Are There Errors in the Bible? - Win the Day

Login

Are There Errors in the Bible?

 

Air Date: 3/30/21 - Are there errors in the Bible? Pastor Nat focuses on this valid question with a look at biblical prophecies. Were they fulfilled? If so, how? And what might this say about the reliability of Scripture for you today?

 

Back to the Bible Presents: Nat Crawford


Download the Transcript of Today's Podcast


Why Easter Changes Everything, by Pastor Nat Crawford is our gift to you to enjoy and share with others.  Download your free e-copy here.

If you found value in this post, please share your comments, questions, and prayers with us!

Discipleship Tip: Sharing is discipleship. Invite a friend to join you each day for a morning coffee and conversation about God. Click the sharing button below to get the conversation started.

  • Follow & Post
  • Post as Guest
  • Login
a year ago
No, God does not make any errors, he is prefect and Holy God.
1
a year ago
thank you pastor nat that was very inspiring.
4
a year ago
I have a question Pastor Nat is John the Baptist and John who wrote Revelation the same person?
1
1 reply
a year ago
Great question! We see a lot of the same names consistently in the Bible. I get them confused often. John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod at the request of the daughter of Herodias. John, the author of John, 1,2,3 John, and Revelation was John the son of Zebedee. Jesus called John and James "Sons of Thunder" (Mark 3:17). I hope this helps!
2
a year ago
Thank you pastor Nat I have a question about 1st Corinthians Chapter 11 KJV Version it says the woman is the hair given her to a covering now my question is does the talk about a second covering and if so how is a woman then to pray On the table Before eating?
1
1 reply
a year ago
Eva, you have brought up one of the most debated passages in Scripture. So knowing that, it can be said that there are general agreements. Here is what one well respected commentary said. I hope this helps.

"Paul began (11:2–16) and ended (14:34–35) his discussion of Christian freedom as it pertained to worship with remarks directed primarily at the behavior of women in the Corinthian church. Some have questioned whether his comments in this section refer to the actual meeting of the church or to extra-church occasions in which a woman might pray or prophesy. The fact that Paul appealed to church practice elsewhere as a feature of his argument in this section (11:16) suggests that he was discussing church meetings. Modern distinctions between meetings of the church for worship and other meetings of Christians seem based more on expediency than biblical evidence.

11:2. The Corinthians had expressed to Paul, either in their letter or via their spokesmen (cf, 1:11; 16:17), that they remained devoted to Paul and to the teachings, the central doctrines of the faith, which he had communicated to them (cf. 11:23; 15:1, 3). For this Paul commended them: I praise you.

11:3. Paul no doubt appreciated the Corinthians’ goodwill toward him. But more importantly, he wanted to see behavior in keeping with a Christian’s calling. As a prelude to his exhortation, Paul characteristically laid down a theological basis. In this instance it concerned headship. The word head (kephalē) seems to express two things: subordination and origination. The former reflects the more usual Old Testament usage (e.g., Jud. 10:18), the latter that of Greek vernacular (e.g., Herodotus History 4. 91). The former is primary in this passage, but the latter may also be found (1 Cor. 11:8). The subordination of Christ to God is noted elsewhere in the letter (3:23; 15:28). His subordination to the Father is also true in His work as the “agent” of Creation (8:6; cf. Col. 1:15–20).

11:4. When a man prayed aloud publicly or exercised the gift of prophecy by declaring a revelation from God (cf. 12:10), he was to have his physical head uncovered so that he would not dishonor himself and his spiritual head, Christ (v. 3).
The alternate translation in the NIV margin, which interprets the man’s covering as long hair, is largely based on the view that verse 15 equated the covering with long hair. It is unlikely, however, that this was the point of verse 4 (cf. comments on v. 15).

11:5–6. It cannot be unequivocally asserted but the preponderance of evidence points toward the public head covering of women as a universal custom in the first century in both Jewish culture ([apocryphal] 3 Maccabees 4:6; Mishnah, Ketuboth 7. 6; Babylonian Talmud, Ketuboth 72a-b) and Greco-Roman culture (Plutarch Moralia 3. 232c; 4. 267b; Apuleius The Golden Ass 11. 10). The nature of the covering varied considerably (Ovid The Art of Love 3:135–65), but it was commonly a portion of the outer garment drawn up over the head like a hood.

