21st Century Judaizers: Israel Bible Center on Bible Contradictions

Most of us encounter heretics and heresies almost daily.  Because of the internet, there is no shortage of mediums for us to run into some new crazy un- or anti-Biblical theory.  We shouldn’t be surprised, since this was prophesied 2000 years ago.  We see this in I Tim 4 and II Tim 3 among other places.  

This blog is dedicated to taking the words of God (the King James Bible) and using the methods of God (rightly dividing the word of truth [ie. dispensationalism]) to put out resources to help believers counter whatever new heresies are getting traction at the time.  

Today we begin a new series that will answer some (they have so many that I cannot say ALL) of the heresies of the 21st Century sect of Judaizers called The Israel Bible Center.  This group is well financed and I have seen their material all over FaceBook and you can tell that their Google advertising is a major investment.  

Like any good Christian, I have a desire to help Jewish converts and really any Jews, lost or saved.  I am 100% a Zionist and I reject (as God, Christ, and Paul) all forms of modern anti-Semitism.  

But my support doesn’t extend to the heresies that come from Jews who profess salvation in Christ.  Furthermore, as you will see in this post, I will go further than “not supporting” I will actively ATTACK these heresies, with the help of God.  “Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” Psa 119:104.

We begin by looking at the article, written by Nicolas J. Schaser about supposed contradictions in the Bible. His foolishness will be clearly demonstrated because this is an absolutely imperative point.  Make no mistake, Schaser is calling God a liar.  God is not a liar.  (Titus 1:2, Num 23:19).  If Schaser is right that the Bible does contradict itself, then what do we do with even the most basic issue like salvation?  Is salvation by grace thru faith or by works?  If the Law of Noncontradiction doesn’t apply to this issue, then you will be like any pseudo-Christian cult in the world today who teaches that both faith and works are necessary.  If you believe this, then you are lost.  And you’ll go to hell with plenty of Bible verses that make you think your works were necessary.  If you won’t apply the law of Noncontradiction, then you will never see that salvation in other times was by faith and works, but TODAY there are no works involved.  

Unlike Schaser, we will stick to the King James Bible and we will be “rightly dividing the word of truth”. 

Here is the original article: https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/does-scripture-contain-contradictions/

As usual, we will post Schaser’s words and we will make our comments in bold.  

Begin text:

Aristotle offered the clearest formulation of what has come to be known as the Law of Noncontradiction: “The most certain of all basic principles is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously” (Metaphysics 4.6.1011b 13-14). In other words, Aristotle asserted that opposite statements cannot both be correct at the same time. Who cares about Aristotle?  Numbers 23:19 was written almost 1000 years earlier.  “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”  If God’s word contradicts itself, then he is a liar.  We all know this.  Basic jurisprudence is based on this.  It has nothing to do with Aristotle.  It has to do with the truth.  Notice what David said 500 years before Aristotle: “Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.” Psa 119:140.  It cannot be “very pure” if it has contradictions in it.  This Greek philosophical idea remains foundational to modern Western thought, but the ancient writers of Israel’s Scriptures were not beholden to the Law of Noncontradiction. Proof?  This is no more than Schaser’s opinion.  Drop it like a hot coal.  But honestly, we do have to admit that you will be able to find Bible rejecting Jews who rejected the Law of Noncontradiction.  But these were the sons of Belial, and they were never used to write the Scriptures.  When today’s readers identify what they deem to be contradictions in the Bible, such instances can either trouble the believer or galvanize the critic. Since it seems to “galvanize” Schaser, I suppose this is a candid admission that Schaser is a critic.  However, to apply the notion of “contradiction” to the biblical text constitutes a basic misunderstanding of an ancient Jewish worldview in which opposite assertions could coexist. Proof?  None provided.  Although it is difficult for modern minds to conceive of such a worldview, the biblical authors were not constrained by the contemporary issue of contradiction.  Proof?  None provided.

