Five Alleged Mistakes in the Bible
Covet Doesn’t Mean Covet
Supposedly,
the command, “You shall not covet” (Ex. 20:17), has been mistranslated.
It really means “Don’t take.” Is that distinction valid? It is not. The
root form of hamad means
“to desire, long after” in an “inordinate, ungoverned, selfish” sense
(Brown 1907, 326). Note the parallel in Deuteronomy 5:21 which defines
the term “covet” by the companion word, “desire.” Moreover, reflect on
Achan’s sin (Josh. 7:21). It involved coveting and taking—different
verbs, different actions, thus demonstrating that the two are not the
same.
There Is No Jubilee
The claim is made that the term “jubilee” (found twenty-one times in the ASV;
cf. Lev. 25:10) is incorrect; supposedly, it should be rendered “ram.”
First of all, the original word is of “uncertain origin” (Freedman 1992,
1025 [one of the more liberal dictionaries available]), and no
inflexible claim should be made on such a basis.
It
is true that the ram’s horn was used to signal the beginning of this
special year. Jubilee, however, came to be associated with the term
because slaves were released and property debts were forgiven in this
year. It was a year of great rejoicing. Hence the word took on a popular
sense.
No Virgin Prophecy
The charge is made that Isaiah 7:14 did not prophesy the virgin birth; the allegation is that the Hebrew term almah meant
only “young woman.” This modernistic allegation has been debunked
numerous times. It is regrettable that uninformed people still make such
an irresponsible charge.
Matthew,
an inspired apostle, specified that the Old Testament text meant
“virgin” when he said that Joseph “knew her not” until after the birth
of the baby. This is a euphemism for sexual intimacy. Moreover, Dr. Luke
(Col. 4:14) records that Mary made the same argument (see Lk. 1:34). A
medical doctor scarcely would have argued for a virgin birth unless the
evidence for such was absolutely overwhelming! Why would a modern
liberal writer think he knows more about that ancient situation than two
inspired historians whose records have stood the test of some twenty
centuries? For a more extensive discussion of this matter, see, Did Isaiah Prophesy the Virgin Birth?. (See also Hindson 1978.)
The Lord Is Not My Shepherd
The
critical writer further claims that the word “shepherd” (Psa. 23:1)
reflects an “inaccurate” translation. He contends that the Hebrew term
merely suggests the idea of “mighty, fierce, or royal.” Thus,
supposedly, no English translation for the past four hundred years has
translated Psalm 23:1 correctly until some relatively unknown critic
revealed it in the Huffington Post!
Professor Bruce Waltke noted that in Psalm 23 David “uses the metaphor
of a shepherd tending his sheep” (VanGemeren 1997, 1105). In the Hebrew
Bible the word is ro’eh (found
about sixty-two times in the Old Testament). It is applied to God as
“one who pastures or feeds his sheep” (Unger and White 1980, 372).
Even
an inexperienced Bible student should be able to see the significance
of the term in the context of animals who feed in “green pastures” are
led carefully in the vicinity of “still waters,” are protected by their
master’s “rod and staff,” and have their heads “anointed with oil.” The
figure of God as a caring shepherd goes far back in history (Gen.
49:24), and even Christ used the symbol for his relationship with his
people (Jn. 10:11).
Love Your Sister
Finally, the pseudo-scholar who authored the Huffington piece
alleges that the translation, “sister,” used in Song of Solomon (seven
times), would imply an incestuous relationship and is downright
“felonious.” Instead, the writer claims, the point being made by the use
of this term in Solomon’s narrative is to establish “that the woman in
this relationship should be the man’s equal.” How in the world is that
conclusion to be drawn?
First, as a human being of worth, woman is equal with
man. Both male and female were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).
In the matter of salvation, both genders stand on equal ground; they
are one in Christ (Gal. 3:28). But in domestic and ecclesiastical
realms, the situation is different. The husband is the head of the wife
(Eph. 5:23), and the woman is not permitted to exercise authority over the man in church matters (1 Tim. 2:12).
The
book of Song of Solomon has absolutely nothing to do with such issues,
and the very suggestion of such is absurd. The term “sister” (4:9) is
merely a “term of endearment rather than a term for a blood relative”
(Unger and White, 384). Professor G. Lloyd Carr states:
0 Comments
Post a Comment