It seems that the Corinthian slogan, “everything is permissible,” had been applied to meetings of the church as well, and the Corinthian women had expressed that principle by throwing off their distinguishing dress. More importantly they seem to have rejected the concept of subordination within the church (and perhaps in society) and with it any cultural symbol (e.g., a head-covering) which might have been attached to it. According to Paul, for a woman to throw off the covering was an act not of liberation but of degradation. She might as well shave her head, a sign of disgrace (Aristophanes Thesmophoriazysae 837). In doing so, she dishonors herself and her spiritual head, the man.

11:7–9. The man, on the other hand, was not to have his head covered because he was the image and glory of God. Paul based this conclusion on Genesis 1:26–27. A woman’s (a wife’s) glory and image was derived from (1 Cor. 11:8) and complementary to (v. 9) that of the man (her husband). Man, then, was God’s authoritative representative who found in woman a divinely made ally in fulfilling this role (Gen. 2:18–24). In this sense she as a wife is the glory of man, her husband. If a married woman abandoned this complementary role, she also abandoned her glory, and for Paul an uncovered woman’s head gave symbolic expression to that spirit.

11:10. Paul offered a third reason (the first reason was the divine order—God, Christ, man, woman, vv. 3–6; the second reason was Creation, vv. 7–9) why womanly insubordination in the church should not exist. Angels were spectators of the church (4:9; Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:21; cf. Ps. 103:20–21). For a woman to exercise her freedom to participate in the church without the head covering, the sign of her authority (exousia, a liberating term; cf. 1 Cor. 7:37; 8:9; 9:4–6, 12, 18), would be to bring the wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10) into disrepute.

Other (but less acceptable) explanations have been suggested for the words because of the “angels”: (a) evil angels lusted after the women in the Corinthian congregation; (b) angels are messengers, that is, pastors; (c) good angels learn from women; (d) good angels are an example of subordination; (e) good angels would be tempted by a woman’s insubordination.

11:11–12. Men and women together in mutual interdependence, complementing each other, bring glory to God (cf. 10:31). Neither should be independent or think themselves superior to the other. Woman’s subordination does not mean inferiority. Man is not superior in being to woman. Eve came from Adam, and each man born in the world comes from a woman’s womb (11:12). God created them both for each other (Gen. 1:27; 2:18).

11:13–15. Paul had based his previous reasoning for maintaining the head covering as a woman’s expression of her subordination on arguments rooted in special revelation. Now he turned to natural revelation (cf. Rom. 1:20) for a fourth argument in support of his recommendation. Mankind instinctively distinguished between the sexes in various ways, one of which was length of hair. Exceptions to this general practice were due either to necessity (e.g., Apuleius The Golden Ass 7. 6, “to escape in disguise”) or perversity (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 6. 65). No abstract length of hair was in mind so much as male and female differentiation. The Spartans, for example, favored shoulder-length hair for men (cf. Lucian, The Runaways 27) which they tied up for battle (Herodotus History 7. 208–9), and no one thought them effeminate.

Long hair was a woman’s glory because it gave visible expression to the differentiation of the sexes. This was Paul’s point in noting that long hair was given to her as a covering. Natural revelation confirmed the propriety of women wearing the physical covering (cf. Cicero On Duties 1. 28. 100). She has a natural covering, and should follow the custom of wearing a physical covering in a public meeting.

Some Bible students, however, say that the Greek anti, rendered “as” (i.e., “for” or “in anticipation of”) should be translated in its more normal sense of “instead of.” According to that view, a woman’s hair was given instead of a physical covering, for it in itself is a covering. In this view women should pray with long hair, not short hair. This view, however, does not explain the woman’s act of covering or uncovering her head, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:5–6.

11:16. Paul’s fifth argument for maintaining the status quo on head- coverings came from universal church practice. Paul was not trying to foist a new behavioral pattern on the Corinthians but simply to hold the line against self-indulgent individual excess in the name of freedom. As in the case of food offered to idols (8:1–11:1), Paul dealt with the immediate issue but also put his finger on the root of the problem, the Corinthian pursuit of self-interest which was unwilling to subordinate itself to the needs of others (cf. 10:24) or the glory of God (10:31). Throwing off the head- covering was an act of insubordination which discredited God.

