|
|
|
Alleged Errors in the Bible
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics
Norman L. Geisler
©1999 by Norman L. Geisler
Published by Baker Books
Pgs 13 - 24 under Letter B
Pgs 132 - 143 in acrobat file
Bible, Alleged Errors in.
Critics claim the Bible is filled
with errors. Some even speak of thousands of mistakes. However, orthodox
Christians through the ages have claimed that the Bible is without error in
the original text (“autographs”; see Geisler,
Decide for Yourself
). “If we are perplexed by any
apparent contradiction in Scripture,” Augustine wisely noted, “it is not
allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’; but either the
manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood”
(Augustine, 11.5). Not one error that extends to the original text of the
Bible has ever been demonstrated.
Why the Bible Cannot Err.
The argument for an errorless
(inerrant) Bible can be put in this logical form:
God cannot err.
The Bible is the Word of God.
Therefore, the Bible cannot err.
God Cannot Err.
Logically, the argument is valid. So,
if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. If the theistic God
exists ( see
God, Evidence for ; Theism ),
then the first premise is true. For an infinitely perfect, all-knowing God
cannot make a mistake. The Scriptures testify to this, declaring emphatically
that “it is impossible for God to lie” ( Heb. 6:18 ). Paul speaks of the “God
who does not lie” ( Titus 1:2 ). He is a God who, even if we are faithless,
“remains faithful; he cannot deny himself” ( 2 Tim. 2:13 ). God is truth (
John 14:6 ), and so is his word. Jesus said to the Father, “Your word is
truth” ( John 17:17 ). The psalmist exclaimed, “The entirety of Your word is
truth” ( Ps. 119:160 ).
The Bible Is the Word of God.
Jesus, who is the Son of God (
see
Christ, Deity of ) referred to the
Old Testament as the “Word of God” which “cannot be broken” ( John 10:35 ). He
said, “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the
least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until
everything is accomplished” ( Matt. 5:18 ). Paul added, “All Scripture is
God-breathed” ( 2 Tim. 3:16 ). It came “out of the mouth of God” ( Matt. 4:4
). Although human authors recorded the messages, “prophecy never had its
origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along
by the Holy Spirit” ( 2 Peter 1:20 ).
Jesus said to the religious leaders
of his day, “You nullify the word of God by your tradition” ( Mark 7:13 ).
Jesus turned their attention to the written Word of God by affirming over and
over again, “It is written” (for example, Matt. 4:4 , 7 , 10 ). This phrase
occurs more than ninety times in the New Testament, a strong indication of
divine authority. Stressing the unfailing nature of God’s truth, the apostle
Paul referred to the Scriptures as “the word of God” ( Rom. 9:6 ). The writer
of Hebrews declared that “the word of God is living and active. Sharper than
any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints
and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” ( Heb. 4:12 ).
Therefore, the Bible Cannot Err.
If God cannot err and if
the Bible is the Word of God, then the Bible cannot err (
see
Bible, Evidence for ). God has
spoken, and he has not stuttered. The God of truth has given us the Word of
truth, and it does not contain any untruth. The Bible is the unerring Word of
God. This is not to say that there are not
difficulties
in our Bibles. There are, or such
books as this would be unneeded. But God’s people can approach difficult texts
with confidence, knowing that they are not actual
errors
; God did not err.
Errors in Science and History?
Some have suggested that
Scripture can always be trusted on matters of faith and life, or moral
matters, but it is not always correct on historical matters. They rely on it
in the spiritual domain, but not in the sphere of science (
see
Science and the Bible ). If true,
this would render the Bible ineffective as a divine authority, since the
historical and scientific is inextricably interwoven with the spiritual.