Israel’s proverbs provide one of the clearest instances of what present-day readers might understand as a “contradiction,” but what the ancient Israelites saw as perfectly logical.Proof?  None provided. In Proverbs 26:4-5 the first statement is followed by its diametrical opposite: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly (על תען כסיל כאולתו; al ta’an kesil keivalto), lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly (ענה כסיל כאולתו; aneh kesil keivalto), lest he be wise in his own eyes.” In an effort to reconcile this apparent “contradiction,” modern readers might suggest that one should answer a fool according to his folly in some cases, and refrain from doing so in others—but the text itself doesn’t offer this explanation. Absolute nonsense.  Is Schaser able to read basic English?  Of course the text itself offers the explanation.  If answering the fool will make you a fool, then don’t answer the fool.  If not answering will make the fool wise in his own conceits, then answer.  This is simple and I knew it the first time I read these proverbs.  The solution isn’t to reject the Law of Noncontradiction, the solution is to have basic reading skills.  These kinds of harmonizing readings go beyond what the text says in order to posit speculative solutions. Absolutely untrue as demonstrated above.  A more historically accurate response is to realize that the ancient Jewish approach to literature allowed for this kind of variance. Instead of “contradiction,” it’s better to speak of “didactic divergence”—the statements diverge, but they are both of heuristic value for the original author and audience of Proverbs.  Of course, Schaser wants us to be at his mercy to tell us when there is a didactic divergence.  Typical.  

The New Testament follows the same Judaic literary conventions that appear in Proverbs. For example, the Acts of the Apostles presents the same event in two irreconcilable ways. Describing Saul’s encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, Luke says that “the men who were traveling with [Saul] stood speechless, hearing the voice (ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς; akoúontes mèn phones) but seeing no one (μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες; medéna dè theorountes)” (Acts 9:7). Conversely, when Paul retells the event later in Acts, he states, “Those who were with me saw the light (φῶς ἐθεάσαντο; phos etheásanto) but did not hear the voice (δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν; dè phonèn ouk ekousan) of the one who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). These precisely opposing descriptions are written by the same author. Clearly, first-century believers in the God of Israel did not have the kind of aversion to narrative nonconformity that the modern West has inherited from Greek philosophers. Clearly, Schaser doesn’t know much Bible.  If he did, he would have read in John 12:29 that people are completely able to hear a voice, but not hear the voice of the one speaking. See:  “The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.” John 12:29.  There is no nonconformity in the narrative.  Schaser is only making problems exist so that you will be forced to come to him for help sorting out the problems that he created.  That’s his job.  That’s how he puts food on his table.  What saith the Scriptures?  Schaser has changed the truth of God into a lie as per Romans 1:25.  He did it subtly and called it “narrative nonconformity”.  He even goes so far as to claim that anyone who doesn’t do it his way is being like the serpent in Genesis 3…. Woe, Woe, Woe…  If these variances exist unproblematically in the same New Testament text, how much more should we expect to see differences between the various Gospels! Strangely, he doesn’t ever give any more examples.  I suppose we would have to pay him for those examples.  Modern readers should not view these so-called “contradictions” as problems to be fixed, because they weren’t “problems” for the original authors. Exactly, they are only a problem for Judaizers like the Israel Bible Center that want to make themselves the final authority instead of the Bible in order to sell you their material.  It’s a tale as old as time…