Whether women today in church services should wear hats depends on whether the custom of headcoverings in the first century is to be understood as a practice also intended for the present day. Many Bible students see that for today the principle of subordination (not the command to wear hats) is the key point in this passage. The intent of the custom of women wearing hats today, for fashion, seems far different from the purpose of the custom in the first century."

Lowery, D. K. (1985). 1 Corinthians. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, pp. 528–530). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Here is what Leon Morris, another respected commentator wrote on this topic:


Evidently some ‘emancipated’ Corinthian women had dispensed with the veil in public worship, and Paul argues that they should not do this. Jewish women were always veiled in public in the first century, but it is difficult to be certain about what was done elsewhere. A. Oepke thinks that customs varied (TDNT, iii, p. 562), but Conzelmann can say, ‘It can be assumed that respectable Greek women wore a head covering in public.’ If so, the practice of the Corinthian Christian ladies outraged the proprieties. Paul rejected it with decision. It is no part of the life of the Christian needlessly to flout accepted conventions.

2. Paul begins with praise. Perhaps the Corinthians had said that they remembered what he had told them, and the apostle expresses his pleasure. The teachings (paradoseis) were the ‘traditions’, the oral teaching that formed such an important part of early Christian instruction. They were not Paul’s own, but teachings handed down to him and which he passed on. The term stresses the derivative nature of the teachings in question, and particularly of the gospel (15:1ff.). It did not originate in the fertile mind of the teacher (see further, TNTC on 2 Thess. 2:15).

3. It is easy to be too definite in interpreting head in this verse. We use the term often for a person in authority (cf. ‘Heads of State’), but this usage was unknown in antiquity (except for a few passages in LXX). LSJ note usages of kephalē for the whole person, for life, extremity, top (of wall or column), source, etc., but never for the leader of a group. S. Bedale reminds us that the functions of the central nervous system were not known to the ancients, who held that we think with the midriff, the phrēn (JTS, n.s., v, 1954, pp. 211–215). The head was thus not the controlling factor (as GNB takes it with the translation ‘supreme over’); we must seek its significance elsewhere. ‘Head’ was used of the ‘source’ (as ‘head’ of a river), and LSJ cite an appropriate passage which says, ‘Zeus is the head, Zeus is the middle, in Zeus all is completed’ (II.d; they note that archē, ‘beginning’, is a variant for kephalē in some MSS). It seems that it is this meaning ‘source’ that is required here (so Bedale, Barrett, Bruce, and others; H. Schlier says, ‘Paul could have used archē if there had not been a closer personal relationship in kephalē’, TDNT, iii, p. 679). Paul is saying that the woman derives her being from man (Gen. 2:21–22), as man does from Christ and Christ from God. But we must be cautious in pressing these words, for none of the relationships mentioned is exactly the same as either of the others. Some translations speak of the husband here (e.g. RSV, GNB), but it is surely the relation of men and women that is in mind, not husband and wife. Marriage is not mentioned. Paul has just used the same word in the expression every man, which plainly refers to mankind, not husbands (cf. 8:6). Further, to understand woman here as ‘wife’ raises the question of unmarried women. Are they to worship with uncovered heads? It seems clear that it is ‘man’, not ‘husband’, that Paul means.

4. The order of creation has consequences for worship, but Paul’s precise meaning is not easy to see. NIV, as many translations, sees the unusual Greek to mean with his head covered. But what Paul says is ‘having down from (his) head’ (kata kephalēs echōn), and not a few argue that this means ‘having long hair’ (which hangs down from the head). J. Murphy-O’Connor favours a reference to long hair, more precisely ‘an un-masculine hairdo’, with a possible reference to homosexuality (CBQ, 42, 1980, pp. 482–500). But, while long hair fits the Greek of v. 4, it runs into a problem with the use of ‘cover’ and ‘uncover’ in later verses. On the whole it seems that we should understand the apostle to refer to a covering on the head of the man. He will go on to speak of the man as ‘the image and glory of God’ (v. 7), and now he says that if he prays or prophesies with covered head he dishonours his head. The one who is God’s image and glory must not veil that glory in the act of worship. It is not unlikely that the dishonoured head is both the man’s physical head and also Christ, ‘the head of every man’ (v. 3). For prophesies see on 12:10.