A close examination of Scripture
reveals that the scientific (factual) and spiritual truths of Scripture are
often inseparable. One cannot separate the spiritual truth of Christ’s
resurrection from the fact that his body permanently and physically vacated
the tomb and walked among people ( Matt. 28:6 ; 1 Cor.15:13–9 ). If Jesus was
not born of a biological virgin, then he is no different from the rest of the
human race, on whom the stigma of Adam’s sin rests ( Rom. 5:12 ). Likewise,
the death of Christ for our sins cannot be detached from the literal shedding
of his blood on the cross, for “without the shedding of blood there is no
remission” ( Heb. 9:22 ). Adam’s existence and fall cannot be a myth. If there
were no literal Adam and no actual fall, then the spiritual teaching about
inherited sin and physical and spiritual death are wrong ( Rom. 5:12 ).
Historical reality and the theological doctrine stand or fall together.
Also, the doctrine of the
incarnation (
see
Christ, Deity of ) is
inseparable from the historical truth about Jesus of Nazareth ( John 1:1 , 14
). Jesus’ moral teaching about marriage was based on his teaching about a
literal Adam and Eve who were joined by God in marriage ( Matt. 19:4– ). The
moral or theological teaching is devoid of meaning apart from the historical
or factual event. If one denies that the literal space-time event occurred,
then there is no basis for believing the scriptural doctrine built upon it, or
anything else, for all is then untrustworthy (
see
Miracles, Myth and ).
Jesus often directly compared Old
Testament events with important spiritual truths. He related his death and
resurrection to Jonah and the great fish ( Matt. 12:40 ), his second coming to
Noah and the flood ( Matt. 24:37–39 ). Both the occasion and the manner of
comparison make it clear that Jesus was affirming the historicity of those Old
Testament events. Jesus asserted to Nicodemus, “If I told you earthly things
and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”
( John 3:12 ). The corollary to that statement is that, if the Bible does not
speak truthfully about the physical world, it cannot be trusted when it speaks
about the spiritual world. The two are intimately related.
Inspiration includes not only all
that the Bible explicitly
teaches
, but everything the Bible
touches
. This is true of history, science,
or mathematics—whatever the Bible declares is true, whether a major or a minor
point. The Bible is God’s Word, and God does not deviate from the truth. All
the parts are as true as the whole they comprise.
If Inspired, Then Inerrant.
Inerrancy is a logical result
of inspiration ( see
Bible, Evidence for ).
Inerrancy
means “wholly true and without
error.” And what God breathes out (inspires) must be wholly true (inerrant).
However, it is helpful to specify more clearly what is meant by “truth” and
what would constitute an “error” (see Geisler, “The Concept of Truth in the
Inerrancy Debate”).
Truth
is that which corresponds to reality
( see
Truth, Definition of ).
Error
is what does not correspond to
reality. Nothing mistaken can be true, even if the author intended the true.
Otherwise, every sincere utterance ever made is true, even the grossly
mistaken.
Some biblical scholars argue that
the Bible cannot be inerrant through some faulty reasoning:
1. The Bible is a human book.
2. Humans err.
3. Therefore, the Bible errs.
The error of this reason can be seen from equally erroneous
reasoning:
1. Jesus was a human being.
2. Human beings sin.
3. Therefore, Jesus sinned.
One can readily see that this conclusion is wrong. Jesus
was “without sin” ( Heb. 4:15 ; see also 2 Cor. 5:21 ; 2 Peter 1:19 ; 2 John
2:1 ; 3:3 ). But, if Jesus never sinned, what is wrong with the above argument
that Jesus is human and humans sin, therefore, Jesus sinned? Where does the
logic go astray?
The mistake is to assume that Jesus
is
simply
human. Mere human beings sin.
But, Jesus was not a
mere human being. He
was also God. Likewise, the Bible is not
merely
a human book; it is also the Word of
God. Like Jesus, it has divine elements that negate the statement that
anything human errs. They are divine and cannot err. There can no more be an
error in God’s written Word than there was a sin in God’s living Word.
Approaching Bible Difficulties.
As Augustine said above,
mistakes come not in the revelation of God, but in the misinterpretations of
man. Except where scribal errors and extraneous changes crept into textual
families over the centuries, all the critics’ allegations of error in the
Bible are based on errors of their own. Most problems fall into one of the
following categories.
