Contradictions in the Bible
Usually, when someone writes a book, they do a ‘rough draft’
and then go back through it changing, polishing and perfecting the text, until
they are happy with the way it is written. Some authors write their entire book
several times, making changes and re-writing whole chapters, and even then they
may have more work to do if the publisher has some further suggestions.
The same could be said about anything which humans do. It is
almost impossible for any human to produce a major work perfect in every detail
first time. Music, dance, painting, acrobatics, ice-skating, sport . . . in
every pursuit there is an initial process of learning and practise,
with many mistakes and finally there comes a performance which is reasonable,
but not perfect.
Perhaps it is this built-in ‘imperfection’ problem shared by
all humans, which leads some people to transfer what they have experienced in
their own life (and seen in other lives) to the Bible? After all, to the
believer and unbeliever alike, the Bible appears to be a book just like
any other book, made of paper, ink and glue. On what basis may anyone decide
that the Bible alone, in the midst of all the millions of other books in the
world, is totally free of errors?
And when the Bible is heard (on tape or CD), it
appears to be made of words, just like any other written document, so why
should the story as heard in the Bible be any different from say a very
accurate history book, or a medical dictionary? True, there are claims that the
Bible ‘speaks’ like no other book, but there are many other religious or
‘spiritual’ books which also inspire and move their hearers with much the same
effect. Is it all, in the end, just a matter of faith?
It would be very unsettling for millions of Christians if it
turned out that their faith ‘caused’ the Bible to be inspired. We would then
have a situation where the believers were the foundation on which the
inspiration of Scripture rested, rather than the other way round. In other
words “The Bible is God’s Word because I believe it is”. If this was
true, then any book could be considered “inspired” if someone believed it to
be. Logically, if people believed any book was inspired, it would be
inspired, and conversely, if people believed a book was not inspired, it
would not be.
In other words, the charge is made that inspiration is
therefore a subjective thing, and that there is no way we can base the
inspiration of the Bible on objective examination.
This, of course, is like a lolly
scramble for the sceptic, who has already made the
subjective decision that the Bible is not inspired by God. Armed with this
preconceived view the sceptic goes looking for
‘mistakes’ in the Bible, and usually finds them - plenty of them.
One reply to the charge that the Bible is “full of mistakes”
is that the original Greek and Hebrew was perfect.
This is very difficult for most Christians to take much further because most
Christians do not speak either Hebrew or Greek, and even if they did they would
still need to do a great deal of study.
Faced with these problems it may seem that there is very
little one can do to prove that the Bible is inspired, but there are several
objective methods which most Christians
can use to test the inspiration of the Bible.
One method is the Historical examination. Armed with
a pile of history books any Christian can read the Bible and then compare what
it says with the history books. There is always a perfect match, provided the
history books are objectively written. Furthermore, any Christian can compare
the words of the prophets with the actual history and see a perfect
match. What the prophets said would happen to
What we are trying to say, when we appeal to the methods of
examination listed above, is that the inspiration of Scripture is not just a
matter of faith. If the Bible was a car, we would be saying ‘Hop in and drive’,
or if it was a meal we would say ‘Pick up a fork and start eating’, because the
Bible is open to examination. It can be tested. Unlike some mystical book which
relies on the vague interpretations of those who read it, the Bible deals with
real-time events, in geographical locations, and it is peopled with names,
nations and customs which can be examined. If any glaring, obvious mistakes in
any of these areas show up, then obviously the Bible cannot be trusted anywhere
else.
Causes of scepticism.
When I was a child I had a friend who liked to tell me ‘tall
tales’. He enjoyed testing my credulity, and on one occasion he ‘stretched the
truth’ so far I was full of admiration at how much he knew. I went home and
told my mother what my friend had told me. She then laughed and told me the truth,
which I never forgot. I was thereafter more cautious about what my friend told
me, and as I recall he never ‘caught me out’ again. I had developed a healthy scepticism, which worked to my advantage from then on, i.e.
I didn’t believe everything I was told.
In some cases, healthy scepticism
works against a person’s best interests. At other times it helps to keep us
alive. It is a part of our normal reasoning process. It is not a bad thing to
be sceptical, but it can be an advantage lost if the
facts point one way and our scepticism points the
other.