5. This verse plainly indicates that some Corinthian women prayed or prophesied in public worship. That Paul does not criticize the practice, but on the contrary lays down the way women should be dressed when engaging in it, shows that he accepted it (which raises a problem with 14:34–35, where see notes). Here his point is that a woman must have a head-covering when engaging in prayer and prophecy. Otherwise she dishonours her head (which seems to mean her physical head). It is as bad for her to pray or prophesy in this way as it would be if she were shaved. Moffatt cites evidence for the shame of a shaven woman (including a comedy of Menander, set in Corinth).

6. Paul drives his point home. If a woman will not cover her head, then let that head be shorn. If she counts it a disgrace for her head to be shorn or shaven, let her understand that it is equally a shame to have her head uncovered at worship.
7. The reason a man should not cover his head is that he is the image and glory of God. In the creation story we read that God made man in his own image (Gen. 1:26–27). Genesis makes no distinction between the sexes at this point, but Paul understands it particularly of the male. Glory is not mentioned in the Genesis story (though cf. Ps. 8:5, and passages where ‘heart’ or ‘soul’ renders the Hebrew for ‘glory’, e.g. Pss. 16:9; 57:8). Man shows forth God’s glory as does nothing else; the expression may also be meant to direct attention to the state of man before the fall. When people worship, this high dignity must be recognized; the glory of God is not to be obscured in the presence of God (by covering the head of its bearer). The woman is not made in the image of man (it was Seth, not Eve, who was in the image of Adam, Gen. 5:3). Her relationship to man is not the same as that of man to God. She has a place of her own, but it is not the man’s place. She stands in such a relation to the man as does nothing else, and thus she is called the glory of man. And it is precisely the glory of man that should be veiled in the presence of God. In worship God alone must be glorified.

8–9. Man did not come from (ek denotes the source) woman; he was the result of the direct creation of God. But woman from man refers to Eve’s being made from a rib taken from Adam’s side (Gen. 2:21ff.). The same passage explains neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Gen. 2:18; D. Kidner comments, ‘the sexes are complementary: the true partnership is expounded by the terms that are used’, TOTC, Genesis, p. 70). Neither in her origin, nor in the purpose for which she was created, can the woman claim priority.

10. This verse is very difficult. What Paul says is something like ‘the woman ought to have authority on her head’, but most translations understand this of the subjection of the woman (JB, ‘covering their heads with a symbol of the authority over them’; GNB, ‘to show that she is under her husband’s authority’; RSV, ‘a veil on her head’, rewrites rather than translates). But exousia means ‘authority’, not ‘subjection’; when anyone is said ‘to have authority’ it does not mean that the person is set under someone. W. M. Ramsay poured scorn on the idea that the term can indicate woman’s subjection, seeing this as ‘a preposterous idea which a Greek scholar would laugh at anywhere except in the N.T.’ (cited in Robertson and Plummer). Paul appears to be saying that there is a new view of women in Christianity. They are not to be regarded as an inferior species, as was generally the case in the ancient world. Christ’s new creation makes everything new (2 Cor. 5:17), and distinctions that matter so highly to men, including that between male and female, no longer count (Gal. 3:27–28); Paul will insist on equality in v. 11. He has said that women pray and prophesy in worship (v. 5). For that they need authority and he is saying that their head-covering is their sign of authority. As M. D. Hooker puts it, ‘Far from being a symbol of the woman’s subjection to man, therefore, her head-covering is what Paul calls it—authority: in prayer and prophecy she, like the man, is under the authority of God’ (NTS, 10, 1963–64, p. 416).