Assuming the Unexplained Is
Unexplainable.
No informed
person would claim to be able to fully explain all Bible difficulties.
However, it is a mistake for the critic to assume that the explained cannot
and will not be explained. When a scientist comes upon an anomaly in nature,
he does not give up further scientific exploration. Rather, the unexplained
motivates further study. Scientists once could not explain meteors, eclipses,
tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Until recently, scientists did not
know how the bumblebee could fly. All of these mysteries have yielded their
secrets to relentless patience. Scientists do not now know how life can grow
on thermo-vents in the depths of the sea. But, no scientist throws in the
towel and cries “contradiction!”
The true biblical scholar
approaches the Bible with the same presumption that there are answers to the
thus-far unexplained. When something is encountered for which no explanation
is known, the student goes on with research, looking out for the means to
discover an answer. There is rational reason for faith that an answer will be
found, because most once-unsolvable problems have now been answered by
science, textual study, archaeology, linguistics, or another discipline.
Critics once proposed that Moses could not have written the first five books
of the Bible, because Moses’ culture was preliterate. Now we know that writing
had existed thousands of years before Moses (
see
Pentateuch, Mosaic Authorship of ).
Critics once believed that Bible
references to the Hittite people were totally fictional. Such a people by that
name had never existed. Now that the Hittites’ national library has been found
in Turkey, the skeptics’ once-confident assertions seem humorous. Indications
from archaeological studies are that similar scoffings about the route and
date of the Exodus will soon be silenced. These and many more examples inspire
confidence that the biblical difficulties that have not been explained are not
mistakes in the Bible.
Assuming the Bible is
Guilty of Error unless Proven Innocent.
Many critics assume the Bible is
wrong until something proves it right. However, like an American citizen
charged with an offense, the Bible should be read with at least the same
presumption of accuracy given to other literature that claims to be
nonfiction. This is the way we approach all human communications. If we did
not, life would not be possible. If we assumed that road signs and traffic
signals were not telling the truth, we would probably be dead before we could
prove otherwise. If we assumed food packages mislabeled, we would have to open
up all cans and packages before buying.
The Bible, like any other book,
should be presumed to be telling us what the authors said, experienced, and
heard. Negative critics begin with just the opposite presumption. Little
wonder they conclude the Bible is riddled with error.
Confusing Interpretations with
Revelation.
Jesus affirmed
that the “Scripture cannot be broken” ( John 10:35 ). As an infallible book,
the Bible is also irrevocable. Jesus declared, “Truly I say to you, until
heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away
from the Law, until all is accomplished” ( Matt. 5:18 ; cf. Luke 16:17 ). The
Scriptures also have final authority, being the last word on all it discusses
( see
Bible, Jesus’ View of ). Jesus
employed the Bible to resist the tempter ( Matt. 4:4 , 7 , 10 ), to settle
doctrinal disputes ( Matt. 21:42 ), and to vindicate his authority ( Mark
11:17 ). Sometimes a biblical teaching rests on a small historical detail (
Heb. 7:4–0 ), a word or phrase ( Acts 15:13–7 ), or the difference between the
singular and the plural ( Gal. 3:16 ).
But, while the Bible is infallible,
human interpretations are not. Even though God’s word is perfect ( Ps. 19:7 ),
as long as imperfect human beings exist, there will be misinterpretations of
God’s Word and false views about his world. In view of this, one should not be
hasty in assuming that a currently dominant assumption in science is the final
word. Some of yesterday’s irrefutable laws are considered errors by today’s
scientists. So, contradictions between popular opinions in science and widely
accepted interpretations of the Bible can be expected. But this falls short of
proving there is a real contradiction.
Failure to Understand the Context.
The most common mistake of
all Bible interpreters, including some critical scholars, is to read a text
outside its proper context. As the adage goes, “A text out of context is a
pretext.” One can prove anything from the Bible by this mistaken procedure.
