Contradictions of the Bible.

Mr. Tyerman delivered the fifth of his course of lectures on the question, "Is the Bible the Word of God?" in the Queen's Theatre, on Sunday, Oct. 17. There was a very large attendance. He wished, before entering on the subject announced, to make a remark or two on the conduct of two or three persons in the dress circle—apparently professing Christians—on the occasion of his last lecture on the Bible, to which his attention had been called. They annoyed those around them who wished to attend to the whole lecture, by such expressions as that he (Mr. Tyerman) "ought to be kicked out of the place," "horsewhipped," and "burnt." He was not surprised at such an evidence of orthodox piety, but he decidely took exception to the manner and place of its manifestation. Any one who chose, as he did, to reject the creeds of Christendom, to expose the hollowness of most of the religion of modern society, and to inculcate unpopular truths, must expect to have his character assailed, his motives impunged, and, if circumstances allowed, his liberty, if not is life, endangered. Kicking, horsewhipping, and burning were formerly favourite pursuits of believers in the Bible; and, no doubt, many modern Christians deeply regretted the loss of those good old times, and often sighed for their return. They proved their divine charity by harshly condemning all who could not pronounce their Shibboleth, and illustrated the noble precept of their Master to love their enemies, by cordially hating him and others who dared to think for themselves. Now, if the religion of those persons had not taught them go d manners, and made them gentlemen, education and social intercourse ought to have done so. When he attended an orthodox church, he invariably heard a great deal from the pulpit that he could not accept as truth, but he did not distract the attention of the faithful by interjecting unseemly remarks. He then only mentally condemned what appeared to him as error, and afterwards took what course he deemed necessary for its refutation. And, in deference to those who had come to hear what he had to say against the Bible, he requested those who could not hear their views questioned, without interruption, to leave the theatre. The Church was their proper place.

In his last lecture he had proved that the Bible taught the most false and blasphemous views of God, and hence could not be his word. On the present occasion he would show that it gave glaringly contradictory descriptions of God, and therefore could not have been inspired by infallible wisdom. He would not attempt to make good his position by mere dogmatic assertions, still less by drawing upon his imagination for his facts and arguments; but would simply rely upon the clear and pointed statements of the book itself. If it could be proved that the Bible contradicted itself, its authority would be destroyed. A single positive contradiction would be fatal to the orthodox doctrine of its infallibility. But he would show that it literally abounded in contradictions. He was quite aware of the stereotyped answer of Christians, that its alleged contradictions, were only apparent, and not real; but in the application of that principle to certain passages they furnished another example of that reprehensible, shuffling, and arbitrary twisting of words to support a foregone conclusion, which he had so often condemned. Take the case of the numbering of Israel, mentioned in the last lecture. page 4 One passage, 2 Samuel, xxiv., 1, distinctly stated that it was the "Lord" who moved David to number them, while another passage, I Chron., xxi., 1, as distinctly stated that "Satan" caused him to do it. Could there be a more clear and positive contradiction than that? Who could make it to be only apparent, and not real, without being guilty of unworthy quibbling, and a gross abuse of terms? If a modern historian asserted in one part of his work that a certain man performed a given act; and in another part that a totally different person did it, he would not be able to clear himself from the charge of error by maintaining that the contradiction was only apparent, and not real. Nor could the credibility of the Bible be vindicated by such an elastic and questionable principle of interpretation. In support of the proposition laid down as to the contradictory character of Scripture teaching about God, it was shown that in such passages as Gen xvii., 1, and Matt., xix., 26, he was declared to be "Almighty" and that "all things were possible" with him; but in Judges, i., 19. it was stated that he could not drive out the inhabitants of a certain valley "because they had chariots of iron." Hence words declared his omnipotence, while events proved his impotence. And so it had often been since. Christian armies, in their work of pious butchery, believed that their God was all-powerful, and could easily scatter their foes; but it was generally found that if he had anything to do with those wholesale murders, he gave the victory to the largest, best equipped, and most skilfully officered armies. In Acts, i., 24, and Psalm cxxxix, 1-4, he was said to be omniscient; but in Gen., xxii., 12, Deut., viii., 2, and Deut., xiii., 3, it was clearly implied that he was ignorant as to whether his people loved and feared him; and it was said that he adopted certain means to test the point, just as man did to solve so doubtful matter. The experiment elicited the desired information, and he declared—"Now I know that thou fearest God." In Job, xxxiv., 21, Psalm cxxxix., 7-10, and Prov., xv., 3, he was credited with omnipresence; but in Gen., xi., 5, and Gen., xviii., 21, it was taught that he was a limited and local being, whose residence was above the clouds. A report had reached him that in the first case some people were building a tower whose summit would reach heaven, and in the other that a certain city was so wicked as to be ripe for destruction. He did not know whether the report was true or false; and hence, in the last case, he said—"I will go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me; and if not I will know." But what need had a God, said to be everywhere present, to come down from heaven to satisfy himself by a special local inspection, whether certain reported things on earth were true? If the text did not mean what it said, who had sufficient authority to decide what it did mean? If these terms were not to bear their ordinary interpretation, seeing that no qualifying clause was inserted, there was surely no occasion to use them in a misleading sense, in accommodation to human weakness, as was often alleged. If the Bible was God's word, and he had taken human weakness and ignorance into account in inditing it, as Christians believed, was not that an additional reason why he should have guided mankind by the most unequivocal statements, instead of tantalising them by using language that was capable of such various and conflicting constructions?

