This item is available on the Apologetics Press Web site at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/623

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Oh Brother…Or is it Nephew?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

I am constantly amazed at what “Bible contradiction” the skeptic will come up with next. A person would like to think that critics of the Bible’s inerrancy might have some limits to their allegations, but, apparently, they do not. Instead of taking a few moments with the Bible (and a concordance or a Bible dictionary) in order to learn how a particular word is used throughout Scripture, some skeptics simply look at a particular English word in one place, and if that particular word is used elsewhere in the Bible in a different sense, then they claim that there is an obvious “contradiction.” Such is the case with the skeptics’ treatment of Lot in the book of Genesis. Allegedly, Lot cannot logically be described as Abraham’s “nephew” and his “brother” at the same time. Because Genesis 14:12 states that Lot was “Abram’s brother’s son” (NKJV; “nephew”—NIV), and Genesis 14:14 and 14:16 say that Lot was Abram’s (or Abraham’s—Genesis 17:5) “brother,” skeptics allege that the writer of Genesis erred. The renowned Bible critic Dennis McKinsey has this alleged discrepancy listed three different times on his Web site. In one section simply titled “Contradictions,” he states:

If there is any area in which the Bible’s imperfections and errancy is most apparent, it is that of inconsistencies and contradictions…. As incredible as it may seem, there are some individuals who still say, “The Bible is perfect and inerrant. There are no inaccuracies.” So, for the benefit of these holdouts, I am going to provide a list of some simple, straight-forward problems that even some well-known spokesmen for the fundamentalist position grudgingly concede (1983, emp. added)

One of the “contradictions” McKinsey lists is that of Lot being described as both Abram’s nephew and his brother. As he and numerous other skeptics (whose writings can be accessed easily on the Internet) see it, these verses represent a “simple, straight-forward problem” for the apologist who seeks to defend the inerrancy of the Bible.

The truth is, however, there is a “simple, straightforward” solution to the problem. In Genesis 14:12, the Hebrew terms ben ‘achi are used to indicate that Lot literally was Abraham’s “brother’s son.” Lot was Haran’s son, and thus Abraham’s nephew (Genesis 11:27; 12:5). At the same time, Lot was also Abraham’s brother (Hebrew ‘achiw). He was not Abraham’s brother in the literal sense we so often use this word today, but he was Abraham’s brother in the sense that they were family. For the skeptic’s argument to hold any weight, he first must prove that the term for brother (‘ach) was used in the Bible only when speaking of a male sibling. Unfortunately, for them, they cannot prove that point. Although its basic meaning is male sibling (cf. Genesis 4:2), the Hebrew term for brother(s) appears about 629 times throughout the Old Testament in a variety of ways.

Dennis McKinsey and other skeptics who parade Genesis 14:12 and 14:14 in front of the world as a “simple, straight-forward problem” that allegedly has no solution are (as usual) guilty of misrepresenting the biblical writers. Every indication in Scripture leads the unbiased person to conclude that the term “brother” has a wide variety of semantic shadings to it.

Considering the many ways in which the term “brother” was used in ancient times, and even the variety of ways it is used in twenty-first-century America, any sincere truth-seeker should be appalled at the blatantly false accusations made by McKinsey and others regarding Genesis 14 and the use of the term “brother.”

REFERENCES

Fausset, A.R. (1998), Bible Dictionary (Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

McKinsey, C. Dennis (1983), “Contradictions,” Biblical Errancy, [On-line], URL: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart12.html#issref121.




Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Alleged Discrepancies" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org