The Bible says, “there is no God” ( Ps. 14:1 ). Of course, the context is:
“The fool has said in his heart ‘There is no God.’ ” One may claim that Jesus
admonished us “not to resist evil” ( Matt. 5:39 ), but the antiretaliatory
context in which he cast this statement must not be ignored. Many read Jesus’
statement to “Give to him who asks you,” as though one had an obligation to
give a gun to a small child. Failure to note that meaning is determined by
context is a chief sin of those who find fault with the Bible.
Interpreting the Difficult by the
Clear.
Some passages are
hard to understand or appear to contradict some other part of Scripture. James
appears to be saying that salvation is by works ( James 2:14–26 ), whereas
Paul teaches that it is by grace. Paul says Christians are “saved by grace
through faith, and that not of ourselves; it is a gift of God, not of works,
lest anyone should boast” ( Eph. 2:8–9 ). And, “to him who does not work but
believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness” ( Rom. 4:5 ). Also, it “is not by works of righteousness which
we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us” ( Titus 3:5–6 ).
A careful reading of all that James
says and all that Paul says shows that Paul is speaking about justification
before God
(by faith alone), whereas
James is referring to justification
before others
(who only see what we do). And James
and Paul both speak of the fruitfulness that always comes in the life of one
who loves God.
A similar example, this time
involving Paul, is found in Philippians 2:12 . Paul says, “Work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling.” This appears to say salvation is by works.
But this is flatly contradicted by the above texts, and a host of other
Scriptures. When this difficult statement about “working out our salvation” is
understood in the light of clear passages, we can see that it
does not
mean we are saved by works. In fact,
what it means is found in the very next verse. We are to work salvation
out
because God’s grace has worked it
in
our hearts. In Paul’s words, “for it
is God who works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure” ( Phil.
2:13 ).
Teaching on an Obscure Passage.
Some passages in the Bible are
difficult because their meaning is obscure. This is usually because a key word
in the text is used only once (or rarely), so it is difficult to know what the
author is saying unless it can be inferred from the context. One of the best
known passages in the Bible contains a word that appears nowhere else in all
existing Greek literature up to the time the New Testament was written. This
word appears in what is popularly known as the Lord’s Prayer ( Matt. 6:11 ).
It is usually translated, “Give us this day our daily bread.” The word in
question is the one translated “daily”—(epiousion)
. Experts in Greek still
have not come to any agreement as to its origin, or its precise meaning.
Different commentators try to establish links with Greek words that are known,
and many suggested meanings have been proposed:
Give us this day our
continuous
bread.
Give us this day our
supersubstantial
(a supernatural gift from
heaven) bread.
Give us this day bread
for our sustenance
.
Give us this day our
daily
(or, what we need for today) bread.
Each one of these proposals has its
defenders, each makes sense in the context, and each is a possibility based on
the limited linguistic information. There does not seem to be a compelling
reason to depart from what has become the generally accepted translation, but
it does add difficulty, because the meaning of some key word is obscure.
At other times, the words are clear
but the meaning is not evident because we are missing some background
information that the first readers had. This is surely true in 1 Corinthians
15:20 where Paul speaks of those who were “baptized for the dead.” Is he
referring to dead believers who were not baptized and others were being
baptized for them so they could be saved (as Mormons claim)? Or, is he
referring to others being baptized into the church to fill the ranks of those
who have passed on? Or is he referring to a believer being baptized “for”
(i.e., “with a view to”) his own death and burial with Christ? Or to something
else?
When we are not sure, then several
things should be kept in mind. First, we should not build a doctrine on an
obscure passage. The rule of thumb in the Bible is “The main things are the
plain things, and the plain things are the main things.” This is called the
“perspicuity” (clarity) of Scripture. If something is important, it is clearly
taught and probably in more than one place. Second, when a given passage is
not clear, we should never conclude that it means something that is opposed to
another plain teaching of Scripture.
Forgetting the Bible’s Human
Characteristics.