When it comes to the inspiration of the Bible, the sceptics and critics do not seem to give it a fair and
equal opportunity to prove itself one way or the other. Sceptics,
in my experience, are usually already decided before they examine the Bible,
and even when they do examine it, they come with an assumption which they will
not be set aside. It is as if they actually want to find mistakes in the Bible,
and it is a evident that people tend to find whatever
they look for.
1. Self-imposed ignorance.
This is probably the most important reason for Bible scepticism.
As Roman 1:18-23 says “(they) suppressed the truth . . . . because,
although they knew God, they did not glorify him . . . and they became futile in their thoughts . .
.” The word ‘suppressed’ has the same sort of meaning as ‘holding down’
something, such as an eager puppy, which keeps trying to jump up and lick your
face. With great annoyance, sceptics hold down the
truth as it tries to get their attention.
2. Pride. As Jesus said “You are not willing to come to
me that you might have life . . . how can you believe, who receive honour from one another, and do not seek the honour that comes from the only God?” John 5:40-44. Many,
but not all, sceptics are unwilling to accept the
evidence which points to the inspiration of Scripture, because to do so would
mean they would have to admit they were wrong. It is always hard to admit
error. In the case of the text just quoted, the Jewish leaders were faced with
the prospect of admitting that Jesus was in fact the Messiah – and there was
every good reason why they should have done so, because Jesus had demonstrated
his miracle power before them hundreds of times. So it was not a lack of
evidence which held them back.
3. A moral problem. “And this
is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness
rather than light . . .” John 3:19-21. That expression ‘men loved darkness’
means that people prefer the pleasures of sin to the discipline of obedience.
The Jewish leaders preferred the position of power, wealth and prestige they
had to the humility and service required by Jesus. Sceptics
may prefer their sin-spoiled lifestyle to the more difficult Christian life
which acceptance of the Bible would entail.
I was reading a testimony not long ago, about a student who
did not believe in the historicity of the Bible. She had convinced everyone
that she had searched and found many intellectual problems. No intellectual
argument by her Christian friends could dissuade her. But when someone
mentioned her moral life she broke down and admitted that this was the real
reason why she would not accept the Bible.
To this could be added a simple question which should be
addressed to a sceptic: “If it can be shown that the
Bible is the perfect Word of God, will you accept Christ as your Saviour?” If the answer is “No” then the problem is not a
lack of evidence, but a moral resistance.
One notable sceptic was Aldous Huxley, an atheist who destroyed the Christian faith
wherever he went, yet has been hailed as a great intellect. In his book ‘Ends
and Means’ he writes: “I had motives for not wanting the world to have a
meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any
difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who
finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in
metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he
personally should not do what he wants to do, or why his friends should not
seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to
themselves . . . for myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially
an instrument of liberation, sexual and political”
Another intelligent atheist was Bertrand Russell, who did
not give careful examination to the evidence for Christianity. In his essay
‘Why I am not a Christian’ he did not even spend time considering the evidence
for the resurrection. From what he says it is likely that he did not even read
the New Testament, yet he was extremely sceptical of
the basic Christian doctrines.
The challenge.
Jesus put out a clear challenge to sceptics.
He said “If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the
teaching, whether it is God, or whether I speak from Myself!”
John 7:17.
Put another way, suppose someone gives you a recipe for a
delicious cake. As a recipe the list of ingredients is not particularly appetising, but if the recipe is converted into real food,
and if the instructions are followed, a delicious cake will follow. In the same
way, Jesus challenges sceptics to take his words and
put them into practise – as a person obeys Jesus, the
results will speak for themselves. If the Bible is accepted as the Word of God,
it will confirm itself, but as long as it is held at a distance and viewed with
scepticism, it will remain as a book.
One example of a ‘mistake’.
Some Bible notes unwittingly supply ‘ammunition’ for the sceptics. This is because not all
Christian exegetical work is perfect – commentaries also frequently make
erroneous statements or mislead the reader with dates or ‘facts’. This
unfortunate state of affairs has nothing whatever to do with the Bible itself.
