on Jacob's people. Professor Smith presents this find as his own discovery! It was discovered long before Mr. Smith discovered it. David bought the floor for 50 shekels of silver (II SAMUEL). Then, in the other place, it says 600 shekels of gold by weight (I CHRONICLES) The Professor imagines that 50 shekels of silver seems to mean a very small sum in the eyes of the writer of Chronicles for a Prince like David to give; and hence, he kindly lied, increasing the amount to 600 shekels of gold. Perhaps the Professor does not know that this was the spot where the temple was built (II Chr 3:1).
In all events, Mr. Smith fails to distinguish between the threshing floor and the place of which David said, "I will verily buy it for the full price," (I Chr 21:24).
An illustration of the above is that of a man riding through the country: He sees a tractor in the field and goes to the farmer who owns the tractor and buys the machine. The next day the man goes back and buys the field. This is the type of transaction we have. Psa 58:4 speaks of the deaf adder. The Modernists say that there are no deaf adders. The truth here in God's Word is, that as the adders were charmed by the snake charmer's instrument, they were harmless; so are those who listen to the Word of God.
But, some adders would not listen to the music of the charmer, stopping as it were their ears; the wicked are those who will not listen to the Word of God, no matter how beautifully it is presented. They have stopped their ears to the hearing of God's Truth-HIS WORD! I Sam 16:17 with I Sam 17:55-58- "Whose son art thou?" is the answer to this seeming contradiction. Saul knew David, for David had played for him and had talked with him concerning the fighting of Goliath. After David's victory, Saul asked him, "Whose son art thou?" Saul wasn't inquiring as to who David was, but as to who was David's Father.
Mat 27:7, 8 with Acts 1:18-Judas could not have bought this field (Acts 1:18), because he threw down the pieces of silver and went out and hanged himself. The truth is that Judas was a thief, and he bought a farm with money he had stolen from the Lord and the disciples. The other land was a lot purchased with the 30 pieces of silver after his death. Lk 14:26 with Exo 20:12- We should not love Jesus less than we love our families! There is no second place for Jesus. God wants the heart! He wants ALL! He even wants the children. For example, take Abraham and Isaac. I don't know how much Abraham had dedicated Isaac to God, but this one thing I do know, that when they came down from off the mount, Abraham's Isaac was God's Isaac, because Abraham had given Isaac to God. Lk 24:50, 51 with Acts 1:9, 12- There is no contradiction here; these verses merely show two names for the same place.
Num 33:38 with Deut 10:6-There is no contradiction here. Again we have the same as above-two names for one place. Jn 8:59- "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." The Modernists say this could not be true, for there were no stones in the temple. We explain with an illustration from everyday life: Several years ago Big Bill Thomas, Mayor of Chicago, was scheduled to speak in a certain theater. When he began to speak, he was showered with eggs. According to the Modernists, that would have been an impossibility because the theater did not sell eggs. But we say, nevertheless, that they had eggs, for they threw them at the Mayor. They had brought them. Gen 16:4-14 with Gen 21:9- The Bible does not give two narrations of the same expulsion of Hagar. One expulsion occurred 13 years after the other. Gen 1:31 with Gen 2:4- The first Scripture speaks of the days chronologically, while the second speaks of a period of time. II Chr 22:1 with II Chr 21:17-Who reigned? The same man by two different names reigned, of course.II Chr 22:1 with II Chr 21:17- Who reigned? The same man by two different names reigned, also. Gen 25:1 with Gen 25:6- What was Keturah, a wife or a concubine? She was both! A concubine was a wife; she was of low society. II Chr 4:5 with I Ki 7:26- The first Scripture says that it held and received 3,000 baths; the second says that it contained 2,000 baths. Is this a contradiction? No. For example, suppose an ordinary bathtub holds 30 gallons.
When we take a bath we allow for the body and put only 10 gallons in the tub. So, we see, the capacity of the Molten Sea was 3,000 baths, while the actual number of baths they put in it was 2,000. Gen 14:14 with Judges 18:26-29- How could Abram live in Dan when Dan wasn't built until 377 years later? The answer is simple. The Dan of Genesis 14:14 is not the Dan of Judges 18:26-29. This is the case of more than one city by the same name.II Ki 15:30 with II Ki 15:33- Here is a man who reigned on a throne four years after he was buried. Maybe we had better look at this. II Ki 15:30 says, "... in the twentieth year of Jothan, the son of Uzziah." In verse 33 we read, "Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem ..." He reigned 16 years; but Hoshea took his throne in the twentieth year of his reign. How can this be? Men should not have a fit about this when it can be so easily explained:
What happened to Jotham's father, Uzziah? Uzziah was smitten with leprosy. He was a good king; God blessed him, and he got puffed up. He intruded into the priest's office, and he was smitten. He lived in a house by himself. Uzziah was the actual King of Judah, but it was impossible for him to carry on the affairs of his kingdom, so Jotham took his father's throne and reigned in his father's place. When Uzziah, Jotham's father, died, Jotham reigned 16 years. This is distinctly stated in II Ki 15:5. Jotham, Uzziah's son, was over the kingdom in Uzziah's stead. Exo 9:3, 6 with Exo 14:9- All cattle die, yet in a few days Pharaoh has his army fitted out with horses. Is this a contradiction? The Scriptures state that these animals which were destroyed were the beasts of the field. Yet, if they were considered as being the beasts of the field, remember that Israel had plenty and Pharaoh could have filled the gap left by the plague, or could have imported them. Exo 15:3 with Rom 15:33- God is a God of peace; however, when necessary, He is a God of war.