With the
exception of small sections such as the Ten Commandments, which were “written
with the finger of God” ( Exod. 31:18 ), the Bible was not verbally dictated
(see Rice). The writers were not secretaries of the Holy Spirit. They were
human composers employing their own literary styles and idiosyncrasies. These
human authors sometimes used
human sources
for their material ( Josh. 10:13 ;
Acts 17:28 ; 1 Cor. 15:33 ; Titus 1:12 ). In fact, every book of the Bible is
the composition of a
human writer —about
forty of them in all. The Bible also manifests different
human literary
styles. Writers speak from an
observer’s standpoint when they write of the sun rising or setting ( Josh.
1:15 ). They also reveal
human thought patterns
, including memory lapses ( 1
Cor. 1:14–16 ), as well as
human emotions
( Gal. 4:14 ). The Bible discloses
specific human
interests
. Hosea has a
rural interest, Luke a medical concern, and James a love of nature. Biblical
authors include a lawgiver (Moses), a general (Joshua), prophets (Samuel,
Isaiah, et al.), kings (David and Solomon), a musician (Asaph), a herdsman
(Amos), a prince and statesman (Daniel), a priest (Ezra), a tax collector
(Matthew), a physician (Luke), a scholar (Paul), and fishermen (Peter and
John). With such a variety of occupations represented by biblical writers, it
is only natural that their personal interests and differences should be
reflected in their writings.
Like Christ, the Bible is
completely human, yet without error. Forgetting the humanity of Scripture can
lead to falsely impugning its integrity by expecting a level of expression
higher than that which is customary to a human document. This will become more
obvious as we discuss the next mistakes of the critics (
see
Bible Criticism ).
Assuming a Partial Report Is a
False Report.
Critics
often jump to the conclusion that a partial report is false. However, this is
not so. If it were, most of what has ever been said would be false, since
seldom does time or space permit an absolutely complete report. Occasionally
biblical writers express the same thing in different ways, or at least from
different viewpoints, at different times, stressing different things. Hence,
inspiration does not exclude a diversity of expression. The four Gospels
relate the same story—often the same incidents—in different ways to different
groups of people and sometimes even quotes the same saying with different
words. Compare, for example, Peter’s famous confession in the Gospels:
Matthew: “You are the Christ, the
Son of the living God” ( 16:16 ).
Mark: “You are the Christ” ( 8:29
).
Luke: “The Christ of God” ( 9:20 ).
Even the Ten Commandments, which
were “written by the finger of God” ( Deut. 9:10 ), are stated with variations
the second time they are recorded (cf. Exod. 20:8–1 with Deut. 5:12–5 ). There
are many differences between the books of Kings and Chronicles in their
description of identical events, yet they harbor no contradiction in the
events they narrate. If such important utterances can be stated in different
ways, then there is no reason the rest of Scripture cannot speak truth without
employing a wooden literalness of expression.
New Testament Citations of the Old
Testaments.
Critics often
point to variations in the New Testament use of Old Testament Scriptures as a
proof of error. They forget that every
citation
need not be an exact
quotation
. Sometimes we use indirect and
sometimes direct quotations. It was then (and is today) perfectly acceptable
literary style to give the
essence
of a statement without using
precisely the same
words . The same
meaning
can be conveyed without using the
same verbal
expressions.
Variations in the New Testament
citations of the Old Testament fall into different categories. Sometimes they
are because there is a change of speaker. For example, Zechariah records the
Lord as saying, “they will look on
me
whom they have pierced” ( 12:10 ).
When this is cited in the New Testament, John, not God, is speaking. So it is
changed to “They shall look on
him
whom they have pierced” ( John 19:37
).
At other times, writers cite only
part of the Old Testament text. Jesus did this at his home synagogue in
Nazareth ( Luke 4:18–9 citing Isa. 61:1– ). In fact, he stopped in the middle
of a sentence. Had he gone any farther, he could not have made his central
point from the text, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (vs.
21 ). The very next phrase, “And the day of vengeance of our God,” refers to
his second coming.