Misunderstandings are common in any major work, such as the complete works of
Shakespeare, and the Bible is no exception. A book, for example, by Einstein,
or
From my own experience, after reading and studying the Bible for over 30
years, I can say with confidence that I have never found a single error.
By this I mean that every supposed contradiction has been resolved, every
textual mistake has been found to be in harmony with its context, and, after
careful examination, I have discovered a perfection and unity in the whole
Bible which has never been seriously challenged by any criticism.
At this point we could supply at least 200 pages of text
by text proof, showing that the Bible is inspired, but this evidence is
available to Christians if they look for it, so there is no need to labour the point. On the other hand, sceptics
would not want to read that much proof, because their problem is moral and
intellectual. No amount of evidence will convince a sceptic.
As Jesus said pointed out some people will not believe even if someone rises
from the dead.
So we will look at just one example of supposed error in the
Bible. As a typical pattern of how supposed errors can occur this will serve to
show that there is no solid basis for scepticism. All
supposed errors can be resolved with equal ease and logical reasoning.
In some Bibles there is an insert called a ‘Harmony of
the Gospels’ which lists the main events in the four gospels, grouping
similar accounts together as if they are the same account despite many details which differ. The
reader, presumably, is supposed to think “Well, these two accounts are similar
in some ways, but different in others, so the Bible must be close enough to
accurate to be reasonably reliable, even if it isn’t perfectly accurate”. This
some Bibles actually support the sceptics.
Take, for example, the case of the demoniacs who were
healed. According to the Harmonies, the two accounts are placed together
despite many obvious differences, and it seems, because of these differences,
that the Bible contains many mistakes. But the explanation is simple. Here’s
how it works: Imagine that you had breakfast this Monday and last Monday, and
on each Monday you ate something similar and something different, and then
along comes someone and says that your two accounts of the two Mondays
represent only one Monday. Obviously, because of the different details you mentioned,
your memory must be slipping? How can you have coffee in one story, and tea in
the other? One account is probably right, but the other is a mistake right?
Compare Mat.8:28-34, with the other two accounts in Mark
5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-40.
1. In Matthew there are TWO
demoniacs who arrive on the scene.
In Mark and Luke only ONE man appears.
2. In Matthew the visitors landed
opposite to the place where they set sail from - GERGASENES. In Mark and Luke it was
the GADARENES.
3. In Matthew Jesus does NOT ask for
any name. In Mark and Luke Jesus ASKS for the man’s name.
4. In Matthew there is no mention of
BONDS being used. In Mark and Luke CHAINS are mentioned as having been tried on
the man.
5. In Matthew Jesus says NOTHING in
the way of commands or admonitions to the freed men. In Mark and Luke Jesus
COMMANDED the man to go back home and tell his people about the event.
6. In Matthew the event took place
BEFORE the 12 disciples were called. (Mat.10) In Mark and Luke Jesus delivered
the man AFTER he called the 12 disciples (Mark 3:14 and Luke 6:13)
Sceptics come in all shapes and sizes. Some
of them wear the gowns of academia and talk of philosophy or ‘Higher Criticism’, others openly attack the Bible using foul
language and innuendo. Whatever the method, they are always the same in their
aim – to discredit and degrade the Bible. To those who already do not want to
obey God the sceptics provide a line of defence to hide behind, and to the Christian apologetics
they provide a stimulating and interesting point of discussion. It is thanks to the sceptics
that many Christians have been driven back to the Bible to study it with more
effort, and the results have always been good. Sceptics
have indirectly added to the huge amount of powerful Christian apologetics
which the Church now possesses.
As Bernard Ramm wrote “No other
book has been so chopped, knifed, sifted, scrutinized and vilified. What book
of philosophy or religion or psychology or belles lettres
of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attach as the
Bible? With such venom and scepticism?
With such thoroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line, and tenet?” (‘Protestant Christian
Evidences’)
The very fact that there are people who spend an inordinate
amount of time and effort trying to discredit the Bible is, in fact, indirect
evidence that the Bible must be a very important and significant book. If, as
the sceptics say, the Bible is full of mistakes, why
on earth are they so interested in it?