Deedat has taken the same approach here that he has taken with a lot of the other criticisms he has made against the Bible. That is, being deliberately literal in his reading of a passage, using a Bible translation that suites his attack, and refusing to deal with passages in an honest manner.

 

With part (a) if we read the passage in its full context we see that the Israelites had mixed success in taking the land of Canaan. This was down to the failings of the Jews in their failure to commit to trusting God and seeing his instructions through. This had the affect that God had to adjust his plan to accommodate this. If we read Judges 2:20-23 we have “Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel and said, “Because this nation has violated the covenant I ordained for their ancestors and has not listened to me, I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations Joshua left when he died. I will use them to test Israel and see whether they will keep the way of the Lord and walk in it as their ancestors did.” The Lord had allowed those nations to remain; he did not drive them out at once by giving them into the hands of Joshua.”

So we see that God’s perfect plan for the Israelites was for them to take all of the land of Canaan but because of “ Because this nation has violated the covenant I ordained for their ancestors and has not listened to me” then God told them He would allow those nations to continue as a means to test Israel. When the Bible uses the term test, it means in the sense of testing precious metals when it is been heated to remove all impurities. In other words it means to purify them and this is what God did with them (and is still doing).

By the way, the translation that Deedat chose is not the best version. His suggestion is that it was God himself that was unable to drive out the peoples of the lowlands, when it was the Israelites themselves that couldn’t drive them out. This is demonstrated in other translations such as the NIV which says “They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.” This better agrees with the original Hebrew.

 

With part (b); Firstly Numbers 32:13 does not say that God was angry with the Jews for the whole of the forty years. He punished them but then his anger would have subsided after the judgement was made. Of course as all Bible readers will know, the Jews gave God more reasons to be angry with them in that forty years.

Secondly, Psalm 30 is a Psalm of praise to God and the writer, King David, in that praise makes a comparison between God’s anger and favour “For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime.” It is meant to tell us that when compared to God’s favour, his anger is like a moment in time.

 

Part (c). Again we find Deedat being deliberately obtuse. This is not a contradiction but God using language to reveal more of his true nature. In fact the same could be said in nearly every example that Deedat gives for a supposed contradiction in the Bible or for that matter that anyone would choose to use as an argument.

But anyway. God knows everything and he knows what will happen in the future in every single detail, but nevertheless He gives us every opportunity to do the right thing and to obey him in total trust. With the account of Saul, God is showing the Jews that man’s ways are inferior to God’s. Saul was tall and strong and good looking which are the kind of attributes that people may look for a leader to be. God gives them what they are looking for and while that might give a sweet taste to the mouth, it will be bitter in the stomach. God of course knew this would be the result but in his superior wisdom He went ahead. Later when the events turn the way that they do, then God is very sad and this is what He means by He repents of making Saul King. It might not be the way we would work out God’s plans but we don’t have the full picture and wisdom of God and who are we to answer God back anyway?

With the account in Exodus we see that when we read the whole account then it makes sense. The Israelites have sinned greatly by making a golden calve to worship, while Moses is up the mountain receiving the law. God pronounces judgement – to destroy all of those guilty. Moses then intercedes and begs for mercy for the Israelites. Then God relents “Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.” (NIV version). The truth is that God does not bring down on us the judgement that we deserve. Eventually we will all give an account for our lives unless we have received the forgiveness available to us in the Lord Jesus. God gracefully holds back from judging us. If God judged us as we deserve the first time we sin, then no one would find salvation. Of course God knew that Moses would intercede for the Jews but He worked the way He did to draw out a heart in Moses for his people. However bad the situation God is always working out his plans and making good come out of evil.

 

Part (d) again is no contradiction. In fact it is the opposite. God in his mercy held back his judgement from the Amalek people for 400 years. If the Amalekites who were exceptional wicked had repented in that period and turned to the true God, then God would have not brought judgement on them.

 

Part (e) is just God using poetic licence in his word. I think Psalm 139 settles this totally. All the Psalm is relevant but I will just quote verses 11 and 12 (Psalm 139:11-12) “If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me

and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.”

 

Part (f). This is just a case of English translations. Note that again Deedat has chosen a version to suit his case. The NIV uses the word test “Some time later God tested Abraham.” Remember that with God test means to prove or purify (see above in part (a)). God uses circumstances in our lives to purify us. It is as simple as that. Read the account of Job for more insight.