Sometimes the New Testament
paraphrases or summarizes the Old Testament text (e.g., Matt. 2:6). Others
blend two texts into one ( Matt. 27:9–0 ). Occasionally a general truth is
mentioned, without citing a specific text. For example, Matthew said Jesus
moved to Nazareth “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophets, ‘he shall be called a Nazarene’ ” ( Matt. 2:23 ). Notice, Matthew
quotes no given prophet, but rather “prophet
s
” in general. Several texts speak of
the Messiah’s lowliness. To be from Nazareth, a Nazarene, was a byword for low
status in the Israel of Jesus’ day.
There are instances where the New
Testament applies a text in a different way than the Old Testament did. For
example, Hosea applies “Out of Egypt have I called My Son” to the Messianic
nation, and Matthew applies it to the product of that nation, the Messiah (
Matt. 2:15 from Hosea 11:1 ). In no case does the New Testament misinterpret
or misapply the Old Testament, nor draw some invalid implication from it. The
New Testament makes no mistakes in citing the Old Testament, as critics do in
citing the New Testament.
Assuming Divergent Accounts Are
False. Because two or more
accounts of the same event differ, does not mean they are mutually exclusive.
Matthew 28:5 says there was one angel at the tomb after the resurrection,
whereas John informs us there were two ( 20:12 ). But these are not
contradictory reports. An infallible mathematical rule easily explains this
problem: Where there are two, there is always one. Matthew did not say there
was only
one angel. There may also have been
one angel at the tomb at one point on this confusing morning and two at
another. One has to add the word “only” to Matthew’s account to make it
contradict John’s. But if the critic comes to the texts to show they err, then
the error is not in the Bible, but in the critic.
Likewise, Matthew ( 27:5 ) informs
us that Judas hanged himself. But Luke says that “he burst open in the middle
and all his entrails gushed out” ( Acts 1:18 ). Once more, these accounts are
not mutually exclusive. If Judas hanged himself from a tree over the edge of a
cliff or gully in this rocky area, and his body fell on sharp rocks below,
then his entrails would gush out just as Luke vividly describes.
Presuming That the Bible Approves
of All It Records.
It is a
mistake to assume that everything contained in the Bible is commended by the
Bible. The whole Bible is
true
( John 17:17 ), but it records some
lies
, for example, Satan’s ( Gen. 3:4 ;
cf. John 8:44 ) and Rahab’s ( Josh. 2:4 ). Inspiration encompasses the Bible
fully in the sense that it records accurately and truthfully even the lies and
errors of sinful beings. The truth of Scripture is found in what the Bible
reveals
, not in everything it
records
. Unless this distinction is held, it
may be incorrectly concluded that the Bible teaches immorality because it
narrates David’s sin ( 2 Sam. 11:4 ), that it promotes polygamy because it
records Solomon’s ( 1 Kings 11:3 ), or that it affirms atheism because it
quotes the fool as saying “there is no God” ( Ps. 14:1 ).
Forgetting That the Bible is
Nontechnical.
To be true,
something does not have to use scholarly, technical, or so-called “scientific”
language. The Bible is written for the common person of every generation, and
it therefore uses common, everyday language. The use of observational,
nonscientific language is not
un
scientific, it is merely
pre
scientific. The Scriptures were
written in ancient
times by ancient
standards, and it would be anachronistic to superimpose modern scientific
standards upon them. However, it is no more un scientific to speak of the sun
“standing still” ( Josh. 10:12 ) than to refer to the sun “rising” ( Josh.
1:16 ). Meteorologists still refer to the times of “sunrise” and “sunset.”
Assuming Round Numbers Are False.
Like ordinary speech, the
Bible uses round numbers (see Josh. 3:4 ; cf. 4:13 ). It refers to the
diameter as being about one-third of the circumference of something ( 1 Chron.
19:18 ; 21:5 ). While this technically is only an approximation (see Lindsell,
165–66); it may be imprecise from the standpoint of a technological society to
speak of 3.14159265 as “3,” but it is not incorrect (
see
Science and the Bible ). It is
sufficient for a “cast metal sea” ( 2 Chron. 4:2 ) in an ancient Hebrew
temple, even though it would not suffice for a computer in a modern rocket.