Again, Numbers xxiii. 19, Mal. iii. 6, and James i. 17, ascribed immutability to God; while Genesis vi. 6, Exodus xxxii. 14, and Jonah iii. 10, contradicted that by stating that he repeatedly changed his purposes. If one passage declared that God was not "the son of man that he should repent," and another passage asserted that "God repented of page 5 the evil that he had said he would do unto them," and if that was not admitted to be a positive contradiction, he would ask in the name of common sense, what did language mean? God was said to have created man, and yet. When the creature did not turn out according to the Creator's expectations, it is said that "it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it grieved him at his heart." But if he was omniscient, as supposed, he must have foreseen that his creature would go astray; why, therefore, repent and grieve over it? Would is not have been more God-like to have prevented the cause of his repenance and sorrow, rather than have to remove it by destroying all the inhabitants of the earth, save eight persons? Those passages, then, impunged the omniscience and omnipotence, as well as the immutability of God. In Isaiah xl. 28, it was taught that God "fainteth not, neither is weary;" but Exodus xxxi. 17, stated that he "rested" after his week's work of creation, and "was refreshed" by his rest, just as man was by his Sunday rest after his six day's labour. Exodus xxxiii. 20, and John i. 18, taught that God was Divisible to human sight; and yet Genesis xxxii. 20, Exodus xxiv. 9-11, and Exodus xxxiii. 11, as positively stated that he had been seen by man. Could anything be plainer than the words—"No man hath seen God at any time?" And yet Jacob affirmed—"For I have sent God face to face." That was another instance of its beautiful agreement with itself throughout, which was said to be such a distinguishing glory of the Bible. It was a curious logic that proved that an object both had and had not been seen; but then the logic of theology rose triumphantly above the ordinary laws of reasoning. In 1 Tim., vi., 16, it was stated that God dwelt in light; but in I Kings, viii., 12, Psalm xviii., 11, and Psalm xcvii., 2, it was said that he dwelt in "darkness." Of course, on the principle that there was no difference between light and darkness, that day and night meant the same thing, there was noncontradiction in these passages. Again, in James, i., 13, it was declared that the Lord never "tempted any man;" but Genesis, xxii, 1, flatly contradicted that by stating that God did tempt Abraham." It might be accepted as a general rule of conduct with the God of the Bible, that if he declared he would not do a certain thing, he would sooner or later do that very thing. Further, in Deut. xxxii., 4, and Heb. vi., 18, it was asserted that he was "a God of truth" and that "it was impossible for Cod to lie;" but in 1 Kings, xxii., 23. and Ezek., xiv., 9, they were told that he had "put a lying spirit into the mouth" of certain prophets, and had "deceived" them. Was not deception lying? and was not lying by proxy as bad as lying in person? In the next place, such passages as Deut., xxxii, 4, and Rom., ii, II, attributed justice and impartiality to God; but Ex., xx., 5., and Rom., ix., 11-13. represented him as one of the most unjust and partial beings imaginable. His "justice" was shewn by punishing innocent children, even to the fourth generation, for the misconduct of their fathers; not by the operation of natural laws and causes, but by arbitrary and direct inflictions. His "no respect for persons" was illustrated by his making a distinction between two children before they had "done any good or evil," and by "hating" the one, and "loving" the other, when they arrived at maturity. And what made his conduct the more reprehensible, was the fact that he loved the worst man, Jacob, and hated the best, Esau. Language was inadequate to express his (the lecturer's) abhorrence of Jacob's meanness in taking advantage of his brother's hunger to get possession of his birthright. Again, such passages as James, v., 11., and 1 John, iv., 16, exhibited God as a Being full of love, mercy, and goodness;" but Deut., vii., 16, page 6 1 Sam., xv., 2, 3. and scores of other passages described him as a most cruel, vindictive, pitiless monster. His people were comman let to show "no pity;" they were to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox an I sheep, camel and ass." But Saul was a little more merciful than his God, and spared the life of King Agag, and the best of the cattle of the Amalekites; and because of that humane act—because he had not "performed" the ferocious "command" literally and fully, God "repented" that he had "set up Saul to be king;" while Samuel, so often held up by Christians as a fine example of a pious God-fearing man, "hewed Agag to pieces before the Lord in Gilgal." Finally, in 2 Peter, iii., 9. he was said to have willed the salvation of men; and yet. In Prov.. xvi., 4, it was declared that he had made "even the wicked for the day of evil." When a person said he willed a certain thing, and yet did not give effect to his will, it was reasonable to conclude either that he had did not mean what he said, or that he lacked the power to accomplish his purpose. So they must reason in regard to God. If he was "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance," then those who have perished must have done so against the will of an alleged all-mighty and an all-loving God. Which were they to believe—that God really willed the salvation of all men, and yet could not carry out his will; or that though he said he willed their salvation, he did not mean it : but, on the contrary, Created "the wicked for the day of evil"—"predestinated" them before they were born, to eternal damnation? Such were a few of the unmistakably contradictory teachings respecting God, of their so-called infallible and harmonious Bible. He could easily have [unclear: mppled] them; and would give a number on other subjects quite as plain and startling, in another lecture. He had furnished chapter and verse for all he had said. Language could not well be more definite and clear than that of the passages he had quoted. No one could deny that they contradicted each other in the most positive and persistent manner, unless he were either pitiably imbecile, wilfully dishonest, or lamentably perverted and warped by the influence of a false theology. He repeated once more, that he had nothing to do with the far-fetched and arbitrary interpretations of Christians, by which it was sought to force a reconciliation of those opposing passages. Such glaring contradictions as the Bible abounded in would for ever destroy the credibility of any other book; and no one would attempt to preserve its credibility by adopting such methods of reconciling its positive discrepancies as were applied to the Bible. Tried by the same rules of criticism and interpretation as were applied to other books the Bible was found to be hopelessly at variance with itself on very many points, and therefore could not be the word of an omniscient and infallible God.