TODAY we are part of a very sophisticated, well-informed world. Even the so-called uneducated man has at his finger tips a tremendous range of facts. It is therefore most important that we as ministers aim for accuracy in our presentations. The time is rap idly passing when we can excuse our mistakes by saying, "No one in the audience will know whether I am right or wrong." The text that follows suggests a few common errors sometimes perpetuated by the clergy.
I. LINGUISTIC ERRORS.
A. Singular, Dual, and Plural in Hebrew.
This error is used by some in an endeavor to prove that the plural form of the word God ('Elohim) shows that there are three members in the Trinity. We have strong proof of the Trinity so it is unnecessary to descend to arguments that are not intellectually honest. Those who use this argument state correctly that there is found in Hebrew the singular, dual, and plural forms, but they assume incorrectly that the singular refers to one, the dual to two, and the plural to three or more. A correct evaluation of the Hebrew system would be: singular to one; dual to pairs such as eyes, hands, et cetera; and plural to two or more.
However there is yet another facet of this 'Elohim argument. After careful consideration, one realizes that either one of the following propositions is correct:
1. 'Elohim can be considered as a plural of majesty or an honorific plural without emphasis upon the number, but with the concept of honor and importance uppermost in the mind of the author.
2. 'Elohim is plural and therefore it could denote the fact of there being more than one. The evidence here can only be used in a cumulative sense; it is not compelling or coercive by itself.
B. "Thou shalt surely die" (margin: "dying thou shalt die").
Some take the marginal reading of the King James Version of Genesis 2:17 as an answer to the question as to why Adam and Eve did not die immediately. The marginal rendering is correct as a literal translation of the so-called Hebrew infinitive absolute construction, but the interpretation placed upon the words by many is completely incorrect when the literal rendering is used to state that death began as a gradual process (dying) and after many years it ended in actual death (thou shalt die). This Hebrew construction simply gives emphasis, and is correctly rendered by, "Thou shalt surely die."
C. The "Sabbaths" of Colossians 2:16.
Should the term be rendered "sabbath" or "sabbaths" ? Many clergy quote old commentators to prove that it should be plural, and therefore refer to the "ceremonial" sabbaths. That the term refers to ceremonial sabbaths is without question the context reveals this, but we are really not treading on scholarly ground when we assert dogmatically that the term is plural in form. No doubt there will be some Greek students who will extend the suggestion that I have forgotten my Greek plural forms. But let me say this: If Greek were the only language concerned we would be on solid ground; however, we must remember that the term "sabbath" is of Hebrew origin and that it came down to the Greek via the Aramaic. This then places another color on the singular or plural question. The Hebrew form is shabbath and the Aramaic form is shabbatha. Herein lies the problem, for the Aramaic singular form closely resembles the Greek plural. A comparison of all the references in the Hebrew Old Testament with the Greek Septuagint will bear out this point in the rendering of the term "sabbath." Again, let us be intellectually honest in all of our presentations. All we can definitely say with regard to this text is that the term "sabbath" is indeterminate as to question of singular or plural; the context alone must determine the meaning.
II. ARCHEOLOGICAL ERRORS.
A. In this picture I am standing on the tower of Babel.
In making this statement one of two things has happened: (1) The speaker is lying, or (2) he is ignorant. Maybe the picture is of a ziggurat, but not of the tower of Babel. We only lose by this kind of approach.
B. The Exodus.
When dealing with the problem of the date of the Exodus, it would be well to read the article on this subject in The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1, pp. 183-196.
C. The Flood.
The discovery of approximately eight feet of silt in several of the archeological digs in the Mesopotamian River Valley is acclaimed by many as first-class evidence for a worldwide flood. Be careful of this reasoning for when this discovery is used as evidence one is really only falling into line with those who say that the Flood was just a gigantic Mesopotamian valley flood. There is far greater evidence than eight feet of silt.
D. Garstang's Jericho.
If you quote Garstang authoritatively when speaking of Jericho, you reveal the fact that you have not read too much about archeology for a long time. Check and evaluate before you claim archeological proof. Be especially careful of popular magazine articles about such things as the finding of Noah's ark, the way the Dead Sea scrolls are supposed to confute Christianity, et cetera.
III. ERRORS OF TERMINOLOGY.
A. I am a fundamentalist.
Are you? Before claiming this philosophy find out what a fundamentalist really is. It would be far better for us to say that we are Seventh-day Adventists and that we have a conservative approach to Biblical questions.
B. I do not accept any lower or higher criticism.
This is simply not true. Lower criticism in actuality has to do with textual variants, et cetera, while higher criticism has to do with authorship, date of writing, place of writing, purpose of writing', et cetera. What we are against, and let us get it clear, is the radical higher criticism that detracts from the authenticity of the Bible.
IV. ERRORS OF DATE AND CHRONOLOGY.
Following are a few dates that we should note carefully, and should give study to the events surrounding them.
605 B.C.--First stage of Babylonian captivity.
597 B.C.--Second fall of Jerusalem.
586 B.C.--Destruction of Jerusalem.
539 B.C.--Fall of Babylon to the Medo-Persians.
The 70 years of Jeremiah is still valid by taking into consideration the question of inclusive reckoning and the fact that the decree of Cyrus did not take place immediately upon the overthrow of Babylon.
The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, The Chronology of Ezra 7 by Edwin R. Thiele, and The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary articles on dating and chronology are good sources of information.
V. ERRORS WITH THE JEWISH YEAR.
Many make the mistake of saying that 360 days is a Jewish year. This is not correct; 360 days is a prophetic yardstick or a prophetic year if you like. This can be proved by comparing the 1260 days with the 42 months and with the time, and times and half a time. For further information on the system followed in the Jewish year read The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 3, pp. 103-109.
There are many other examples that could be cited. Knowledge is progressive. New light never obliterates old light, it only adds to its relevance. Remember, just because you read it in a book once does not take away your need for continual study. But rather strive to become intellectually honest.