One should not expect to see actors referring to a wrist watch in a
Shakespearean play, nor people in a prescientific age to use precise numbers.
Neglecting to Note Literary
Devices. Human language is
not limited to one mode of expression. So there is no reason to suppose that
only one literary genre was used in a divinely inspired Book. The Bible
reveals a number of literary devices: Whole books are written as
poetry
(e.g., Job, Psalms, Proverbs). The
Synoptic Gospels feature
parables
. In Galatians 4 , Paul utilizes an
allegory
. The New Testament abounds with
metaphors
( 2 Cor. 3:2–3 ; James 3:6 ),
similes
( Matt. 20:1 ; James 1:6 ),
hyperbole
( John 21:25 ; 2 Cor. 3:2 ; Col. 1:23
), and even poetic
figures ( Job 41:1 ).
Jesus employed
satire ( Matt. 19:24 ;
23:24 ). Figures of
speech
are common
throughout the Bible.
It is not a mistake for a biblical
writer to use a figure of speech, but it is a mistake for a reader to take a
figure of speech literally. Obviously when the Bible speaks of the believer
resting under the shadow of God’s “wings” ( Ps. 36:7 ) it does not mean that
God is a feathered bird. When the Bible says God “awakes” ( Ps. 44:23 ), as
though he were sleeping, it means God is roused to action.
Forgetting That Only the
Original Text Is Inerrant.
Genuine mistakes have been found—in
copies of Bible text made hundreds of years after the autographs. God only
uttered the original text of Scripture, not the copies. Therefore, only the
original text is without error. Inspiration does not guarantee that every copy
is without error, especially in copies made from copies made from copies made
from copies ( see
New Testament Manuscripts
; Old Testament Manuscripts ). Therefore, we are to expect that minor errors
are to be found in manuscript copies.
For example, 2 Kings 8:26 gives the
age of King Ahaziah as twenty-two, whereas 2 Chronicles 22:2 says forty-two.
The later number cannot be correct, or he would have been older than his
father. This is obviously a copyist error, but it does not alter the inerrancy
of the original.
First, these are errors in the
copies, not the originals. Second, they are minor errors (often in names or
numbers) which do not affect any teaching. Third, these copyist errors are
relatively few in number. Fourth, usually by the context, or by another
Scripture, we know which is in error. For example, Ahaziah must have been
twenty-two. Finally, though there is a copyist error, the entire message comes
through. For example, if you received a letter with the following statement,
would you assume you could collect some money?
“#OU HAVE WON $10 MILLION.”
Even though there is a mistake in
the first word, the entire message comes through—ou are ten million dollars
richer! And if you received another letter the next day that read like this,
you would be even more sure:
“Y#U HAVE WON $10 MILLION.”
The more mistakes of this kind
there are (each in a different place), the more sure you are of the original
message. This is why scribal mistakes in the biblical manuscripts do not
affect the basic message of the Bible—nd why studies of the ancient
manuscripts are so important. A Christian can read a modern translation with
confidence that it conveys the complete truth of the original Word of God.
Confusing General with Universal
Statements.
Critics often
jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit no exceptions. They
seize upon verses that offer general truths and then point with glee to
obvious exceptions. Such statements are only intended to be generalizations.
The Book of Proverbs has many of
these. Proverbial sayings, by their very nature, offer general guidance, not
universal assurance. They are rules for life, but rules that admit of
exceptions. Proverbs 16:7 affirms that “when a man’s ways please the Lord, he
makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.” This obviously was not
intended to be a universal truth. Paul was pleasing to the Lord and his
enemies stoned him ( Acts 14:19 ). Jesus was pleasing the Lord, and his
enemies crucified him. Nonetheless, it is a general truth that one who acts in
a way pleasing to God can minimize his enemies’ antagonism.
Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a
child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”
However, other Scripture passages and experience show that this is not always
true. Indeed, some godly persons in the Bible (including Job, Eli, and David)
had wayward children. This proverb does not contradict experience because it
is a general principle that applies in a general way, but allows for
individual exceptions. Proverbs are not designed to be absolute guaran tees.
