For today’s post we will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: When was the city of Dan named?
Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes indicate a Bible contradiction:
In the time of Abraham.
“When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.” (Genesis 14:14)
After the massacre of Laish.
“They called the name of the city Dan, after the name of Dan their father who was born in Israel; however, the name of the city formerly was Laish.“ (Judges 18:29)
(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 website’s track record of inaccurate handling of biblical passages. See the many examples of their error we have responded to here in this post: Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions. Of course that does not take away the need to respond to this post, which is what the remainder of the post will do. But this observation should caution us to slow down and look more closely at the passages the Skeptic Annotated Bible cited and see if they interpreted the passages properly to support their conclusion that it is a Bible contradiction.
- The skeptic correctly interpreted Judges 18:29 that this locale is named after the incident in Laish. Notice it says “They called the name of the city Dan.“
- However Genesis 14:14 doesn’t necessarily contradict with Judges 18:29.
- One reason is because it does not mentioned anything about when this locale was named.
- Genesis 14:14 could refer to another town with the same name.
- Also Genesis 14:14 even if it refers to the same locale can also be the place where God’s Word ahead of time mentioned the name that it would later be best known as.
- There is no contradiction here. Seems the skeptic needs to learn of How to Handle Bible Contradictions.
- 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.”
Wow, thanks for sharing this one. This is really lazy from Wells.
I agree this is a lazy one from Wells! Will you plan to share any essays and papers for class on your blog?? 😃😃😃
The Christian apologetics post was for class. It’s been 3 weeks and still no grade. I’m so frustrated. I just want this AP class to end. This is the worst class ever. I thought about texting y’all to see if you know the professor.
It’s a second city with same name
I think that does explain how it’s not a problem
They can’t think of simple logical possibilities. So shameful
Although 4.3 sounds like a possibility, the place name “Dan” may be due to scribal updating.
There are other places where this likely occurred as “Ur of the Chaldees” (Gen 11:28,31) and “Ramses” (Gen 47:11) replacing Avaris.
Douglas Petrovich refers to this in “Origins of the Hebrews” (page 35) and references Michael A. Grisanti’s article “Inspiration, inerrancy and the OT canon” https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/44/44-4/44-4-PP577-98_JETS.pdf where Grisanti provides a justification for this.
From this scribal updating perspective these passages are not contradictory although it requires a closer look at inspiration and inerrancy.
Wow thanks for sharing this. Grisanti was one of my professors, particularly Deuteronomy!! His view of inspired update would definitely explain why it’s not a contradiction but I haven’t made up my mind if I agree with Dr Grisanti!
That is a deep article
The skeptic seems to run of material. Great refutation.
I think the quality of these listed in the skeptic Annotated Bible is really low quality and scrapping the bottom of the barrel! Beginning tomorrow I should be able to read your blog and others blog regularly again!!
I looked at the skeptic website finally. It looks juvenile
It’s even worst in terms of the contents and interpretation!
Props to you for not just judging the book by it’s cover even though the skeptics does that with the Bible
Thanks for this thorough rebuttal. Steve/Stephen Wells is not interested in plausible explanations because he wouldn’t have had a book to publish.
Thanks for reading this rebuttal! Hey how far is Niagara Falls from where you live? Curious!
I’m about 100 miles east of the Falls. Are you going to be visiting there as a part of your trip? It’s an amazing thing to see, but in WNY we take it for granted.
I appreciate the rational response
Thanks!
You are welcome
Skeptics need to wake up
Spiritual regeneration
Indeed that’s what they need
[…] When was the city of Dan named? […]
I always enjoy your logical analyses. Keep up the good work!
Aww thank you so much for your encouragement sister! I do put a lot effort and thoughts into these posts with this ongoing series so I appreciate it very much!!
Keep it up, Jimmy! Your posts refuting the skeptic must be like Chinese water torture! But I hope those who are truly seeking to understand God’s word will be blessed. 🙏🙂
This one did feel like Chinese water tortue, good way of phrasing it! Thanks for reading this Dora, and your comment, I think people commenting on here helps the search engine algorithm with people coming here; there’s a steady stream of people looking up answers to the accusations on the Skeptic website! Thanks sister Dora!
I always appreciate reading this type of post. God’s Word encourages our ActiveX reading and studying of Scripture.
I appreciate you reading posts from this series, I do work hard on answering them, even though at times they can be quite silly! Thanks for reading them. brother BSB!!!
[…] 2.) Bible Contradiction? When was the city of Dan named? […]
[…] When was the city of Dan named? […]