The presuppositions of classical Greek philosophy continue to have strong influence over current assumptions. These high sounding words mean nothing.  Schaser’s hatred of the Law of Noncontradiction is nothing more than the repackaged philosophy of Asia that has been used since Genesis to get rid of the plain truths of the Bible.  In the West, Schaser’s attitude is commonly called “Postmodernism” and is a philosophical attempt to disprove “dialectics”.  All this to make you think that God is a liar and can’t be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Watch out, dear readers.  However, biblical authors did not share such presuppositions; Israel’s Scriptures are not controlled by the Law of Noncontradiction. Proof?  None provided.  The French (and Christian Watch out there!  Even if Pascal did trust Christ, he never left the Catholic Church.  Be careful calling this man a “Christian” if he didn’t even have enough Biblical sense to leave the Roman church…) mathematician Blaise Pascal wrote, “Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth” (Pensées, 384). Who cares what Paschal thought?  This statement captures the spirit of ancient Jewish thought, and contemporary Bible readers can avoid unnecessary cognitive tension if we are receptive to the ancient Jewish way of seeing the world. If these are Schaser’s best examples, then we can be absolutely assured that he has been disproven completely.  Folks, read your Bibles.  Believe your Bibles.  Don’t let dummies like Schaser try to put doubts in your mind that you can’t trust what you read.  Don’t let him make you think that God is a liar.  Be assured that if YOU don’t follow the Law of Noncontradiction, then you are a liar.  God is not a Liar.  He is faithful and true.  His words are faithful and true.  Schaser’s are not.  

Why did I write this?  The answer is simple.  “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Prov 26:5.  


6 thoughts on “21st Century Judaizers: Israel Bible Center on Bible Contradictions

  1. I do not think you accurately represented Schaser’s point. Socrates said (and possibly Elenore Roosevelt said something similar), “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” But then that is not in the Bible, so I wonder if “we” can learn anything from that “idea.”


  2. Fair enough. I could explain a few different ways. 1) I contacted Dr. Schaser about this, and he agrees that you misrepresented his point. That should be enough since he is the author who knows best what his point was. 2) You’re taking a brief insight article that has an academic bent and evaluating it theologically and as if it were comprehensive. 3) it seems to me that you are using a higher standard for Schaser than for yourself because as I read your inline commentary, I thought to myself that if I were to add commentary to your commentary, then I would be using a lot of your verbiage, i.e. law of noncontradiction, providing proof, unjustified/illogical conclusions.
    Look, you’ve got strong opinions, and I think Schaser has some differing opinions from yours, but will you use your words to crucify anyone who disagrees with you?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. 1) Schaser’s main point was very clear. He says that “the ancient writers of Israel’s Scriptures were not beholden to the Law of Noncontradiction.” I prove him wrong. If that wasn’t his main point, then he needs to delete his article.

      2) I am evaluating the article “normally” with normal words. If it wasn’t meant to be taken that way, then what are we talking about. How am I supposed to know if a guy is writing “obfutativicationally”? I evaluate all articles the same way. I give the author the benefit of the doubt that he means what he says and says what he means.

      3) If something I wrote is wrong or completely unfair, then point it out. We can discuss it and I can change, amend, or delete accordingly. Please be specific tho. I would appreciate that.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Schaser’s actual point (and I would agree that since he didn’t have someone like you in mind for an audience that he did not do a good enough job clarifying it for you) is that the Bible contains “apparent” contradictions only. Either they can be explained away or else the time or setting is dissimilar which removes the contradiction status. (Such as saying contradictory things like “the sky is dark,” and “the sky is bright” but at different times of day.)

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Sir, I can only go by what he wrote. If you don’t see the problem in the words that he wrote, that’s fine for you. But for him to attack the idea of the Law of Noncontradiction like he does is wrong and as best I could I dismantle his arguement, not because of some kind of spiteful vendetta against him. I don’t know him. We all have problems.

    But his dissemination of this idea is horribly dangerous to people. I care about people getting help from the word of God as I did many years ago and still do today. Had I run into this guy and his ideas, the chances of me getting ahold of the truth would have been small. These articles are for people looking for truth in the messed up dystopia we call the internet. Hopefully they stumble on my articles instead of Schaser’s so they can get pointed in the right direction.

    Therefore I esteem all [thy] precepts [concerning] all [things to be] right; [and] I hate every false way. Psa 119:128

    Let every one of us please [his] neighbour for [his] good to edification. Rom 15:2

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s