Rather, they express truths that provide helpful advice and guidance by which
the individual should conduct his daily life.
Proverbs are
wisdom
(general guides), not
law
(universally binding imperatives).
When the Bible declares “You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy” ( Lev.
11:45 ), then there are no exceptions. Holiness, goodness, love, truth, and
justice are rooted in the very nature of an unchanging God. But wisdom
literature applies God’s universal truths to life’s changing circumstances.
The results will not always be the same. Nonetheless, they are helpful guides.
Forgetting That Later Revelation
Supersedes Earlier.
Sometimes critics do not recognize progressive revelation. God does not reveal
everything at once, nor does he lay down the same conditions for every period
of history. Some of his later revelations will supersede his earlier
statements. Bible critics sometimes confuse a
change
in revelation with a
mistake
. That a parent allows a very small
child to eat with his fingers but demands that an older child use a fork and
spoon, is not a contradiction. This is progressive revelation, with each
command suited to the circumstance.
There was a time when God tested
the human race by forbidding them to eat of a specific tree in the Garden of
Eden ( Gen. 2:16–17 ). This command is no longer in effect, but the later
revelation does not contradict this former revelation. Also, there was a
period (under the Mosaic law) when God commanded that animals be sacrificed
for people’s sin. However, since Christ offered the perfect sacrifice for sin
( Heb. 10:11–4 ), this Old Testament command is no longer in effect. There is
no contradiction between the later and the former commands.
Likewise, when God created the
human race, he commanded that they eat only fruit and vegetables ( Gen. 1:29
). But later, when conditions changed after the flood, God commanded that they
also eat meat ( Gen. 9:3 ). This change from herbivorous to omnivorous status
is progressive revelation, but it is not a contradiction. In fact, all these
subsequent revelations were simply different commands for different people at
different times in God’s overall plan of redemption.
Of course, God cannot change
commands that have to do with his unchangeable nature (cf. Mal. 3:6 ; Heb.
6:18 ). For example, since God is love ( 1 John 4:16 ), he cannot command that
we hate him. Nor can he command what is logically impossible, for example, to
both offer and not offer a sacrifice for sin at the same time and in the same
sense. But these moral and logical limits notwithstanding, God can and has
given noncontradictory, progressive revelations which, if taken out of its
proper context and juxtaposed, can look contradictory. This is as much a
mistake as to assume a parent is self-contradictory for allowing a
sixteen-year-old to stay up later at night than a six-year-old.
After forty years of continual and
careful study of the Bible, I can only conclude that those who have
“discovered a mistake” in the Bible do not know too much about the Bible—hey
know too little about it. This does not mean, of course, that we understand
how to resolve all the difficulties in the Scriptures. But we have seen enough
problems resolved to know these also admit answers. Meanwhile, Mark Twain had
a point when he concluded that it was not the parts of the Bible he did not
understand that bothered him—ut the parts he did understand!
Sources
G. L. Archer, Jr.,
An Encyclopedia of
Biblical Difficulties
W. Arndt,
Bible Difficulties
———,
Does the Bible
Contradict Itself?
Augustine,
Reply to Faustus
the Manichaean ,
in P. Schaff, ed.,
A Select Library
of the Nicene and
Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church
N. L. Geisler, “The Concept of Truth
in the Inerrancy Debate,”
Bib. Sac. ,
October–December 1980
———and T. Howe,
When Critics Ask
———and W. E. Nix,
General
Introduction to the Bible
J. W. Haley,
Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible
H. Lindsell,
The Battle for the
Bible
J. Orr,
The Problems of
the Old Testament Considered with Reference to Recent Criticism
J. R. Rice,
Our God-Breathed
Book—The Bible
E. Thiele,
The Mysterious
Numbers of the Kings of Israel
R. Tuck, ed.,
A Handbook of
Biblical Difficulties
R. D. Wilson,
A Scientific
Investigation of the Old Testament
|
|
 |