In Judaism women had a very minor place; they were not even counted in the number required for a synagogue (ten males). Christianity gave them a new and significant place, and their head-covering is a mark of their new authority. The differences arising from creation remain; Paul is not trying to obliterate them. But he is clear that Christian women have authority. The idea that the covering of the woman’s head is a sign of subjection to her husband runs into another difficulty. In praying or prophesying she is acting in obedience to God; why should she demonstrate subordination to a man in such an activity? Her head-covering, her authority for praying or prophesying, is the veiling of ‘the glory of man’ (v. 7).
There is a further problem in the expression because of the angels. Paul probably means that there is more to worship than the people in the congregation see. Good angels are there. The angels observe, and the woman must not be unseemly before them. This is the more appropriate in that angels serve believers (Heb. 1:14) and do not rebel at the task. Some have thought that Paul has in mind bad angels who will lust against unveiled women (in the spirit of Gen. 6:2), but this seems unlikely. The angels without qualification would not be understood as evil spirits. Moreover there seems no reason why such angels should be tempted only during worship.

11. Paul makes it clear that what he has been saying is not meant as an undue subordination of women. There is a partnership between the sexes and in the Lord neither exists without the other (NEB, ‘in Christ’s fellowship woman is as essential to man as man to woman’). The man must not exaggerate the significance of his having been created first. There is a fundamental equality.

12. Paul repeats the point that woman came from man (v. 8). Now he supplements it by pointing out that man is born of woman, more literally, ‘the man is through (dia) the woman’. The reference is no longer to the Genesis story, but to the ordinary processes of birth (so NIV). In this sense every man is ‘through’ the woman. The addition everything comes from God is a typical Pauline reminder of the priority of the divine. From is ek, denoting origin; the source, the origin of all things and all people is God. Neither man nor woman is an independent being. The implications for conduct are plain.
13. Paul makes an appeal to the Corinthians’ own understanding of the fitness of things. Yourselves is emphatic both from its position and also because autois is added to hymin. They can surely work out for themselves what is proper. They need not rely on Paul to direct them.

14–15. Paul proceeds to appeal to nature. Nature gives women longer hair than it does men, a difference which has usually, though not universally, been reflected in hair-styles. Some of the ancient Greeks had long hair, for example the Spartans and some of the philosophers. But generally speaking men have reflected the distinctions made in nature by using shorter hair-styles than those of women. This certainly must have been the case in first-century Corinth and in the places known to those who lived there, else Paul could not have couched his appeal in these terms. By contrast long hair is a glory to a woman. The precise length is not specified and it is not important. Paul simply says that it is longer than that of the man and this is accepted as her glory. Nature is giving a hint at the need for a woman to have her head covered on appropriate occasions. Indeed her hair is given to her as a covering.

16. But Paul has no intention of arguing the matter with anyone given to wordy battles (contentious, philoneikos, means someone who loves strife). Such people are capable of prolonging an argument indefinitely. In the face of such an attitude Paul points to universal Christian custom; Christians have no other practice. Exactly who he means by we is not clear; it may mean Paul himself, or the apostles generally, or those with him when he wrote the letter. But the nor do the churches of God shows that what he has outlined is the common practice throughout the churches.

This section of the letter raises the perennial question of the relationship of current social customs to Christian morality and practice. Behind all that Paul says is the principle that Christians must always act in a seemly manner: ‘everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way’ (14:40). The application of this principle to first-century Corinth yields the direction that women must have their heads covered when they worship. The principle is of permanent validity, but we may well feel that its application to the contemporary scene need not yield the same result. In other words, in the light of our totally different social customs, we may well hold that the fullest acceptance of the principle underlying this chapter does not require that in Western lands in the twentieth century women must always wear hats when they pray. ‘We must remember that when Paul spoke about women as he did in the letters to the Corinthians, he was writing to the most licentious city in the ancient world, and that in such a place modesty had to be observed and more than observed; and that it is quite unfair to wrest a local ruling from the circumstances in which it was given, and to make it a universal principle’ (W. Barclay, Letters to the Seven Churches [SCM, 1957], p. 75).

Morris, L. (1985). 1 Corinthians: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 7, pp. 148–154). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
2
a year ago
Thank you, Pastor Nat. For letting peoples no the truth. Cause the Bible is real with no error. Our lord savior Jesus Christ please forgive the nonbelievers and take the darkness alway and change their heart’s. In Jesus’s name, amen. 🙏❤️🙏
4
Load more comments