Here is another good example of wrestling (twisting) the Scripture. This might be called a moral contradiction. A man by the name of Berkhead introduced this. It wasn't new with him. He said, "In certain parts of the Old Testament ethical standards vary, according as they are applied to a brother Israelite or a foreigner Deut 14:21 enacts, for example, that the flesh of an animal that has died a natural death (without being properly slaughtered) must, on no account be eaten by an Israelite, but "thou mayest give it to the stranger that is within thy gates, or thou mayest sell to a foreigner."
Later legislation, however, puts the stranger or proselyte practically on the same footing as the Israelite, when we read Exo 12:49.
Mr. Berkhead quotes from Deuteronomy and says that it has to do with the repetition of the law and that it is given forty years after Sinai; and God says an animal that dies must be eaten by the stranger but not by my people, but that it may be sold to a foreigner. Mr. Berkhead says a later law abrogates that law and puts the foreigner on the same ground as the Israelite. Just as we said. Exo 12:49 has to do with the day when Israel came out of the wilderness, and Deut 14:21 has to do with Israel 40 years later. HOW CAN LAW, WHICH WAS GIVEN FIRST, BE LATER CONTRADICTED BY A LAW GIVEN AFTERWARDS? Exo 12:49 does not have a thing to do with the beast that dies, but it does have to do with the Passover and with participation in the Passover.
Let us think about this one law. It has to do with circumcision and the eating of the Passover; only the circumcised may eat. Deut 14:21 is a dietary law. Some foods were forbidden to the Israelites. They could not eat of an animal given to one nation, and God put that nation on a diet. Some time ago the Health Commissioner of New York City stated, concerning this law, that the law God gave to Israel is proof of the Inspiration of the Bible, for it is perfect. We know there was some food which was forbidden to the Israelites-that food which died without being properly slain. The beast might be strangled. Now, the Israelites would not be permitted to eat the flesh of the beast, because God prohibited them from eating blood. It all had to be specially slain, and the blood had to be taken away so that the animal, as much as possible, might be bloodless. They ate that kind of meat. It was customary to eat that meat; then, there was nothing wrong with selling that meat to the Gentiles, was there?
God restricted the Jew from eating pork; but other nations ate pork. Nations of other days are like nations of this day. If I eat pork and the Jew doesn't, is that wrong? Was it wrong for the Jew who ran a butcher shop over there to sell a slab of bacon if someone wanted it? It wasn't any more wrong in that day than it would be for a Jew to sell pork today. ANOTHER GOOD EXAMPLE: One fellow wrote a book of criticisms, and he closed with a great contradiction. It had to do with the fact that Moses wrote; then, the Scripture says that "God gave the Scripture." This fellow says that it is a contradiction. It says in one place that Moses wrote, and it says in another place that the Scriptures were given by God. Isn't that marvellous?
HERE IS ANOTHER ONE: In EXODUS 20 we are told not to covet, and in II Cor 12:1 it says "Covet earnestly the best gifts."
AND ANOTHER: In Lk 9:35, the voice of the Father from heaven, "This is my Beloved Son, hear ye Him," and in II PETER, "This is My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." In this reference, it doesn't say, "Hear ye him." There must be some mistake! Turn to Mat 17:5 and the Father says, "This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him."
When the Holy Spirit wrote the Book of Luke, He left out part of that saying, and when He came to II PETER, He left out another part. He had a right to do that. We do this same thing time and again. He had a right to do it. He had a right to write like He wanted to. The Word doesn't say in II PETER that this was all He said, but only a part.
COMPARE:
Proverbs 26:4 with
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
Prov 26:5
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
Some people say that this is certainly a contradiction, but it is not! These statements seem antagonistic, but they aren't. "Answer not"-do not lower yourself to the level and become like him. Do not answer him as though he were a sensible man. Our Savior never responded to foolish and captious questions like the questioner hoped or desired. He passed them by, or He gave them an unexpected return, which silenced them. "Answer him according to his folly..." which means, as his folly deserves in such a plain way as to expose it and shame him. Bring him to a better mind, "Lest he be wise in his own conceits..." , or lest he think he said something to bring you to shame or show his superiority or superior knowledge. Answer him in such a way as to reprove him. There is no contradiction at all!
