67. INACCURACY THE SOURCE OF ERRORS

These and many other examples are sufficient to emphasize the importance of accuracy in our reading of Scripture if we would avoid falling into mistakes and blunders of any kind.

Examples and illustrations abound where this canon may be applied. We cannot pretend to make the list of those we give exhaustive; we offer them only as specimens.

We will divide them into two classes: where the principle may be used i. In the removal of difficulties.

ii. In the revelation of truths.

i. ILLUSTRATION OF ACCURACY APPLIED TO THE REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES.

1. The Ammonite and Moabite.—In Deut. xxiii. 3 it is declared that “an Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.” And it is urged that, it was in contravention of this, when Ruth not only entered into the congregation, but into the genealogy of our Lord (Ruth iv. 13–22. Matt. i. 5).

But if we read Deut. xxiii. 3 accurately, we find that the word is masculine מוֹאָבִי (mōābi), Moabite, while in the Book of Ruth it is feminine, and she is called מוֹאָבִיָּה (mōabiyah). (Ruth i. 22; ii. 2, 6; iv. 5, 10.)

2. Zedekiah and Babylon.—In Jer. xxxii. 4 and xxxiv. 3 King Zedekiah was told that he should see the king of Babylon, and “speak with him mouth to mouth, and his eyes shall behold his eyes,” and should go to Babylon.

In Ezek. xii. 13 it is as distinctly said that he should not see Babylon, though he should die there.

If we read these two passages accurately, we shall see how both are true as recorded in 2 Kings xxv. 6, 7, where we are told that Zedekiah was brought to the king of Babylon at Riblah, and spoke with him; that he was tried and then condemned, had his eyes put out, and bound with fetters of brass and was taken to Babylon. Thus, though he died there, he never “saw” it.

¹ We do not repeat here any examples given in our pamphlet on this same subject and under the title of this Canon.

Y

This apparent difficulty might have been given under Canon IV. as being explained by a reference in the Re-moter Context.

3. Omer and Homer.—In Exod. xvi. 36, we are told that “an omer is the tenth part of an ephah.”

In Ezek. xlv. 11 an ephah is said to be the tenth part of apparently the same measure.

But if we read the two passages accurately we find the former is spelt “omer,” and the latter is spelt “homer.” And though the letter “h” is often treated with scant respect in speaking, it is well to give it its place when we find it in writing. The difference compels us to look at the Hebrew, where we find that in Exod. xvi. the word is עָמָר (‘omer), while in Ezekiel xlv. the word is הָמָר (chomer).

Thus we have two totally different words denoting two different measures.

4. The Going of Balaam.—In Num. xxii. 22 we read that “God’s anger was kindled because he (Balaam) went” with the princes of Moab.

It is supposed that this anger was out of place, because God had said, “Rise up and go with them” (v. 20). But it does not seem to be noticed that a condition was attached to this permission, viz.: “If the men come to call thee.”

No such coming and calling is mentioned; and it is quite gratuitous for any one to assume that this condition was fulfilled, when such assumption creates the very difficulty to which objection is made.

5. God’s command concerning sacrifices.—In Jer. vii. 22, 23, we read: “I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, Obey my voice, and I will be your God.”

It was through reading this inaccurately that the late Professor Mivart left the Church of Rome and gave up his belief in the Bible. He supposed (as many have done before and since) that God did command sacrifices.