For today’s post we will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: Who argued in favor of occupying Canaan during the Exodus?
Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes indicate a Bible contradiction:
Only Caleb
“Then Caleb quieted the people [a]before Moses and said, “We should by all means go up and take possession of it, for we will surely overcome it.”” (Numbers 13:30)
Both Caleb and Joshua
“Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, of those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes; 7 and they spoke to all the congregation of the sons of Israel, saying, “The land which we passed through to spy out is an exceedingly good land. 8 If the Lord is pleased with us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us—a land which flows with milk and honey. 9 Only do not rebel against the Lord; and do not fear the people of the land, for they will be our prey. Their protection has been removed from them, and the Lord is with us; do not fear them.”” (Numbers 14:6-9)
(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)
Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:
- When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time.
- One should be skeptical of whether this is a Bible contradiction given the Skeptic Annotated Bible’s track record of inaccurately handling the Bible. See the many examples of their error which we have responded to in this post: Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions. Of course that does not take away the need to respond to this claim of a contradiction, which is what the remainder of this post will do. But this observation should caution us to slow down and look more closely at the passages cited by the Skeptic Annotated Bible to see if they interpreted the passages properly to support their conclusion that it is a Bible contradiction.
- A bit of background of each verse in its context might be helpful for readers.
- Numbers chapter 13 and Numbers 14 record the report of the spies from Israel of their scouting mission into the future promise land. Most of these men acknowledge how the land is good but they were discouraging people to go forward because it would be difficult.
- Numbers 13 and Numbers 14 follow one after another sequentially in the historical narrative given. Remember this point as it would important below.
- It seems the skeptic here is trying to make this an alleged Bible contradiction by assuming it is impossible for one passage to report one person’s positive report in favor of entering the promise land (Numbers 13:30) while another passage mentioned two individual’s positive report in favor of entering the promise land (Numbers 14:6-9). However both Caleb and Joshua being in favor of entering Canaan are not mutually exclusive. It is not “either/or” but instead “both/and.”
- Logically there is not a contradiction here because the passages that the skeptic cited as proof that the Bible teaches only Caleb was in favor of entering the promise land (Numbers 13:30) actually does not state that. It just report that Caleb spoke up in favor of entrance into the promise land; which is different than saying Caleb alone was for the entrance into the promise land. Logically speaking to actually contradict Numbers 13:30 we need a Bible passage that denies Caleb was in favor of entrance into the promise land. We don’t have verses for that.
- Also Numbers 13:30 and Numbers 14:6-9 happened at different times. Numbers 13:30 report events before the Hebrews grumbled in light of the spies’ report and attempted to replace Moses in Numbers 14:1-4. Numbers 14:6-9 on the other hand happened after the people have already grumbled and rebelled. So even if the first instance in Numbers 13:30 it was only Caleb who vocalized his favor of entering the promise land and Joshua did not join him it is still not a contradiction with Numbers 14:6-9 when later both Joshua and Caleb spoke up in favor of entering the promise land. So even granting the skeptic’s misinterpretation of Numbers 13:30 we still don’t have a Bible contradiction.
- Some might object that this post might interpret the Bible in a way that’s special in favor of the Bible. We see ordinary instances of this kind of harmonization going on where individuals are mentioned and omitted in different accounts of a specific historical event but no one would try to pit them against each other as “contradiction.” Instead they would harmonize the various historical accounts. For examples see our posts: Apologetics Sermon Illustration: Bible Contradiction and Gold Medal at the Cambrian Patrol,” “Bible Contradiction and Louisiana Purchase and Bible Contradiction and Thanksgiving Story.
- We shouldn’t miss that worldviews are at play even with the skeptic’s objection to Christianity. The worldview of the author of the Skeptic Annotated Bible actually doesn’t even allow for such a thing as the law of non-contradiction to be meaningful and intelligible. In other words for him to try to disprove the Bible by pointing out that there’s a Bible contradiction doesn’t even make sense within his own worldview. Check out our post “Skeptic Annotated Bible Author’s Self-Defeating Worldview.”
[…] Who argued in favor of occupying Canaan during the Exodus? […]
Thanks for another thorough rebuttal of one of Stephen/Steve Wells cherry picking contradictions! I wonder how many of his supposed “contradictions” could be grouped under the “either/or” or “son/grandson” fallacies?
I imagine there’s a lot! Man I will be missing you when you go off to vacation this month; will you be able to do vacation photo report from time to time?
Thanks, brother! I’ll definitely miss kibbitzing with you while on vacation. I think I’ll probably stay away from WordPress for those 10 days so I can focus on our grandson, our extended German family, my wife, etc. I definitely expect to get some reading in during the flights, always a good thing.
That’s not a very smart argument the skeptic makes here. Even today, if you read a news report, it might be that different channels could report the same event and report it from the perspective of different people. Say a robbery…two channels could interview two different witnesses to the same event; does that mean the event never happened? Of course, it doesn’t mean that.
Exactly Wally! The skeptics show their extreme bias here! By the way when do you sleep? You seem to be always up!
LOL, yeah I am a bit irregular sometimes. After my work days I’ll sleep some in the day. On my off days, like today, I slept last night and will tonight. The tomorrow I’ll be up for 24 straight. Mondays are like that. I get up Sunday morning then just nap now and then until Monday night.
Their bias are definitely showing
Good response. Reading Bible in context solves a lot of problems
Yep
Interesting how The Holy Scriptures have been the most scrutinized literary work for 2000 years, and modern skeptics think they are so genius that they can find contradictions never before seen in two millennia of study. They seem to have a very inflated ego…
Yeah its crazy rather thinking the likeihood of them being wrong is likely, they think they gathered hundreds of alleged contradictions; then upon closer inspection we see they also have bad interpretive skills…if Steve Wells the author the Skeptic Annotated Bible were in an English Lit class and used the same method he used on the Bible to read literature what grade do you think he would get?
Heh, in the words of Gomer Pyle, “Not very.”
This man is an uneducated theologian. So sad.:)
Its unfortunate that Geisler in this life misrepresented and misunderstood Presuppositional apologetics
Whoops I meant to comment on your tribute to Geisler.
[…] Who argued in favor of occupying Canaan during the Exodus? […]
[…] 5.) Bible Contradiction? Who argued in favor of occupying Canaan during the Exodus? […]
Glad to have see you guys shared this on Twitter
[…] the verse cited does not support the skeptic’s premise/claim can be seen in this post: “Who argued in favor of occupying Canaan during the Exodus?” and “Was Jesus the son […]
Well done. J Warner Wallace shared this on Facebook.
How cool is that?
Their site is so amateur and content is childish.
[…] the Bible versus other writings. For example the Skeptic Annotated BIble claims there’s a Bible Contradiction with the question “Who argued in favor of occupying Canaan during the Exod… So after responding exegetically to further buttress my argument that the skeptics are wrong in […]
Good answer
[…] Who argued in favor of occupying Canaan during the Exodus? […]
I felt that all the way here in Atlanta!
Skeptics read their Bible like the way Joe Biden read the Constitution: Out of context.
That’s funny
Buckle up for the next four years