Galatians 6:2 with Gal 6:5
"Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."
"For every man shall bear his own burden."
We are to bear one another's burden; this doesn't mean to "share" but to take them and make them our own, if possible. Yet, there is a task, a set responsibility, for each child of God to do!
METHUSELAH'S LONG SWIM: This came out in a paper some years ago, and it was nothing but an attack upon God and His Word:" Methuselah was 968 years and 47 days old when the flood began. Read Gen 5:26-28 and Gen 7:11- Therefore, it was necessary for him to swim until he died the following year. According to this he had to swim for 9 months and 3 days." The only thing wrong with this theory is that it is a lie. I can prove to you from the genealogy of Scripture that the flood did not come until Methuselah died, and it couldn't have come until he died. His name was prophetic. He was named "Methuselah", and that means, "When he is dead it shall descend." Methuselah died in 1656 (after Adam's beginning), and the flood came in the year he died. (Genealogy: Gen 5).
Now, here is this voice at which we might look: Acts 9:7 with Acts 22:9 - This is another cause for great excitement. It has to do with the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. In the first reference it says, "They stood speechless, but seeing no man." In the second it says, "They heard not the voice." Well, in this case, a knowledge of the language will help to understand. The same word is used in both cases, "Phone". It means 'attend', or 'to hear'. It is the same in both places, in both occurrences.
There is such a thing as a case governing the meaning of the word, such as the genitive case and the accusative case. In Acts 9:7, the genitive case is used where it has to do with a sound that is heard, and in Acts 22:9 we have the accusative case, and the voice was not heard. They heard the voice, but not the words. That is, they heard the sound, but they did not get the message. You will find that this word is translated in different ways in the Word of God. It is exactly the same word translated in Acts 2:6 (Revised Version) as "sound". It means they heard the sound but could not understand the words which were spoken.
Here is another case similar to the above: Jn 12:28, 29-The people thought it thundered, or it was the voice of angels. They did not hear the message, but they heard the sound. There is no contradiction. Num 4:3 with Num 8:24, 25- You will notice this difference; in NUMBERS 4 we have the numbering of the Levites, and in Numbers 8 we have the servants of the Levites; and these Levites who began to serve at 25 years of age were on probation until they reached 30 years of age. This man might have discovered another discrepancy if he had been wise, for in I Chr 23:24, 25 we read, "These were the Sons of Levi after the house of their fathers; even the chief of the fathers, as they were counted by number of names by their polls, that did the work for the service of the House of the LORD, from the age of twenty years and upward.
For David said, the LORD God of Israel hath given rest unto his people, that they dwell in Jerusalem for ever." There is no discrepancy there at all. The matter is simply changed by divine direction. II Chr 31:17- "Both to the genealogy of the priest by the house of their fathers, and the Levites from twenty years old and upward, in their charges by their courses." It is the same in some States; the voting age has been lowered from 21 to 18 by legal decree of the State it governs. Consequently, God could change His requirement, and this He did!
WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE TIME MARKS IN SCRIPTURE. EZEKIEL 36:35,36- "Then"-In I Thess 4:17. We have these time marks- Mat 24:29, "Immediately." Men wouldn't get so mixed up in prophecy if they would mark these time statements.
ERRORS IN TRANSLATION MAY SOMETIMES CAUSE TROUBLE, BUT DO NOT BLAME GOD FOR THE ERRORS IN TRANSLATION. He inspired the Book, not the translations. Rev 5:8-10- "redeemed us"-This is a passage which has caused grief, but this should read, "redeemed men". The error in translation is what has caused the grief.I Sam 6:19 points out that "he smote of the people fifty thousand and three score and ten men (50,070)." Someone has said that there couldn't have been that many people living in Bethshemesh because it was only a small city. I can't understand that, except as a mistranslation! I could ask, "Who said that many men lived there?" If God said it, then it is true, but this is the way it is translated in the Hebrew! "He smote seventy men, two fifties, and a thousand." That would mean that 1,170 men was the correct number, and that would be more like the correct figure.
ONE MORE: Judges 12:6- Somebody is all excited because the tribe only numbered 32,000, and how could 42,000 be slain when there were 10,000 less in the tribe? What does it say?-"Forty and two thousand." Did you ever hear the expression, "one and twenty years of age"? This means 21 years of age! "Forty and two thousand" means 2,040. Undoubtedly that is correct.
Back to Mastering the Bible