The Bible is Just FULL of Errors!
Posted on March 16, 2010 by Kris
Filed Under Inerrancy of Scripture, What I'm Studying... | 3 Comments |
We have all heard it before. “The Bible is just full of errors. There are historical inaccuracies. There are contradictions. There are factual and scientific errors. These just simply cannot be explained!” In fact, if you Google Bible contradictions, you will have access to a number of lists that purport to prove that the Bible is full of contradictions. These “proven contradictions and errors” have caused many to lose faith in the Bible, and walk away from a faith in God. Unfortunately, the tendency has been for people who consider themselves to be honest to not fully examine the evidence surrounding such contradictions! Some are presented as being so obvious as to have no possible response. Why not take the time to examine the possible responses from those who present evidence from the contrary view point? Surely honest evaluation would demand this!
One important piece of information to consider is that most people who approach the subject of the inerrancy of the Bible do so with prejudice. Some approach it having determined that they believe it to be inerrant, and they are going to go to any extent to prove it as such. Others approach it having determined that it is a fraud, and they will go to any extent to prove it as such. One needs to try (as difficult as it may be) to shun both attitudes, and approach the question from an honest standpoint. If you want to honestly know whether the scriptures contain contradictions or errors, you must examine the evidence in an unprejudiced manner.
The “contradictions” of the scriptures are often presented as if there is no answer for them. The truth is, there is often a possible explanation for the proposed error or contradiction, but it will not be presented by the one who believes it to be an error. Such would be counterproductive to their agenda (which is often to intentionally destroy faith). If one is going to honestly evaluate the evidence, then they must consider every possible explanation for why a problematic passage is not an error or a contradiction. Often, proper research may reveal more than one possible explanation to a given problematic passage. One may choose not to accept the offered explanation, but the refusal to accept such an explanation does not constitute proof that a passage is in error, or forms a contradiction with another passage. The mere existence of an alternative explanation places the burden on the naysayer to conclusively disprove the explanation. For example, if I were to write an article declaring that the sky is blue, and then write another that declares that the sky is gray, you could accuse me of contradicting myself. I could then propose the alternative idea that it is possible that one article referenced a sunny day, while the second referenced a rainy day. It would fall to you to prove your claim that I contradicted myself by refuting my alternative explanation. The mere existence of a second, possible explanation is evidence enough to disprove the accusation that I have contradicted myself! The same principle is true when we are examining the Bible (or any other historical document for that matter).
There are several problems that are often identified, and can be resolved with just a little study of the context under discussion. Many of the claimed contradictions in the Bible are easily dismissed by understanding the text and the context. Consider the fact that one must fully understand who is doing the speaking, who is doing the hearing, and when the statement is being made. A passage that may seem to contradict another may be speaking about a different place, a different person, or a different time. A simple example of this can be found in Acts 12. In verse 2, we are told that Herod killed James with a sword. Then, later, after being released from prison, Peter told those who were gathered to go and give a report of what had happened to James and the brethren (Acts 12:17). How could this be if James was already killed? This is an obvious contradiction, right? Wrong. This is addressing two different men named James. One, the brother of John, was killed with a sword by Herod. The other, the half-brother of Jesus continued to be a prominent part of the church in Jerusalem.
Secondly, one must realize that one passage may be adding more information to a given account, rather than contradicting it. If a passage says that two different things happened, they are not necessarily contradicting one another, but rather adding more information to the previously given account. One of the most prevalent examples of a contradiction presented is the difference in the account of the death of Judas in Matthew 27:5, and a parenthetical statement made by Luke in Acts 1:18. Matthew’s account tells us that Judas went and hanged himself. Luke’s account tells us that Judas fell headlong into a field, burst open in the middle and his entrails gushed out. Which one is accurate? This is an obvious contradiction, right? No, it is not a contradiction! What we have is an example where more information is added by Luke to the account given by Matthew. Judas hung himself, and then sometime later, he fell headlong into the field, and burst open in the middle. This seems to be a rational explanation for him “bursting in open in the middle” and speaks to the decomposition of the body itself. Any rational person would have to admit that the explanation is at least plausible.
Finally, circumstances for one account may be different than the circumstances for another account, which may change a teaching or application of a teaching. This certainly does not constitute a contradiction! For example, in Hebrews 13:4, the author proclaimed that “marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled.” However, Matthew 19:9 references a marriage that is called “adultery,” a sin clearly condemned in scripture, including the passage just cited in Hebrews. Is this a contradiction? No, certainly not! The circumstances were different concerning the marriage. It is obvious that the marriage that the author of Hebrews references is one approved of by God, and the one that Jesus refers to in Matthew 19 is one that is not approved of by God (thus, it is adulterous).
There are many other examples that can be given, and perhaps will be addressed more specifically in coming articles. But, for now, consider these principles, which should help to answer most of the accusations that are made against the inerrancy of scripture. It behooves us to give every possible explanation a fair consideration, and realize that the existence of these alternative explanations provides adequate evidence to dismiss the accusation of “contradiction” from the unbeliever. As an examination is made of these “contradictions” one must eventually come to the conclusion that it is not the facts that are the problem, but rather the attitude of the one presenting the supposed contradictions. How many contradictions must be proven false for a person to dismiss the idea that contradictions are present at all. It is at this point that the unbeliever has a great advantage. He can accuse the scriptures of errors or contradictions, but really is not held to any standard of proof. If a cursory reading of the passage indicates any type of error, it is put forward as a legitimate accusation against the scriptures. One might put forward a thousand such accusations. The believer will then attempt to tackle each and every one of the accusations, spending hours presenting evidence to the contrary of the unbeliever. Usually, as each contradiction or error is answered, the unbeliever will simply try to replace it with another, not even admitting that they were wrong in the first place! If one is determined to not be a believer, then they will continue to try and “round up” anything that will given them an excuse not to believe. An honest evaluation will eventually lead one to the conclusion that it is the method of the accuser that is errant rather than the biblical text.
Perhaps later I will address some specific “contradictions” that are commonly put forward by unbelievers, with rational explanations. It will be impossible (due to time constraints) to try and deal with every single accusation made. Perhaps you will be able to see the method of refuting the accusations, and all of the specific “contradictions” will not need to be addressed in depth.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Related Posts:
Comments
3 Responses to “The Bible is Just FULL of Errors!”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe Here
A serious, honest, reader of the Bible will be impressed with the truth it reveals. My faith in the Bible will not be shaken by the so-called “contridictions” that many seem to see there. There are those who are honestly confused by passages in the Bible that seem to conflict wiith each other. But, when reasonable explanations are presented, they can see that the supposed contridictions are really not contradicitions at all but just different views of the same event. At an automobile accident, five wittnesses will see details that the others didn’t see because of where they were standing. This is completely understandable. If anyone wants to find excuses for not believing the Bible, they will find them. As the saying goes, “Don’t try to confuse me with the facts!”
Excellent introductory material. Problem is for many, that it takes serious work and study to understand why different writers gave different details (either more or less). Good work.
Thanks guys for the comments. The unbeliever certainly has the advantage…it is easy to spout a proposed discrepancy, but it takes much more work to find the truth.