(Ron) A Biblical Anachronism
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Mon, 08 Jun 1998 23:03:05 -0700 (00897390185, 2.2.32.19980609060305.0075a318@midwest.net)
At 07:51 PM 6/8/98 -0400, Brian Dean wrote:
>TILL
>*snip*
>
>An anachronism is the representation of something as if it existed before
>its actual historical time. For example, if someone should write a history
>of the civil war in which aerial combats were depicted between the northern
>and southern air forces, that would be an anachronism, because airplanes did
>not exist at that time. In the Bible, we find examples of anachronism,
>which are clear indications that the Bible was not verbally inspired by an
>omniscient, omnipotent deity, for if it were, the real author of the Bible
>would have known the proper time frames for everything and would have put
>nothing outside of its proper time sequence. An example of anachronism is
>found in a reference that the Bible made to Israelite priests before any
>such priests had even been ordained.
>
>When the Israelites were camped in the wilderness of Sinai, Moses "went up
>unto God" (Exodus 19:3), which was no big deal in those days. People were
>always going up to God or God was coming down to them. Anyway, Moses
>went up to God and Yahweh called to Moses out of the mountain and said that
>he would make a "holy nation" out of the children of Israel (vs:5-6).
>
>
>*snip stuff already seen on the list*
>
>RON
> First of all, keeping the Israelites back might have been easy, but
>all those plagues, the angel of death, and the parting of the sea would
>have been rather difficult to pull off. Besides this is just idle
>speculation on your part.
TILL
But it isn't idle speculation on your part that the parting of the sea, the
plagues, and all the other miraculous stuff happened just as claimed?
RON
>You have no evidence for it either way.
TILL
And I suppose you do have evidence that all of the miracles happened as claimed?
RON
> As to a priesthood existing before the Aaronic one - it is you and not
>the Scriptures which are in error. See Genesis 14:18 "Melchizedeck king
>of Salem brought bread and wine; he was a priest of God most high." See
>also Psalm 110:4, and Hebrews 5:1-10 which also deal with a primitive
>pre-Aaronic priesthood. This is a very important point from the
>standpoint of Christology.
TILL
You, like others who have tried to respond to this, have simply pointed out
that other nations had priests at this time. I have no quarrel with that,
but your inspired, inerrant word of God does not indicate that the
Israelites had priests at this time. The"primitive pre-Aaronic priesthood"
that you seem to find in Hebrews 5:1-10 is, in fact, referring to priests of
other nations (such as Melchizedek). The passage says that no man takes the
honor of priesthood upon himself but only when he was "called of God" as
Aaron was, so why don't you cite for us some OT passages that indicate that
God "called" priests before Aaron and his sons were set apart?
Someone on another list took this same route in trying to explain away this
anachronism, so I am going to post below what I sent in response to him.
****************
The passage I cited was obviously referring anachronistically to the Aaronic
priesthood. Look at the statement in context.
>Exodus 19:21 Then Yahweh said to Moses, "Go down and warn the people not
to break through to Yahweh to look; otherwise many of them will perish.
>22 Even the priests who approach Yahweh must consecrate themselves or
Yahweh will break out against them."
>23 Moses said to Yahweh, "The people are not permitted to come up to Mount
Sinai; for you yourself warned us, saying, 'Set limits around the mountain
and keep it holy.'"
>24 Yahweh said to him, "Go down, and come up bringing Aaron with you; but
do not let either the priests or the people break through to come up to
Yahweh; otherwise he will break out against them."
>25 So Moses went down to the people and told them.
>
Notice that in verse 24 Yahweh instructed Moses to go down and bring Aaron
up with him BUT not to let either the priests or the people break through.
So the priests were contrasted with Aaron. He could come up but the priests
could not. The writer was thinking in terms of Aaron the priest and the
other priests (his sons) who served with him. Notice also verse 22, which
stated that "even the priests WHO APPROACH YAHWEH had to consecrate
themselves to keep Yahweh from "break[ing] out against them." You suggested
that I read Leviticus, but if you will read it, you will see that the
Aaronic priests were the ones who "approached" Yahweh or "came nigh" to Yahweh.
That no priests yet existed at that time is certainly implied in Exodus
24:4-5, which tells of an altar that Moses built and then sent "young men of
the children of Israel" to offer burnt-offerings and sacrifices on. If
priests existed, why wouldn't they have officiated at this altar? Since
there are other anachronisms in the Bible, it isn't at all unreasonable to
think that the reference to priests in Israel before there were any is also
an anachronism.
RON
> These are the types of "errors" people come up with when they are not
>thoroughly familiar with the scriptures (I'm not claiming I am either!).
TILL
Yeah, sure, I don't know anything at all about the Bible. I've just been
studying it VERY seriously since 1949.
RON
>They tend to "find" errors because they want to, not necessarily because
>they exist.
TILL
But inerrantists don't tend to find solutions just because they want to and
not necessarily because there are solutions, do they?
RON
> Then it becomes the duty of the Scripture to somehow prove
>them wrong, guilty until proven innocent. Then just look what
>contortions they go to to protect their pet theory!
TILL
If you weren't so serious, this would be funny. No one goes into more
verbal contortions than a biblicist looking for a way to "explain" away an
obvious discrepancy.
RON
> Just because you on't understand something doesn't mean there is not an
>explanation for it.
TILL
And just because you dream up some how-it-could-have-been scenario doesn't
mean that it (whatever) happened this way. Have you ever stopped to think
how unlikely it is that all of the hundreds of how-it-could-have-beens that
inerrantists have proposed as solutions to Bible discrepancies are right?
The odds against it would have to be astronomical.
ROB
>This is one of the reasons why if I notice an apparent error, I give
>the Scripture the benefit of the doubt. You might try it before jumping
>to conclusions.
>
TILL
Ron, you have no idea how long I gave the Bible the benefit of the doubt,
but a reasonable person can carry just so much bullshit on his back until he
collapses under its weight.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net