Misunderstanding popular idioms and sayingsEvery culture has expressions of speech they use to communicate quickly and colorfully. Teens do this naturally; what used to be hip became groovy which turned into cool, then phat. However, some people try to snub style by forcing common sayings—known as idioms—to be understood literally. This simply proves the objector is not treating the text fairly. I remember hearing a story where a translator was helping a person visiting Russia. Getting to the train station minutes before their departure, he told a local that they had made it by the skin of their teeth, which the translator repeated verbatim. The Russian looked at the man and was quite perplexed. Teeth don't have skin! So the man had to interpret the meaning of the idiom in order for his listener to understand what he was saying. Similarly, ancient people also had idioms that they used to speak in a particular way.
Example: Jesus in the Tomb Three Days and Nights
"For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matthew 12:40
When you look at the accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection, it seems that Jesus was wrong. He died on Friday evening and was resurrected before daybreak on Sunday morning. That's maybe 36-38 hours at the most, not three days AND three nights. But in Hebrew speech any part of a day is referred to as a whole day. We can see this in the passage of 1 Samuel 30. Here, David had been fasting before God to conquer the Amalekites, since they had ransacked southern Israel and captured many people including David's wives. After his victory, verse 12 says that David "had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights." But in verse 1, it clearly states that David overtook the Amalekites on the third day, not afterwards. So, here is another instance of the phrase three days and three nights not being used literally, but an expression for covering at least part of a three day period.
Differences in perspective or emphasisOne final way critics will snub style is to view a retelling of an account as a contradiction simply because it is emphasizing a different aspect of the same event. For example, the book of Kings and the book of Chronicles offer similar stories of the Kings of Israel and Judah, but the writers there were hoping to make different points. The author of the books of Kings is more concerned with the way God orders the events of history and downfall of the nation's leadership while the author to Chronicles emphasizes the apostasy from the Davidic covenant and temple worship.
Example: Are Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 competing creation accounts?"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven". Genesis 2:4
In the first chapter of Genesis, God creates the plants first (day three), then the birds and fish (day four), then the animals, and finally man and woman (day 6). However, Genesis 2 seems to say that man was created first, then the plants, then all the animals, and finally woman. Aren't these contradictory? The answer is no, because the accounts are really not talking about the same things.
The best way to understand the creation story is to see Genesis chapter one as an overview of all God did to create the heavens and the earth. Then, like a movie plot that backs up to show the details of a particular event, Genesis 2:4 zooms in on the last creation day to tell the events there. First, planting "a garden toward the east" does not mean that God hadn't already created plants and animals elsewhere. In fact, because the location of the garden is qualified ("toward the east") it implies that this activity is very localized. God could simply be recreating plants and animals specifically for Adam. The language could also be perspective-driven; God's previous action of creating animals from the ground is restated while underlining that the animals were to be subservient to man.
We use language the same way today. We may tell a friend "this car was built for you" to someone who finds a car they that fits their personality. Either way, the claim of a contradiction doesn't stand.
Post a Comment